Melkor; Evil by Will or Evil by Nature? [Archive] - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Ancalagon'sFire

05-06-2002, 06:04 PM

I fully understand the 'giving of free will' as a gift from Eru to the Ainur. Certainly the comparison is inevitable between the Authors own beliefs and comprehension of 'free will' as a gift from our (his) creator, however, if we (or the Ainur) have no benchmark for knowing wrong or commiting acts of evil, where then does that dissent originally stem from. Is it from the creator?

Surely Melkor, as with any who knows his creator, would only wish to please and seek favour. It must be remembered that;

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the beginning Eru, the One, who....., made the Ainur of his thought.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sil.

So we know that they (The Ainur) were from his mind, of his creation, in his likeness!

Yet, we know that even before the music of the Ainur, Melkor was already spoiled or corrupt;

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of the deeps of Ea she (Varda) came to the aid of Manwe; for Melkor she knew from before the making of the Music and rejected him, and he hated her.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sil.

Yet, how does one truly explain the path Melkor walked? Well, this quote from the Ainulindale sums up my arguement, though it is up to each individual to decide for themselves;

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
for each comprehended only that part of the mind of Iluvatar from which he came, and in understanding of their brethern they grew but slowly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sil.

So Melkor, derived from the thought of Iluvatar, was given the greatest powers, but immediately began to sow discord within the Music from his own imaginings. This is the crux of my thinking on this matter, that these changes were, by design, within Iluvatar himself and maifested by Melkor. He was chosen to cause discord, for this was as Iluvatar meant it to be.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then the themes of Iluvatar shall be played aright, and take being in the moment of their utterance, for all shall fully understand HIS INTENT IN THEIR PART, and each shall know the comprehension of each, and Iluvatar shall give to their thoughts the secret fire, being well pleased
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Melkor might be considered by some, a 'Patsy'. He played out Iluvatars part for him to the letter. His (Melkor) was the fate of creating discord because he was the incarnation of one aspect of Iluvatars persona.

And, having just read all this back to myself, I realise now that I need to get out more! smilies/rolleyes.gif

Tarthang

05-06-2002, 07:28 PM

Without knowing wether or not Tolkien himself addressed this issue at any point, and given that the Ainur were extensions of Iluvatar's thoughts, I would argue that Melkor was destined to be sow discord. To what degree and to what extents he would go to sow this discord, I believe Iluvatar allowed Melkor to decide. Thus, Melkor was intended as an instrument to sow discord providing a catalyst for change so things would not become locked in stasis, but with a freewill to be at odds with the other Ainur as desired.

Child of the 7th Age

05-07-2002, 12:32 AM

What we do not know is whether Melkor was an embodiment of evil that Iluvatar himself already possesed? Was Melkor destined to corrupt, destroy and abuse all in his power because he was the very embodiment of evil that Iluvatar himelf already possessed?

Ancalagan's Fire--

Whoops! The question here is not the natue of Melkor, but rather that of Eru. And what side did you say you were on in the recent contest in Middle-earth to try and destroy the Ring of Power? Or, perhaps, you were on both sides at once, since there does not appear to be a clear delineation between that which is good and that which is evil, at least in terms of ultimate-shall we say Platonic--standards that exist beyond the circles of this world.

Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion in reading and interpreting the writings of Tolkien, but I think I hear the author rolling over in his grave. While there are certainly mythologies which postulate the type of deity you suggest, I do not think you can graft these images onto
the world envisioned by a fairly traditional Catholic scholar and philologist such as Tolkien. It's one thing to debate if evil exists as an independent entity or merely as the negation of good. Or to question if Melkor might repent and receive forgiveness once he comes crawling (or bounding) out of the Void. While I may agree or disagree with a particular point of view, there are paradigms within Christianity which Tolkien might have locked onto in considering questions such as these.

However, I would argue that the dichotomy you suggest within the Godhead itself is unthinkable in this particular book and universe, given who Tolkien was and the way he looked at the question of good and evil. I think there is a huge degree of latitude on how an individual reader can interpret any given author or book, but I do think that there are certain boundaries that need to be respected because of the mindset of the creator of that work. And I think you have just put your toe over a critical line. Certainly fantasy books and mythical universes exist where a question such as you posed is completely legitimate. But I honestly don't think this is one of them.

As some may know who have read my often wordy pleas on behalf of the Shire and Hobbiton, I am an impassioned supporter of Hobbits in general and Frodo Baggins in particular. Now what am I to make of this? Do you mean to tell me that Mr. Frodo trudged all the way to Mordor bearing the Shadow of the world on his neck and sacrificed a great part of his own personal happiness, merely because on Monday, Eru was in the mood to explore the "good" part of his persona? Perhaps if he had waited till Tuesday, Eru would have decided to investigate the other aspects of his being, and the whole War of the Rings might have been avoided. I don't think so. sharon, the 7th age hobbit

p.s. Welcome to the Downs. Post often and have fun.

[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

stone of vision

05-07-2002, 06:03 AM

Welcome Ancalagon's Fire

I'm called Sil aka stone of vision( though I'm not a silmarillion's expert smilies/smile.gif / It's for Silmaril) .

Discussing the nature of Melkor, I was thinking you might be interested to have a look at Poisonniel's thread: " the original breaking of the fellowship"
Where you could read various and very worthy interesting pov(s) about Melkor. (do have a look! smilies/smile.gif)

Enjoy all the discussions as I do since I'm wandering here and forgive my lazyness for this time smilies/biggrin.gif

stone of vision

05-07-2002, 06:13 AM

oops, I mean PIOSENNIEL!
Mea culpa! Thousands apologies Piosenniel smilies/smile.gif, with the difference time I'm still sleeping, a real groundhog lol! smilies/biggrin.gif

Cimmerian

05-07-2002, 06:21 AM

I think Melkor got really bored of all the drivel that was going on around him and tried to liven up things by playing his own riffs, but old Ilu got irked and the rest is ME History.

http://www.conan.no/images/website/thorgrim_01.jpg

Ancalagon'sFire

05-07-2002, 04:58 PM

There is no doubt that Tolkiens own background and faith has had some indirect influence on wrtings. Though the acknowledgement that Eru could be somewhat representative of 'christian' monotheism is extremely loose, it is certainly not Tolkiens objective.

"..I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country: it had no stories of it's own (bound up with it's tongue and soil), not of the quality that I sought, and found (as an ingredient) in legends of other lands. There were the Greek, and Celtic, and Romance, Germanic Scandinavian and Finnish (which greatly affected me); but nothing English, save impoverished chapbook stuff. Of course there was and is all the Arthurian world, but powerful as it is, it is imperfectly naturalized, associated with the soil of Britain but not with the English; and it does not replace what I felt missing. For one thing it's `faerie` is too lavish, and fantastical, incoherent and repetitive. For another and more important thing it is involved in, and explicitly contains the Christian religion.

For reasons, which I will not elaborate, that seems to me fatal. Myth and Fairy-story must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truths (or error), but not explicit, not in the known form of the primary `real' world. (I am speaking, of course, of our present situation, not of ancient pagan, pre-Christian days...)

From a letter to Milton Waldman in 1951 published both in the Forward of the Second Edition of the Silmarillion as well as being letter # 131 in the year 2000 edition of The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien.

The fact that Eru is not a 'Christian god', means all thinking explicitly based on Christian principle can be the object of debate. In this case, there is nothing to suggest that Tolkiens 'Iluvatar', was not in equal measures both good and evil. Then again, there is nothing to suggest he is not simply an all-round, loving, caring good guy/girl. However, I do not think it is reasonable to simply draw a conclusion that because Tolkien himself was Catholic, that his mythology should be labeled Christian. Tolkien’s design was to create a pre-Christian mythology for England.

This again leads us into the realms of allegory, from which Tolkien was keen to distance himself, because his intent was an original, non-allegorical creation.

[QUOTE]I disslike Allegory - the conscious and intentional allegory - yet any attempt to explain the purport of myth or fairytale must use allegorical language. [QUOTE]

The fact remains that like it or not, all this work is open to scrutiny, but scrutiny with an open mind, so I would be grateful if you would not discard my thoughts on this matter.

As for Frodo, I think it is admirable that you are such a staunch defender of his purpose and his goals, which were thrust upon him. Yet, in the end it was Gollum who actually completed the destruction of the Ring. Was this part of Erus plan?

Melkor, Evil by Will or Evil by Nature? I am referring to him specifically for he was the instrument of pain, misery, suffering and discord from the very beginning, why him? Where did this discord, this discontent, this desire to create havoc come from? Eru, of course! smilies/evil.gif

The Silver-shod Muse

05-07-2002, 06:04 PM

I have a hard time believing that Eru, who is without doubt represented as a "good guy", or at least positively neutral, would sacrifice harmony because he got bored and decided to "liven things up." He did not desire discord, but a melodious, ever-changing constancy (if that makes any sense at all).

As far as negating good to achieve evil, I don't think that's the idea that Tolkien was shooting for at all. When Eru created offshoots in the form of the Ainur, he intended them to posses the ability to make decisions for themselves. The Ainur became their own at "birth".

The very worse things are those that were once good, but are now corrupted, as we see in Tolkien's idea of creating evil through corruption in the elf to orc transformations. It goes very much against the grain to say that Melkor was not given a choice, but was destined to be evil and to suffer (as I'm sure he did). Again, as at the opening of this correspondence, I used the example of Aule's dwarves to mirror the relationship between Eru and the Ainur. Melkor made a decision that he had to feel the consequences for.

I don't have the Sil nearby, but I recall that there is a passage where it's stated that in the end times, Eru will direct the Ainur to sing again, only this time there will be no flaws. Melkor marred the song as an individual, not as one of Eru's repressed personalities.

