The Hall of Seminars

[Lhunithiliel]

This is going to be the space for the discussions held on the Lectures from Round II.

Awaiting for your suggestions for the topics of the new Lecture round HERE ! :cool:

[Gil-Galad]

Lhun,I don't see any topics!?Won't you suggest any because I'm eager to start Round 2 of the Lectures!;) :cool:

[Lhunithiliel]

Originally posted by Gil-Galad
Lhun,I don't see any topics!?Won't you suggest any because I'm eager to start Round 2 of the Lectures!;) :cool:

Well...........Read my post! :p

As I have said this is the place where people can come in and suggest topics for a new Lecture Round.

FOR SURE I know a certain mariner who had promissed to take care of this activity. :p

Will someone find him? He's probably somewhere in the Shadowy Seas...(I can't even imagine that he has entered the seas of the Enchanted Islnads!). If you do find him, send him a gull or some other bird with a message to come to these halls and start "cleaning the dust" out of here? ;) :D

[Gil-Galad]

But nobody suggests anything?:mad: :mad: :mad:
What would you say about a lecture for Evil.I mean lecture which will be about evil,about Tolkien's understanding of evil,about his evil characters.Did they embody the real evil,the evil in men nowadays.Something like that.
What would you say?
I think there iare pretty much things which could be written about Melkor,Sauron,Eol,Maeglin,Glaurung,etc...........

[Lhunithiliel]

Well, G-G, I guess the new Lecture-cycle will be really hard to organize as people still remember the first cycle and it was tough! ;) - Hard work, much time .... a lot of research....

But ...let's give it a try: I am here starting a list and I'm going to update it with any new suggestion that may appear.

***************************

LIST OF LECTURES TOPICS - ROUND II

1. Evil mirrored / presented/ revealed in Tolkien's writings.

*********


Awaiting for more suggestions :)

[Gil-Galad]

And I want the first one.The one I suggested.Is it possible to have it?

[Eriol]

As YayGollum would say, "Whoa!"

I thought a lot about this when Lhun proposed it to me. But then the gulls beckoned... Galadriel should have warned me about the gulls.

;)

Tell me what you think of this structure for Lecture Topics; I am only offering examples here:

1) Philosophical

- The problem of Evil in Arda
- Manifestations of Evil in Arda, and their change through time
- Eru and the Valar -- the extent of independence among the Valar from the designs of Eru
- Souls: Properties and characteristics of fëar in Arda; the evolution of this concept in Tolkien's writings
- The Children of Ilúvatar and their relationship to Fate

2) Historical

- Origin of Hobbits
- Elven Pre-history
- Comparison of lifestyles among the races - similarities and differences
- History of Sauron
- Technological development in Arda

3) Geo-political

- Economics in Arda
- The Realms of the Faithful Dúnedain
- Dwarvish diplomacy
- Relationships between Númenoreans and Men of Middle-Earth
- Elvish isolationism in the 2nd and 3rd ages

***

I think this is just a sample of the possibilities, guys. The major divisions are intended to make sure that there is something appealing to everybody. I don't want to let my mind roam too much and spoil the fun of finding out new ways of exploring and combining the themes... Just an example: I think one could write an essay exploring orcs, and in so he would examine all five of the philosophical themes proposed... in a very integrated way too.

"One" could do it, but certainly one with more talent and imagination than myself :D. I'll only write a lecture if our spectral Mistress puts forth the power of Morgul; or if she asks nicely -- she has a knack for that.

[Lhunithiliel]

Ah, Mariner! What a pleasant surprise for my still sleepy eyes! (well...I've already had one coffee! :p)

Originally posted by Eriol
As YayGollum would say, "Whoa!"

I thought a lot about this when Lhun proposed it to me. But then the gulls beckoned... Galadriel should have warned me about the gulls. ;)

Tell me what you think of this structure for Lecture Topics; I am only offering examples here:

1) Philosophical

- The problem of Evil in Arda
- Manifestations of Evil in Arda, and their change through time
- Eru and the Valar -- the extent of independence among the Valar from the designs of Eru
- Souls: Properties and characteristics of fëar in Arda; the evolution of this concept in Tolkien's writings
- The Children of Ilúvatar and their relationship to Fate

2) Historical

- Origin of Hobbits
- Elven Pre-history
- Comparison of lifestyles among the races - similarities and differences
- History of Sauron
- Technological development in Arda

3) Geo-political

- Economics in Arda
- The Realms of the Faithful Dúnedain
- Dwarvish diplomacy
- Relationships between Númenoreans and Men of Middle-Earth
- Elvish isolationism in the 2nd and 3rd ages

I LOVE this!!!!! I REALLY DO!!!! :D
Thank you, Eri!!!! What a wonderful idea to sub-divide the cycle!!!

