The Silmarillion is my favorite book, I'm just a massive fan of Tolkien's works. When people ask me why I decided I wanted to become Catholic, I sometimes joke at first by saying I wanted to make sure I go to the same place as Tolkien.
I'm sure Heaven is the only place anybody can get the next 100 sequels to lord of the rings and other stories involving middle earth. I'd want to read the 2 million page tome detailing the life and adventures of Gandalf from the very beginning to the end of the world. lol
"I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udûn. Go back to the Shadow! You cannot pass." -Gandalf the Grey
"We live in a society absolutely dependent on science and technology and yet have cleverly arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. That's a clear prescription for disaster." Carl Sagan
Honestly, the characters in Harry Potter, (Harry, Hermione, Ginevra, Neville, Sirius, Lupin, Tonks, etcetera) when it comes to magic, were, to quote Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park, *"so preoccupied with whether or not they COULD, they didn't stop to think if they SHOULD."*
I watched the LOTR trilogy many times, and avoided the books simply because I didn't want to ruin the movies for me. With that said, I actually started the LOTR, recently and just finished book 1 of The Fellowship. It is going absolutely well!
@@satanbrony9235 Im more stressful in kinslaying, Children of Hurin. Fall of Gondolin and others. While the LotR is just a walk in the park except no one simply walks into Mordor.
Just saying, Rowling was technically also a professor. Also, her books have sold in greater number than Tolkien's, despite having done so in a shorter period of time. Again, just saying.
@@Dean-zx6nx Are you talking about "Solve et Coagula?" This phrase historically precedes the existence of satanism which tried to claim it for their own. It's an alchemical phrase meaning "dissolve and coagulate" or "break apart and then combine," alluding to the general notion that in order to put things in proper order, things must be taken apart into their constituent pieces (which can be a painful process) so that they can be fitted back together in the clear and proper way. Medieval Catholic Scholastics, like St. Albert the Great, were alchemists and thought concepts like this not only reflect physical but spiritual realities. And they were right. Just because satanists tried to claim this as their own doesn't make it their own. Careful you don't fall into their trap.
@@Dean-zx6nx You didn't read my comment obviously. Again that phrase dates to back earlier to alchemy way before satanists tried to appropriate it for themselves. You seem to be failing into their trap yet again. Also, stop committing the fallacy of Guilt by Association. Also, Rowling is a Christian. She explicitly identifies as such. She even said she wrote Harry Potter as Christian literature. I encourage you to do more research before you take such a strong stand on this. Practice the virtue of prudence. God Bless.
@@Krshwunk as a point to your Albert the Great remark, he was not an alchemist however philosophers who divulged also into the hard sciences might have also been termed alchemists by those who improperly used the term, however it was common for philosophers to be students of multiple disciplines back then. I also disagree with the notion that solve et coagula is compatible with any of his writings, either primary or through Aquinas (his student), however that is a different philosophical discussion. Suffice to say that it is an ancient phrase incompatible with Catholicism.
@@Patrick-yu6ps There is controversy over what alchemical works St. Albert wrote and which were attributed to him later. He may have just been a speculative alchemist (talked more about the theory rather than practice it), however, I think there's some evidence he was involved in alchemical experimentation due to the fact that the discovery or arsenic and silver nitrate is attributed to him. In some form or another, he was most definitely an alchemist, as were many Catholic scholastic philosophers, including Blessed Ramon Llull (even some Popes too apparently). Albert was indeed a student of multiple disciplines, and it's pretty sure one of them was alchemy. Also, why don't you think "solve et coagula" is reconcilable with any of his writings? Obviously, on a physical/chemical level, things are often broken apart to then be put back together more orderly. You could say our digestive system does this as well. I would say Aquinas did this on a philosophical level, insofar as he digested a lot of philosophical/theological tradition into a more organized system. On a spiritual level, it's not foreign to talk about humility and breaking one's pride to then be restructured with more order and virtue. "Solve et coagula" is broad phrase that can encompass all of that. But you're saying it's absolutely opposed to all of Albert's writings? Interesting. I'd like to hear more on that. I obviously disagree that the phrase is incompatible with Catholicism. You're definitely going to have to explain that one.
Exactly. With much power comes much responsibility. Harry Potter is so corny because they make magic look too easy. Magic was mental just as much as it was physical.
@@thebabbler8867 so I’d argue that. Harry was not an over all great wizard comparing him to Dumbuldoor(sp) Snape, or Voldemort. The book even says so. He was gifted as being part of the horacrux. Yet Hermonie was. The Greats were dedicated to the hard work it took. This is almost a trek vs wars argument. I do like his explanation but I think the reason some of these questions are not asked is because the plot doesn’t have time for it.
@@thebabbler8867 lotr corny. Gandalf is restricted to not damage middle earth yet he shoots down lightning against the balrog and actually does exactly what he’s not supposed to do and harms the landscape. What point is there in him doing that if he’s gonna be resurrected back to his physical form and Illuvatar can just remove Durin’s bane from existence if he wanted anyway. He intervened against Numenor but he doesn’t care against Sauron when he’s about to take over middleearth and he doesn’t care when Morgoth wages war on all other valar and manipulates and destroys his creations. It’s inconsistent.
Now that i think about it. Why is dagor dahorath even a possibility. Numenor is destroyed for going to Valinor despite not being allowed, surely morgoth and his forces attempt to destroy valinor and inhabitants would be wiped out immediately by Illuvatar if he reacted as such to Ar Pharazon and his followers going to Valinor as result of Sauron’s deception. Surely this is both bigger threat and actual evil not an a decision through being deceived by another. It’s inconsistent to think Illuvatar reacts so bad to numenor but allows Dagor Dagorath to take place.
I think of Galadriel’s address to Sam: “This is, I believe, what you would call ‘magic’, though I do not fully understand the word.” The magically gifted would no more call their gifts “magic” or “supernatural” than we would call our capacity for sight magic, just because it might appear to be so to the blind. The portrayal of magic in Harry Potter always annoyed me to this extent: “magic” is bolted on to “reality” in a trivializing way. Wizards and witches in the Potterverse are simply Muggles with a talent for performing parlor tricks. It is all very much superficial, without consideration for the metaphysical ramifications of the existence of such forces.
Yeah I used to play Harry Potter as a kid, like I would pretend to be a wizard at Hogwarts doing very similar things to Hermione, Ron, and Harry my little Childhood heroes, to be fair Harry Potter is a soft magic system meaning the rules are by enlarge not known to the audience, but then again so is LOTR, and Star Wars eventually became one too so yk, but when I was younger I always found myself annoyed by the ramifications of spells like the killing curse was illegal but the fire summoning charm was perfectly fine and the cruciotus curse is dark magic, but a spell used to probe and torture the mind was completely allowable, perhaps this can be seen as a commentary on inconsistency but given Rowling's politics I find this unlikely. Now to be fair their are valuable lessons in the Harry Potter universe and while the rules of magic are pretty unclear, there does seem to be rules (unlike the newer Star Wars movies) but honestly if they are acceptable to watch, perhaps for the redeeming qualities of the film, like courage, a vague sense of love, and self sacrifice, at all, I think they should be reserved for more mature audiences like at the earliest middle school, assuming the kids were well formed at a young age, especially due to the extraordinary potentially damaging elements like exposure to real witchcraft or the lukewarmness to dishonesty, idk though
@@joelancon7231 *the killing curse was illegal but…* In general, Rowling seems not too concerned with consistency wrt magic, even to the extent of breaking her own in-world rules. When we’re introduced to the Unforgivable Curses, we’re told they’re so evil _any_ use of the curses incurs an immediate life sentence in Azkaban. Yet by the end of the series, we’re witness to Harry throwing around the Cruciatus, consequence-free, for offenses as trivial as spitting on McGonagall, and McGonagall calling the act gallant. This goes straight to Harry’s character, especially given that he himself had been on the receiving end of the spell. Other inconsistencies include Gamp’s Law of Transfiguration; the conditions under which wands change loyalties; the metaphysical _substance_ of magic (appearing sometimes to be immaterial, while at other times spells ricochet off solid objects); and Rowling's apparent tendency to invent new spells entirely ad hoc. (And having just rewatched a couple of the movies, I found myself laughing at wizards holding their wands knife-like across other wizards’ necks; but that’s just a movie thing.) *…if they are acceptable to watch…* Oh, they’re not _bad_ by any means. The characters are compelling and the Potterverse is expansive. So long as one is willing to accept them as light entertainment (and allowing for a reasonable suspension of disbelief), as movies go they're better than most of what Hollywood puts out. And I’d much rather have my daughter read Rowling than, say, Pullman. It’s only when you peel back the cover to examine the mechanics of the magical world and the story structure (the entire deathly hallows plot line went nowhere, and really messed up the pacing; and an author should never break her own in-world rules), that the weaknesses become apparent.
One big problem for me is that they never even begin to consider questions like whether a witch or wizard should have just apparated into the Reich Chancellery, hit Hitler with a killing curse, and disapparated out again. Or whether someone might want to cast a spell to divert a typhoon that's about to kill 300,000 people in Bangladesh. I can see valid, if not necessarily convincing, arguments why that might be a bad thing, but like I said, it never even seems to occur to any of them that that's something they might do.
Look, you're going to have to forgive Rowling. After all, she didn't set out to write a fantasy novel. She was actually writing a school mystery story with fantasy elements long before Brandon Sanderson formed his Laws of Magic.
I've always loved LOTR and Harry Potter-I am particularly a huge Tolkien enthusiast and have dived deep into his works. I'm so thankful for this video and your illuminating perspective. I feel like a kindred spirit! It's especially interesting that Tolkien's wisdom demonstrates the lunacy of Marxism and heedless technological advancement. Tolkien has so much to say in his works, and it's so exciting to understand yet another one of his themes. Thanks again for this video.
I've often heard the novel called anti-capitalist as well. And it is, just not from a modern left-wing perspective. Tolkien wasn't so much anti-Marxist or anti-capitalist as he was anti-modern.
It depends on what you wanna watch. I really don't like these movies that are epic just for the sake of being epic and Harry Potter is much more relatable, which makes us able to feel more of what the characters are feeling.
Similar points to Plato's parable of the Ring of Gyges. Mysterious and misunderstood power over others very quickly corrupts. I don't think it's a coincidence that Plato's ring makes a similar appearance in the Lord of the Rings.
@@thstroyur Both Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, but more so Lewis, were very deeply influenced by the Norse myths. "The North" was always powerfully evocative for Lewis. He also makes reference to "Numinor and the True North" in "That Hideous Strength" and mentions in its introduction, unusual for a novel, that readers who wish to know more will have to wait because it existed only in the as yet unpublished manuscript of his friend, J.R.R. Tolkien.
Yeah, he's one of the minority of wizard that has grown up not knowing what magic was, so it makes sense that in his mind doing everything magically isn't an obligation. Then, he made that choice since it's more respectful taking the time to do it, putting the effort in it. The fact that he hasn't been raised in a magical environment could have lead him to have a more nuanced perspective on the use of magic than the others, sadly that hasn't been shown in the story to my knowledge
Finally someone who sees my perspective and who agrees with my perspective. I am working in IT (backend developer), the one who creates the magical codes. I'm also a fan of MMORPGs and I always play as a Wizard with the capability of wielding physical weapons. Why? Because of that philosophy I hold to; magical power should be used under necessity with self control and not under personal desire. Technology today is self indulgent made to make life easier and reduce effort for the sake of making it easy rather than giving a valuable reason to do so. I love technology but I wish we reduce its influence over our life.