In any case, there is no such thing as pure evil, because if you take all the good out of something, there will nothing left. Intelligence, for example, is a good thing, and only when perverted is it made evil.

If any of you own C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters, it has an excellent preface on what I've just written concerning the nature of evil and its source that I highly recommend for the curious. I'm sure Tolkien would've agreed with it, as the ideas illustrated there can be seen reflected in much of his work.

Child of the 7th Age

05-07-2002, 06:30 PM

Ancalagon's Fire-

Sorry if I sounded too harsh. When you post at 1:30 a.m. you can go a little crazy. But I still stand on my basic premise: given the inner consistency of Tolkien's story and his characters,the whole fabric of the Ring war, I believe that such a dichotomy in the Godhead is a difficult position to maintain.

This is true even if you leave aside the whole question of Tolkien's Catholic viewpoint. And to tell the truth, I do not feel you can totally ignore that viewpoint. While I am not a Christian, Tolkien was very hesitant to put anything into his picture of Middle-earth which could be construed as a blatant rejection or negation of his Catholic views. This is one reason so much of the spiritual content of the work is in symbolic terms, rather than an explicit depiction of ritual or even theology. And there are many questions such as the end of days where he largely keeps quiet rather than spelling out anything which could be seen as being at odds with the later Christian revelation.

As far as Frodo goes, it's precisely because of Tolkien's views as a Christian author that Frodo had to fail at Mount Doom. Since no human being or hobbit is perfect, including Frodo, the final step must be taken not by Frodo but by Providence. However, this could not have occurred unless the ground had been prepared by the pity and mercy shown first by Bilbo, then by Frodo, and, at the end, even by Sam.
Frodo's job was to get the Ring up to the Crack of Doom. Then other forces simply took over. sharon, the 7th age hobbit smilies/smile.gif

[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

Nar

05-07-2002, 08:02 PM

Ancalagon's Fire, excellent question, excellent quotes.

Given Tolkien's description of these works taking place in our word, but an imaginary history, I think he meant Eru to be the same God as in Tolkien's faith, but from a time before the historical Catholic faith.

Tolkien certainly did set out to write an epic set of myths and legends for England. That's absolutely right. I find, however, at least in LotR, (which is not the part with Melkor that you're asking about, but depends on it conceptually) that the spiritual themes of sacrifice, resistance to temptation, pity/charity and redemption, not to mention Child of the 7th Age's providence appear more and more during the later stages of Frodo and Sam's journey.

Tolkien wrote those stages during the later days of WWII and just after and sent them to his son Christopher, who was at one point training for the RAF-- which means he wrote them while his son was under threat of dying in a war, and just after, and as a vet who had lost friends, he knew that death and loss could really happen to him and his. Having a child in jeopardy does tend to bring out the spiritual side of a person. In Tolkien's case, that side was Catholic. I find less of these spiritual themes, and more of the epic and pagan themes in FotR --Tom Bombadil, for example, is pure pagan, like the Green Man (of course, Tom could also be the Secret Fire incarnate). Goldberry is a river nymph.

However, even supposing Tolkien's Catholic side influenced his storytelling at times, it is still perfectly reasonable to ask your question about Melkor and Eru-- it's a perfectly reasonable question for a Catholic writer to consider. In the Catholic (and indeed Christian) faith, the redemption was triggered by treachery and betrayal, so was that God's only plan? That is a similar question, and one Catholics and other Christians have often considered. (I'm a lapsed Episcopalian myself, but my husband's Catholic, so I'm a secondhand expert.)

I do think the Silmarillion is much more epic and pagan in spirit than the later books of LotR I mentioned. However, I think the question of Melkor's responsibility or not for his own path is very much affected by Tolkien's Catholic side and should be answered with that in mind, along with the Epic side which is also applicable. Was Melkor set up by Eru? Is there a way Melkor could have fulfilled his role of creating change and development, history, the whole bleeding plot for the mythos, without the suffering: killing the trees, murdering various elf-monarchs, twisting and torturing prisoner elves to create orcs (that was really rotten of him! The poor orcs! Always some war, some lousy boss or other, never any hope of living reasonable lives with booty and orc-wenches in a nice dark cave!)

My answer is yes. You are right, I think, Melkor was gifted by Eru with Eru's own yen for change, growth, and working the angle. (At this point, I admit, I'm mainly interpreting the story from my own world view and my own notion of God. Go on, listen to the lapsed Episcopalian! I can lead you to the land of qualified ambivalence!) However, Eru did not pre-determine how Melkor would play out his nature. That was all him. Melkor was determined to parlay his role into one of maximum power and grandeur. He had heard the entire song, and knew exactly what that would require of the world and its children, and he did not turn aside. In choosing this particular way of fulfilling his role, Melkor accepted all the suffering for others and cruelty from him it required.

Now that's a different question. Melkor chose his path while singing the song, so:
a. Did he have an inkling that he was defining the elements of a world
b. Were all the events of middle earth included in the song (I think yes)
c. So could he repent while in the world, if he didn't during his part in the song that defined the world and its events?
d. I don't care, he's still a rat fink! Poor orcs!

[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]

Kalessin

05-07-2002, 09:17 PM

Interesting post, and some thoughtful contributions above smilies/smile.gif

The problematic duality and/or ambiguity in Tolkien's myth of origin reflects to some degree the unresolved - though perhaps intuitively manageable - contradictions in the Christian concept of omnipotent Creation and Free Will. Simply put, if Eru (or God, if you like) creates and knows everything (or creates beings or forces that themselves create in turn), then the presence of evil, and the evil that may and does result from free will, are a known, inextricable and inherent part of that creation. The 'Fall', in whatever form, cannot arise from some power or source outside of Eru (there is none), nor can Eru be unaware that it will happen. Yet Eru's reaction is an increasing anger towards Melkor's discord, and he is at regular intervals "punished" by the Valar (acting with the will of Eru).

Now, I think this IS a contradiction - or perhaps mystery is more apt - yet one that is central to Christian faith and the moral sensibility of Tolkien's work. I do NOT believe there was any sense of an Eastern 'balance' between good and evil, nor do I think there is a kind of moral determinism ie. "evil is required to act as a catalyst for good". These interpretations are antithetical to Tolkien's beliefs and to the text itself, in which the end of utopian (harmonious) existence and the destruction of nature are clearly tragic and regrettable. The ultimate (and complete) triumph of good over evil in LotR illustrates the values at work.

Of course, dramatically, or in structural terms, 'discord', 'opposition' or 'dangerous unpredictability' etc. are necessary narrative elements, and obviously Tolkien was telling a story. This is probably more important than we have acknowledged - Tolkien was not a philosopher, and not primarily concerned with creating a rationalisation of existence, nor was he constructing an RPG scenario with a straightforward background in causality. He was a storyteller (much of his writing arose out of the telling of stories to his children). And stories need ... well, a story.

Logic, or an academic analysis of Tolkien's stories or contextual writings, will not in this instance resolve the essential contradiction. But for most people, this and similar dualities have been part of our collective culture since Descartes. Art can and does reflect the irreconcilable within ourselves, moral and otherwise, and our individual states of conscience and consciousness. And on that level, we have the capacity to intuitively grasp personal, and I guess, philosophical, contradictions.

Personally, I find contradictory and co-existing realities reasonably effective as a rational framework for humanity (or mortality) if you will, although traditional Catholicism a la Tolkien is nodoubt more absolutist. But the kind of philosophical logic (or 'systems analysis', if you prefer)we take for granted these days was not prevalent at the time of the Gospels. In the 11th Century (sigh ...) Anselm and other medieval philosophers developed the "ontological argument" for proving the existence of God (which is irrefutable but can be sidestepped smilies/smile.gif ) as part of an attempt to reconcile Christianity with the ancient Greek philosophers, but in the end, Western rationality will always allow for competing paradigms - only faith provides (philosophically unsound) certainty.

This takes us back to the subject (phew) ... Tolkien's faith, therefore, allows for a narrative of Creation and Fall in which the archetypal manifestation of Evil is consistent. And the telling of a story (in the tradition of the great myths he so admired) demands that a pantheon of archetypal (and in differing degrees oppositional) forces (and characters) is present.

Perhaps I should have just said "poetic licence" and left it at that smilies/tongue.gif

Peace

piosenniel

05-07-2002, 09:56 PM

Tolkien's faith, therefore, allows for a narrative of Creation and Fall in which the archetypal manifestation of Evil is consistent. And the telling of a story (in the tradition of the great myths he so admired) demands that a pantheon of archetypal (and in differing degrees oppositional) forces (and characters) is present.

Is the being Melkor the archetypal manifestation of evil, an objective reality, so to speak. Or is the archetypal manifestation of evil Melkor's actions which are a negation of the Creation of Eru. If he is the archetypal manifestation of evil, is he fated to always be evil. If it's Melkor's actions which are evil because they are a negation of the 'good', then is there the possibility for him to choose a different course of action given that he has an abundance of time in which to reflect and re-choose.

Ancalagon'sFire

05-08-2002, 02:40 AM

Let's then assume in this instance that Eru is an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient creator, fashioned after Christian monotheism. Surely his design for all his creation is pre-ordained, fated and marked-out for every individual and natural occurence?
We have Earthquakes, volcano eruptions, disasters, floods to name but a few, also all carefully mapped out in Eru's great plan for the world.