I think this is just a sample of the possibilities, guys. The major divisions are intended to make sure that there is something appealing to everybody. I don't want to let my mind roam too much and spoil the fun of finding out new ways of exploring and combining the themes... Just an example: I think one could write an essay exploring orcs, and in so he would examine all five of the philosophical themes proposed... in a very integrated way too.

"One" could do it, but certainly one with more talent and imagination than myself :D. I'll only write a lecture if our spectral Mistress puts forth the power of Morgul; or if she asks nicely -- she has a knack for that.
I suggest:
>>> YOU keep the list of lectures and update it every time someone comes up with a new valuable topic or suggests some changing in an already given one.
>>> YOU assign the topics according to people's desires.

I'll have to warn you however that for that you should organize quite a strong advertising campaign! And PLEASE do your best to attract participants from outside the guild as well. Thus we could possibly once and for all convince TTF-ers that there are no "wild beasts" roaming here in our space and they can come in any time they wish and participate in our activities. A good move would be to post some sort of invitation or annaouncement inviting all TTF-ers or PM-s to particular Guild Masters.

>>> In fact, Mariner, what I'm very kindly and nicely and sweetly ;) asking from you is to take good care of this wonderfull activity! And to forget the call of the gulls (after all, they are just some stupid geese!), I'd expect to read some of your lectureS :p I'm already impatient to see which oneS :p you have picked up for yourself.

Ain't that a nice way of asking?!? :p :D

Well, people, you have it now - the Round II of the Lecture Cycle!

The auction is opened.

[Gil-Galad]

A wonderful work Eriol!!!!!!
I cqn't believe on my eyes!What a project!??!!!
Ok,there are so many things I want to write about ;)
But I would very much like to write about:
The problem of Evil in Arda
Elvish isolationism in the 2nd and 3rd ages
Is it possible to have these two lectures?

[Eriol]

You sure can GG... I'll add your name to that post next to your topics. But I don't see any special reason why someone could not write a lecture on a topic already ear-marked for someone... is there? Perhaps I don't understand this "lecture business" too well. I mean, if someone wants to write about Elvish isolationism too, that's great, right? Two lectures for the price of one :D.

The way you two are talking, it sounds as if we'll have lines of applicants, and I'll have to charge a small fee for entrance...

;)

Since you seem to believe that, I'll make an informal rule now: no one can reserve more than 2 lectures at a time. That is already a LOT of work for a single person...

I'll also try to make a rotation among the major themes; again to make sure that it will appeal to everybody most of the time.

What do you say of deadlines, Guild Mistress and other guys? I was thinking of making one lecture every two weeks, beginning at the second week of November; and I'd like to have the schedule two weeks in advance, so that if a lecture has to be postponed by any reason the next lecture is already planned and can "fill in".

So, I'll write down the organization behind it and I want opinions :D.

First Lecture: To be posted at the second sunday of November at the most; GG can have the First Lecture, on "The Problem of Evil in Arda" (you were already working on that, right?).

Subsequent Lectures every two sundays (to allow for a good discussion :D).

The rotation would be as follows: Philosophical, Historical, Geo-
Political. That means I need one Historical for the last week of November!!

I'll open a new thread for the schedule and themes; so that everybody can look at it in a glance.

Let's get the show moving :D

[Gil-Galad]

Eriol,thank you for giving me the nice opportunity to write about these two topics.
Usually everyone who wants apply for a topic and then,when he post it the others are free to ask him questions,to debate on different problems of his work ,to argue,to defend their points of view......etc. ...
;)

[Lhunithiliel]

Originally posted by Eriol
[B]You sure can GG... I'll add your name to that post next to your topics. But I don't see any special reason why someone could not write a lecture on a topic already ear-marked for someone... is there? Perhaps I don't understand this "lecture business" too well. I mean, if someone wants to write about Elvish isolationism too, that's great, right? Two lectures for the price of one :D.

The way you two are talking, it sounds as if we'll have lines of applicants, and I'll have to charge a small fee for entrance...

