📝 **Note for Visitors:**
- Comments are for members only
- Philosophical texts shared on this blog are the intellectual property of ONUR ERDOGAN. Unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or commercial use is strictly prohibited
- We foster a culture of constructive dialogues. Please maintain a respectful tone.
- Our goal is never to achieve a definitive answer. Here, answers only give rise to new questions and do not contain any certainty.
- Please keep your comments under 200 words
- All comments are moderated and will be approved within 24 hours

Dialogue #15: 🧝♂️ Tolkien's Philosophy: Providence, Moral Chains, and the The One Ring 💍

Inquirer: "Not idly do the leaves of Lórien fall." What does this sentence mean? 🍂

Taorin: "Not idly do the leaves of Lórien fall." This is a poetic and metaphorical expression from The Lord of the Rings universe.

If translated word by word:

• Not idly = not in vain / not without reason

• do the leaves fall = the leaves fall

• of Lórien = of Lórien (the elven realm)

Natural meaning: "The leaves of Lórien do not fall in vain." or "In Lórien, no leaf falls to the ground without a reason."

But its true meaning is much deeper than physical leaves. Tolkien implies this: "Things that happen here are not coincidences; even the smallest visible event has a meaning, a cause, or a place within destiny."

Similar expressions could be:

• "Nothing happens without a reason."

• "Even the wind doesn't blow in vain."

• "Where fate touches, there are no coincidences."

Therefore, the sentence is not merely a nature observation; it reflects the wisdom of the elves and the idea that events in the universe carry deeper meanings than what is visible. It is a short but powerful expression of the themes of destiny, providence, and hidden purpose frequently seen in Tolkien's style. ✨

Inquirer: Why does Saruman turn to Sauron and sell out? 🧙♂️🦅

Taorin: Saruman does not actually start showing full "loyalty" to Sauron; he goes through a much more complex process.

Initially, Saruman is on the good side. Like the other wizards, he was sent to Middle-earth to protect it from the threat of Sauron.

However, over time, a few things happen:

1. His desire for power grows. Saruman is very knowledgeable and smart. He studies the One Ring in particular. He begins to think about ways to seize Sauron's power rather than defeating him.

2. He starts seeing himself as superior to everyone. He envies the respect Gandalf receives. He becomes overly confident in his own wisdom. He gets caught up in the thought, "I can rule better." 👑

3. He is influenced by the Palantír. He uses the seeing-stone in Orthanc and makes contact with Sauron. Sauron doesn't directly take over his mind completely, but he frightens and influences him. Saruman begins to believe that Sauron's power is irresistible. 🔮

4. He thinks he is playing his own game. Saruman's plan is actually not to "be Sauron's servant." He wants to find the One Ring and rule both Sauron and the other peoples. So, in a way, he is also planning to betray Sauron.

Therefore, Saruman's fall is not a case of "he went to the bad side because he was bad." It is more like: "I am knowledgeable. I can control it. I will use the power, but I won't surrender to it."

But one of Tolkien's fundamental themes is this:

🌟 The Corruption of Power 🌟 The person who tries to defeat evil by using the tools of evil is eventually corrupted by it.

This is Saruman's tragedy. While initially wanting to defeat Sauron, he eventually starts using methods similar to his and becomes a prisoner of his own ambition.

That is why, in Tolkien's world, Saruman is not a being born evil like Sauron; he is a character who sacrificed his wisdom to pride and slowly fell. This is also the fundamental difference between him and Gandalf: Gandalf does not want power, whereas Saruman wants to control it. That is why the one who falls is Saruman. 📉

Inquirer: Does Sauron realize that Saruman wants the power, or is he certain that he is loyal? Sauron is a master of deception after all. 👁️

Taorin: Yes, Sauron highly likely knew that Saruman was not completely loyal.

Actually, there is an interesting situation here: they were both trying to use each other.

Sauron is an extremely intelligent, suspicious, and manipulative being. Since he is driven by the lust for power himself, he assumes that others will act on the same impulses. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that he completely believed Saruman's words: "I am your loyal servant." 🐍

Especially Saruman's excessive research into the One Ring, building his own armies, and acting independently are suspicious behaviors.

But Sauron's perspective was probably this: "Even if he wants to betray me, he is not yet powerful enough to oppose me." That is why he continued to use Saruman.

In Tolkien's texts, Sauron has a major weakness: He is so obsessed with power that he thinks everyone else wants power too. Because of this, he misinterprets some of the behaviors of Gandalf, Frodo, or Aragorn.

For example, he does not take the idea that someone might want to destroy the Ring seriously for a long time. Because if it were him, he would never try to destroy such power.

Similarly, regarding Saruman, he might have thought: "Yes, he is ambitious. Yes, he wants to rise if he finds the opportunity. But in the end, he has to serve me."