If all this is known in advance, surely Melkors actions were also woven into this great tapestry, possibly a vessel for Eru to test the faith, strength and resolve of his own Children. I must state clearly that I do not believe the Ainur to be Children of Iluvatar, but they ARE Iluvatar. One might consider the 'Holy Trinity' and amplify. Therefore, Melkor also being part of Iluvatar himself, was in essence an aspect of Eru's own persona.

If you consider the SIN factor; Sin stems Satan, who stems from God, therefore Sin stems from God? Is it impossible to think that because we have 'free will', the origin of our desire to commit sin ultimately comes from the one who is testing us? In other words, we were presented with sin as a means of finding our way back to our God? So, who therefore does Sin originate from, surely not Satan, for he would prefer us not to have a choice at all. Surely God has pre-ordained sin on our behalf, in order for us to decide whether we should ultimately choose him over our own desires?

So what role does Satan play? His is to sow discord, to tempt, entice and entrap. Yet, ultimately all his actions, devilry and devision stems ultimately from the One.

Free Will we all have, yet some are simply set-up for the benefit of others. Was Judas a patsy so Jesus could ultimately be betrayed and sacrifice himself on a cross? What if, when faced with the choice, he said no! Of course not, it had been written centuries before, because he had a role to play in opening the gates of heaven through Jesus. Where is he now?

In the same way, Melkor has played the role. He is of the mind of Eru, therefore he is the mind of Eru. The two cannot be detatched simply because it seems unpalitable that a loving creator would sacrifice so many for the righteous few and Melkor was his instrument, his alter-ego if you like, for sowing the seeds.

Hey, these are just my ramblings, offered to the good members of the forum for debate and criticism.

Thenamir

05-09-2002, 01:11 PM

Melkor, dope or dupe? An interesting question. What are the influences and motivations that caused Melkor to play the sour notes on his Cosmic Tuba? Perhaps he got a few bad pepperonis on the pizza they ordered at choir practice the day before. Indigestion can get anyone out of sorts, not to mention food poisoning. Just think of the peace and harmony that would have arisen on Middle Earth if Domino's had just read the expiration dates on the meat-packages...

Or perhaps Melkor had to stand next to someone who forgot their deodorant that morning. Probably Sauron's least-favorite cousin Herbert (the one who liked to make faces while sticking macaroni noodles into his nose and ears...a disgrace to the entire family). It is impossible to maintain proper breathing control when sitting in the presence of that kind of stink, and so he was perhaps improvising shorter notes in an attempt to keep from breathing the toxic fumes any more than necessary.

If, as some suppose, Tom Bombadil is the embodiment of Eru himself, one has only to look at the silly stuff he sang to wonder whether Melkor might have thought he could write better material. (That could explain why Middle Earth was sometimes such a silly place, and why the singing of the Elves, the Children of Iluvatar, considered by some to be superior poetry and "not to be missed," consists of Bombadillish lyrics such as "Fa la la lally...". Of course, this would suppose that the creature could have more talent than the Creator, which is a logical impossibility.)

On a different note (pun intended), perhaps the name change from Melkor to Morgoth had nothing to do with Feanor and all the rest of that folderol. Perhaps Eru liked classical a-capella choir music, but Melkor decided that he was into black-leather outfits and metal and hi-amp electric guitars. That would give new meaning to his new name -- He wanted more Goth, and less classical.

I look forward to the feedback which my theories will inevitably provoke.

piosenniel

05-09-2002, 01:27 PM

'Melkor, dope or dupe'

What a concise summing up of the theme of this thread!

How about, though, neither of those choices - how about: Melkor, free thinker?!

Thenamir

05-09-2002, 02:03 PM

In a more serious tone:

We as mortal humans can have no idea of the meaning of creating autonomous self-determining beings, whether in fantasy or in Christan reality. Once such a being is created and "set in motion," if you will, the cause-effect link between creator and created is severed. Such a being can, as in some science-fiction TV shows and movies, "grow beyond it's programming." The inputs and experiences of that being will affect it's judgement. It is capable of deciding for itself whether to serve the good of the entire universe, or merely to serve its own selfish ends.

Now throw emotion into the mix. If there is a "good" jealousy (such as a man jealous for his wife so that he protects her from other suitors), then there is also the possibility of using that same emotion in a bad way, (such as Melkor being jealous of Eru becuase of his position and authority and capabilities.) Melkor became jealous of the Creator, and sought to become like him, or perhaps even MORE powerful, so that all would worship him -- that he could force his will on HIS creation.

The point is that a self-determining autonomous being is just that -- you cannot blame the parents, the creator, or other external circumstances for the behavior of a being that can choose it's own way. Certain reactions may be easier (like punching-back someone who punches you in the mouth), but that does not mean that you are *forced* to do so...you always have the choice. That's the nature of free will.

Eru is, in this sense, no more or less blameable for Melkor's actions than Sauron. Self-determination implies self-responsibility. It's like that bumper-sticker -- "What we are is God's gift to us. What we become is our gift to God." If a being has no choice of what he/she/it becomes, then how can he/she/it be blameworthy or praiseworthy?

I shall now relinquish the soapbox to those who wish to tear down my edifice of cards...

Thenamir

05-09-2002, 02:11 PM

piosenniel:

Unfortunately, in this story there is "Eru's way" and "All the others". "Free Thinking" is just a euphemistic way of saying "I can do it better than Eru", which is untrue.

piosenniel

05-09-2002, 02:17 PM

Sometimes, though, that is how evil is defined - subjectively - simply as the reaction in negation to the proposed 'good'.

Thenamir

05-09-2002, 02:33 PM

That *is* how it is defined. When men do it, it is stifling and restrictive, becuase men have not the gift of omniscience...becuase their view *is* limited.

When a benevolent, all-knowing being says "this is the way -- walk in it," it is not "free thinking" to question that being's judgement, it is suicide.

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: Thenamir ]

Ancalagon'sFire

05-09-2002, 03:12 PM

How then is it possible to differentiate between 'fate' and 'free-will', when one considers that Eru has a plan? Does Eru have a plan? Does he know in advance who will falter and who will succeed? Does devine intervention on the part of Eru render 'free-will' no more than lip service?
Should we even be looking at this through 'omnipotent god goggles' in the Christian sense, or more open minded considering Eru to be fallible and impotent, generous loving and vindictive in equal measures.

Was Melkor Evil by Will or Evil by Nature? Was Melkor simply one of Eru's more dominant personalities in a fractured, schizophrenic mind?
Eru = Good Cop, Melkor = Bad Cop!

stone of vision

05-09-2002, 04:03 PM

Hey! You should tell me there was a mega-from- Hell- creation concert playing the Ainulindale symphony, here! smilies/eek.gif
Eru and his Valar ' s band staring Melkor in solo what a show!
A wery witty, cynical, but so enjoyable musical and " gastronomic" review, Thenamir. lol! smilies/biggrin.gif
See, how the work of an ochestra chief is harsh! Providing ripe food, because he is broke, and feeding his musicians, forces them, terrorizes them to play his genious
- only for him of course- composition to pay his credences.
And when one of them, Melkor decided to play a different, more electrical, and shaken way, he was fired out to hell! Oh! Bitter world!
Who says that music sooth the soul ( translation?) " la musique adoucit les moeurs".

Oh my! I' m delirious! Time for me to go to bed! I promise to come back when i could regain a bit of reason and think seriously about that Melkor/ Eru 's affair.

Good night all, and sweet and thoughtful dreams

Cimmerian

05-10-2002, 05:31 AM

Agreed piosenniel.

Some of these posts are of such deep thought...shudder!

Lord Gothmog

05-11-2002, 02:23 AM

Melkor when he was first created was given, like the rest of the Ainur, that which we call 'Free Will' That is he could make choices within certain limitations. But when he 'Sprung from the Thought of Iluvatar' he must have had some darkness within him. This darkness can only have come from Iluvatar himself as all that the Ainur were in the begining came from the One. Melkor was not the only Ainu to be possesed of this darkness.
For Manwë was free from evil and could not comprehend it, and he knew that in the beginning, in the thought of Ilúvatar, Melkor had been even as he; and he saw not to the depths of Melkor's heart, and did not perceive that all love had departed from him for ever. But Ulmo was not deceived, and Tulkas clenched his hands whenever he saw Melkor his foe go by; for if Tulkas is slow the wrath he is slow also to forget. from the Silmarillion: chapter 6, of the unchaining of Melkor.

So we have Manwe who "was free from Evil and could not comprehend it" while Ulmo "was not deceived" and Tulkus who "is slow to forget". Both Ulmo and Tulkas had to have some darkness within to understand the Darkness of Melkor, while Manwe had no darkness as is shown by his complete lack of understanding of Melkor.

So in the begining all of the Ainur were of different parts of Iluvatar, some light some dark most inbetween. All then had chances to grow and choices of how to grow. Melkor decided to to alone into the void and conceived thoughts unlike the rest of the Ainur. This was his choice and the path he Chose.

In saying this, he could not have chosen this path unless he had darkness from Iluvatar in the first place, Manwe could not have chosen to walk this as he had not the means of concidering it. So we seem to have the opposite ends of Iluvatar's spectrum of thought in Melkor at the Darkest and Manwe at the lightest with all the rest somewhere in between. So Melkor was made in the begining the greatest of the Ainur and was also given the greatest freedom of action to decide his path. Manwe although only slightly less powerful was given almost no freedom. Then Iluvatar gave the Ainur themes to improvise about, something like a map with a start and an end but no paths. The paths were then given in the Music made by the Ainur. It was at this point that Melkor started to show what he had done with the freedom allowed him by Iluvatar in that he wove into the music discords and thoughts that were not in tune. Iluvatar used Manwe to fight against all that Melkor did.