;)
Exactly! We'll be lucky to get ONE per lecture-topic! :p

The rest is OK!
Yet, mind my words - you'd better think of an advertising campaign! :D

I'm still thinking what topic to chose myself! I'm tempted by quite a number! ;)

[Inderjit S]

Can I do Dwarvish Diplomacy ?

[Finduilas]

Could someone explain to me the meaning of the word fëar ?:confused:

[Inderjit S]

Spirit, Elvish equivalent of someones 'Soul' as some would put it.

[Eriol]

Fëar is the plural of fëa, elvish for "spirit" or "soul"

[Finduilas]

Thanks. :)
Then can I take this one:

Souls: Properties and characteristics of fëar in Arda; the evolution of this concept in Tolkien's writings ?

[Eriol]

Sure :). As soon as the Lectures are delivered I'll add the new lecturers.

[Gil-Galad]

Yet Eowyn's love for Aragorn, though real, is not truly a romantic love. As Faramir says, "You desired to have the love of the Lord Aragorn. Because he is high and puissant and you wished to have renown and glory and to be lifted far above the mean things that crawl on the earth. And as a great captain may seem to a young soldier he seemed to you admirable." (5) Confusion over this new attraction coupled with these circumstances lead Eowyn to believe it to be true romantic love, but Aragorn recognizes it for what it is; admiration and desperation.

First of all I would like to say that I like Rhiannon's work,especially the way she proves why Faramir is the better decision for Eowyn.Bur I have one question concerning this pasage.
Having in mind the hard life Eowyn had,can we state that her love towards Aragorn was a kind of selfish one?
She had very hard life and had suffered many times till she met Aragorn.And he was the perfect choice.He could give her the admiration she wanted,the status she thought she deserved,the glory she desired.She saw in him an opportunity to have all these things and that's why she felt in love,not because it was a true love.

[Eriol]

I didn't know how the lectures were organized... and so I opened a thread for Rhiannon's lecture. But I have a question for you guys -- are you sure this method of arranging things (one thread for lectures, one for discussion) is the best way?

I thought that the best way would be to have one thread for each lecture + discussion. Else we will have mile-long threads at the end of the cycle (especially the discussion thread) with many unrelated issues.

My idea was to use the framework of the discussion on the Silmarillion chapters; so that Rhiannon's lecture, Lecture N. 1, would be followed by the discussion (in the same thread), and when G-G's Lecture is delivered, I'd open a new thread named "Lecture N.2", and so on. The "current Lecture" would be sticky; the others wouldn't. Each discussion would be contained in the thread of the proper lecture, and easy to find.

What do you think?

[Gil-Galad]

That's a nice idea,but there should be also a thread with the links to the old discussions.
But how are you going to create a new thread for my lecture?I will tell you when I am going to post it and then you will open the thread in which I will have to post it or what?
Or I can open the thread if you want.Later you will take care of putting its link in the thread with the links.

[Aiwendil2]

I agree that Eriol's suggested layout would probably work better. If all the discussion is to take place here, then discussion on one subject will still have to end when the next lecture goes up, or else we'll get a very tangled thread.

As for the essay: I agree with most of what you said, Rhiannon, and I think your analysis is good. I agree with Gil-Galad [Edit: Sorry, Gil-Galad, I read your post too quickly - I actually disagree with you] that her love for Aragorn was not exactly selfish; but then I don't think that was explicitly suggested in the essay.

When Eowyn tells Faramir that she "will be a shieldmaiden no longer, nor vie with the great Riders, nor take joy only in the songs of slaying," but that she will "be a healer, and love all things that grow and are not barren," (5) she is not giving up herself, or denying her nature; rather she is accepting her nature more, accepting that she does not need to be warlike to be herself.

A very good point, and well said. To be honest, I was always a little uneasy about the resolution of Eowyn's character arc. It seemed to me that she did a noble thing, defying sexual stereotypes and going into war, only to be told, and to accept, that her place is not as a warrior but as a "healer" and lover of "all things that grow and are not barren" - in other words that a woman's place is in the home healing and nurturing, not in battle. This bothered me quite a bit. But I think you have eased my mind. She is not supposed to be a healer and nurturer because she is a woman, but because all people, men and women, should be healers and nurturers rather than warriors (though it is an unfortunate inevitability that some will have to be warriors). She became a shieldmaiden only because this was the only way, at the time, to be accepted on equal terms with the important people in her life (including but not limited to Aragorn); having met Faramir, that is no longer true, and there is no need for her to continue as a warrior.

[Rhiannon]

Thank you, Gil-Galad and Aiwendil2.