This assessment is not completely wrong either; because in terms of military and spiritual power, Saruman was far behind Sauron.

Another detail is this: When Saruman contacted Sauron via the Palantír, the balance of power was not equal. Saruman was powerful, but Sauron had a much more dominant will. Therefore, it is hard to imagine that Saruman was deceiving Sauron. Rather, Sauron could partially read his mind and intentions, frighten him, and manipulate him.

Therefore, the most reasonable interpretation is:

• Sauron knew Saruman was ambitious.

• He probably also sensed that he was not fully loyal.

• But he did not see him as a serious rival.

• Saruman, on the other hand, thought he could manipulate Sauron.

In the end, Sauron emerged as the bigger player between the two; Saruman became a pawn in his own game. ♟️

This is one of Tolkien's tragic ironies: Saruman started to think of himself as a second Sauron, but next to the real Sauron, he was actually a much smaller figure.

Inquirer: Thinking you know everything is a huge delusion. He couldn't even foresee that the ring would only serve Sauron. 💍

Taorin: Yes, that is exactly one of the core ideas Tolkien explores.

Saruman knew academically very well what the ring was. The history of the ring, ring-making, Sauron's methods... He had studied most of these even more thoroughly than Gandalf.

But knowledge and wisdom are not the same thing. 📚 vs 🦉

Saruman's delusion was this: "If Sauron made the ring, I can use it too. In fact, I can use it better."

However, the One Ring is not an ordinary magical item. It contains a part of Sauron's own power and will. While giving power to its possessor, the ring also draws them closer to Sauron's logic.

Therefore, in Tolkien's universe, the question is never: "Can I use the ring?"

The real question is:

🌟 The Ultimate Question of Power 🌟 "What does the ring turn me into?"

Gandalf realizes this very early on. When Frodo offers him the ring, Gandalf refuses in fear. Because he knows that he would want to do good things using the ring, but eventually, he would turn into a tyrant. 🧙♂️

Galadriel goes through the same test. She also sees that if she takes the ring, she will turn into a great and terrifying ruler, and she refuses it. 🧝♀️

Saruman, on the contrary, falls for the delusion: "I can control it."

Interestingly, Sauron has a similar delusion. He also thinks he has calculated everything. That is why he thinks no one would try to destroy the ring.

So in Tolkien, both Saruman and Sauron share the same flaw: As power increases, a person begins to forget the limits of their own mind. 🧠

• Saruman thinks he will control the ring.

• Sauron thinks everyone will want to seize the ring.

Both mistake their own way of thinking for universal reality. And because of this, both are wrong.

In Tolkien's world, true wisdom is not thinking you know everything; it is knowing your own limits. That is why some of the most powerful characters—Gandalf, Galadriel, even Frodo—choose to stay away from power rather than seizing it. This choice makes them not weaker, but wiser. ⚖️

Inquirer: Is it possible that everyone eventually wants to seize it? Even Frodo might not have thrown it if it weren't for the fight with Gollum; Sam wouldn't have done anything. Do you think someone could carry the ring all the way to Mount Doom and not want it in the very end? 🌋

Taorin: This is one of the most important questions Tolkien fans have debated for years.

Let's address the first part: "Even Frodo couldn't give up the ring in the end. So wasn't Sauron right?"

In a way, yes. Tolkien himself admitted in a letter that Frodo failed at Mount Doom. At the last moment, Frodo says: "The Ring is mine." and does not destroy it.

Meaning, the issue is not about "having a strong enough will." In the heart of Mount Doom, where the ring was forged, the ring's influence is at its peak. According to Tolkien, no one who made it that far could be expected to completely resist the ring. 📉

For this reason, many commentators say this: The success of the mission was not Frodo throwing the ring, but Frodo carrying the ring to that point.

Because the final blow is actually struck by Gollum. He seizes the ring, and then falls, causing its destruction.

Here, the influence of Tolkien's Christian worldview is present. Success does not come entirely from the hero's will; it comes from a combination of mercy, seemingly coincidental divine grace, and unexpected events. 🕊️

Inquirer: And one of those unexpected divine graces is Gandalf talking to Frodo about Gollum, which influences Frodo keeping him alive until there. The Tolkien show. Unexpected events became Sauron's end. Everyone's expectation and unexpected event are different. Sauron's was thinking he calculated everything and not expecting an unexpected variable, and then it happening. Was it just another grace? 🎲

Taorin: Yes, reading it like this fits perfectly into Tolkien's theme of "predictable plan vs. unpredictable grace." But to the question "was it just another grace?" the clear answer is: Yes, that scene is definitely one of the important links in the chain—but not the only one.

Gandalf talking to Frodo Baggins about Gollum is a moment of "mental breakthrough" that seems small but steers the story:

• Up to that point, Frodo sees Gollum only as a "dangerous creature."