So in my opinion Melkor was not Evil by Nature, he was he was dark by nature but had the freedom to choose his path. His darkness would tend to push him toward evil however. So it looks like Iluvatar wanted him to rebel and hoped he would do so. Manwe on the other hand was there to put limits on Melkor, he had no other perpose. When the thoughts of Melkor went too far, Iluvatar would start a new theme using his puppet Manwe.

Conclusion:
Melkor - Dark by nature, Evil by choice.
Manwe - Light by nature, Puppet by no choice.
smilies/cool.gif

Nar

05-11-2002, 09:13 AM

Lord Gothmog-- Welcome to the Downs! Excellent, excellent gloss on Melkor-- very well balanced and thoughtful. Good work! I think you're too hard on Manwe-- it's a thankless task being a 'good side' fictional character as the possibilities of drama and grand gesture are limited by the obedience angle, but the contrarian in me always wants to defend them.

I think I agree with you that Manwe doesn't have a dark side-- your quote is very compelling. I'm not sure Manwe couldn't go wrong, though-- couldn't he be too narrow, didactic, strict or intolerant? He doesn't seem to have fallen that way, but could he? I'm pretty sure that too much good isn't within Tolkien's spiritual roots-- but there are surely ways of giving in to smaller, more banal temptations within an overarching dedication to obedience and goodness.

Moving beyond the issue of good/bad and varieties of temptation and fall, is it really the case that free will is only indicated by this choice of good or bad? Couldn't there be different aspect of good-- different ways of building, sub-creating, or living, on which a free choice could be excercised? After all, there is more than one 'good' vala (is that the right word?) --each contributing goodness to the world in a different way. Can we go further and say that within their different natures, they can excercise a choice as to how they develop their specialty in the creation?

Amarinth

05-11-2002, 02:51 PM

the question has been burning some of the previous threads, and it does seem that the silmarillion itself is not clear on this as shown by what has been discussed above by all ye excellent folks smilies/wink.gif. melkor did emanate from eru who is the source of everything, and by the principle of the conservation of mass if melkor hath evil in him then so should eru. if eru is pure good, then melkor needs attain evil from a source outside of eru that, by definition, does not exist. in spite of this simple logic though i believe quite differently, that is, eru is just good and evil is just melkor smilies/biggrin.gif

from what i understand of the silm it was somewhat of a process rather than a matter of being that melkor came to wear the face of evil -- he was first made sentient (birth of the ainur), then given self-expression (music of the world), then began self-will (marring of arda) and finally self-rule, declaring himself the dominator of arda. he first began exploring the possibilities of evil with disruption of the music of the ainur. "evil" in this sense, and certainly how melkor is characterized in the silm in these early stages, is being in total tangent with the maker's original purposes and principles, and by this token evil is a negation of eru, or "order", an insinuation of a different order with melkor himself at the principal theme, rather than an exercise of some innate, coexistent force to battle "good". it can be argued that this deed of melkor was an act driven by fate, but then again it can also be argued that this is just inciendary talent "jazzing" up some of that classical music.

by the time of the making of arda melkor had of course completely tumbled off the path set out by eru and made his self-will painfully manifest in arda. it is at this stage when evil had clearly been created, by melkor and not eru, and made tangible in the material world. certainly melkor had the capacity to create and destroy, and by fashioning for himself a different role and destiny in which he alone was the motivation, he had recreated himself as his finest masterpiece. he had created evil. acknowledged that the ingredients for it he derived from eru -- greatness, talent, power -- but the recipe he concocted himself.

i also see melkor's "pre-ordained role" as the great disturbance in arda as a measure of the power of eru to "foresee" the various paths stringing out of melkor's own choices. this form of power intuitively only eru can own, since its totality is parceled off to the ainur. mandos has the power of doom, but he can only see a specific for each; eru alone has the ability to see all dooms possible and see what doors must shut and open in order for that specific doom to prevail. each vala has a specific strength, each creature has a specific will, all of which at once calculate and act in concert in the mind of illuvatar, that manwë need seek it often. eru is the great orchestrator, and because he sees far wider, deeper and with greater connectivity into the space-time continuum, melkor's choices play out like a map in front of him.

jeez, i don't know if that made sense...i've been accused here at bd of losing purpose in meaning and thinking quite off the track, i wouldn't be surprised if someone gets a similar rash reading this smilies/biggrin.gif

[ May 11, 2002: Message edited by: Amarinth ]

Lord Gothmog

05-11-2002, 05:20 PM

Nar, I thank you for your welcome and your compliments. To answer some of the points you raise: I'm not sure Manwe couldn't go wrong, though-- couldn't he be too narrow, didactic, strict or intolerant? He doesn't seem to have fallen that way, but could he? Some would view his treatment of the Elves who did not come to Aman in the first place and the Noldor who left, in just the terms you say he doesn't seem to have shown.
Moving beyond the issue of good/bad and varieties of temptation and fall, is it really the case that free will is only indicated by this choice of good or bad? Couldn't there be different aspect of good-- different ways of building, sub-creating, or living, on which a free choice could be excercised? After all, there is more than one 'good' vala (is that the right word?) --each contributing goodness to the world in a different way. Can we go further and say that within their different natures, they can excercise a choice as to how they develop their specialty in the creation?
In my post I was compearing Manwe and Melkor who seem to be the extream opposites of the spectrum. However, I also used both Ulmo and Tulkas to show that there are Valar who fall between these. In fact All of the Ainur not just those who came to Arda, fall between these extreams. Also it is the choice that comes from 'Free Will'. Do you choose good or evil, then which path within either good or evil do you follow. In Melkor's case he was at the darkest end of the spectrum and he chose to walk the Darkest path of all. So Yes each of the 'Good' Valar would act in a different way and show different aspects of 'Good'.

Amarinth
melkor did emanate from eru who is the source of everything, and by the principle of the conservation of mass if melkor hath evil in him then so should eru. if eru is pure good, then melkor needs attain evil from a source outside of eru that, by definition, does not exist. in spite of this simple logic though i believe quite differently, that is, eru is just good and evil is just melkor I used the terms Light and Dark to avoid 'Good' and 'Evil' as while I believe that Melkor was Dark by nature due to the Dark side of Iluvatar, this does not mean that Iluvatar was evil, only that he had both sides to him. It was Melkor who had too much of the Darkness in him. from what i understand of the silm it was somewhat of a process rather than a matter of being that melkor came to wear the face of evil -- he was first made sentient (birth of the ainur), then given self-expression (music of the world), then began self-will (marring of arda) and finally self-rule, declaring himself the dominator of arda. he first began exploring the possibilities of evil with disruption of the music of the ainur. Yes, but without his dark nature how would he have come to this path? No other of the greatest powers even concidered it.
by the time of the making of arda melkor had of course completely tumbled off the path set out by eru and made his self-will painfully manifest in arda. it is at this stage when evil had clearly been created, by melkor and not eru, and made tangible in the material world. certainly melkor had the capacity to create and destroy, and by fashioning for himself a different role and destiny in which he alone was the motivation, he had recreated himself as his finest masterpiece. he had created evil. acknowledged that the ingredients for it he derived from eru -- greatness, talent, power -- but the recipe he concocted himself.
True it was Melkor's choice that brought about the Evil in Arda but the darkness of Melkor had to come from Iluvatar. It is for that reason I said that Melkor was Dark by Nature but Evil by Choice.

Daniel Telcontar

05-11-2002, 05:27 PM

Gothmog, you write that Melkor had something dark in him from the beginning. But since Tolkien was a Christian, I do not believe that I am totally wrong when I compare Melkor's fall from Eru with the fall of Lucifer, Satan, from God. And since God is only good, or light, as you might prefer, then so is Eru.
That means, that Melkor did not have any dark inside him from his "birth", but that it was all his own decision to become evil.

Lord Gothmog

05-11-2002, 06:04 PM

Gothmog, you write that Melkor had something dark in him from the beginning. But since Tolkien was a Christian, I do not believe that I am totally wrong when I compare Melkor's fall from Eru with the fall of Lucifer, Satan, from God.
Daniel, Tolkien based his stories on far more that Christianity. He drew upon many pre-Christian myths and legends, also he went to great pains to remove all religious forms from the work. So while it will obviously reflect certain beliefs of the author, it not wise to compare such things when tolkien himself said there was no intent for such comparison.
And since God is only good, or light, as you might prefer, then so is Eru.

1. How do you know that God is only good?
2. If God is how do you know that Eru is?

That means, that Melkor did not have any dark inside him from his "birth", but that it was all his own decision to become evil.
With no dark he would have been the same as Manwe who "was free from evil and could not comprehend it". Therefore Melkor had to have the darkness first else he could not have turned to Evil.

Daniel Telcontar

05-11-2002, 06:13 PM

Lord Gothmog

05-11-2002, 06:38 PM

You are right when you write that Tolkien disliked allegories, and I only meant it as a theory if Tolkien drwaed any comparison between Eru and God.
But you write, how can I know that God is good?
I cannot; That is the whole concept of belief.
I belive in it, because I have seen more evidence suggesting it than the opposite; But I cannot be sure until i die.

Your next statement is: How can Melkor be seduced if he is not at some point evil/dark from the beginning?
Again, we are at the point of belief and not fact. And although I know that Tolkien wanted to keep his books free from christian allegories, I still think that he thought upon Eru as a being of good, simply because that was the most obvious for Tolkien.

My arguments are not the best, but it is hard to come up with something better since we ae discussing something that is hypothetical and not facts.

The reason I answered as I did was because The vast majority of quotes by Tolkien that I am aware of state in one form or another that The Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion are not and never were intended to have comparisons with Any religion. It was his intent to write these as a Pre-Christian Mythology for England. Therefore it is unwise to put in christian comparisons to a work that he has stated is not to be Christian.

