Thanks to a friend who introduced me to him, I can't stop reading Peter Kreeft's works. This one does not disappoint. A great explanation of how the Christian worldview provides the underpinning of Tolkien's masterpiece, and a great introduction to philosophy.

I heartily recommend this book for anyone who's interested in studying LOTR at a deeper level. It would make a perfect first "about LOTR" book for any Tolkien fan.

An informative and fun-to-read introduction to Tolkien's philosophy. Categorized by different philosophical topics and questions and heavily informed by Tolkien's own letters and the writings of C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, and all the homies. This book actually makes me want to finish the Silmarillion (it's been eight years

Loved the book, especially the way he tackles spiritual overtones and undercurrents in Tolkien. He reveals why LOTR is the most popular book of the 20th century by several polls.

Another excellent Peter Kreeft book! If you like Kreeft and you like The Lord of the Rings, you should absolutely check this out. Kreeft dives into a ton of philosophical ideas that are present throughout LotR and it makes for a very interesting read. My only gripe is that Kreeft uses a *ton* of excerpts from CS Lewis writings to illustrate different points and, no offense to Lewis, but I wanted to read more stuff directly from Kreeft! Still a great book and well worth reading.

Good stuff—that's such an understatement, but it will take many readings for it all to permeate me. I liked the clear organization although I feel like he should retitle it to "The Philosophy of Tolkien As Supported By Lewis Quotes." Not that I at all object to the wealth of Lewis quotes but the title feels a little misleading without it.

Tolkien’s heroes are crypto-Christians. They do not know, believe, mention, wonder about, or allegorize Christian doctrine. But they exemplify exactly what life would be like if the Christian claims were true, especially its central paradox about immortality through death and resurrection of the self, self-realization through self-sacrifice.

~

Myth and fantasy show us the significance of our lives, and, when done on a large and epic scale, of our history. By not showing us particular historical facts that we all know, a fantasy like Lord of the Rings shows us more clearly the grander universal truth that we have forgotten: the truth that these particulars form a meaningful pattern, like threads on the back of the tapestry, deliberately, not randomly, arranged. What greater service could literature perform for us than that? What mythic search is greater than “man's search for meaning”? What issue is more momentous than whether history is “chance or the dance”?

Oh, such a fun and beautiful book! It's almost as good as reading the Lord of the Rings over again. The author really captures the essence of Tolkien's work and brings in fascinating aspects of philosophy, including many CS Lewis quotes. The book looks at the Christian views in Tolkien's work a lot, but there are many other elements of philosophy as well.

Overall a good book; it is brilliant as literary criticism of J.R.R. Tolkien's Fellowship of the Ring trilogy and The Hobbit. It is a reasonably good philosophical work too, though it is written at an elementary level with no assumption that the reader is yet heavily into philosophy. Kreeft seems to intend his book mainly to be read in an introductory philosophy class, along with other works, owing to his use of formal structure and elementary use of philosophical terms and ideas. However, the book reads fine on its own and is not otherwise like a textbook. Kreeft organizes most of the book into a series of questions, many of which are obvious philosophical questions (i.e., Does God exist?, Is knowledge always good?, Is evil real?, etc.), though some of his questions are rather unusual or even themselves begging the question (Why do humans have identity crises?, Why do we no longer love glory or splendor?). I would think some questions, like that last example, would be better left more open-ended (i.e., Do we love glory or splendor?), which would enable Kreeft to say he thinks not, and why, rather than turning off a critical reader with such assumptions built into the work unexamined. Unfortunately, for some of Kreeft's questions, his "answers" seem more like a politician "answering" a hard question by talking around it, but never actually addressing it. That said, Kreeft does take on the majority of his questions handily, using examples from Tolkien's works and private letters, and from other sources, especially C.S. Lewis.