That's exactly what's been bothering me for quite a while. Tolkien doesn't seem to be so eager to create a metaphysical concept explaining all the mechanics behind magic that some characters use. Nevertheless, their actions are presented in a way, that it's easy to notice that magic is not a toy to play with. It's a real force, something that has it's consequences. There's an understanding of magic in Tolkien's characters that we're not told of as readers. Nevertheless, it's there, you can grasp it. Rowling's books seems to be more concerned about the trope "young people vs evil". Which is probably another reason why there aren't many explanations why magic works and it's simply used, in a particularly utilitarian way. In Harry Potter, characters are using magic in the same way as we're using our limbs. They operate normally as they should and we don't even ask why. We just use them. It's the same in Rowling's books. Everybody who can use magic, use it, because that's the common thing to do if you can do it.
I think that's also why LotR is a classic -- Tolkien treated the readers like adults and didn't feel the need to spell everything out for them. JKR, otoh, went the opposite route and wrote in the most simplistic of terms. It's not that the characters are using magic simply because it's there and available, but that she created a world where the questions were never asked even though it was centered around a school where those questions should have been asked. She treated it like a joke.
1. Gandalf in the movies is offered the ring by Frodo after it's identified, if memory serves. He seems to have pretty good sense of the way it would work, ie he would begin by using it from a desire to do good, but it would corrupt him. The palantir example is spot on though. 2. In the Harry Potter books, there is a sort of Tradition of magic use that the characters can turn to - at the very least it is not something they are trying to use by themselves, but something that has gone on for hundreds of years and still allows families like the Weasleys to be pretty OK. There isn't really a tradition of smart phone use today though.
Haha. I was testing out the software and accidentally went live. But yes I used these talking points for sound/video check. I hadn't realized I had gone live until after the fact. I wish I had stuck around to just hang out with everyone. But this does mean that I will hopefully start doing that more often now that I've got things set up.
Gandalf/ other Wizards were forbidden to use their powers directly, bu rather guide and influence people indirect ways. In fact, Gandalf alone would very like have been able striking down an entire army, if he had used his full powers. He was inherently magical and very powerful spirit, as was all the other wizards, balrogs, and Sauron.
Well, in Harry Potter there's also a difference between the ones who REALLY understand magic (like Dumbledore and Voldemort, who became two of the greatest wizards in history) and the ones who just use it to everyday life, just like we do with technology. How can you say that "people in the Harry Potter universe use magic without knowing where it comes from and while it works in mysterious ways" when there's so many wizards who studied all of the things they're learning in school? Magic doesn't work in mysterious ways at all! If you use a certain spell, you already know exactly what's gonna happen and what you need to do in order for that to work.
Correct. This presenter doesn't know what he is talking. If anything, Rowling mentioned time and time again about the great wizards of the past who studied magic in depth, while Tolkein is the one who kept magic opaque
This is why Tolkien describes magic as the "seen" (known) and the "unseen" (unknown). Sam even refers to it as magic, and Galadriel doesn't understand what he means.
Excellent analogy. It also made me think of Sir Terry Pratchett's Discworld series. There are powerful Wizards who deal with magic that is dangerous and chaotic and causes more disruption than good. But there are also the witches of the Tiffany Aching stories; they live humbly among the villagers they help and rely on using their practical herb lore and medical skills and manual labor rather than magic. They can use magic if conditions are desperate, but the point of being a witch is to not use magic overall.
I love the way he explains it. It's amazing how well used magic sometimes means not using it. Also, for Catholics, our religion is a sort of good magic, that we should use well while helping others. So that may also mean that sometimes we don't have to necessarily say the G world, because the truth is a simple thing to show. I'll never stop admiring Tolkien's job.
For the record, Gandalf in the book NEVER behaved like the atrocity Jackson made him in his appalling films. The Wizards, the Istari were not allowed to exercise their natural power to subdue men or hold them in awe. Their mission was to help strengthen their resistance to Sauron
I found your comment on science really interesting. I am thankful that I had my reversion back to Catholicism before I went for my undergraduate degree in Kinesiology. Going in with a Catholic lens really helped me stay rooted in learning just how wonderful and intricate God made the human body and it helped me grow in greater appreciation for how science and faith should co-exist!!
@@KeatonTerry28 Kinesiology is the study of human movement. I'm from Canada so I don't know if there's a different name for it in the States. Kinesiology encompasses 3 sciences: neuroscience, physiology, and biomechanics. I got to opportunity to learn how the human body works. For example, how the brain sends signals to the muscles, the muscles take that signal and produce a contraction, and the forces that are generated to complete the contraction. This is a very general and basic answer so I hope it helps :)
@@MultiSoccerStar2 I know what Kinesiology is on a basic level, I was wondering if there's a certain area you specialize in. I'm friends with a specialized Kinesiologist, it is an amazing field but unfortunately it seems some people use it to encourage new age beliefs rather than recognizing the real scientific implications and the amazing ways God has designed our bodies.
@@KeatonTerry28 My apologies for misunderstanding your question. I specialized in rehabilitation and focused on neuroscience and physiology. It is a shame that some use it to push new age beliefs. I was fortunate to have lectures that went over the anatomical differences between humans and chimpanzees. One of the professors said “I’m going to show you how we don’t come from apes” and it showed me the flaws in Darwin’s theory of evolution. Does this answer your original question better?
This was brilliant, something has always bothered me about Harry Potter and I have only been able to pinpoint a few of those, but you helped me pinned down the greatest one of them.
A few years ago I attended a Catholic men's conference where Dr. Kreeft gave a talk. I had the opportunity to meet him briefly and ask a question, so I asked him: There is magic in the Harry Potter novels, and there is magic in the LOTR, why do some Catholics frown upon the magic in Harry Potter, but give a pass to the magic in Tolkien's universe? His immediate response was: "Because it's Sacramental!"
@Rachel James The truth of the matter is the art of magic has been lost and is limited to novelty in the modern age. The supernatural is supported by the natural. If we destroy the natural, we limit our access to the supernatural as well. Imagine all the plants, herbs, animals, minerals, and landmarks that were once gateways to the spiritual relm that have been destroyed by the world government to keep man dependent on their sources of delusion and estrangement. The essence of "Magic" is creativity; the more trees we cut down, the less creative we'll become.
*[Gandalf] refuses to take [the ring] because he knows he doesn’t fully understand it.* Where do you get this from? As a wielder of a Ring of Power (given to him by Cirdan), Gandalf would have had a considerable understanding of the One Ring. A better understanding, perhaps, even than the other ring bearers, Elrond and Galadriel, since unlike them, Gandalf was a Maia, equal in stature to Sauron. That is why he refused the One Ring - because he _did_ understand it, better than any save Sauron alone.
Knowing things about something with relation to a central binding thing does not mean one knows that thing. Celestial bodies exist in nature and purpose together, with reliance on one that rules over the others. That said, knowing something about, say, a planet does not mean you would have knowledge of a star. A ring of power pales in comparison to the One Ring.
@@juice2307 Narya (Gandalf’s ring) had been forged by the same craft that forged Sauron’s ring. The elves had learned the craft from Sauron. There was nothing fundamentally different about the One Ring other than that it was more powerful - which Gandalf knew. He was also a Maia of the same order as Sauron and yet understood the corrupting power of the One Ring. Galadriel shunned the Ring for the same reason, because both she and Gandalf well understood exactly the Ring’s modus operandum. "Don't... tempt me, Frodo! I dare not take it. Not even to keep it safe. Understand, Frodo, I would use this Ring from the desire to do good. But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine." Also, Tolkien discusses Gandalf and the Ring in his letters (see especially Letter #246). I still hold that Gandalf understood the Ring very well.
@@nathanaelculver5308 The One Ring was very different from the Three in its purposes and its powers. But I agree that Gandalf understood it perfectly well, certainly better than anyone other than Sauron. In support of the latter statement I would point out that Galadriel seemed sure she had the power to master the One if she tried, although she understood that she would be corrupted in the process, but Tolkien said elsewhere that probably only Gandalf had sufficient power and strength of will to wrest the mastery of the Ring away from Sauron. Gandalf being, as you point out, a Maia made him more aware than Galadriel or Elrond just how powerful Sauron was and how difficult, probably impossible, it would be for anyone other than a Vala or another Maia to wrest control of the Ring from him even if they had physical possession of it. (This is apparently not an uncommon failing of the Noldor given how unaware Fëanor and those who followed him were of the utter hopelessness of their war against Melkor.) I would imagine that Gandalf also consulted the Vala Aulë, who taught Sauron most of what he knew about such things, about Sauron's craft before he was sent on his mission, and that this knowledge was something he was permitted to retain in his incarnate form. None of the living Noldor had had much to do with the making of any of the Rings of Power, let alone the chance to discuss them with Sauron's former mentor. Also, Gandalf seems to be the only one who understood that it would probably be impossible for Frodo to bring himself to destroy the Ring if he made it to Mount Doom, and that it would require the intervention of divine providence for the quest to be completed.
I like your points, Sauron corrupted by his own power changes the landscape of his realm to be hell, nothing grows, the water is poison, it is pitch darkness where the land was once plentiful. We see the same with Isengard, the forests are burned, pits are made, the ground is gravel, disgusting chimneys choke the sky. And Saruman believes he is an equal, or rival to Sauron. But the other disturbing thing that both villains think of the world, is that the people are mindless, and require a strong hand, which is Sauron, and Saruman. The Scouring of the shire is a sad event, based on Tolkien’s experience when he came home after the war.
I'm not sure I agree. The scene where Saruman showed Gandalf the palantír does not occur in the books. Aragorn, however, did use the palantír, having the right and the strength to do so. There's no indication that he understood how it was made: only Fëanor knew that, and he was long in the halls of Mandos. Aragorn had the right by lineage. Magic, in Tolkien's works, often seems to come down to strength of will. And bad magic is domination of the will of another.
When I bought a TI-83 calculator in middle school, I read that entire manual. I would code and create formulas to save me time in Math class. In my adult years, I'm like everyone else and don't read manuals as much. I simply use it how I want, it's sad. Can my toaster oven do more than make a sandwich a melt? My Pastor and I have been discussing the same idea as it relates to us being children of God. We have manuals (Bible, Catechism, Church docs, etc.) at our disposal to learn what we are. Theology of the body is a great example of late. Some say, I just want to use my body and soul "this way", without thinking of the maintenance that may be required later on. Or worse, I want to use other people's bodies and souls "this way" and then are surprised when a person "breaks". We need to be good stewards of our gifts. Those who spend time understanding how Christ works with humanity (Saints) happen to do miraculous things. It's no wonder. And the most miraculous "magic" humanity has witnessed was achieved by the One who has written every manual written and unwritten! I loved this video and wish I spent more time in your reinforcements community. Keep it up Brian!
While I do agree with the comparison made to technology, and certainly with the moral implications you mentioned, I cannot say I agree with your assessment of magic in Harry Potter. The fact that people who are born with magical capabilities still need to learn how to use it, the fact that most of their study is the theory of it, the fact that new spells can be created and so on do tell us, I think, that their magic is more like a natural force that one has to learn how to wield safely and reasonably, not unlike physical or mental prowess. I would also argue that makes differentiates the dark arts from other varieties of magic in Harry Potter is the end goal. While most magic is about exploration, convenience, sports etc., the dark arts are single-mindedly oriented towards control and power; over muggles, magical creatures, wizards and indeed over death. I do not think it is bad because we are told it is bad. While we are never told why it is bad, I think the pattern is there for us to see.