The reason I asked 'How do you know that God is Good' was in hope of getting the very answer you gave. It is a matter of belief. This being the case, an author can also explore other ideas to get the same results in terms of how good and evil work in a world.

You are the one who is saying that Melkor was Evil in his begining, I said that he was Dark. This allowed him to find the path that lead to Evil. I also said that the Darkness came from Iluvatar. This does not mean that Iluvatar is evil only that he has both Light and Dark, if he did not have darkness in himself, how could he deal with Evil as he, like Manwe would not be able to comprehend it?

The one problem with using Tolkien's religion is that while we can know the teachings that he learned, we cannot know how Tolkien himself interpreted them, so we also cannot know what was the most obvious view for him to have for Eru. So we are left with our own interpretations of his writings.

Daniel Telcontar

05-11-2002, 06:42 PM

You are right about many things, both Tolkien's vision of a mythology for England and that we cannot be sure how he interpreted his teachings. That leaves us in the situation where everyone has his opinion, but I enjoyed our debate and I hope others will gain something by reading it.

have fun, Gothmog smilies/wink.gif

Nar

05-11-2002, 09:29 PM

Oh, without a doubt, Lord Gothmog, I agree with you, Manwe was wrong there:
Some would view his treatment of the Elves who did not come to Aman in the first place and the Noldor who left, in just the terms you say he doesn't seem to have shown. However, I must say that though I think Manwe was defining good too narrowly, showing a lack of neighborly imagination, succumbing to the besetting sins of the 'teacher's pet,' he never became 'fallen' in the sense that Melkor did, going against Illuvatar and sewing desolation across Middle-Earth. If flawed (in my opinion also), he remained, like Aule, basically in accord with Illuvatar. When I said 'fallen' I meant something more than 'made one or two mistakes.'

Of course, as Manwe was leader of the Valar, even one or two mistakes would have extensive consequences-- still, that's not the same as deliberately seeking ruin. Manwe eventually changed his policy and came to the aid of middle earth. To take a real world example from English history, Cromwell was someone who, in my opinion, actually fell through narrow self-righteousness: an unimaginative definition of good narrowly defined, leading to tyranny. I don't see Manwe as a Cromwell.

I do, however, think evil can result from something other than chaos or the archetypal unconscious or too much heavy metal or, heaven protect us, modern music's dissonance smilies/eek.gif or whatever else we're meaning by 'dark side.' (For any beleagured modern music fans, sorry for the cheap crack; I actually own the sheet music to Schoenberg's 'Book of Hanging Gardens' -- I can't play it, but I like to look at it sometimes.)

I'm glad you seem to agree about the Valar's different aspects, what about free will within a specific Vala's mission, free will that does not involve the great question of allegience or good/evil: If Aule chooses to make a mountain range to the north, rather than a grassy plain just there, can't that be considered an excercise of free will, even though it doesn't involve a dark/light, obedience/disobedience or charity/cruelty choice?

Kalessin

05-11-2002, 10:23 PM

Interesting post, and touching on themes that inevitably take us closer to 'Trilogy and Bible' territory.

It was his intent to write these as a Pre-Christian Mythology for England. Therefore it is unwise to put in christian comparisons to a work that he has stated is not to be Christian.

I cannot bear to rehash everything from that other thread, but I would question the intent to create 'Pre-Christian' mythology. I would say, rather, a mythos that is non-referential-to-Christianity (or one consistent with itself), but one that is inevitably informed by Tolkien's own culture and faith. I think 'comparisons' (or theoretical contextualising) to Christianity, or to the tenets of Catholicism, ARE possible with an appropriate sense of perspective. Of course we are not talking allegory here, or quid pro quo symbolism, but - as Tolkien himself said - a 'nature of divinity' that could be understood by one familiar with the Holy Trinity. And in addition, a traditional Christian morality underpinning the narrative, that culminates in the triumph of Good over Evil rather than a restoring of yin-yang equilibrium.

I also said that the Darkness came from Iluvatar. This does not mean that Iluvatar is evil only that he has both Light and Dark

As above, I am not sure that the somewhat more Eastern or humanist idea of the necessary coexistence of Good and Evil (or Light and Dark as pathways to either) is entirely appropriate with regard to interpreting Tolkien. It seems to me that a reasonably traditional Christian sensibility - in that Evil is not symbiotic with Good - is at work. In the end, the victorious conclusion of each struggle is the utter defeat of evil, and it doesn't appear to me that evil is ever accepted or tolerated as "part of the cosmic balance" or other such framework.

This is indeed the philosophical contradiction that Christianity must wrestle with in relation to free will, as I discussed in a previous post. But I'm not convinced that it is correctly resolved in terms of the Silmarillion by inferring a moral sensibility antithetical to Tolkien's own faith, and where there are so many narrative elements (and the author's contextual writing) which imply a particular absolutist worldview. In fact, the contradiction as such is just not a big part of Tolkien's works at all.

I am content not to have a clear external solution (or resolution) to the issues of pre-determination, free will, good and evil that can be found in Tolkien's work - just as I cannot resolve these issues in 'real life' smilies/smile.gif. We can intuitively deal with the themes of the narrative, with such conundrums present, through our imagination - our suspension of disbelief, the application of our particular spiritual worldview, our ability not to rationalise everything we perceive and experience, and so on.

By the way, I find the sub-topic "how do I (we) know that God is good?" fascinating, although perhaps too directly theological to justify lots of time on a Tolkien message board smilies/wink.gif. But if anyone knows a place where we can go and thrash it out, let me know!

Peace smilies/smile.gif

Lord Gothmog

05-12-2002, 09:11 AM

Daniel,
I too enjoyed greatly our debate. Hopefully we will have others giving as much enjoyment. In such cases as this you are right we each end up with our own opinion. These can be shared and discussed without rancour and give pleasure and occasionally some enlightenment to others. Until we meet again, enjoy yourself. smilies/wink.gif

Nar, I agree with you about Manwe not falling completely into the trap of too much good. The points I made about what he did showed that he was on the edge of doing so but did not fall. This means that the possiblity of doing great harm through being too Good was there, but Manwe managed to avoid the Fatal Slip.

As for the Dark side of a being, in my view this would includ such things as jealosy, anger, decitfulness and pride. These when taken too far will show as evil.
I'm glad you seem to agree about the Valar's different aspects, what about free will within a specific Vala's mission, free will that does not involve the great question of allegience or good/evil: If Aule chooses to make a mountain range to the north, rather than a grassy plain just there, can't that be considered an excercise of free will, even though it doesn't involve a dark/light, obedience/disobedience or charity/cruelty choice?

You are correct in what you say about 'Free Will'. In my posts I was concentrating too much on the extreams as I was discussing Melkor and Manwe, in doing so I overlooked the lesser expressions of free will. It is easy to look at the great events and forget that the "GREAT" events are actualy made up of many small events. smilies/cool.gif

Kalessin,
When I said 'A pre-Christian mythology' I meant it as comparable to the Norse myths from before Christanity had come to Europe. I have no problem with your view of what he tried to do as essentaly it is the same. In many of the mythologies from before Christianity all gods had good and bad or light and dark in them. So it would not be surprising to find Tolkien using that model for Eru. His beliefs did not need christian models in the story to show through. In my view Tolkien used themes and moral codes that lay behind Christianity and are true whatever religion teaches them. It is these codes and themes that are in his works. I agree that he was writing about good triumphing over evil rather than keeping balance, but this does not get in the way of having Eru with a dark side to his nature.

I am not sure that the somewhat more Eastern or humanist idea of the necessary coexistence of Good and Evil (or Light and Dark as pathways to either) is entirely appropriate with regard to interpreting Tolkien. It seems to me that a reasonably traditional Christian sensibility - in that Evil is not symbiotic with Good - is at work. In the end, the victorious conclusion of each struggle is the utter defeat of evil, and it doesn't appear to me that evil is ever accepted or tolerated as "part of the cosmic balance" or other such framework.

As I have said before, Eru having a dark side does not mean that there is evil in him, only that he would be able to understand and deal with evil. The other option is to have two equal beings one 'Good' the other 'Evil'. This does not appear in Tolkien's work.

I am content not to have a clear external solution (or resolution) to the issues of pre-determination, free will, good and evil that can be found in Tolkien's work - just as I cannot resolve these issues in 'real life' . We can intuitively deal with the themes of the narrative, with such conundrums present, through our imagination - our suspension of disbelief, the application of our particular spiritual worldview, our ability not to rationalise everything we perceive and experience, and so on.

i too am content to have no clear external solution (or resolution) to these issues, after all if such happened we would have nothing to debate on these topics. smilies/biggrin.gif It all comes down to our own interpretations of what Tolkien wrote.

By the way, I find the sub-topic "how do I (we) know that God is good?" fascinating, although perhaps too directly theological to justify lots of time on a Tolkien message board . But if anyone knows a place where we can go and thrash it out, let me know!

yes this sub-topic is fasinating, however, as previously explained I only used it to get a reaction to help my answer to be understood. it might be interesting one day to have a go at it. smilies/cool.gif

Legolas

05-12-2002, 02:42 PM

I have nothing to say on this, but great topic.

Rimbaud

05-12-2002, 02:50 PM

With reference to the argument that the inclusion of the evil or rather, disharmonious within the Song of Creation was fully intentional, I was reminded of a quote:

"The Enemy in successive forms is always 'naturally' concerned with sheer Domination, and so the Lord of magic and machines; but the problem: that this frightful evil can and does arise from an apparently good root, the desire to benefit the world and others* - speedily and according to the benefactor's own plans - is a recurrent motive."