Kreeft's greatest strengths seem to be addressing ethics and ethical questions. However, he makes several assumptions that he does not defend, particularly about God and good. If one shares his assumptions, all is well. He will not, though, be converting any from a hostile camp (such as atheists) with his arguments as stated, unlike, say, Mere Christianity, which takes nothing for granted and builds everything from the ground up. Still, Kreeft's analysis of Lord of the Rings as literature is penetrating enough that if someone who did not overtly share Christian beliefs and values enjoyed the books and then read Kreeft's analysis, he must be left asking himself some hard questions.

In short, people like fantasy because "Fantasy is a flight to reality." (location 980 and elsewhere) Kreeft notes the enduring popularity of Tolkien's works among the masses, even while they are sneered at by the self-anointed elites:

Ordinary people still believe in a real morality, a real difference between good and evil; and in objective truth and the possibility of knowing it; and in the superiority of beauty over ugliness. But our educators, or "experts" (Fr. Richard John Neuhaus calls them "the chattering classes"), feel toward these three traditional values the way people think medieval inquisitors felt toward witches. Our artists deliberately prefer ugliness to beauty, our moralists fear goodness more than evil, and our philosophers embrace various forms of post-modernism that reduce truth to ideology or power. (location 126)

In short, "humanity isn't found in that arrogant oligarchy of utterly out-of-touch elitists." (location 121) Kreeft's sense of this works throughout the book to make it a brilliant literary criticism, and resoundingly answers the one question Kreeft doesn't formally pose: "Why do we like these books?" The answer, "The deepest need is the need for meaning, purpose, and hope." (location 163) Tolkien does this through literature and not mere allegory, "Philosophy says truth, literature shows truth." (location 213) "All literature incarnates some philosophy," (location 236) but, "a philosophy that cannot be translated into a good story cannot be a good philosophy." (location 242) Kreeft rightly observes that fiction is not neutral, "Literature is judgmental." (location 256) And how do we judge? "Human minds seem to be in touch with Platonic Ideas when we make value judgments." (location 492) Don't worry, Kreeft explains Platonic Ideas for the uninitiated.

As he moves through his philosophical questions, Kreeft hits upon some fundamental ones, both in terms of how they feature in Tolkien, and also as they impact our daily lives. Perhaps one of the biggest among these is whether reality is bigger than our understanding, "the philosophy of the poet and of the happy man, for whom nature is a fullness a moreness, and therefore wonderful. It is the philosophy of all the pre-modern cultures...[or] that there are fewer things in reality than in thought; that most of our thought is mere myth, error, convention, projection, fantasy, fallacy, folly, dream, etc. This is the philosophy of the unhappy man, the cynic, the pessimist...The third possibility is that there are exactly the same number of things in reality and in thought, that is, that we 'know it all'." (location 351) Speaking of reality, Kreeft goes further to note, "We should never ask of anything 'Is it real?' For everything is real. The proper question is, 'A real what?'" (location 392)

As Kreeft examines the relationship of science and art within reality, Kreeft notes, "Art is very different from science in that it creates worlds; it creates meaning and beauty and forms and structures and natures, while science discovers them." (location 478)

Another major theme of the Tolkien books is Providence, which Kreeft also thoughtfully considers: "It is easy to identify miracles when we see them, whether worked by God or by evil spirits. But how do we identify divine providence? Where do we find it? Not in a part but in the whole, in the ordering of the whole, in the relationships among the parts." (location 617) As an extension, when considering free will versus fate, Kreeft explores it thus: "'free causality' is not a self-contradiction but a uniquely human kind of causality." (location 716) Further, "divine grace, in dealing with anything in nature, does not suppress or bypass its nature but perfects it and works through it...Therefore, divine predestination preserves human free will, because God invented it." (location 736) Humans are unique from other animals, as, "Our nature is a task to achieve, not a fact to receive." (location 1285)