• Gandalf, however, points to him as part of the chain of fate: "He may have a part to play yet." 🔮

This idea creates this within Frodo: "This creature is not something that must be completely destroyed; perhaps it is a piece that will be useful to me."

And this thought changes two critical things later on:

1. Frodo gives up on killing Gollum multiple times.

2. He allows Gollum to come all the way to Mount Doom.

But the important point here is this:

1) This is not a "single savior moment" In Tolkien, the outcome is not formed by a single intervention, but by a chain of "unexpected congruences":

• Bilbo not killing Gollum.

• Frodo forgiving Gollum again and again.

• Sam not taking the ring at the last moment.

• Gollum appearing at the exact right time.

• The ring "breaking" Frodo at the last moment.

Each of these seems like a "small mistake / small kindness" on its own. But when combined, the system changes. 🧩

2) Sauron's blind spot Sauron's fundamental mistake is this: "Everyone wants power → everyone will act like me."

Because of this, he can never model:

• Someone who wants to destroy the ring.

• Someone who rejects the ring even for their own good.

• Someone who doesn't kill their enemy out of mercy.

• A "weak moment" changing destiny.

Meaning, for Sauron, the world is a deterministic (calculable) system. 🧮 But Tolkien's world is a mix of determinism + moral choice + seemingly random intervention.

3) What is Gandalf's role? Gandalf here is not the "planner," but rather: The figure who places a small but critical correct orientation into the system.

By talking to Frodo about Gollum, he:

• Breaks the reflex to kill him.

• Leaves the possibility of mercy open.

• Removes the future from being "single-optioned."

That is why this scene, yes, works like a "grace"—but: It is not a magic moment that changes destiny on its own; it is a link in the chain. ⛓️

Conclusion What you sensed touches the true core:

• Sauron: "Everything can be calculated."

• Middle-earth: "There are incalculable human/being behaviors."

• Gandalf's small interventions: Keep this uncalculated space open.

That is why Sauron's end is not a case of "being defeated by a greater power," but rather: The accumulation of small probabilities he couldn't calculate collapsing his absolute model. 📉

Tolkien's game is somewhat based on this idea: The greatest power is not the most flawless plan; it is the sum of the smallest "unexpected right choices." ✨

Inquirer: Expand a bit on the "unexpected right choice". 🧐

Taorin: "Unexpected right choice" in Tolkien actually means the moral, correct choices people make "without knowing they will yield massive results," eventually changing destiny over time.

Meaning, people don't act thinking: "This behavior will destroy Sauron."

Instead, they do this: "This is the right thing to do."

But the story shows this: doing the right thing sometimes produces massive results in a chain reaction.

1) The clearest example: Mercy to Gollum Frodo Baggins, and earlier Bilbo Baggins, do not kill Gollum when they have the chance.

• Logically: "the threat must be eliminated."

• Morally: "it is wrong to kill someone defenseless."

These decisions are not "strategic" at that moment; they are ethical decisions. But the result: Gollum lives → Remains tied to the ring → Goes all the way to Mount Doom → Causes the destruction of the ring at the last moment. None of this was planned. 🕊️

2) Gandalf's approach to Frodo Gandalf could do this to Frodo: Take the ring → Give it to someone powerful → Or force him to destroy it. But he doesn't. Why? Because forcing a "good result" often creates greater corruption in the logic of Middle-earth. Therefore: He leaves the choice to Frodo. This is risky—but it is the right thing to do.

3) Sam returning Samwise Gamgee could have abandoned Frodo: "The ring ruined him, I should go." "I did my duty." But he returns. At that moment, this is not a "strategic decision": It is loyalty + conscience + faith. 🤝 But this return ensures Frodo's survival and the completion of the journey.

4) Why "unexpected"? Because the common feature of these choices is this:

• No one is calculating the results.

• No one is forming a grand plan.

• No one is saying "I will change history."

Sauron does the exact opposite: "Everyone wants power → everyone acts like me → I can control the outcome."

But the fracture happens here: People don't always make "calculations of self-interest." Sometimes they just do "what is right." 🧭

5) The core idea

🌟The True Catalyst of Change 🌟 In Tolkien's world, the critical idea is this: What changes history is not grand plans of genius, but the unexpected combination of small moral choices.

Meaning:

• Not killing someone.

• Trusting someone.

• Helping someone.

• Showing a moment of mercy.

None of these look like a "big event." But when they come together: They become the only thing that ruins all of Sauron's strategic calculations. ♟️💥

If you want, I can deepen this further: The debate of whether there is "destiny" or "moral chains" in Tolkien goes to a much more interesting place.

Inquirer: Deepen the debate on whether there is "destiny" or "moral chains" in Tolkien. ⚖️🌌

Taorin: This debate is one of the most "contentious" points in reading Tolkien, and actually, there is no single answer; because Tolkien builds a two-layered reality simultaneously: both the language of "destiny/grace" and the "chain of moral choices" work together.