*Not in the Beginner of Evil: his was a sub-creative Fall, and hence the Elves (the representatives of sub-creation par excellence) were peculiarly his enemies and the special objects of his desire and hate - and open to his deceits. Their Fall is into possessiveness and (to a lesser degree) into perverson of their art to power.

Letter to Milton Waldman, 1951, as printed in Letters, No. 131, pp.143-157

Although in discussion last week I pointed out that IMHO, omniscience assumes prescience and so all events have been approved by Eru beforehand...

A remarkably erudite and stimulating thread, ladies and gentlemen, keep it up.

[ May 12, 2002: Message edited by: Stephanos ]

Amarinth

05-12-2002, 11:07 PM

lord gothmog-- thanks for the comments, and i do understand what you mean, the distinction between possessing a "dark side" and being evil in the sense of truly practicing it. but what i intended to show was that melkor needed only the seeds of greatness, talent, inherently "good" or, at the least, "neutral" traits, to eventually forge evil with himself as his crucible. it's just like finding you have great power in the beginning, testing it out, then really using it to its full force until such time you end up creating god knows what with it, and by that time you've invented a completely new world-order featuring yourself as the bad, bad guy! hey, i think this actually happened already during rcent history! smilies/biggrin.gif

anyway, this interpretation does not need a prerequisite darkness for melkor to have tapped into. notice in the silm that even eru was quite neutral with describing his "jazzed up" contribution to the music of the ainur, this again being interpreted in a sense (by myself smilies/biggrin.gif) as an act of innovation from such a great a talent. consciousness of his actual evil manifests only when his innovation passes into the material world, i.e., when enacted, and that is where his position as an enemy is truly established.

i totally agree with you about not knowing if god or eru is completely good though. i can only go as far as to say that "good" pertains to everything consistent with eru's world order, melkor's deeds having given rise to another thus gave the distinction to "good" because his was antithetical and given the role of "evil".

this are just some interpretations among many, naturally, and though it disagrees in part with yours it's great though to have your and everyone else's take on this, i really had a blast!

Lord Gothmog

05-13-2002, 12:26 PM

Amarinth,
I understand that we have differing views as to the basic make up of Melkor in his begining and I am quite content to have it so smilies/smile.gif . But am I correct in my interpretation of your posts that you agree with my view that Melkor became "Evil" by his own choice rather than being "Evil" from the moment of his "Birth"? Regardless of whether he had a "Dark" side or not. Therefore, "Evil" by will?

Ancalagon'sFire

05-13-2002, 06:06 PM

The more one delves into this subject matter the more one must question the strange mix of both Monotheism and Polytheism, whereby we have Eru as a single all-powerful entity, yet we also have a layer of Gods represented in the Valar.
This in itself instantly determines that Eru can not be viewed in the same way that a 'christian god' can be viewed. This tends to lean more closely to Norse and Slavic mythological interpretations of devinity.

Yet, it this lies the essence that good and evil co-exist, for both emanate from the original one, Eru. Light and dark are no more than good and evil, for each gives credence to a determined course. We know that;
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
each comprehended only that part of the mind of Iluvatar from which he came, and in understanding of their brethern they grew but slowly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yet still, even before the music, Melkor had the capacity to hate. What exactly was it that Yvanna knew?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
for Melkor she knew from before the making of the Music and rejected him, and he hated her.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What had she known about Melkor if not that in his very essence he was evil, not dark.

Manwe knew not evil and could not understand it, therefore he is inherently good, not light. This in turn means he is easily decieved by Melkor. This presents another question as to whether one actually views Manwe as good, because his decisions were not entirely rational and forgiving.

My question now leads me to ask why does evil need to be personified in Melkor, yet good is not so easily personfied, but measured?

Kalessin

05-13-2002, 07:16 PM

Ancalgon's Fire, you are asking good questions, but I just don't think Tolkien rationalised this area in the way in which we are trying to do.

First of all, please let's stop talking about "the dark side". It constantly brings to mind the words "I am your father, Luke" , and a rather spurious moral framework smilies/wink.gif .

We have to start with the assumption that Good and Evil exist in Tolkien, as primary underlying elements that we can all readily understand, intuitively and/or on the basis of our faith or culture. If Tolkien was attempting, or intending, to actually outline in a philosophical (or rational) sense exactly 'what' Evil was, and precisely how it came into being, he obviously failed (as this thread shows). But I think he was taking as read that our grasp of these concepts might be in line with common assumptions, or perhaps more explicitly with his own beliefs. As he said, the nature of divinity in the Silmarillion would be broadly accessible to anyone with an appreciation of the Holy Trinity. And, as I posited earlier, the question about what Evil is and how it comes to be is not really addressed in a scientific way in The Bible.

Remember, whilst Tolkien attentively constructed an imaginary mythos, he was not creating an all-encompassing 'system' like Plato, Leibnitz, Kant etc. He likened the many appendices and 'filling out' of the narrative with contextual details to the creation of a game. This was years before the RPG scenarios that we all understand now, but I guess similar in some ways. A set of rules, some kind of consistency, and a reasonably straightforward narrative causality. Philosophy and philology are pretty distinct disciplines when it comes to explaining existence, and given Tolkien's imaginative vision and narrative skill I'm willing to spare him a Cartesian onslaught smilies/smile.gif

However, you rightly identify where Tolkien perhaps glosses over the issue in relation to Yvanna and Melkor. I suppose that's where suspension of disbelief, or just a willingness to 'go with the flow', as readers, should take over in order to get us through those early chapters. Personally there was a lot of 'going with the flow' for me, and I only just made it to Beren and Luthien smilies/smile.gif

I agree with you that the personification of Evil as opposed to Good is something worth exploring. Perhaps a trite answer is to say that it is necessary for the story, but there is probably more to it than that. We're partly back to the "how do I know God(or Eru) is good?" question that I do find interesting philosophically.

But I'm guessing that, again, given Tolkien's culture and worldview, he found it relatively intuitive to construct a causal narrative with a particular identifiable element of discord in contrast to a more abstract generality of 'perfection'. Even removing the religious aspect, one can perhaps imagine him looking out at the English countryside, and seeing the harmonious beauty of nature 'ruined', or compromised, by ugly man-made artefacts of industrialisation.

You could take a slightly postmodern angle to the question and acknowledge that 'villains' as such, have traditionally and often appeared more interesting and rounded characters in all narrative art forms. Against a background of accepted morality, artists delineate the destructive non-conformist with relish (just as actors play those parts with relish). These characters make things happen. And thus are the catalyst for the ebb and flow of narrative.

I would summarise by saying Tolkien doesn't 'prove' that Eru is good, or fully explain why and how Melkor is or becomes evil. But like him, most readers have an intuitive acceptance of the conceptual framework (however unsound it might be empirically), and in our different ways we can work through the tortuous opening chapters and pretty much end up where Tolkien wants us to be when the real storytelling begins (not before time).

Peace smilies/smile.gif

Lord Gothmog

05-14-2002, 12:44 PM

Ancalagon's Fire.

I agree with you about the way Eru is portrayed in the Silmarillion. He does not come across as compatible with the Traditional Christian God. As I have said before, Tolkien drew upon far more that just Christian traditions to write these books. However, I disagree about your view that Light and Dark are no more than Good and Evil. I do not believe that having Darkness predetermines your course, only that it tends to guide you in that way. In Melkor's case indeed it cannot even be said that he was totally Dark.
To Melkor among the Ainur had been given the greatest gifts of power and knowledge, and he had a share in all the gifts of his brethren.

So for Melkor to have a share in all the gifts of his brethren would mean that to some extent he had a Light side also. To account for his turning his gifts to Evil, we must look at more than just the fact that there was darkness in his make-up.
He had gone often alone into the void, and he was impatient of its emptiness. Yet he found not the Fire, for it is with Ilúvatar. But being alone he had begun to conceive thoughts of his own unlike those of his brethren.

It was at this point, in my view that he started down the path to Evil. Had he remained with the rest of the Ainur, he may not have conceived the thoughts that finally set him apart from the followers of Eru's plan for Arda. He might have been then, as he was in the beginning, the Greatest of the Ainur and the greatest of the Valar.

You say.
Yet still, even before the music, Melkor had the capacity to hate. What exactly was it that Yavanna knew?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
for Melkor she knew from before the making of the Music and rejected him, and he hated her.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What had she known about Melkor if not that in his very essence he was evil, not dark.

Yavanna rejected Melkor before the making of the Music because he was Evil I agree. However, I ask 'How long before the making of the Music was it that Yavanna rejected him for this reason. At first she may have been repelled by the Darkness within him, and later, after he had gone alone into the void, when he had turned to evil she totally rejected him. This would have still been before the Making of the Music, but some time after the beginnings of the Ainur. So In his very essence at the beginning, he would not have been Evil, he would have only had a tendency to that way, the Evil would have come later by his choices. It might even be the case that the rejection by Yavanna was the final straw that turned him completely. He could not have the love and respect of Yavanna so he went totally against those who would become the Valar.

You next say.
Manwë knew not evil and could not understand it, therefore he is inherently good, not light. This in turn means he is easily deceived by Melkor. This presents another question as to whether one actually views Manwë as good, because his decisions were not entirely rational and forgiving.