I also think blatantly denying the global crisis that faces us with the heated snow ball coming from frequented carbon emission is a bad roll for a catholic spokesperson. Delusions come from all sides, even from Mr. Holdsworth
@@johnbaglow6038 I do not believe Mr Holdsworth did indeed deny it. He simply said „as we are told“, which is a perfectly reasonable qualifier for someone who is a scientific layman and has to rely on what other people tell him
That's why Harry Potter is trash, because in the natural world all resources including magic are available to everybody. There is no person born with a specific gift; you live your life and you'll eventually realize the gifts you possess. LOTR's magic is more realistic because it reveals the source of the magic and why some people have access to it and others don't.
@@thebabbler8867 Harry Potter is trash because you don't agree with the way it portrays magic? And of course, some people are gifted in certain areas. Some people have more intellectual potential than most, some are born with physic more suited to certain things, etc. Humans are equal in their worth before God, but not in their capabilities. Not at all.
Einstein defined magic as, basically, any technical process we can't understand. I think it's ironic how we both don't understand that concept, but also, how such ignorance impacts us.
Excellent analogy to our use of technologies we don't fully understand. Really great video - your best that mentions the HP series. Gold star of the day!
This idea trickles down all the way to the begin of Arda. The Ainu sang a song of creation to Illuvatar and he having heard this song in full approved of it and began the work of making this song reality (aka creation and its end were fully known). But morgoth desired a different world , a world of his own making and this corrupted his own part of the song of creation to fit his own desires (aka he desired a creation that was not fully known).
I think Gandalf's powers are limited, according to the enemy he faces. Notice they are greater with the Nazgul and the Balrog, then with Orcs, it's weapons
I hate the good vs bad thing. Just because a magick is dark doesn't mean it's bad, just because magick is light doesn't mean it's good. It's all based on how you use it that matters. Same goes for the force in star wars.
This is a real good content. I never watched Harry Potter, but I get what he say about Technology. Is a pretty scary thing if you go deep to understand it.
To extend the analogy of the palantir a bad actor can use it against it's intended purpose. An orb made for communication among Saurons enemies was captured and made us of by a bad actor.
I love your channel, but as a fellow mega fan of Tolkien I must disagree. I like the message you are trying to get across but the reason that Gandalf doesn't use magic often is not because he does not have an understanding of it, it is because the magic he performs can be viewed more or less like the miracles performed in the bible. Gandalf is often equated with an angel. The magic he uses is either used to convey his authority, drive out demons(Theoden's possession), or straight up fight demons(such as the balrog). He essentially is using his power to help the people of middle Earth do what they could not do on there own. A big tip of the hat here is when Gandalf says "Swords are no more use here" when fighting the balrog. During this scene in the book you can see him casting spells on doors to prevent the lava demon from pursuing them. He does this because as cool as Legolas is, he cant 1v1 a balrog, none of them could. This is the same reason why he doesn't cast spells on the doors for when the Goblin raiders break through at the tomb of Balin. I feel like I'm rambling, the main take away is Gandalf is basically an angel of god who uses miracles from god to help people in scenarios where they couldn't possibly win without the help of god. Still super love your channel, stay awesome, congrats on the new baby
Wasn't Gandalf (even when he was still Gandalf the Grey) more powerful than Saruman himself, in a way? Don't get me wrong, Saruman's raw power by itself was unbelievably powerful but he lacked the wisdom that Gandalf had. Saruman's greatest strength itself was actually his speech, but even then, he still couldn't quite twist Gandalf to his will.
No, you're right. That's another angle that I was considering but it would have made the topic to long. At some point I want to do a video about the difference between magic and miracles and that analogy would definitely have to appear.
Yes. Tolkien cleverly made the Maiar as the equivalent of Angels in Middle Earth. Whilst this can be questionable, when applied to the context of the Fantasy Epic and seen as Symbolic, one can see how the Maiar represent Angelic Authority (with Saruman obviously portrayed as a fallen angel). One has to be careful with the way magic is portrayed in Popular Stories because Scripture forbids Sorcery and Devilish Crafts. If Sorcery is endorsed, it can cause dangerous curiosity in the wrong path. However, Tolkien and C.S Lewis realise that one has to depend on God's Guidance and intervention rather than trying to be their own Gods. For Example Tolkien would often present how corruptive dark magic is and how his Angel figures were meant to guide people to Goodness and to fulfil their tasks. C.S Lewis presented Witches, Demons and in the context of this video, the dangers of scientism in his literature and would encourage readers to depend on God rather than magic. In the Silver Chair, Eustace and Jill discuss using magic of their own to get into Narnia but Eustace insisted on asking the omniscient Lion Aslan (representative of Jesus) if they could go to Narnia. I even changed my channel name from 'ScotsWizard' to 'ScotsMaiar' when I became a Born Again Christian to go for a more appropriate title. So the lesson from this comment is never to endorse the type of magic the Bible warns us not to do and to depend on the Miraculous Grace of God.
Actually, in the book, Gandalf puts a spell on the door that leads in a hallway towards the bridge of Moria and out. But eventually the Balrog gets through nonetheless. And on that bright he uses yet another spell as it's portrayed in the movie.
@@Krshwunk yes but they were apparently a self controlled people who didn't let there craft become plain superstition or lead to divination or sorcery.
I agree about Gandalf, Saruman, and the Elves, but not Sauron. Sauron understands the technology he is using very well; the problem isn't that his magic has hidden (to him) or unintended consequences, it's that he _intends_ for it to have bad consequences. Sauron isn't evil because he uses "bad magic," he's evil because he uses magic to enslave and oppress other living creatures rather than to help them or make their lives better. More than anyone else, Gandalf's restraint is definitely due to a desire (by the powers that sent him at least as much as his own) to avoid potentially serious unintended consequences. The Valar caused an enormous catastrophe that destroyed a significant part of the world the last time they intervened directly in Middle-earth, but even more important, their intention (and Gandalf's mission) is to help ordinary mortals get to the point where we are able to take care of ourselves, not to teach us to be dependent on magical beings to defend us.
Well Gandalf, Saruman and some elves know very well how the technology works. The Problem is, on the other end of the call sits Sauron wispering corrupt words and they fear him and his words.
Gandalf isn't opposed to the use of the palantir because he doesn't understand it. He hands it over to Aragorn, who uses it successfully because he has the RIGHT and the strength to do so. Gandalf has the strength (and considerably more understanding such things) but does not have the RIGHT to use it, and so does not. The same thing goes for the Ring. The Ring was made by Sauron and for Sauron to aid in the commission of evil. Only he has the right to use it an doing evil is its only rightful function. For a good wizard to use it is to use a tool not created for him (note how Aragorn's right to the palantir allowed him to wrest control from Sauron himself, a far more powerful being--having the right matters a lot) whose purpose is evil is a HUGE risk. In the end Lord Acton's principle would govern.
I wrote an essay about this: Also compared harry potter magic to Amazon ordering- another author who wrote well about knowledge and magic (secular) is Ursula Le Guin in her fantasy "The Wizard of Earthsea"
The thing is in LOTR, Gandalf was an angel, and he was sent to help humans to fight through human means, and do not rely on supernatural powers, that is why Gandalf will only use magic against supernatural beings like the Nazgul or the Balrog. The Orcs despite being corrupted by evil were still physical/natural beings.
LOTR is THE fantasy...rest cant come close. Gandalf Always comes to the rescue Who cares how he does it ..."a wizard is never late nor early Frodo Baggins..he arrives precicely when he needs to"
Your first supposition speaks a a lot: "Gandolf did something peculiar in the fantasy genre". You are not taking into account that Tolkien and Robert Howard basically created the fantasy, or Sword and Sorcery genre, meaning that everyone else is outside the standard. In Conan in the Hyborian Age, Wizards and magic were generally looked upon unfavorably. In LOTR, Wizards were not just deus ex machina tropes, who would wave their magic wands and bam -- things happened. That wasn't the point of magic. It's a tool, not a toy. This was actually explained in The Prydain Chronicles (a little known Fantasy based on the Welsh Mabinogion) when Eilonwy asked Dalben why she couldn't have just "wished" the Cauldron Born, or Arawn, or whatever away -- because the rules of Magic are more than just controlling the fate of the worlds, it was meant to gain insight into the inner workings and functioning of the world and universe at large, and secondly it was having the power to defend with Magic if absolutely necessary. This is why you had good Wizards and bad Wizards. Good Wizards don't use magic unless there is a need (this is why Harry Potter goes outside the Tolkien / Howard High Fantasy Rules). Gandalf didn't need to use magic to knock Orcs upside the head. He did, however need magic to fight against the Nazgul, or the Balrog (which even there, he used magic sparingly). Wizards who just idly use magic to clean their dishes and crochet a blanket (or maybe even order a legion of mops to clean the castle), and generally considered bad because of their lust for power. True power is having the ability to wield it, and the responsibility and wisdom to not. Also, Gandalf entirely understood the power of the One Ring, as did Galadriel and Aragorn, hence why they also refused it. They knew entirely what it would entail, and what it would do to them. Otherwise I do agree that social media is a pox on humanity and it makes us entirely less social, and our technology is utterly abused.
I've been wondering for some time whether Rowling chose the name Potter as a deliberate allusion to Jeremiah 18.3-6: _Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel._
As a fiction writer I've been wrestling with redefining what magic is and the capabilities of it. Trying to cram things like conjuration and astral travel become tricky because both things have real world ties to occultism. Having magic just be a flashier and more organic form of technology is a great idea. Taking notes from Lewis's examples of magic and wizardry might also help me define what a wizard would actually look like. Thanks for the awesome video
I was on board with his overall point of magic/technology should not be wielded unless it is fully understood, until he got to the particulars of Gandalf with the ring and the palantír. Gandalf did not hesitate to use the Palantír (or refuse to use the ring) because he did not understand them; he refused because he understood very well (in the case of the ring), exactly what it was and, (in the case of the Palantír), what was probably on the other side. The difference between "light" and "dark" magic in LOTR is not one's understanding of the system, but one's desired use OF the system. Gandalf is a very ancient being and understands pretty well how the "system" works. He was probably there when Illúvatar led the singing of the world into being. Gandalf would have been intrinsically tied as a Maia to parts of the creation of Arda. He was not ever afraid to wield the ring or use the Palatír because he didn't understand them. He was around and knew EXACTLY how to use them, and what they would do if he did use them. I do agree with his point that to most people, modern technology IS like magic in that we don’t understand how it works, so it might as well be the same as the spell casting in Harry Potter. Although, to be fair, while poor students like Harry and Ron (who we see struggling academically throughout the whole series) might not understand the “hows” and “whys” of spell casting, that’s the whole point of getting a magical education at Hogwarts: to understand the “hows” and “whys”. And good students like Hermione throughout the book series make reference to the explanations of how the magic system works. Again, in Harry Potter, students are taught where the magic comes from (even if the audience isn’t necessarily privy to that information.). Hence the whole point of Hogwarts as a SCHOOL of magic and wizardry. Yeah, sure, some students probably aren’t paying attention as well as they should. But these kids listen to lectures, do homework, and have practical exams around this stuff. To say they are wielding a power they don’t understand at all is simply absurd.