I have one question concerning this pasage.
Having in mind the hard life Eowyn had,can we state that her love towards Aragorn was a kind of selfish one?
It certainly was, in that it was a 'self-centric' love; however, there was at least an element of a 'true' love, because it continued after the point where he would have been an 'opportunity', or a gain for her. Tolkien states very clearly that Eowyn did love Aragorn, in Letter 244- "I do not think Eowyn's feelings for Aragorn really changed much; and when he was revealed as so lofty a figure, in descent and office, she was able to go on loving and admiring him." (italics Tolkien's). That Eowyn's love--or at least her mis-interpretation of it--is a direct result of her situation is to me without question.

[Lhunithiliel]

Originally posted by Eriol
I didn't know how the lectures were organized... and so I opened a thread for Rhiannon's lecture. But I have a question for you guys -- are you sure this method of arranging things (one thread for lectures, one for discussion) is the best way?

I thought that the best way would be to have one thread for each lecture + discussion. Else we will have mile-long threads at the end of the cycle (especially the discussion thread) with many unrelated issues.

My idea was to use the framework of the discussion on the Silmarillion chapters; so that Rhiannon's lecture, Lecture N. 1, would be followed by the discussion (in the same thread), and when G-G's Lecture is delivered, I'd open a new thread named "Lecture N.2", and so on. The "current Lecture" would be sticky; the others wouldn't. Each discussion would be contained in the thread of the proper lecture, and easy to find.

What do you think?
After you reach a a final decision on this matter, will you please, guys, tell me and if you prefer it so, then I'll open the "Lecture1"-thread.

[Manveru]

Really seems like a better idea than one thread for all discussions...
*signs with both hands*;)

It will be easier to find certain piece of info this way rather than in a "throng" of thoughts in one thread...

:D

[Gil-Galad]

Originally posted by Rhiannon
Thank you, Gil-Galad and Aiwendil2.


It certainly was, in that it was a 'self-centric' love; however, there was at least an element of a 'true' love, because it continued after the point where he would have been an 'opportunity', or a gain for her. Tolkien states very clearly that Eowyn did love Aragorn, in Letter 244- "I do not think Eowyn's feelings for Aragorn really changed much; and when he was revealed as so lofty a figure, in descent and office, she was able to go on loving and admiring him." (italics Tolkien's). That Eowyn's love--or at least her mis-interpretation of it--is a direct result of her situation is to me without question.
I am not saying that sh didn't love Aragorn,but that one of the reasons to love him was her desire for glory and high status.But yes I do agree she loved him but as you said
Yet Eowyn's love for Aragorn, though real, is not truly a romantic love. :)

[Rhiannon]

I'm sorry if I mis-interpreted your question; my answer, at least, hinges on my belief that pure selfishness negates love. It follows then that Eowyn's love couldn't have been purely selfish, though it was in part, because the unselfish part of her love for Aragorn continues, as clearly stated by Tolkien.

[Gil-Galad]

Of course!!I'm not saying that her love was completely selfish,but that there were some grains of selfishness in it.;) :)

[Eriol]

Lhun, I think that it would be best for us to follow that "Sil discussion format" that I alluded to earlier. Was there any opinion to the contrary?

I don't know if you have enough "powers", as a moderator (and wraith:D), to cut the comments about Rhiannon's lecture from here and put them in a thread dedicated to the Lecture N.1 only.

Lecture N.2 is Gil-Galad's lecture on the Problem of Evil. He may open a thread, or I may do it for him... what do you guys prefer?

And finally a question for Rhiannon :).

Do you believe that Éowyn knew love, or even attraction, for a man before meeting Aragorn? Do you think she was ever attracted to another man? She was not very young...

I think this is a very important question if we want to understand Éowyn's motivations.

P.S. An added advantage of the "one lecture, one thread" format is that it enables us to keep on discussing one lecture after the other lectures have been posted without interrupting the flow of either discussion.

[Gil-Galad]

Eri,I will open a thread when I am ready.Actually I am ready with Melkor,but this is only,let's say 1/5 part of the whole lecture.
If you want I can divide it into two pârts.One about Melkor(the source of evil) and one about everything after him.
But I would like you not to start any comments till I finish it these days,bacause everything is connected in a way.
And there will be a lot of comments!!
OMG this work is going to be enormous!!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :mad:

[Rhiannon]

Originally posted by Eriol
And finally a question for Rhiannon :).