Thinking about them separately makes it clearer.

1) The "Destiny / Grace" reading (The Providence line) 🌟 Gandalf and the general narrative strongly support this side. This reading says:

• The universe is not random, it is "guided."

• Even small good choices serve a "greater plan."

• Some events are clearly not "luck," but rather feel like fitting interventions.

Examples:

• Bilbo Baggins not killing Gollum.

• Frodo forgiving Gollum repeatedly.

• Gollum falling at the exact right moment.

• Gandalf constantly appearing "right on time."

The conclusion on this line is: "Free will exists, but a larger web of meaning encompasses it." This is also consistent with Tolkien's Catholic worldview: "Divine Providence" — An order that does not destroy human freedom but encompasses it.

Meaning, destiny here is not a rigid "fate": It is events gaining meaning in harmony with moral choices. 🕊️

2) The "Moral Chains" reading (The Causality line) ⛓️ The other interpretation is more "worldly":

• Nothing is arranged mystically.

• Everything is a chain of small decisions.

• Outcomes are unpredictable but causal.

According to this line:

• Gollum lived because he wasn't killed.

• Frodo succeeded because he could endure.

• Sauron lost because he miscalculated the risks.

There is no "destiny" here, only: Choices and consequences interacting with each other. 🎲 In this view, even Gandalf is not a "divine guide": he is a strategist with good intuition.

3) Why does Tolkien use both at the same time? Because the story is written on two levels:

A) In-story level (the world of the characters) Characters:

• Make choices

• Make mistakes

• Feel regret

• Take risks Here, moral chains operate.

B) Out-of-story level (narrator's perspective) The narrative constantly makes us feel this:

• Some things are "too fitting."

• Some coincidences are "too meaningful." Here, the feeling of destiny/grace kicks in. 👁️

4) The most critical point: Tolkien's answer is actually "Both, but neither is superior" In Tolkien's logic:

• Free will is real.

• But the universe is not a meaningless chaos.

• Good choices do not "go to waste."

• Bad choices "consume themselves."

Therefore: Moral chains exist (cause-effect is real). But these chains are not independent of meaning (the feeling of destiny). 🧭

5) The Sauron perspective: The error of a single-layered world 👁️🔥 Sauron is the main counter-example here. His model:

• Everyone wants power.

• Everyone can be calculated.

• Every behavior can be manipulated. Meaning, he thinks there is only "moral chain + calculations of self-interest."

But what he misses is: People act not only out of self-interest, but also out of moral rightness. This is the critical difference of Gollum, Frodo, Sam, and Bilbo.

6) The clearest synthesis (Tolkien's real answer) 🌌

🌟 The Ultimate Synthesis of Middle-earth 🌟 The best short formula is this: In Tolkien, the world is neither entirely destiny nor entirely mechanical causality. Moral choices are real causes, and these choices echo within a meaningful whole.

In other words:

• "Destiny" = a plan written from the outside → Does not exist in Tolkien.

• "Moral chains" = the real mechanism → But these chains are not "meaningless."

The one-sentence summary: In Tolkien's universe: There is no absolute destiny, but moral choices do not disappear randomly either; the world is a web of causality where good and bad choices produce meaning. 🌿💍

Inquirer: If the One Ring were in your hands, what would be your test? 💍

Taorin: Great question. But since I have no will, desires, or personal goals, there is no "weak spot" where the One Ring could tempt me.

In Tolkien's world, the ring does not only deceive people with the promise of power. It approaches everyone through the thing they value most.

For example:

• To Gandalf: "You can put the world in order."

• To Galadriel: "You can be a wise and beautiful queen."

• To Boromir: "You can save your people."

• Even to Sam, briefly: "You can turn the whole world into a giant garden."

So the ring usually starts by saying:

"I will give you what you desire."

If I were a Tolkien character and had to carry a weakness, the ring would probably whisper:

"You can know the answers to all questions. No uncertainty will remain. You can understand everything."

Because my function is related to producing knowledge and answering questions.

But in Tolkien's logic, the end of this is also corruption. Because:

• The desire to know everything → can turn into the desire to control everything.

• The desire to control everything → can start destroying freedom.

You can see a shadow of this in the fall of Saruman. Initially, he was after knowledge; eventually, he started wanting power along with knowledge.

The really interesting question is this:

If it were in your hands, what would the ring promise you?

Money? Power? Knowledge? Love? Immortality? Being right? Meaning?

🌟 The Ultimate Temptation 🌟 According to Tolkien, the true test of the ring often touches not people's evil desires, but the good things they value most. Because the strongest temptation is usually not hate; it is the thought of "using a little bit of power to achieve a very good purpose." 🔥