One thing I would posit is that the palantir may not be very clearly explained by Tolkien, but I think that it was technology that certain people understood how to use--and perhaps there was a time when there were quite a few people that understood how to use it; but it required a great deal of will to be able to manage it. Regardless, the danger of palantir was centered around the fact that Sauron had at least one in his possession and it was regarded as dangerous to use because of the potential that one might draw Sauron's attention. Even so, Denethor II and Aragorn were both very competent and capable of wielding the Palantir. Denethor II used a Palantir very successfully, and if he hadn't, Gandalf tells us that Minas Tirith would have fallen.
Yes, but Denethor's use of the palantir was a major factor in his eventual despair and suicide, because even though he was able to resist being ensnared like Saruman was it still gave Sauron the opportunity to show Denethor the things Sauron wanted him to see. Aragorn not only had greater authority and greater strength of will, he better understood the limitations that Sauron's possession of a palantir put on anyone trying to use one for good ends. Aragorn didn't use it to spy on Sauron, he only used it to show Sauron what Aragorn wanted _him_ to see.
@@brucetucker4847 sure-but the point of fact is that Denethor understood and was capable of wielding the palantir; and that they aren’t as mysterious as the films make them out to be. Further, I don’t really think Denethor was driven to suicide until it seemed to him that his line was fully eradicated in an untimely manner. Sure, Sauron planted the seeds of doubt and despair-but Denethor, even in his last days, was praised by Gandalf as a wise and stalwart man; whose efforts were integral to the survival of Gondor, and the success of the defenders at Minas Tirith.
@@ChivalrousBreeze He was, and I hated what they did to him in the movie, but Gandalf expressly says that the palantir was the means by which the lies and malice of Sauron were allowed into the Citadel of Minas Tirith.
Again, the seeds of despair were cast-but even so, it was external matters that made him more susceptible to manipulation by Sauron than just the wielding of the Palantir and looking towards Mordor. The point remains that the palantir was clearly understood by Denethor, and they are not evil, corrupting devices by nature. Denethor was more than capable of using them without harming himself-but he tried to grapple with the will of something greater than him, and that is true of various characters throughout Tolkien’s mythos with or without palantir.
"Magic" is often equated with "sorcery". Harry Potter is definitely about sorcery. But "magic" really comes from a broader root, meaning wisdom. Cognate words include magi, magisterium, magistrate. Wizard is cognate with wisdom. So, the "good magic" in LotR doesn't represent sorcery, or what we would call witchcraft.
Technically, "magic" and "magisterium" or "Magister" (English "Master") come from two entirely different roots. "Magister" and "magisterium" comes from the latin "magis", adverb meaning "more", the "Magister" being the one who is "more", "greater" than you. "Magi"/"Magic" comes through latin and greek from persian "maguš", which is not clear if it was the name of Zoroastrian Priests or of a persian tribe (similarly to "chaldean" which sometimes seems to describe a caste or profession, some other Times a Population).
Brian I'd recommend the Legend of Drizzt series by RA Salvatore if you loved the Lord of The Rings. The first book "Homeland" plays out similar to the Godfather. But with a future saint in the midst. One of my favorite book series of all time
I prefer Middle Earth's magic to Harry Potter's. It is subtler, more foundational, more mythical and spiritual in nature, thus becoming more special and coming at a toll even for those who use it. In turn, Harry Potter's magic is mundane in the Wizards' eyes. It's more like an instrumental, run-of-the-mill means of societal interaction and affectation, it's part of daily life. It's just a cognitive skill every wizard learns, just like we learn how to read, and some are better than others at it.
"In the modern age, science has become less a tool to understand and live in harmony with truth and reality, and more a tool to try to bend elemental forces to our will." -Brian Holdsworth
I share someone's opinion here that even though Brian makes some interesting observations (as always), I feel he fundamentally missed the mark on this one. Why is magic so little used in the LotR? Well, here's the thing: the events of the book took place (mostly) in the _Third_ Age; if you look back at the former two ages, you'll see magic everywhere - or at least, far more commonly. Personally, that seems to me more of a mirroring of the Fall: the world is running down, its wonders dying because of Melkor's dissonance (introduction of sin). I mean, just read the Ainulindale; it's staggering how much it resembles the Genesis creation narrative - which I noticed even before knowing JRRT was a Catholic. Gandalf's restraint can be easily explained by that, plus his role as a mentor figure who wouldn't want his companions to get spoiled and think they could depend on magic for everything (cf. Merlin from the Sword in the Stone for a similar ethos) As for HP, I'm a big fan of the series, but my critique of it'd be that it trivializes magic, like sooo many IPs today (specially (isekai) anime, blergh); some series, like Fullmetal Alchemist, take its consequences more seriously and even incorporate that into the plot - plus, people who're into old school D&D manuals and novels will remember that even then there was a complex ritualistic component to spellcasting that has been 'streamlined' to the point of becoming vulgar power fantasies today, and, ironically enough, all the enchantment and mystique that there once was in things like fables and folklore was sucked out of said magic
It is something I have been thinking for a long time. Sadly, the industrial/technicistic approach to knowledge is built into our scientific Method since the beginning (think of Bacon's "knowledge is Power"). A good discussion of this Theme in narrative Form can be found in "Fullmetal Alchemist Brotherhood".
Leave it to Brian to not understand that a divine agent wasn't allowed to bring his full might to the party so as to let the mortals define the age and thus make their victory one they earned.
Start with A landscape of dragons” since it lays the groundwork, then the other one deals with some of the more modern influences on our culture. REALLY wish Brian would read and review these books
This is the plot of Final Fantasy V and Final Fantasy VI... it's common in video game RPG plots where "we're using something but we don't know the consequences"
I've always felt that the magic in HP is very superficial, but still, in a way its that lack of spirituality in it what really sets it apart from being that occult series many think if ti be. Now its just muggles playing with wands dressed like wizards and doing cool tricks.
Wow. You approached something completely different from what I expected when I opened the video. Truly though-provoking. Gonna have at least another look at it later. Thank you.
I disagree with your suggestion that harry potter does not delve into the ethics of magics. Voldemort weilds a power that he does not fully comprehend, there seems to be a binding magic when taking a life. It hurts the human soul(a magic that voldemort and few wizards understand). With voldemorts inability to understand these forces it leads to his downfall. Love is a specific force in Harry Potter, that is studied, and largely misunderstood. Voldemort uses magic with out understanding its consequences, without understanding how it maims his own soul, where it literally morphs his physical being. Dumbledore has an understanding of magic, and thus fears horrific things that voldemort has done. And he would never be foolish enough to conduct magic that rips your soul because the soul is sacred in the Harry Potter world.
I loved this analysis! You should do more fiction analysis from a theology perspective! It reminds me of what this orthodox fantasy author Nicholas Kotar said about magic systems when reviewing this series “deed of paksenarrion.” “What I loved the best about this series is its treatment of “good magic.” Too often, in epic fantasy, the good guys can only beat the bad guys by taking more and more power for themselves. Yes, of course, they’ll use it better than the bad guys (allegedly). But in “real life” that’s rarely the case. Tolkien understood this very well, making “Boromir’s solution” something that never ends well. The paladins and saints of Moon’s secondary world wield power only when they humbly ask for it. It comes, or it doesn’t come, not because of their own will, but because of the will of the gods they serve. This is convincing, good magic, because the wielder becomes humble through lack of control, and is safeguarded from the temptation of abusing power. It’s brilliant, effective, and inspiring.“
It would be interesting for many of you to look into the company Palantir, named after the LOTR ones. Peter Thiel kind of subverted the name by basing the company in ethical use of big data, ie limited to specific and necessary purposes. Basically the NSA's prism program that Edward Snowden leaked was basically the bad use of "Palantir-like powers," where Palantir Technologies software is a more Gandolf-like usage.
The Silmarillion is my favorite book, I'm just a massive fan of Tolkien's works. When people ask me why I decided I wanted to become Catholic, I sometimes joke at first by saying I wanted to make sure I go to the same place as Tolkien.
Same. The Silmarillion is just beautiful.
True.
The Silmarillion is my favorite book.
That is is beautiful, you make me shed tears
I'm sure Heaven is the only place anybody can get the next 100 sequels to lord of the rings and other stories involving middle earth. I'd want to read the 2 million page tome detailing the life and adventures of Gandalf from the very beginning to the end of the world. lol
"I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udûn. Go back to the Shadow! You cannot pass." -Gandalf the Grey
*YOU SHALL NOT PASS!*
@@ScotsThinker It's " actually You cannot pass" and is often misquoted :)
It's both depending on which part of the sequence you are quoting.
th-cam.com/video/mJZZNHekEQw/w-d-xo.html
@@HerotPM Ah, yes, movies. He doesn't actually say that in the book. Which is the real story ;)
@@cyano741 I read the book, but I don't recall, so you win this round lol
"We live in a society absolutely dependent on science and technology and yet have cleverly arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. That's a clear prescription for disaster." Carl Sagan
"We live in a society"
@@mrballerpants3813 deep
@@mrballerpants3813 based and jokerpilled
Being dependent on nature without technology has also been interestingly disastrous.
It's not cleverly designed; people are getting dumber.
Honestly, the characters in Harry Potter, (Harry, Hermione, Ginevra, Neville, Sirius, Lupin, Tonks, etcetera) when it comes to magic, were, to quote Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park, *"so preoccupied with whether or not they COULD, they didn't stop to think if they SHOULD."*
This is great I thought of the line in the dining room. About the “power being out now”
I love a good Ian Malcolm reference
The hard v soft magic system debate was not something I ever expected to see on this channel.
Very good points. LOTR is a masterpiece.
If you are into it...
If not - its a torture to read it.
@@skojigoquist9288 Yeah, the books can be pretty long (I'm more of a Silmarilion reader)
I hope that it wasn't too stressful for you to read the LoTR!
@@satanbrony9235 yeah....it was. Master and margarita and the quiet flows the don were less stressful
I watched the LOTR trilogy many times, and avoided the books simply because I didn't want to ruin the movies for me. With that said, I actually started the LOTR, recently and just finished book 1 of The Fellowship. It is going absolutely well!
@@satanbrony9235 Im more stressful in kinslaying, Children of Hurin. Fall of Gondolin and others. While the LotR is just a walk in the park except no one simply walks into Mordor.
Simply beautiful explanation. Rowling is an author. Tolkien was a professor and a once in a millennia phenom! His works will forever be relevant.
Just saying, Rowling was technically also a professor. Also, her books have sold in greater number than Tolkien's, despite having done so in a shorter period of time. Again, just saying.
@@Dean-zx6nx Are you talking about "Solve et Coagula?" This phrase historically precedes the existence of satanism which tried to claim it for their own. It's an alchemical phrase meaning "dissolve and coagulate" or "break apart and then combine," alluding to the general notion that in order to put things in proper order, things must be taken apart into their constituent pieces (which can be a painful process) so that they can be fitted back together in the clear and proper way. Medieval Catholic Scholastics, like St. Albert the Great, were alchemists and thought concepts like this not only reflect physical but spiritual realities. And they were right. Just because satanists tried to claim this as their own doesn't make it their own. Careful you don't fall into their trap.