You have in this paragraph given the very reason why I chose to use the terms "Light" and "Dark" instead of "Good" and "Evil". Manwë and Melkor were the extreme ends of the spectrum of "Light" to "Dark". You say at the beginning that Manwë is "Good" not "Light" then ask if Manwë can be "Good". No, his decisions were not entirely rational and forgiving, the very fact that he was as far or even further into the Light as Melkor was into the Dark means that there is a danger that he could be as much of a dictator as Melkor, and even worse for the peoples of Middle-earth. Anything taken to the extreme can become Evil. In Manwë's case I think it was only that he did not have as much "Free Will" as Melkor that prevented him from going to the point of doing Evil for Good intentions.

finally you ask.
My question now leads me to ask why does evil need to be personified in Melkor, yet good is not so easily personified, but measured?

In the case of Evil being personified in Melkor while Good is not. Melkor is the Most Dark, Manwë is the Most Light, in between there are all the rest of the Ainur. Of those who came to Arda, the rest of the Valar, the Maiar, the Servants of Morgoth (Sauron, Balrogs and all others) show that Light or Dark, both are measured from one extreme to the other. it is only the each end that is personified.

And I give to you another question that arises from this.

Is being the "Greatest" a guarantee of Goodness or of Evilness?

Melkor was the "Greatest" of the Ainur. Later we have Féanor being called the "Greatest" of the Elves. Both fell from the hights of Greatness to the utter depths of Darkness. Is there a link between them and their "Greatness".
smilies/wink.gif

Kalessin

05-17-2002, 11:16 AM

Interesting post, Lord Gothmog. Perhaps I should move my response to Ancalagon so that it follows yours, as we are both addressing the specific points he raised, but my interpretation also applies to your analysis smilies/smile.gif However, I have been attempting to refine my ideas on this a little, so here goes ...

(Eru) does not come across as compatible with the Traditional Christian God. As I have said before, Tolkien drew upon far more that just Christian traditions to write these books

In his letter to Milton Waldman Tolkien writes that the divinity of The Silmarillion are -
" ... beings of the same order of beauty, power, and majesty as the 'gods' of higher mythology, which can yet be accepted ... by a mind that believes in the Blessed Trinity."

I think this partly validates your point about the range of mythic influences. And his creation myth is clearly not an intended allegory of the Book of Genesis. However, Tolkien's last point is a key one, that I referred to in my previous post. In the end, the divine concept at work is one that can be 'accepted' by a Christian. Now, I have Spinoza floating around my head at the moment, so forgive my references from now on smilies/smile.gif ... but given the Christian concept of the divine as perfect, infinite, complete and all-encompassing, both the source and essence of everything (in contrast to a number of other mythic cosmogonies), this inevitably implies that a believer in the Blessed Trinity (such as Tolkien, or the audience he expected) would conceive of Eru and the creation as something comparable or approaching a Christian conception. NOT as allegory, clearly, but something that could be accepted intuitively (by virtue of culture or faith). Zeus, with his philandering interventions, or the Tuatha de Danaan, with their disinterested secretiveness, for example, are far more detached and finite than the Spinoza model of divinity, and thus much further from Tolkien's conception than the Judeo-Christian model.

I realise from re-reading Tolkien's letter that he also directly addresses the inception of Evil, thus -
" ... the problem: that this frightful evil can and does arise from an apparently good root ... is a recurrent motive.". He footnotes this with a specific reference to Melkor - " ... the Beginner of Evil: his was a sub-creative Fall ...".

I think this illustrates my point in answer to Ancalagon. Tolkien 'outlines' what happens, that Melkor is the beginner of evil, and that a contradiction exists between utopia as a causality of discord. This issue we know, as it forms the substance of this thread. But he does NOT resolve the issues philosophically (ie. logically, or with a priori rationalisation).

In this, as I argued, he in effect mirrors Christian mythos in providing an effect - a structure of 'truth' - but WITHOUT a rationalised or necessary causality. That is why I think the 'varying degrees of dark and light' or 'darkness contains some light' extrapolations and speculations are interesting, but don't apply to The Silmarillion. They are a construct we are attempting to overlay on what is an essentially a 'mysterious' myth of origin, yet one that is accessible by virtue of its Christian (and to a lesser extent, other mythological) connotations. It seems to me that, even taking Christianity out of the equation, Tolkien's myth of origin taken at face value represents a 'truth' so distant, infinite and outside our perceptive plane that it is pretty much antithetical to scientific rationalism or the kind of logically arising causality that our attempts to extrapolate infer. Christianity is at least an effective model to illustrate such a possibility.

Had (Melkor) remained with the rest of the Ainur, he may not have conceived the thoughts that finally set him apart ...

The "what-if?" causal speculation is also interesting, but I think all what-ifs arising from the narrative should take account of the nature of the work. I spoke above about the relish of narrative artists in personifying and delineating Evil, and that narrative catalyst was the essence of a good story. I see that Tolkien himself said -
" There cannot be any 'story' without a fall - all stories are ultimately about the fall ...".
My argument is in line with this.

The key discussion is whether The Silmarillion acts primarily as a narrative in which the myth of origin initiates and encircles all ensuing 'adventures' - this is my position - or whether the myth of origin is complete and comprehensive in a philosophical sense, and therefore allows all qualities of the subsequent events to be explained by and within it.

If the first notion is valid (or "more valid", if you like, I'm not proud), then it is as literary device that Tolkien's cosmogony must be first considered. This then allows us to leave the contradictions unresolved (in the light of his, and our, cultural context) but to intuitively absorb the imaginative nature of his vision (as readers), and therefore accept the dramatic backdrop to individual storylines.

However, for the second conception to work, we MUST find philosophical resolutions and "inevitability" throughout the work - and all narrative events must have 'self-evidence' in the context of the structure of existence in the work (and in the work alone). And as this thread shows, we cannot extrapolate or even fully explain the cosmogony or subsequent events in those terms. We can only add our external interpretations, which as I have said I do find very stimulating!

Is being the "Greatest" a guarantee of Goodness or of Evilness?

I like this. It is, in effect, the same question as "How do I know God is Good?". Perhaps Spinoza is again relevant here (sorry, I'll move on soon smilies/wink.gif ) ...

In order to find a way to justify or prove the existence of God, the philosophers (ie. the scientists of their day) originating the 'ontological' argument, and subsequent variations to the same end, formulated a conception of God as "the greatest" (and absolute, complete, perfect, infinite and immeasurable etc.). More precisely, God is (and can only be) "something that there can be nothing greater than". If you think this God does not exist, that in effect means God only exists in your mind. If God exists in your mind, He nonetheless exists. But, since nothing can be greater than God, for Him to exist only in your mind is illogical (absurd, since there can obviously be something greater than existence in your mind alone), and therefore He must "actually" exist as defined.

This argument is irrefutable with classical logic but is not satisfactory. It seems more like a trick than a rational method of explanation. However, along with the "since nothing exists that disproves God, He necessarily exists as the essence of everything" (I won't go into that one) argument, it really provided the basis for Western Christian philosophy (and by collective culturality our inherited assumptions about the divine).

However, this development brought another problem. If God is infinite and all-encompassing, then Evil must be as much "of" God as well as Good. The traditional notion of Original Sin, or the Biblical distinction between immorality and perfection that allows God to 'judge' man (collectively and individually) is utterly irreconcilable.

This is the problem we are wrestling with here as a result of Tolkien's apparently unresolved causality - and it is the nub of the interesting questions.

To address it, philosophers had to therefore accept the 'lesser of two evils', so to speak, and here's where Spinoza comes in. He was one of the first to argue that Good and Evil do not "exist" in their traditional sense. They are perceptions (ie. they are our interpretation, no more) of the effect that particular actions or circumstances have upon us. The first hint of 'moral relativism', if you like, circa the mid-1600s. But this was an understandable development. The 'two evils' comment indicates that it was better to have a rationalist argument which proved the existence of God, but necessarily made Good and Evil relative to humanity, rather than a divine concept that was a 'house of cards' in the face of logical enquiry.

Of course, we have progressed a long way since, philosophically and otherwise smilies/tongue.gif . It is pretty much accepted now that to be a Christian is defined by an act of blind faith (as Gilthalion says, there is no other kind) and for that faith to transcend (or exist outside) the rationalised perceptions and day-to-day empiricism with which we live our lives. It's very much an "all-or-nothing" scenario, which allows Christians to accept the Biblical framework in which God is both infinite and omnipotent yet quintessentially Good and not Evil, where Evil acts against the will of God in man (and often succeeds) yet is not the result of God. And so on smilies/smile.gif

Apologies for the length, mea culpa, I singularly lack succinctness - but I wanted to address the pure Tolkien aspects and the equally fascinating generalities you guys have touched on. Thanks for making it a great discussion, and respect for your excellent and articulate contributions smilies/smile.gif

Peace

[ May 17, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

The Silver-shod Muse

05-17-2002, 03:35 PM

How bout this? It's from the chapter of the Sil 'Of Feanor and the Unchaining of Melkor':

"For Manwe was free from evil and could not comprehend it, and he knew that in the beginning, in the thought of Iluvatar, Melkor had been even as he"

This means that in the "thought of Iluvatar", Melkor had been good or light or protagonistic or whatever you want to call it, just as Manwe was. It may have been Melkor's doom to become corrupted, but it still came about because of his own decisions.

[ May 17, 2002: Message edited by: The Silver-shod Muse ]

harad

05-17-2002, 05:12 PM

Tolkien created a world where "free will" existed "within bounds". I find it absurd for someone to argue that Melkor acted absolutely within the realm of "free will" and absent any predestined direction from the top, so to speak. Eru was the planner. From his mind sprung the Ainur (the activators of the plan). Had Melkor not sowed discord and "revealed" (not created) evil... what kind of world would Middle-earth (or any other world for that matter) have been? Let's see... good, good, good, good, good...... nothing but good.