Do you believe that Éowyn knew love, or even attraction, for a man before meeting Aragorn? Do you think she was ever attracted to another man? She was not very young...

I think this is a very important question if we want to understand Éowyn's motivations.

Since Tolkien doesn't say, this is entirely my own opinion (which is biased and quite possibly me projecting myself on the character), but no, I don't think so. Certainly not love; attraction, very possibly, since women are just as guilty of the carnal eye as men (all of that stuff about the fairer, more graceful sex is nonsense). But not a strong attraction, and certainly not a strong attachment to any man outside of her family (what was left of it), and possibly Elfhelm (I like to think he was something of a mentor to her- someone had to train her, after all).

I think that Eowyn was very naive about love, which is why it was so easy for her to mistake her love for Aragorn for something it wasn't. She was surrounded by men, but they were soldiers, and she looked on them as soldiers. I don't think she was accustomed to thinking of men romantically. Aragorn's difference from the 'brotherly' men she knows again comes in to play. Hama's comments in The Two Towers give me the impression that the men of Rohan weren't used to thinking of her as a lady, either.

She was not very young...

I think that she was, in the culture of Middle Earth. Faramir is referred to as a 'young man', at 35. Eowyn at 24 is not a child, but is still young.

[Finduilas]

Good point, Rhiannon, and yes I agree with you not entirely,however. ;)
I assume her love towards Aragorn as her first one, and therefore the greatest! For the first time of anything is always the best. First love, first kiss, first try at school,etc. First,first,first... That's the risk, the buzz that you're doing something unknown and men were unknown to Éowyn in the romantic way. But here comes Aragorn and he "enslaves" her, let's say it in this way.;)
It might havenot been a true love but as a first one I assume it has been romantic...

But what do I know of these stuff...:rolleyes: ;)

[Rhiannon]

Originally posted by Finduilas
Good point, Rhiannon, and yes I agree with you not entirely,however. ;)
I assume her love towards Aragorn as her first one, and therefore the greatest! For the first time of anything is always the best. First love, first kiss, first try at school,etc. First,first,first... That's the risk, the buzz that you're doing something unknown and men were unknown to Éowyn in the romantic way. But here comes Aragorn and he "enslaves" her, let's say it in this way.;)
It might havenot been a true love but as a first one I assume it has been romantic...

But what do I know of these stuff...:rolleyes: ;)

I disagree- 'first love' may seem stronger because the emotions that accompany it are new and varied; it may have more passion- but that does not make it the 'greatest'. The greatest love is the one that endures and grows and encompasses every aspect of your life. 'Love' and 'passion' are not the same thing. Passion is temporary, and only appears stronger or greater than true love.

Also, I truly believe that what Eowyn felt for Aragorn was not a romantic love. She mistook it for a romantic love because it was unfamiliar, new, different.

[Finduilas]

Yes...you're actually right, it's not the best but it certainly is romantic! When giving a second thought, I do agree with you that's not the greatest but I still believe it's romantic!
Even when we talk about 'love' itself (as well as not the true one) romance is included automatically. Romantic means that you show feelings of love, strong ones. And the first love is actually the one that 'learns' you to feel these strong emotions.You may not show them directly, because it's your first time and fear is present too, but they exist. Because strong feelings and emotions are the essentials of love !

[Rhiannon]

Just to clarify, by 'it' you mean Eowyn's love for Aragorn?

Even when we talk about 'love' itself (as well as not the true one) romance is included automatically. Romantic means that you show feelings of love, strong ones. And the first love is actually the one that 'learns' you to feel these strong emotions.You may not show them directly, because it's your first time and fear is present too, but they exist. Because strong feelings and emotions are the essentials of love !

I disagree again; it is possible to love without romance, just as it is possible to have romance without love and passion without love. The English language unfortunately tends to lump these things together and ignore the fine lines between them. And 'strong' feelings are essential to passion, but aren't, to me, essential to love. Deep feelings are essential to love.

love
n.

1. A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.
2. A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.
3.
1. Sexual passion.
2. Sexual intercourse.
3. A love affair.
4. An intense emotional attachment, as for a pet or treasured object.
5. A person who is the object of deep or intense affection or attraction; beloved. Often used as a term of endearment.

[Finduilas]

Now I think that we are talking about love !
It is different from attraction, likeness, fancying, marriage;)..or anything else. It's love, no matter first or last! And love includes romance! If it is love without romance it is called an affair. If it is romance without love..it is just sexual relationship...,etc,etc...