@@Dean-zx6nx You didn't read my comment obviously. Again that phrase dates to back earlier to alchemy way before satanists tried to appropriate it for themselves. You seem to be failing into their trap yet again.
Also, stop committing the fallacy of Guilt by Association.
Also, Rowling is a Christian. She explicitly identifies as such. She even said she wrote Harry Potter as Christian literature.
I encourage you to do more research before you take such a strong stand on this. Practice the virtue of prudence. God Bless.
@@Krshwunk as a point to your Albert the Great remark, he was not an alchemist however philosophers who divulged also into the hard sciences might have also been termed alchemists by those who improperly used the term, however it was common for philosophers to be students of multiple disciplines back then. I also disagree with the notion that solve et coagula is compatible with any of his writings, either primary or through Aquinas (his student), however that is a different philosophical discussion. Suffice to say that it is an ancient phrase incompatible with Catholicism.
@@Patrick-yu6ps There is controversy over what alchemical works St. Albert wrote and which were attributed to him later. He may have just been a speculative alchemist (talked more about the theory rather than practice it), however, I think there's some evidence he was involved in alchemical experimentation due to the fact that the discovery or arsenic and silver nitrate is attributed to him. In some form or another, he was most definitely an alchemist, as were many Catholic scholastic philosophers, including Blessed Ramon Llull (even some Popes too apparently). Albert was indeed a student of multiple disciplines, and it's pretty sure one of them was alchemy.
Also, why don't you think "solve et coagula" is reconcilable with any of his writings? Obviously, on a physical/chemical level, things are often broken apart to then be put back together more orderly. You could say our digestive system does this as well. I would say Aquinas did this on a philosophical level, insofar as he digested a lot of philosophical/theological tradition into a more organized system. On a spiritual level, it's not foreign to talk about humility and breaking one's pride to then be restructured with more order and virtue. "Solve et coagula" is broad phrase that can encompass all of that. But you're saying it's absolutely opposed to all of Albert's writings? Interesting. I'd like to hear more on that.
I obviously disagree that the phrase is incompatible with Catholicism. You're definitely going to have to explain that one.
Gandalf was saving his MP for the boss.
Exactly. With much power comes much responsibility. Harry Potter is so corny because they make magic look too easy. Magic was mental just as much as it was physical.
@@thebabbler8867 so I’d argue that. Harry was not an over all great wizard comparing him to Dumbuldoor(sp) Snape, or Voldemort. The book even says so. He was gifted as being part of the horacrux. Yet Hermonie was. The Greats were dedicated to the hard work it took. This is almost a trek vs wars argument. I do like his explanation but I think the reason some of these questions are not asked is because the plot doesn’t have time for it.
@@thebabbler8867 lotr corny. Gandalf is restricted to not damage middle earth yet he shoots down lightning against the balrog and actually does exactly what he’s not supposed to do and harms the landscape. What point is there in him doing that if he’s gonna be resurrected back to his physical form and Illuvatar can just remove Durin’s bane from existence if he wanted anyway. He intervened against Numenor but he doesn’t care against Sauron when he’s about to take over middleearth and he doesn’t care when Morgoth wages war on all other valar and manipulates and destroys his creations. It’s inconsistent.
Now that i think about it. Why is dagor dahorath even a possibility. Numenor is destroyed for going to Valinor despite not being allowed, surely morgoth and his forces attempt to destroy valinor and inhabitants would be wiped out immediately by Illuvatar if he reacted as such to Ar Pharazon and his followers going to Valinor as result of Sauron’s deception. Surely this is both bigger threat and actual evil not an a decision through being deceived by another.
It’s inconsistent to think Illuvatar reacts so bad to numenor but allows Dagor Dagorath to take place.
I think of Galadriel’s address to Sam: “This is, I believe, what you would call ‘magic’, though I do not fully understand the word.”
The magically gifted would no more call their gifts “magic” or “supernatural” than we would call our capacity for sight magic, just because it might appear to be so to the blind.
The portrayal of magic in Harry Potter always annoyed me to this extent: “magic” is bolted on to “reality” in a trivializing way. Wizards and witches in the Potterverse are simply Muggles with a talent for performing parlor tricks. It is all very much superficial, without consideration for the metaphysical ramifications of the existence of such forces.
Yeah I used to play Harry Potter as a kid, like I would pretend to be a wizard at Hogwarts doing very similar things to Hermione, Ron, and Harry my little Childhood heroes, to be fair Harry Potter is a soft magic system meaning the rules are by enlarge not known to the audience, but then again so is LOTR, and Star Wars eventually became one too so yk, but when I was younger I always found myself annoyed by the ramifications of spells like the killing curse was illegal but the fire summoning charm was perfectly fine and the cruciotus curse is dark magic, but a spell used to probe and torture the mind was completely allowable, perhaps this can be seen as a commentary on inconsistency but given Rowling's politics I find this unlikely. Now to be fair their are valuable lessons in the Harry Potter universe and while the rules of magic are pretty unclear, there does seem to be rules (unlike the newer Star Wars movies) but honestly if they are acceptable to watch, perhaps for the redeeming qualities of the film, like courage, a vague sense of love, and self sacrifice, at all, I think they should be reserved for more mature audiences like at the earliest middle school, assuming the kids were well formed at a young age, especially due to the extraordinary potentially damaging elements like exposure to real witchcraft or the lukewarmness to dishonesty, idk though
@@joelancon7231 *the killing curse was illegal but…*
In general, Rowling seems not too concerned with consistency wrt magic, even to the extent of breaking her own in-world rules. When we’re introduced to the Unforgivable Curses, we’re told they’re so evil _any_ use of the curses incurs an immediate life sentence in Azkaban. Yet by the end of the series, we’re witness to Harry throwing around the Cruciatus, consequence-free, for offenses as trivial as spitting on McGonagall, and McGonagall calling the act gallant. This goes straight to Harry’s character, especially given that he himself had been on the receiving end of the spell.
Other inconsistencies include Gamp’s Law of Transfiguration; the conditions under which wands change loyalties; the metaphysical _substance_ of magic (appearing sometimes to be immaterial, while at other times spells ricochet off solid objects); and Rowling's apparent tendency to invent new spells entirely ad hoc. (And having just rewatched a couple of the movies, I found myself laughing at wizards holding their wands knife-like across other wizards’ necks; but that’s just a movie thing.)
*…if they are acceptable to watch…*
Oh, they’re not _bad_ by any means. The characters are compelling and the Potterverse is expansive. So long as one is willing to accept them as light entertainment (and allowing for a reasonable suspension of disbelief), as movies go they're better than most of what Hollywood puts out. And I’d much rather have my daughter read Rowling than, say, Pullman. It’s only when you peel back the cover to examine the mechanics of the magical world and the story structure (the entire deathly hallows plot line went nowhere, and really messed up the pacing; and an author should never break her own in-world rules), that the weaknesses become apparent.
@@nathanaelculver5308 Always go with Pratchett: The Wee Free Men, Nation, The Bromiliad. These magic systems won't let you down for kids
One big problem for me is that they never even begin to consider questions like whether a witch or wizard should have just apparated into the Reich Chancellery, hit Hitler with a killing curse, and disapparated out again. Or whether someone might want to cast a spell to divert a typhoon that's about to kill 300,000 people in Bangladesh. I can see valid, if not necessarily convincing, arguments why that might be a bad thing, but like I said, it never even seems to occur to any of them that that's something they might do.
Look, you're going to have to forgive Rowling. After all, she didn't set out to write a fantasy novel. She was actually writing a school mystery story with fantasy elements long before Brandon Sanderson formed his Laws of Magic.
This brings to mind Clarke's 3rd law, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
I've always loved LOTR and Harry Potter-I am particularly a huge Tolkien enthusiast and have dived deep into his works. I'm so thankful for this video and your illuminating perspective. I feel like a kindred spirit!
It's especially interesting that Tolkien's wisdom demonstrates the lunacy of Marxism and heedless technological advancement. Tolkien has so much to say in his works, and it's so exciting to understand yet another one of his themes. Thanks again for this video.
I've often heard the novel called anti-capitalist as well. And it is, just not from a modern left-wing perspective. Tolkien wasn't so much anti-Marxist or anti-capitalist as he was anti-modern.
Perhaps...
"The gods are best served by those who want their help least."
- Jason and the Argonauts
I like that! What translation of Jason and the argonauts would you recommend?
The film? Classic sword and sandal adventure!
The timing of this couldn't be better!
I watched Fellowship yesterday in the theater!
20 years anniversary. A brilliant masterpiece
The Palantir is like the Internet: it has both good and bad uses. If you turn in the wrong direction, it can either snare you or discourage you...
And be unaccounted for palantirs are like the NSA, "We cannot know who is watching!"
Palantir is also a technology us by the USG for big data analytics etc....en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palantir_Technologies
Annnnnd suddenly I empathize with Denethor a lot better. It's indeed depressing when you see what people say to each other on the Internet.
@@庫倫亞利克 Wow. Yeah. Dang.
Once again, Lord of the Rings proves itself the superior series
Agreed. But what do you think of Harry Potter?
Yep
It depends on what you wanna watch. I really don't like these movies that are epic just for the sake of being epic and Harry Potter is much more relatable, which makes us able to feel more of what the characters are feeling.
It's always superior to every series 😉
Riddikulus
Harry Potter magic is perfectly built that's why its got enduring fans
Similar points to Plato's parable of the Ring of Gyges. Mysterious and misunderstood power over others very quickly corrupts. I don't think it's a coincidence that Plato's ring makes a similar appearance in the Lord of the Rings.
Actually, I think it's more of a reference to the Nibelungs
@@thstroyur Could very well be. I'm not familiar with that story.
@@nickbuckner717 It's part of Nordic mythology, but it has been explored at length in Wagner's famous opera
it is very much inspired by Nibelungenlied and more specifically the Norse version Völsunga saga
@@thstroyur
Both Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, but more so Lewis, were very deeply influenced by the Norse myths. "The North" was always powerfully evocative for Lewis. He also makes reference to "Numinor and the True North" in "That Hideous Strength" and mentions in its introduction, unusual for a novel, that readers who wish to know more will have to wait because it existed only in the as yet unpublished manuscript of his friend, J.R.R. Tolkien.
I think that was part of the reason Harry chooses to bury Dobby's body by hand.
Yeah, he's one of the minority of wizard that has grown up not knowing what magic was, so it makes sense that in his mind doing everything magically isn't an obligation. Then, he made that choice since it's more respectful taking the time to do it, putting the effort in it.
The fact that he hasn't been raised in a magical environment could have lead him to have a more nuanced perspective on the use of magic than the others, sadly that hasn't been shown in the story to my knowledge
@@corentinm.105 Hermione too, right?
LOTR is perfect: perfect music, perfect lines, perfect book, perfect movie
Perfect themes and ideas, perfect names, perfect lore, perfect mystery
I didn't enjoy the movie that much... but all the art in it is awesome.
Perfect extended editions.
Perfect characters (well, perfectly created characters)
perfect silmarillion
“Conform to the truth, good, and beauty”. This video was a great take. Sharing it with my Tolkien friends
Guys, I think Gandalf might be a secret Jedi Master. Because the moves he pulls off with that staff are f-cking sick. Lol.
Finally someone who sees my perspective and who agrees with my perspective. I am working in IT (backend developer), the one who creates the magical codes.