Kreeft takes on the fact that religious themes pervade the books while religion, as such, is absent: "The main way The Lord of the Rings is religious is in its form, its structure: (a) of its worldview and thus of its world, its setting, the world of Middle-earth; (b) of the plot, full of providential design and cosmic justice; and (c) of the characters as manifesting themes like providence, grace, heroism, hierarchy, glory, resurrection, piety, duty, authority, obedience, tradition, humility, and 'eucatastrophe'." (location 793) Interestingly, one (unnecessary) way Kreeft rationalizes the overt absence of churches and religion is claiming they would be "anachronistic," yet he sees no trouble in the characters using stirrups. Clearly, time was not the problem for Tolkien, it was (as his letters, cited by Kreeft, clearly indicate) that he made a conscious choice to imbue his story with Christianity, rather than describe it as a Christian world.

Kreeft observes a hostility toward industry and technology in Tolkien that would make Jacques Ellul and Gabriel Marcel proud:

The magic of Enchantment means entering the holy city of beauty, truth, and goodness and letting it conquer you. Ultimately, it means letting God conquer you, since beauty, truth, and goodness are divine attributes; they are what God is. But the magic of the "laborious, scientific magician" (that is, technology or, rather, the philosophy that makes "Man's conquest of Nature" by technology the summum bonum) means playing God, like Sauron. (location 1046)

Further, "Enchantment's end is the surrender, or submission, of the soul to the beauty of nature and art. Technology's end is the conquest of nature by power." (location 1077) Still further, "knowledge (as distinct from wisdom) cannot be the supreme good, for it is compatible with evil, just as power is." (location 1431) Despite his arguments against knowledge (or at least its inherent goodness), Kreeft insists, "Truth is objective, and discovered." (location 1532) One is, unfortunately, left with the question unanswered whether we must be artistic cavemen to be happy, or if we may be permitted technology, industry, and other means of efficiently harnessing nature in any form.

Kreeft's critique of the industrial continues, "When beauty is sacrificed for efficiency, the result is inefficiency. When men worship machines, the proper good not only of man but also of machines is sacrificed." (location 1675) The ultimate conquest of nature is conquest of fellow men, as quoted from Tolkien's own letters, "the most improper job of any man...is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity." (location 1995)

As Kreeft delves into the very heart of the story, the Ring and what it stands for, the nature of Frodo's quest, the epic battle between good and evil, he notes, "The false immortality requires the death of conscience. The real immortality requires the death of egotism." (location 1147) This is seen, "When the object we desire is God, or that which God is (truth, goodness, and beauty), the object is not possessable. And paradoxically, only then are we fulfilled, when we do not possess the object we desire but it possesses us." (location 1304) So what is good? "Wanting what you should is better than getting what you want." (location 2201)

Kreeft quotes one of Tolkien's letters that notes, with many other philosophers and theologians, evil is a distortion of good, but not something with an existence of its own, "evil labors with vast power and perpetual success--in vain: preparing always only the soil for unexpected good to sprout in." (location 1701) Kreeft concludes, "The self-destruction of evil is not just something to believe in and hope for, but to be certain of. It is metaphysically necessary, necessary because of the very kind of being evil has by its unchangeable essence. For evil can only be a parasite on good." (location 2113) Frédéric Bastiat would be proud! For instance, evil's parasitical nature is revealed, "Evil is limited to power; it cannot use weakness." (location 2222)

Kreeft correctly notes the traditionalist bent of Tolkien's works, this being the part of Tolkien's books I found least likable: the good old days are over, magic is disappearing, elves and hobbits and great men are disappearing, it has all the pessimism of Norse mythology and none of Billy Joel's wisdom ("The good ole days weren't always good"). Nonetheless, Kreeft makes a valid point when he notes, "The basic argument for tradition is simply that it works." (location 1610) This, however, does not negate change or the value of positive new methods, developments, etc. He does note, "All our victories against evil in this world are only temporary. The idea of progress, central to modernity, is simply false. We have not progressed in virtue or wisdom, only in power and cleverness." (location 2160) Kreeft seems to be more on the side of the happy cavemen, "in gaining the world we have lost our selves." (location 2267) Yet, whether it is Tolkien's hobbits or the Amish, traditionalism (short of man living like animals or cavemen) always assumes a certain level of material and cultural progress as the ideal and virtuous, beyond which any and all "progress" is either evil or illusory, and whatever assumption is made, it is always arbitrary.