Love is sacred and it includes both romance and deep feelings! But strong feelings mean that you LOVE the person and not only fancy him, while deep feelings mean that ..well, that you are in love!!! You are in the true deep love that poets write about!

[Gil-Galad]

I see a love debate between two beautiful girls is going on here!!!!!:D :) ;)

[Rhiannon]

So we agree about the nature of love, but (forgive me, it's time for the sacred Sunday Afternoon Nap), disagree on whether it applies to Eowyn's love for Aragorn?

Love is sacred and it includes both romance and deep feelings! But strong feelings mean that you LOVE the person and not only fancy him, while deep feelings mean that ..well, that you are in love!!! You are in the true deep love that poets write about!
To me 'strong feelings' are merely volatile and of the moment; they may consume you for a time and seem to fill your world, but are not constant or enduring.

What we need are more words for love:
philia=brotherly love
agape=God's love
eros=romantic love
storge=the love of parents for a child

I do not believe Eowyn's love for Aragorn was really eros; rather that it was closer to philia. But it was combined with passion (a temporary passion) that she herself mistook for eros (in turn, Aragorn's love for Eowyn was closer to storge than anything else, I think).
The passion ended, leaving Eowyn with admiration and respect, which are in themselves a kind of love.

The love between Eowyn and Faramir, however, encompassed not only eros, but philia and agape as well.

[Finduilas]

Yes, and if we look at the quote from your thread ;)..see what we find:

as she looked on the king with cool pity in her eyes.

Pity? No love? Well, I may even here tend to agree with you that Eowyn's love was not a 'love' itself, I mean the deep feeling we accept as inevitable and strongest in our world. I tend to agree that she only fancied and admired him of course, but I cannot agree that strong feelings mean volatile ones!

The word 'strong' itself bears the meaning of constancy and depth. Strong....when you hear the word strong what do you imagine...?
-weakness and unconstancy
-or something which may last forever
I believe it is the second..;) or my English teacher doesn't know English at all! :p

[Rhiannon]

Strong has many definitions, most of them primarily physical, but the definition I have in mind is

strong
adj. strong·er, strong·est

14. Intense in degree or quality: a strong emotion; strong motivation.

...So a strong emotion is intense, but not necassarily enduring.

Yes, and if we look at the quote from your thread ..see what we find:

quote:as she looked on the king with cool pity in her eyes.

Pity? No love?

I'm not sure of the relevance, but I thought I'd point out that 'look' was directed at Theoden, not Aragorn.

I see a love debate between two beautiful girls is going on here!!!!!

Hi, GG..:)

[Finduilas]

Originally posted by Rhiannon
Strong has many definitions, most of them primarily physical, but the definition I have in mind is

strong
adj. strong·er, strong·est

14. Intense in degree or quality: a strong emotion; strong motivation.

...So a strong emotion is intense, but not necassarily enduring.



I'm not sure of the relevance, but I thought I'd point out that 'look' was directed at Theoden, not Aragorn.



Hi, GG..:)

Yes, but I still consider strong something which lasts....I mean after all it is strong for that reason to last...:)
Oh, this logic..;)
And if it was about Theaden...sorry...*hides too ashamed of herself*...

:D Hey, GG, a beautifel girl is calling you!
...two actually...:rolleyes: ;) :D

[Rhiannon]

Yes, but I still consider strong something which lasts....I mean after all it is strong for that reason to last...
It depends upon the context, I would say; when you call an odour 'strong', it doesn't mean you don't think the odour will never fade, you mean that it is intense.

...not to compare love or passion with a smell ;)

And if it was about Theaden...sorry...*hides too ashamed of herself*...
Don't worry, I know you were looking at it out of context :)

[Finduilas]

:) smelly...passionately...;) there is difference indeed. :)

But as you said it depends on the context. And i talk about love (...talking about love...talking about love - there is such a Bulgarian song..;) :D ). A strong love or feeling means that you can't resist it, YOU are actually the one who fades;).
And the love is strong enough to last forever (till the end of your life..:) ) if you don't opppose it.

[Rhiannon]

A strong love or feeling means that you can't resist it, YOU are actually the one who fades

I disagree. A strong passion or feeling may make you feel like you can't resist, but may still be temporary.

And the love is strong enough to last forever (till the end of your life.. ) if you don't opppose it.

If it is love, yes. And there are many kinds of love, both romantic and non-romantic.