I'm also a fan of MMORPGs and I always play as a Wizard with the capability of wielding physical weapons. Why? Because of that philosophy I hold to; magical power should be used under necessity with self control and not under personal desire. Technology today is self indulgent made to make life easier and reduce effort for the sake of making it easy rather than giving a valuable reason to do so.
I love technology but I wish we reduce its influence over our life.
That's exactly what's been bothering me for quite a while. Tolkien doesn't seem to be so eager to create a metaphysical concept explaining all the mechanics behind magic that some characters use. Nevertheless, their actions are presented in a way, that it's easy to notice that magic is not a toy to play with. It's a real force, something that has it's consequences. There's an understanding of magic in Tolkien's characters that we're not told of as readers. Nevertheless, it's there, you can grasp it. Rowling's books seems to be more concerned about the trope "young people vs evil". Which is probably another reason why there aren't many explanations why magic works and it's simply used, in a particularly utilitarian way. In Harry Potter, characters are using magic in the same way as we're using our limbs. They operate normally as they should and we don't even ask why. We just use them. It's the same in Rowling's books. Everybody who can use magic, use it, because that's the common thing to do if you can do it.
I think that's also why LotR is a classic -- Tolkien treated the readers like adults and didn't feel the need to spell everything out for them. JKR, otoh, went the opposite route and wrote in the most simplistic of terms. It's not that the characters are using magic simply because it's there and available, but that she created a world where the questions were never asked even though it was centered around a school where those questions should have been asked. She treated it like a joke.
1. Gandalf in the movies is offered the ring by Frodo after it's identified, if memory serves. He seems to have pretty good sense of the way it would work, ie he would begin by using it from a desire to do good, but it would corrupt him. The palantir example is spot on though.
2. In the Harry Potter books, there is a sort of Tradition of magic use that the characters can turn to - at the very least it is not something they are trying to use by themselves, but something that has gone on for hundreds of years and still allows families like the Weasleys to be pretty OK. There isn't really a tradition of smart phone use today though.
This comment is for the 40 people that saw him accidentally go live making this
LOL
Haha. I was testing out the software and accidentally went live. But yes I used these talking points for sound/video check. I hadn't realized I had gone live until after the fact. I wish I had stuck around to just hang out with everyone. But this does mean that I will hopefully start doing that more often now that I've got things set up.
@@BrianHoldsworth a live chatting would be amazing.
@@BrianHoldsworth so useing technology didn't understand.
I knew it!!!! (Must be more carful with magic he doesn't fully understand)
Gandalf/ other Wizards were forbidden to use their powers directly, bu rather guide and influence people indirect ways. In fact, Gandalf alone would very like have been able striking down an entire army, if he had used his full powers. He was inherently magical and very powerful spirit, as was all the other wizards, balrogs, and Sauron.
Well, in Harry Potter there's also a difference between the ones who REALLY understand magic (like Dumbledore and Voldemort, who became two of the greatest wizards in history) and the ones who just use it to everyday life, just like we do with technology.
How can you say that "people in the Harry Potter universe use magic without knowing where it comes from and while it works in mysterious ways" when there's so many wizards who studied all of the things they're learning in school? Magic doesn't work in mysterious ways at all! If you use a certain spell, you already know exactly what's gonna happen and what you need to do in order for that to work.
Correct. This presenter doesn't know what he is talking. If anything, Rowling mentioned time and time again about the great wizards of the past who studied magic in depth, while Tolkein is the one who kept magic opaque
I LOVE LOTR
This is why Tolkien describes magic as the "seen" (known) and the "unseen" (unknown). Sam even refers to it as magic, and Galadriel doesn't understand what he means.
Excellent analogy. It also made me think of Sir Terry Pratchett's Discworld series. There are powerful Wizards who deal with magic that is dangerous and chaotic and causes more disruption than good. But there are also the witches of the Tiffany Aching stories; they live humbly among the villagers they help and rely on using their practical herb lore and medical skills and manual labor rather than magic. They can use magic if conditions are desperate, but the point of being a witch is to not use magic overall.
I love the way he explains it. It's amazing how well used magic sometimes means not using it.
Also, for Catholics, our religion is a sort of good magic, that we should use well while helping others. So that may also mean that sometimes we don't have to necessarily say the G world, because the truth is a simple thing to show.
I'll never stop admiring Tolkien's job.
For the record, Gandalf in the book NEVER behaved like the atrocity Jackson made him in his appalling films. The Wizards, the Istari were not allowed to exercise their natural power to subdue men or hold them in awe. Their mission was to help strengthen their resistance to Sauron
I found your comment on science really interesting. I am thankful that I had my reversion back to Catholicism before I went for my undergraduate degree in Kinesiology. Going in with a Catholic lens really helped me stay rooted in learning just how wonderful and intricate God made the human body and it helped me grow in greater appreciation for how science and faith should co-exist!!
What kind of Kinesiology?
@@KeatonTerry28 Kinesiology is the study of human movement. I'm from Canada so I don't know if there's a different name for it in the States. Kinesiology encompasses 3 sciences: neuroscience, physiology, and biomechanics. I got to opportunity to learn how the human body works. For example, how the brain sends signals to the muscles, the muscles take that signal and produce a contraction, and the forces that are generated to complete the contraction. This is a very general and basic answer so I hope it helps :)
@@MultiSoccerStar2 I know what Kinesiology is on a basic level, I was wondering if there's a certain area you specialize in. I'm friends with a specialized Kinesiologist, it is an amazing field but unfortunately it seems some people use it to encourage new age beliefs rather than recognizing the real scientific implications and the amazing ways God has designed our bodies.
I reverted and started studying kinesiology too! Greetings from Croatia brother.
@@KeatonTerry28 My apologies for misunderstanding your question. I specialized in rehabilitation and focused on neuroscience and physiology. It is a shame that some use it to push new age beliefs. I was fortunate to have lectures that went over the anatomical differences between humans and chimpanzees. One of the professors said “I’m going to show you how we don’t come from apes” and it showed me the flaws in Darwin’s theory of evolution. Does this answer your original question better?
Hmm there is something about the dwarves digging too deep and awakening the balrog that seems to mirror what your saying
This was brilliant, something has always bothered me about Harry Potter and I have only been able to pinpoint a few of those, but you helped me pinned down the greatest one of them.
watch Fr Ripperger's talks on Harry Potter.
this is only the tip of the iceberg.
A few years ago I attended a Catholic men's conference where Dr. Kreeft gave a talk. I had the opportunity to meet him briefly and ask a question, so I asked him: There is magic in the Harry Potter novels, and there is magic in the LOTR, why do some Catholics frown upon the magic in Harry Potter, but give a pass to the magic in Tolkien's universe? His immediate response was: "Because it's Sacramental!"
@Rachel James The truth of the matter is the art of magic has been lost and is limited to novelty in the modern age. The supernatural is supported by the natural. If we destroy the natural, we limit our access to the supernatural as well. Imagine all the plants, herbs, animals, minerals, and landmarks that were once gateways to the spiritual relm that have been destroyed by the world government to keep man dependent on their sources of delusion and estrangement. The essence of "Magic" is creativity; the more trees we cut down, the less creative we'll become.
*[Gandalf] refuses to take [the ring] because he knows he doesn’t fully understand it.*
Where do you get this from? As a wielder of a Ring of Power (given to him by Cirdan), Gandalf would have had a considerable understanding of the One Ring. A better understanding, perhaps, even than the other ring bearers, Elrond and Galadriel, since unlike them, Gandalf was a Maia, equal in stature to Sauron.
That is why he refused the One Ring - because he _did_ understand it, better than any save Sauron alone.
Knowing things about something with relation to a central binding thing does not mean one knows that thing. Celestial bodies exist in nature and purpose together, with reliance on one that rules over the others. That said, knowing something about, say, a planet does not mean you would have knowledge of a star. A ring of power pales in comparison to the One Ring.
@@juice2307 Narya (Gandalf’s ring) had been forged by the same craft that forged Sauron’s ring. The elves had learned the craft from Sauron. There was nothing fundamentally different about the One Ring other than that it was more powerful - which Gandalf knew. He was also a Maia of the same order as Sauron and yet understood the corrupting power of the One Ring. Galadriel shunned the Ring for the same reason, because both she and Gandalf well understood exactly the Ring’s modus operandum.
"Don't... tempt me, Frodo! I dare not take it. Not even to keep it safe. Understand, Frodo, I would use this Ring from the desire to do good. But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine."
Also, Tolkien discusses Gandalf and the Ring in his letters (see especially Letter #246).
I still hold that Gandalf understood the Ring very well.
@@nathanaelculver5308 The One Ring was very different from the Three in its purposes and its powers. But I agree that Gandalf understood it perfectly well, certainly better than anyone other than Sauron. In support of the latter statement I would point out that Galadriel seemed sure she had the power to master the One if she tried, although she understood that she would be corrupted in the process, but Tolkien said elsewhere that probably only Gandalf had sufficient power and strength of will to wrest the mastery of the Ring away from Sauron. Gandalf being, as you point out, a Maia made him more aware than Galadriel or Elrond just how powerful Sauron was and how difficult, probably impossible, it would be for anyone other than a Vala or another Maia to wrest control of the Ring from him even if they had physical possession of it.
(This is apparently not an uncommon failing of the Noldor given how unaware Fëanor and those who followed him were of the utter hopelessness of their war against Melkor.)
I would imagine that Gandalf also consulted the Vala Aulë, who taught Sauron most of what he knew about such things, about Sauron's craft before he was sent on his mission, and that this knowledge was something he was permitted to retain in his incarnate form. None of the living Noldor had had much to do with the making of any of the Rings of Power, let alone the chance to discuss them with Sauron's former mentor.
Also, Gandalf seems to be the only one who understood that it would probably be impossible for Frodo to bring himself to destroy the Ring if he made it to Mount Doom, and that it would require the intervention of divine providence for the quest to be completed.
I like your points, Sauron corrupted by his own power changes the landscape of his realm to be hell, nothing grows, the water is poison, it is pitch darkness where the land was once plentiful.
We see the same with Isengard, the forests are burned, pits are made, the ground is gravel, disgusting chimneys choke the sky. And Saruman believes he is an equal, or rival to Sauron.
But the other disturbing thing that both villains think of the world, is that the people are mindless, and require a strong hand, which is Sauron, and Saruman.
The Scouring of the shire is a sad event, based on Tolkien’s experience when he came home after the war.
I'm not sure I agree. The scene where Saruman showed Gandalf the palantír does not occur in the books. Aragorn, however, did use the palantír, having the right and the strength to do so. There's no indication that he understood how it was made: only Fëanor knew that, and he was long in the halls of Mandos. Aragorn had the right by lineage.
Magic, in Tolkien's works, often seems to come down to strength of will. And bad magic is domination of the will of another.
When I bought a TI-83 calculator in middle school, I read that entire manual. I would code and create formulas to save me time in Math class. In my adult years, I'm like everyone else and don't read manuals as much. I simply use it how I want, it's sad. Can my toaster oven do more than make a sandwich a melt?
My Pastor and I have been discussing the same idea as it relates to us being children of God. We have manuals (Bible, Catechism, Church docs, etc.) at our disposal to learn what we are. Theology of the body is a great example of late. Some say, I just want to use my body and soul "this way", without thinking of the maintenance that may be required later on. Or worse, I want to use other people's bodies and souls "this way" and then are surprised when a person "breaks".