Kreeft observes Tolkien taking a position for absolutism and against utilitarianism (just as Friedrich Hayek takes a position for liberty and against central planning): "It is the simple fact that we do not know the future. We are not God. For these things change. But our marching orders, our principles, do not. They are unchanging and universal, not dependent on time or place. And they are what we do know." (location 2325) Kreeft cautions against the reasoning of moral relativism, "What passes for reasoning is often rationalizing." (location 2340)

So what are we left with in the end? Like Frodo and Sam trudging wearily toward Mount Doom against all odds, hope. "Hope is like the sky, unconquerable and spread over everything." (location 2442) Hope in what? "Since (1) hope's object is always in the last analysis a person, not an abstraction, and since (2) that object is also in the last analysis universal and not particular, it follows that (3) that object must always, at least implicitly and anonymously, be God, the only concrete universal, the only Person ('I') who is also Being ('am')." (location 2442)

In short, not a long, technical, or difficult book and one well worth reading. It makes a good work of philosophy as tied to Tolkien, and an even better exploration of why Tolkien's fans like the books. In that regard, it is not unlike Edmund Burke defining what is sublime and beautiful in A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful, except I think Kreeft has been even more successful in this endeavor. So while not without its flaws, on the whole a very good work and one that ought to be on your to-read list!

Peter Kreeft (philosopher, professor, Christian) has written the book that I wish had been the text for my philosophy class. In this invaluable volume Dr. Kreeft answers fifty questions that have been asked by philosophers throughout history and uses the writings of JRR Tolkien (with help from CS Lewis) to answer them. This is a must read, but it has a prerequisite; you must read the main works of Tolkien (The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion) first.

This book is a masterful treatment of philosophy and literary analysis. Using story to demonstrate the meaning of life in all of its depth and complexity is a brilliant way to ground someone in the Truth, and Kreeft persuasively shows that is what you get in the writings of Tolkien. Let me be clear, Tolkien did not set out to write philosophy and disguise it as a story. Yet, the essence of Tolkien's world-view is the bedrock of Middle-earth, and makes his fiction ring true in all that it conveys.

I took an introduction to philosophy course in college. It made my head hurt and I dropped it after a couple of weeks. There were points at which this book reminded me of that course and I just wanted to stop reading it. In fact, I did that a couple of time which is part of the reason it took me forever to read it. On the other hand, however, I found parts of it fascinating. I settled on three stars as sort of a compromise between my competing reactions.

Another great book to understand the author.

Agreeing or not, liking it or not, this and Sanctifying Myth are great material to comprehend Middle-Earth, better than a whole book of appendices.

A nice little book that could serve as an introduction to philosophy. On the whole, I think that reading this prior to rereading Tolkien's works will greatly enhance my understanding of the depth of the author's work. If nothing else, it has increased my motivation to revisit Tolkien's works.

If I have one criticism of the book it is that Kreeft leans a little too heavily on his citations of C.S. Lewis. In the introduction to the book he references the fact that "G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc were so close, in personal friendship, in philosophical and religious belief...that they were called 'the Chesterbelloc monster'. We could with equal reason speak of "the Tolkienlewis monster'."
Don't get me wrong, I think that Kreeft's premise is not without merit, but I still think that he pushed this a bit too far by citing Lewis so frequently. The citations are wonderful and I feel greatly aided by Kreeft's commentary on them, but there is something about this approach that still irks me a little.

Still, I recommend this book, especially if you are preparing for a philosophy or literature course or if you want a better understanding of the masterpiece that is The Lord of the Rings.