[Finduilas]

Don't know...I still consider love as something sacred which is too "high" in order to be non-romantic. For me Love is the supreme form of...conscious, the supreme power. That's love to me and I cannot accept that there is one that is not romantic. :)

For love means a complete devotion!
:)

[Manveru]

Originally posted by Finduilas
For love means a complete devotion!
:)
You "sealed" it in style, little one:D

Great 'debate' girls!!

[Rhiannon]

Don't know...I still consider love as something sacred which is too "high" in order to be non-romantic. For me Love is the supreme form of...conscious, the supreme power. That's love to me and I cannot accept that there is one that is not romantic.
Love can be sacred and 'high' and still not be romantic. Love is putting the interests of someone else before yourself, caring about their welfare, valuing them. Romance is the chemistry between man and woman.

For love means a complete devotion!
By that definition, I would say Eowyn never loved Aragorn at all! There is only room enough in a human to give that kind of devotion to one person. You can not devote yourself completely to more than one person because you then doom yourself to an eventual conflict of interests. If she had been completely devoted to Aragorn, she would never have married Faramir.

[Finduilas]

Originally posted by Rhiannon
Love can be sacred and 'high' and still not be romantic. Love is putting the interests of someone else before yourself, caring about their welfare, valuing them. Romance is the chemistry between man and woman.

No! Love includes everything!
Love is the highest feeling on Earth, the most sacred one! It includes all inferiour feelings such as fancying...
Therefore:

Love = romance + devotion + respect + admiration + ...simply + EVERYTHING!

Love includes all!

As you said:
There is only room enough in a human to give that kind of devotion to one person. You can not devote yourself completely to more than one person because you then doom yourself to an eventual conflict of interests.

That backs up my thoughts..;) That love is one! And love is the highest! Therefore love can only be perfect! Since it is one!
It seems, however, that Eowyn indeed didn't love Aragorn but only fancied and admired him...love came next!
:)

[Rhiannon]

It seems, however, that Eowyn indeed didn't love Aragorn but only fancied and admired him...love came next!

...except, of course, that Tolkien said she went on "loving and admiring him". So it seems he, at least, disagreed with you ;)

How about this. I love my father. I love him a lot. I do not feel romantically about my father, because that would just be way too weird.

Yes, love is the highest and most sacred emotion on earth. But within that there are varying modes and intensities of love.

[Finduilas]

OMG, you got me!;)

I was wondering how I would "escape" from that trap...:rolleyes:
I guess I failed! :D

I mean that, yes, there is a father-daughter's love...and a brother-sister's love...but refering to man-woman's love it is only this sacred love that exists!
Different relationships-different shades of love, but yet ONE for every...;)

How about this. I love my father. I love him a lot. I do not feel romantically about my father, because that would just be way too weird.

:D:D Hahaha...I hope you don't...;)

...except, of course, that Tolkien said she went on "loving and admiring him". So it seems he, at least, disagreed with you

I suppose Tolkien meant the brother-sister love...:rolleyes: or he didn't know anything about this book!!! Hahah:D

[Rhiannon]

OMG, you got me!
Don't worry, Rhi is a gracious victor ;)

but refering to man-woman's love it is only this sacred love that exists!
I agree, and Aragorn was not Eowyn's sacred love, which is what I mean when I say her love for him was not 'romantic'.

Different relationships-different shades of love, but yet ONE for every...
Do you mean that I can only love one of my brothers? Or that you can only have one kind of love per person?

[Finduilas]

I agree, and Aragorn was not Eowyn's sacred love, which is what I mean when I say her love for him was not 'romantic'.

But then it is not Love but an inferiour feeling...if we still talk about man-woman relationships. Or just an admiration...;)

Do you mean that I can only love one of my brothers? Or that you can only have one kind of love per person?

No I mean that the different shades of love are actually the love you feel towards people with different relationship-for example,the love you feel towards your father or brothers who you love in the same way (I only have one sister so I have no such problems...;):p)..or the love towards the beloved person...they are all different kinds of loving but they are all equally strong!...or deep;)

[Rhiannon]

But then it is not Love but an inferiour feeling...if we still talk about man-woman relationships. Or just an admiration...
Men and women can love each other without it being what you call a 'sacred' love and what I call a 'romantic' love- like I love my father, my brother, male friends, etc. It was still love (as Tolkien specifically calls it- otherwise I would be inclined to say she didn't really love him at all myself), but it was much nearer to the love I have for my father than the love I hope to have for my husband some day. This kind of love is not inferior, just of a different quality and intensity.