We need to be good stewards of our gifts. Those who spend time understanding how Christ works with humanity (Saints) happen to do miraculous things. It's no wonder. And the most miraculous "magic" humanity has witnessed was achieved by the One who has written every manual written and unwritten! I loved this video and wish I spent more time in your reinforcements community. Keep it up Brian!
While I do agree with the comparison made to technology, and certainly with the moral implications you mentioned, I cannot say I agree with your assessment of magic in Harry Potter. The fact that people who are born with magical capabilities still need to learn how to use it, the fact that most of their study is the theory of it, the fact that new spells can be created and so on do tell us, I think, that their magic is more like a natural force that one has to learn how to wield safely and reasonably, not unlike physical or mental prowess.
I would also argue that makes differentiates the dark arts from other varieties of magic in Harry Potter is the end goal. While most magic is about exploration, convenience, sports etc., the dark arts are single-mindedly oriented towards control and power; over muggles, magical creatures, wizards and indeed over death.
I do not think it is bad because we are told it is bad. While we are never told why it is bad, I think the pattern is there for us to see.
I also think blatantly denying the global crisis that faces us with the heated snow ball coming from frequented carbon emission is a bad roll for a catholic spokesperson. Delusions come from all sides, even from Mr. Holdsworth
@@johnbaglow6038 I do not believe Mr Holdsworth did indeed deny it. He simply said „as we are told“, which is a perfectly reasonable qualifier for someone who is a scientific layman and has to rely on what other people tell him
That's why Harry Potter is trash, because in the natural world all resources including magic are available to everybody. There is no person born with a specific gift; you live your life and you'll eventually realize the gifts you possess. LOTR's magic is more realistic because it reveals the source of the magic and why some people have access to it and others don't.
@@thebabbler8867 Harry Potter is trash because you don't agree with the way it portrays magic?
And of course, some people are gifted in certain areas. Some people have more intellectual potential than most, some are born with physic more suited to certain things, etc.
Humans are equal in their worth before God, but not in their capabilities. Not at all.
Einstein defined magic as, basically, any technical process we can't understand. I think it's ironic how we both don't understand that concept, but also, how such ignorance impacts us.
Almost all the Catholics I know love LOTR, including myself
I know a number of Catholics who hate LOTR. They also happen to be the ones who hate Harry Potter too. This cancer seems to be growing.
Excellent analogy to our use of technologies we don't fully understand. Really great video - your best that mentions the HP series. Gold star of the day!
This idea trickles down all the way to the begin of Arda. The Ainu sang a song of creation to Illuvatar and he having heard this song in full approved of it and began the work of making this song reality (aka creation and its end were fully known). But morgoth desired a different world , a world of his own making and this corrupted his own part of the song of creation to fit his own desires (aka he desired a creation that was not fully known).
This thesis of technology as magic is brilliant and deserves serious academic documentation
This was incredibly insightful, thank you.
I think Gandalf's powers are limited, according to the enemy he faces. Notice they are greater with the Nazgul and the Balrog, then with Orcs, it's weapons
I hate the good vs bad thing.
Just because a magick is dark doesn't mean it's bad, just because magick is light doesn't mean it's good. It's all based on how you use it that matters.
Same goes for the force in star wars.
This is a real good content. I never watched Harry Potter, but I get what he say about Technology. Is a pretty scary thing if you go deep to understand it.
Lord of the Rings is wonderful! One of my all time favorites.
To extend the analogy of the palantir a bad actor can use it against it's intended purpose. An orb made for communication among Saurons enemies was captured and made us of by a bad actor.
Insane wisdom. Thank you for your content, and please keep it up!
I love your channel, but as a fellow mega fan of Tolkien I must disagree. I like the message you are trying to get across but the reason that Gandalf doesn't use magic often is not because he does not have an understanding of it, it is because the magic he performs can be viewed more or less like the miracles performed in the bible. Gandalf is often equated with an angel. The magic he uses is either used to convey his authority, drive out demons(Theoden's possession), or straight up fight demons(such as the balrog). He essentially is using his power to help the people of middle Earth do what they could not do on there own. A big tip of the hat here is when Gandalf says "Swords are no more use here" when fighting the balrog. During this scene in the book you can see him casting spells on doors to prevent the lava demon from pursuing them. He does this because as cool as Legolas is, he cant 1v1 a balrog, none of them could. This is the same reason why he doesn't cast spells on the doors for when the Goblin raiders break through at the tomb of Balin.
I feel like I'm rambling, the main take away is Gandalf is basically an angel of god who uses miracles from god to help people in scenarios where they couldn't possibly win without the help of god.
Still super love your channel, stay awesome, congrats on the new baby
Wasn't Gandalf (even when he was still Gandalf the Grey) more powerful than Saruman himself, in a way? Don't get me wrong, Saruman's raw power by itself was unbelievably powerful but he lacked the wisdom that Gandalf had. Saruman's greatest strength itself was actually his speech, but even then, he still couldn't quite twist Gandalf to his will.
No, you're right. That's another angle that I was considering but it would have made the topic to long. At some point I want to do a video about the difference between magic and miracles and that analogy would definitely have to appear.
Yes.
Tolkien cleverly made the Maiar as the equivalent of Angels in Middle Earth. Whilst this can be questionable, when applied to the context of the Fantasy Epic and seen as Symbolic, one can see how the Maiar represent Angelic Authority (with Saruman obviously portrayed as a fallen angel).
One has to be careful with the way magic is portrayed in Popular Stories because Scripture forbids Sorcery and Devilish Crafts. If Sorcery is endorsed, it can cause dangerous curiosity in the wrong path.
However, Tolkien and C.S Lewis realise that one has to depend on God's Guidance and intervention rather than trying to be their own Gods.
For Example
Tolkien would often present how corruptive dark magic is and how his Angel figures were meant to guide people to Goodness and to fulfil their tasks.
C.S Lewis presented Witches, Demons and in the context of this video, the dangers of scientism in his literature and would encourage readers to depend on God rather than magic.
In the Silver Chair, Eustace and Jill discuss using magic of their own to get into Narnia but Eustace insisted on asking the omniscient Lion Aslan (representative of Jesus) if they could go to Narnia.
I even changed my channel name from 'ScotsWizard' to 'ScotsMaiar' when I became a Born Again Christian to go for a more appropriate title.
So the lesson from this comment is never to endorse the type of magic the Bible warns us not to do and to depend on the Miraculous Grace of God.
Very good point
Actually, in the book, Gandalf puts a spell on the door that leads in a hallway towards the bridge of Moria and out. But eventually the Balrog gets through nonetheless. And on that bright he uses yet another spell as it's portrayed in the movie.
A knowledge of mysterious forces...
No wonder the 'magi' are called 'wise men'
It's interesting that one of the few people who showed up to Christ's birth were from a tradition after whom "magic" is named.
@@Krshwunk yes but they were apparently a self controlled people who didn't let there craft become plain superstition or lead to divination or sorcery.
@@jacobitewiseman3696 Details now.
I agree about Gandalf, Saruman, and the Elves, but not Sauron. Sauron understands the technology he is using very well; the problem isn't that his magic has hidden (to him) or unintended consequences, it's that he _intends_ for it to have bad consequences. Sauron isn't evil because he uses "bad magic," he's evil because he uses magic to enslave and oppress other living creatures rather than to help them or make their lives better.
More than anyone else, Gandalf's restraint is definitely due to a desire (by the powers that sent him at least as much as his own) to avoid potentially serious unintended consequences. The Valar caused an enormous catastrophe that destroyed a significant part of the world the last time they intervened directly in Middle-earth, but even more important, their intention (and Gandalf's mission) is to help ordinary mortals get to the point where we are able to take care of ourselves, not to teach us to be dependent on magical beings to defend us.
Well Gandalf, Saruman and some elves know very well how the technology works.
The Problem is, on the other end of the call sits Sauron wispering corrupt words and they fear him and his words.
tech wizard has taken a whole new meaning
your videos are very refreshing in this day and age, keep them coming! ;)
Gandalf isn't opposed to the use of the palantir because he doesn't understand it. He hands it over to Aragorn, who uses it successfully because he has the RIGHT and the strength to do so. Gandalf has the strength (and considerably more understanding such things) but does not have the RIGHT to use it, and so does not.
The same thing goes for the Ring. The Ring was made by Sauron and for Sauron to aid in the commission of evil. Only he has the right to use it an doing evil is its only rightful function. For a good wizard to use it is to use a tool not created for him (note how Aragorn's right to the palantir allowed him to wrest control from Sauron himself, a far more powerful being--having the right matters a lot) whose purpose is evil is a HUGE risk. In the end Lord Acton's principle would govern.
Forget "Lord of the Rings." It's "Middle Earth!" It's the greatest fictional world any literary being has created. God bless!
I wrote an essay about this: Also compared harry potter magic to Amazon ordering- another author who wrote well about knowledge and magic (secular) is Ursula Le Guin in her fantasy "The Wizard of Earthsea"
This has echoes of a point Sir Roger Scruton made a few years ago; thank you for explaining it so well. Keep up the good work.
You really gave me something to think about. I prefer to live in harmony with the truth myself.
The thing is in LOTR, Gandalf was an angel, and he was sent to help humans to fight through human means, and do not rely on supernatural powers, that is why Gandalf will only use magic against supernatural beings like the Nazgul or the Balrog. The Orcs despite being corrupted by evil were still physical/natural beings.
Are you familiar with Jonathan Pageau’s TH-cam channel? You might find his discussion of symbolism and patterns of reality to be interesting.
Oh my goodness Brian, this video is a masterpiece
Meh. It could use some clarifications.
Not just this video, but I love how you use current topics to show and teach very important things about the Church and Christ. 👌 Blessings
Ahhh!
I love it! I love it!
Came here because of Matt Fradd
This is gold brother,
You have my sub!
Great articulation.
The _A Wizard of Earthsea_ series demonstrates the point I think you are making. The use of magic is restrained out of concern for unintended effects.
LOTR is THE fantasy...rest cant come close. Gandalf Always comes to the rescue Who cares how he does it ..."a wizard is never late nor early Frodo Baggins..he arrives precicely when he needs to"
Voldemort also tries to bend reality to his own will to the extent of trying to make himself immortal through horcruxes.
This was a very interesting perspective
Your first supposition speaks a a lot: "Gandolf did something peculiar in the fantasy genre". You are not taking into account that Tolkien and Robert Howard basically created the fantasy, or Sword and Sorcery genre, meaning that everyone else is outside the standard. In Conan in the Hyborian Age, Wizards and magic were generally looked upon unfavorably. In LOTR, Wizards were not just deus ex machina tropes, who would wave their magic wands and bam -- things happened. That wasn't the point of magic. It's a tool, not a toy. This was actually explained in The Prydain Chronicles (a little known Fantasy based on the Welsh Mabinogion) when Eilonwy asked Dalben why she couldn't have just "wished" the Cauldron Born, or Arawn, or whatever away -- because the rules of Magic are more than just controlling the fate of the worlds, it was meant to gain insight into the inner workings and functioning of the world and universe at large, and secondly it was having the power to defend with Magic if absolutely necessary. This is why you had good Wizards and bad Wizards. Good Wizards don't use magic unless there is a need (this is why Harry Potter goes outside the Tolkien / Howard High Fantasy Rules). Gandalf didn't need to use magic to knock Orcs upside the head. He did, however need magic to fight against the Nazgul, or the Balrog (which even there, he used magic sparingly). Wizards who just idly use magic to clean their dishes and crochet a blanket (or maybe even order a legion of mops to clean the castle), and generally considered bad because of their lust for power.
True power is having the ability to wield it, and the responsibility and wisdom to not.
Also, Gandalf entirely understood the power of the One Ring, as did Galadriel and Aragorn, hence why they also refused it. They knew entirely what it would entail, and what it would do to them.
Otherwise I do agree that social media is a pox on humanity and it makes us entirely less social, and our technology is utterly abused.
You've redeemed yourself on Harry Potter my friend, I'm so glad. I loved this video.
I've been wondering for some time whether Rowling chose the name Potter as a deliberate allusion to Jeremiah 18.3-6:
_Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.
And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.
Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel._
As a fiction writer I've been wrestling with redefining what magic is and the capabilities of it. Trying to cram things like conjuration and astral travel become tricky because both things have real world ties to occultism. Having magic just be a flashier and more organic form of technology is a great idea. Taking notes from Lewis's examples of magic and wizardry might also help me define what a wizard would actually look like. Thanks for the awesome video
I was on board with his overall point of magic/technology should not be wielded unless it is fully understood, until he got to the particulars of Gandalf with the ring and the palantír. Gandalf did not hesitate to use the Palantír (or refuse to use the ring) because he did not understand them; he refused because he understood very well (in the case of the ring), exactly what it was and, (in the case of the Palantír), what was probably on the other side.
The difference between "light" and "dark" magic in LOTR is not one's understanding of the system, but one's desired use OF the system. Gandalf is a very ancient being and understands pretty well how the "system" works. He was probably there when Illúvatar led the singing of the world into being. Gandalf would have been intrinsically tied as a Maia to parts of the creation of Arda. He was not ever afraid to wield the ring or use the Palatír because he didn't understand them. He was around and knew EXACTLY how to use them, and what they would do if he did use them.
I do agree with his point that to most people, modern technology IS like magic in that we don’t understand how it works, so it might as well be the same as the spell casting in Harry Potter. Although, to be fair, while poor students like Harry and Ron (who we see struggling academically throughout the whole series) might not understand the “hows” and “whys” of spell casting, that’s the whole point of getting a magical education at Hogwarts: to understand the “hows” and “whys”. And good students like Hermione throughout the book series make reference to the explanations of how the magic system works.
Again, in Harry Potter, students are taught where the magic comes from (even if the audience isn’t necessarily privy to that information.). Hence the whole point of Hogwarts as a SCHOOL of magic and wizardry. Yeah, sure, some students probably aren’t paying attention as well as they should. But these kids listen to lectures, do homework, and have practical exams around this stuff. To say they are wielding a power they don’t understand at all is simply absurd.
One thing I would posit is that the palantir may not be very clearly explained by Tolkien, but I think that it was technology that certain people understood how to use--and perhaps there was a time when there were quite a few people that understood how to use it; but it required a great deal of will to be able to manage it. Regardless, the danger of palantir was centered around the fact that Sauron had at least one in his possession and it was regarded as dangerous to use because of the potential that one might draw Sauron's attention. Even so, Denethor II and Aragorn were both very competent and capable of wielding the Palantir. Denethor II used a Palantir very successfully, and if he hadn't, Gandalf tells us that Minas Tirith would have fallen.
Yes, but Denethor's use of the palantir was a major factor in his eventual despair and suicide, because even though he was able to resist being ensnared like Saruman was it still gave Sauron the opportunity to show Denethor the things Sauron wanted him to see. Aragorn not only had greater authority and greater strength of will, he better understood the limitations that Sauron's possession of a palantir put on anyone trying to use one for good ends. Aragorn didn't use it to spy on Sauron, he only used it to show Sauron what Aragorn wanted _him_ to see.
@@brucetucker4847 sure-but the point of fact is that Denethor understood and was capable of wielding the palantir; and that they aren’t as mysterious as the films make them out to be.
Further, I don’t really think Denethor was driven to suicide until it seemed to him that his line was fully eradicated in an untimely manner. Sure, Sauron planted the seeds of doubt and despair-but Denethor, even in his last days, was praised by Gandalf as a wise and stalwart man; whose efforts were integral to the survival of Gondor, and the success of the defenders at Minas Tirith.
@@ChivalrousBreeze He was, and I hated what they did to him in the movie, but Gandalf expressly says that the palantir was the means by which the lies and malice of Sauron were allowed into the Citadel of Minas Tirith.
Again, the seeds of despair were cast-but even so, it was external matters that made him more susceptible to manipulation by Sauron than just the wielding of the Palantir and looking towards Mordor.
The point remains that the palantir was clearly understood by Denethor, and they are not evil, corrupting devices by nature. Denethor was more than capable of using them without harming himself-but he tried to grapple with the will of something greater than him, and that is true of various characters throughout Tolkien’s mythos with or without palantir.
"Magic" is often equated with "sorcery".
Harry Potter is definitely about sorcery.
But "magic" really comes from a broader root, meaning wisdom. Cognate words include magi, magisterium, magistrate. Wizard is cognate with wisdom. So, the "good magic" in LotR doesn't represent sorcery, or what we would call witchcraft.
Wow I didn't know that!
Technically, "magic" and "magisterium" or "Magister" (English "Master") come from two entirely different roots. "Magister" and "magisterium" comes from the latin "magis", adverb meaning "more", the "Magister" being the one who is "more", "greater" than you. "Magi"/"Magic" comes through latin and greek from persian "maguš", which is not clear if it was the name of Zoroastrian Priests or of a persian tribe (similarly to "chaldean" which sometimes seems to describe a caste or profession, some other Times a Population).
@@giovannicolpani3345 that's a lot of knowledge
@@laurelelasselin it's my only trade: I study classics, and frankly i can't do much more 😂
Brian I'd recommend the Legend of Drizzt series by RA Salvatore if you loved the Lord of The Rings. The first book "Homeland" plays out similar to the Godfather. But with a future saint in the midst. One of my favorite book series of all time
Nuanced and considered take, very good video
Nice new setup :)
I prefer Middle Earth's magic to Harry Potter's. It is subtler, more foundational, more mythical and spiritual in nature, thus becoming more special and coming at a toll even for those who use it.
In turn, Harry Potter's magic is mundane in the Wizards' eyes. It's more like an instrumental, run-of-the-mill means of societal interaction and affectation, it's part of daily life. It's just a cognitive skill every wizard learns, just like we learn how to read, and some are better than others at it.
"In the modern age, science has become less a tool to understand and live in harmony with truth and reality, and more a tool to try to bend elemental forces to our will." -Brian Holdsworth
I share someone's opinion here that even though Brian makes some interesting observations (as always), I feel he fundamentally missed the mark on this one. Why is magic so little used in the LotR? Well, here's the thing: the events of the book took place (mostly) in the _Third_ Age; if you look back at the former two ages, you'll see magic everywhere - or at least, far more commonly. Personally, that seems to me more of a mirroring of the Fall: the world is running down, its wonders dying because of Melkor's dissonance (introduction of sin). I mean, just read the Ainulindale; it's staggering how much it resembles the Genesis creation narrative - which I noticed even before knowing JRRT was a Catholic. Gandalf's restraint can be easily explained by that, plus his role as a mentor figure who wouldn't want his companions to get spoiled and think they could depend on magic for everything (cf. Merlin from the Sword in the Stone for a similar ethos)
As for HP, I'm a big fan of the series, but my critique of it'd be that it trivializes magic, like sooo many IPs today (specially (isekai) anime, blergh); some series, like Fullmetal Alchemist, take its consequences more seriously and even incorporate that into the plot - plus, people who're into old school D&D manuals and novels will remember that even then there was a complex ritualistic component to spellcasting that has been 'streamlined' to the point of becoming vulgar power fantasies today, and, ironically enough, all the enchantment and mystique that there once was in things like fables and folklore was sucked out of said magic
It is something I have been thinking for a long time. Sadly, the industrial/technicistic approach to knowledge is built into our scientific Method since the beginning (think of Bacon's "knowledge is Power"). A good discussion of this Theme in narrative Form can be found in "Fullmetal Alchemist Brotherhood".
Leave it to Brian to not understand that a divine agent wasn't allowed to bring his full might to the party so as to let the mortals define the age and thus make their victory one they earned.
An interesting perspective.
“Harry Potter and the paganization culture” by Michael O’Brien is a must have on this topic!
I’m gonna check it out! And the “A land scape with dragons.”
Thank you both. I will check out O'Brien.
Start with A landscape of dragons” since it lays the groundwork, then the other one deals with some of the more modern influences on our culture. REALLY wish Brian would read and review these books
@@ebennatalie6260 That's the one I was planning to.
The book is hot garbage.
This is the plot of Final Fantasy V and Final Fantasy VI... it's common in video game RPG plots where "we're using something but we don't know the consequences"
I've always felt that the magic in HP is very superficial, but still, in a way its that lack of spirituality in it what really sets it apart from being that occult series many think if ti be. Now its just muggles playing with wands dressed like wizards and doing cool tricks.
Wow. You approached something completely different from what I expected when I opened the video. Truly though-provoking. Gonna have at least another look at it later. Thank you.
This is actually fascinating
Thank you for doing a video on this, I have been wondering about this for a long time!
I disagree with your suggestion that harry potter does not delve into the ethics of magics. Voldemort weilds a power that he does not fully comprehend, there seems to be a binding magic when taking a life. It hurts the human soul(a magic that voldemort and few wizards understand). With voldemorts inability to understand these forces it leads to his downfall. Love is a specific force in Harry Potter, that is studied, and largely misunderstood. Voldemort uses magic with out understanding its consequences, without understanding how it maims his own soul, where it literally morphs his physical being.
Dumbledore has an understanding of magic, and thus fears horrific things that voldemort has done. And he would never be foolish enough to conduct magic that rips your soul because the soul is sacred in the Harry Potter world.
That's a great analogy for magic and technology. Brilliant. Thanks for the video.
beautiful work.... I do wonder whether harry Potter will still be cultirally relevant in 100 years time. I suspect LOTR will.
I loved this analysis! You should do more fiction analysis from a theology perspective! It reminds me of what this orthodox fantasy author Nicholas Kotar said about magic systems when reviewing this series “deed of paksenarrion.”
“What I loved the best about this series is its treatment of “good magic.” Too often, in epic fantasy, the good guys can only beat the bad guys by taking more and more power for themselves. Yes, of course, they’ll use it better than the bad guys (allegedly). But in “real life” that’s rarely the case. Tolkien understood this very well, making “Boromir’s solution” something that never ends well.
The paladins and saints of Moon’s secondary world wield power only when they humbly ask for it. It comes, or it doesn’t come, not because of their own will, but because of the will of the gods they serve. This is convincing, good magic, because the wielder becomes humble through lack of control, and is safeguarded from the temptation of abusing power. It’s brilliant, effective, and inspiring.“
Steve Jobs strictly limited the time his children spent with iPhones, computers etc.
You mean, the ones he didn't deny were his and abandon.
It would be interesting for many of you to look into the company Palantir, named after the LOTR ones. Peter Thiel kind of subverted the name by basing the company in ethical use of big data, ie limited to specific and necessary purposes. Basically the NSA's prism program that Edward Snowden leaked was basically the bad use of "Palantir-like powers," where Palantir Technologies software is a more Gandolf-like usage.