No I mean that the different shades of love are actually the love you feel towards people with different relationship-for example,the love you feel towards your father or brothers who you love in the same way (I only have one sister so I have no such problems...)..or the love towards the beloved person...they are all different kinds of loving but they are all equally strong!...or deep
...Which is basically what I said above :)

[Finduilas]

Yes, EXACTLY!:)

However....lol,there's always "however";)...., what I meant by inferior is...gosh, hard to explain...:confused:

Now, as we agreed;)..love has difefrent shades:
-daughter-father;
-daughter-mother;
-son-father;
-son-mother;
-man-woman (by this I mean that 'sacred' love;) )
-brother-sister;
-cousin-cousin;
-grandmother-grandchild, etc..

But let me look at the 'sacred' one;):
-man-woman: they love eachother devotedly and want to spend their life with each other...That's the true love between man-woman (you know already what man and woman I mean..:) ).
There is also fancying and admiration but the highest feeling is called 'love'!
And when we say love when refering to man-woman relationship (let's call it love birds;) ) it actually means that they really love eachother!
...I hope i explained it correctly..:)

[Rhiannon]

But let me look at the 'sacred' one:
-man-woman: they love eachother devotedly and want to spend their life with each other...That's the true love between man-woman (you know already what man and woman I mean.. ).
There is also fancying and admiration but the highest feeling is called 'love'!
And when we say love when refering to man-woman relationship (let's call it love birds ) it actually means that they really love eachother!
...I hope i explained it correctly..

...actually now I'm more confused, but don't worry, that's my natural state of being ;)

So, there is one kind of sacred love between man and woman, which encompasses devotion, friendship, etc., and can only be felt for one person. When we say that a man and a woman 'love' each other, we are most often referring to this kind of love, because it is the kind of love that ideally should accompany marriage- the most predominate (at least in our minds) male/female relationship.
However, there are many other varieties of love, and within those varieties varying intensities. There is the love between friends, the love (also loyalty) between family members, the love (and respect) for older and/or wiser people, the love (and protectiveness) for younger/less experienced people, etc etc, all of which are love, but do not include the romantic element of the 'sacred' love.
All of these other varieties of love may be between a man and a woman without infringing on the 'sacred love'. So we can say that Eowyn loved Aragorn in such and such a way, and be right: we can also say that Eowyn loved Faramir in such and such a way and be right, and go on to all the men in her family and still be right. The important clarification is that her 'sacred' love was for Faramir only, and that what she felt for Aragorn was an entirely different variety of love- not 'false' or 'not real', but not 'sacred'.

[Finduilas]

YES! :D

That's exactly what I meant...though I confused you more...:rolleyes: :p

So we can say that Eowyn loved Aragorn in such and such a way, and be right: we can also say that Eowyn loved Faramir in such and such a way and be right, and go on to all the men in her family and still be right.

But...( ;) )...I want to clarify this passage of yours.
You say that we can refer to all the men and still call it love (in whatever shade...), but I think that it would be only in her family (as you said;) ) that she felt love. Because love is the ultimate likeliness, which she can feel usually in her family. The feeling she has towards strangers or small friends is a kind of fancy but not love. :)
That's it...so it turns out that she loved Aragorn after all...:rolleyes: ;)

[Rhiannon]

You say that we can refer to all the men and still call it love (in whatever shade...), but I think that it would be only in her family (as you said ) that she felt love. Because love is the ultimate likeliness, which she can feel usually in her family. The feeling she has towards strangers or small friends is a kind of fancy but not love.

I think that we can refer to all men and still call it love. Love does not equal like- ie, God tells us to 'love our enemies', but that doesn't mean we have to like them.

[Finduilas]

I think that we can refer to all men and still call it love. Love does not equal like- ie, God tells us to 'love our enemies', but that doesn't mean we have to like them.

Actually,in every hatred there is love...Because you cannot hate someone without knowing him well which means that you virtually love him in a way, in a way that irritates you...It's just my conception, that love is everywhere and in everything, including hatred...but I mean hatred not dislike - ie...

[Rhiannon]

I disagree. I certainly don't need to know someone well to hate them, and knowing someone well doesn't mean that you love them.

[Eriol]

A quick comment here; I think that when you love someone you want to know all there is to be known about her, but that is not the same as knowing. And conversely this will to know is not present in hatred.

I really don't think that hatred is opposite to love. I know this is more or less conventional. Sorry about that, as Yay would put it ;).