I disagree with a previous poster who stated that Eastern Philosphy is not present in Tolkien's works. I think yin and yang dominate Tolkien's works just as the dominate the Christian world (albeit unknowingly to most Christians). Eru created the potential for evil in Melkor so that all the testing that must go on in the Human/Elf/Dwarf/Hobbit/Orc/ experience would lead to the betterment of one's existence/soul/race etc.

A world without evil = a world without soul.

Kalessin

05-17-2002, 06:48 PM

Harad smilies/smile.gif

I think yin and yang dominate Tolkien's works just as the dominate the Christian world (albeit unknowingly to most Christians).

I'm not sure about either point. If by yin and yang you mean an equilibrium arising from oppositional forces, and/or that everything exists must have an opposite (male/female, dark/light etc.), I'd have to say that this is not articulated in Tolkien's narrative or his contextual writing. Given his careful consideration of morality and the nature of myth, it seems unbelievable that he would not mention this conception or offer more obvious pointers.

Your second point is equally problematic. It's a bit like saying Jesus or a Judeo-Christian God dominate the Buddhist world, albeit unknowingly to Buddhists. If you have a faith that excludes other belief systems, then of course you can argue that other beliefs are merely modes of interpretation or awareness. For example, a Christian could easily argue that as God created everything, and gave mankind free will, all human beings live and act by the grace of God and in his image etc. A Buddhist might argue that God is merely the understandable personification of the self as divine, or at a most abstract level (infinite, and outside of existence) a mythologised aspiration to liberation or nirvana.

Most faiths could claim that all the others are unknowing vessels of their particular worldview. However, I don't like these arguments, and really they don't help in a down-to-earth analysis of Tolkien. Whilst you see things in Tolkien or Christianity that to you resonate elements of Chinese mysticism, others will see an absolute affirmation of their "born-again" Christianity, atheists or secular humanists will see something else, and so on. I'm not convinced anyone can 'prove' that they are right and everyone else is wrong, outside the walls of faith.

Eru created the potential for evil in Melkor so that all the testing that must go on in the Human/Elf/Dwarf/Hobbit/Orc/ experience would lead to the betterment of one's existence/soul/race etc.

Again, this is just NOT articulated anywhere. In my earlier post, I quoted Tolkien's exact words - "(Melkor is) the Beginner of Evil; his was a sub-creative Fall". That is about as explicit and straightforward as you can get. As far as Tolkien is concerned (and he wrote the darn book smilies/tongue.gif ), Melkor's acts stem from Melkor, not Eru, and are not part of some divine Darwinian testing.

As I keep saying, we are overlaying and extrapolating on this with ideas that are interesting but cannot be authoritative. The Christian model - and its unresolved contradiction of omnipotence and free will - provide us with, I believe, the closest approximation to Tolkien's conception, but no more than that ... a vehicle for appreciation, if you will. The Silmarillion was neither allegory not evangelism. But from an academic standpoint, Tolkien's own culture and beliefs (and his contextual writings) are reasonably the most pertinent framework.

Why do we feel such a need to complete the parts of the puzzle that Tolkien left incomplete? Perhaps it is the joy of his (or any) great work that through reading, we enter it as it enters us, and experience an unchallenged personal sense of identification and understanding.
I'm not sure. But as I said, he was a writer - and absolutely not a philosopher smilies/wink.gif Watch out, or I'll have to unleash more Spinoza upon the boards smilies/rolleyes.gif

Peace

[ May 17, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

Kuruharan

05-17-2002, 07:50 PM

Why do we feel such a need to complete the parts of the puzzle that Tolkien left incomplete? Perhaps it is the joy of his (or any) great work that through reading, we enter it as it enters us, and experience an unchallenged personal sense of identification and understanding.

Or...

1) We have too much time on our hands. smilies/tongue.gif

2) We have so much to do that we simply drop everything else to do something fun for a while. smilies/biggrin.gif I mean, after all, if you can't get it all done, why run yourself ragged trying to? Not that I'm rationalizing for my chronic procrastination or anything like that...no...not at all... smilies/wink.gif

Actually, you are probably right on part of the reason why we love his works so much. smilies/smile.gif

piosenniel

05-17-2002, 10:05 PM

I was thinking about the original question more in terms of St. Augustine vs. Manicheism.

In Manicheism [which might be seen as a combination of pagan,Zoroastrian, & Gnostic Christian elements]'good' and 'evil' are a duality, two opposing principles of light and darkness, god and devil, soul and body. These two principles are coexistent, objective realities which strive for control.

Opposed to this view, was the view of St. Augustine whose basic premise was that there is only God and from him proceeds creation. God and the actions of God(since there is nothing 'other'with which to compare) are the primary standard for what is subjectively called 'good'. All creatures are variations of this good according to the choices made by them through the grace of free will. There is no objective 'evil' only shadings of the original good; subjective reactions against the 'good' of the Creator.

Tolkien, it seems to me, attempts an uneven balance between these two poles of thought. There are objective, real examples of evil - the Ring, for one, and even Morgoth and his twisted creations which have fallen so far from the good. But still it is 'good' of the Creator which is always the final standard for the outcome. Underlying all creation is the hand of Providence, continuously offering moments of grace and light as needed.

Morgoth, imo, is not/cannot be evil by nature. His nature is Eru's nature; & Eru's nature is the standard for the subjectively termed 'good'.

Is Morgoth evil by choice? If you mean by this does he deny 'good' and choose 'evil', I would say he can't even do this - there is no 'evil' to choose.

Morgoth is termed 'evil' because his choice of actions are for those actions opposed to the will of Eru. Given the possibility of grace and the underlying pervasiveness of Providence, even Morgoth has potential for an epiphany and for redemption.

Amarinth

05-18-2002, 05:33 AM

whew! kalessin brings the house down once more smilies/wink.gif and after that this certainly becomes trite, but...

lord gothmog -- in answer to your inquiry, methinks melkor is evil by will.

Lord Gothmog

05-18-2002, 12:45 PM

lord gothmog -- in answer to your inquiry, methinks melkor is evil by will.

Amarinth,
In giving the above answer, you are in fact agreeing with my basic answer to the question put forward by Ancalagon's Fire, as it was he who started this thread. However, I am happy that you do indeed agree with me.
smilies/cool.gif

Daniel Telcontar

05-18-2002, 12:58 PM

You have all spoken well, and I apologize if my arguments have already been posted. But I believe that Melkor was evil by will, because:
He was the greatest of the ainur, so it must have made him mad when Manwë became the highest ranking, because he understood Eru better.
if it was because he was enviuos, I doubt that it was something in his nature. Eru had chosen Manwë to be his closest servant;
If Melkor was like Eru in mind, he would have been pleased, hence I do not believe that he was evil by nature, but something he chose because he did not follow Eru faithfully, but walked his own path.

greyhavener

05-18-2002, 01:14 PM

Tolkien's a writer, not a theologian. Archetects who are Christians don't just build churches. Writers who are Christians don't just write Christian books. I think as a student of folklore Tolkien blended a lot of elements from several cultures into his stories. I tend to agree with whoever said Eru being the source of evil sort of cheapens Frodo's struggle up Mount Doom.

As far as Christianity is concerned I think whoever brought up Mystery is onto something. I'd like to add another concept to that: Trust and Faith. I choose to use my free will to believe that God is the origin of all good and that evil cannot exist in His presence. As a creation I am not privy to the entire mind or motives of the Creator, but I choose to trust and cooperate with Him. I'll let Him keep His position as Guy in Charge.

My best understanding of this question of evil would be to begin with God's nature. A relationship with any being that would satisfy a Him whose nature is Love must include freedom to return that love at will. In that freedom there is a potential to reject. The result of that rejection is ultimately evil. God perhaps created the potential for evil in allowing for possible rejection, however I think that His nature would not allow for enslavement, another evil. Free will must have extended even to the angels, since one-third followed Lucifer. Lucifer chose to reject God in his refusal to accept his position (which was top angel by the way--second or fourth from the top depending on how you view the Trinity). Instead he wanted to be equal to His own Creator. I don't even know if he had an agenda for change in heaven, he just wanted to be in charge. I doubt he found his separation from God or his resulting position as head evil guy satisfying. I doubt the other angels are particularly cooperative seeing they all want to be in charge themselves. The temptation in the garden was perhaps the same sort of temptation..."you can know what God knows." I'm no theologian, that's just my take on it. This is a wonderfully thought provoking discussion. Everyone that's posted has given me something to ponder. Thanks.

[ May 18, 2002: Message edited by: greyhavener ]

Daniel Telcontar

05-18-2002, 01:19 PM

You are taking the words out of my mouth, Greyhavener. I could not have expressed it better myself. Now I only hope someone disagrees, so we can continue this discussion. smilies/cool.gif

VanimaEdhel

05-18-2002, 03:46 PM

As many have said (I just wanted to say something), Melkor/Morgoth was given a choice , and he chose evil. It is much like the human race here, I believe (except very not like in practice). We are all born with the ability to be good and the ability to be evil. Morgoth was given that choice by Iluvatar/Eru...and he chose evil...well, he chose fear and jealousy, which became evil.

Grendel

05-18-2002, 04:45 PM

I havn't read all that is written in the above discussion, so someone may already have pointed this out. Forgive me for being inexact, but there is a point in the LotR where Gandalf says something along the lines of " ... nothing is evil in the beginning..". I don't think it is far from the mark to suggest that Gandalf is the LotR ME spokesman for all that is good and wise regarding ME. Even Elrond gives way to his counsel (e.g. concerning M & P's presence as part of the 9 walkers). Since we are thus led to trust Gandalf as the number one voice, at least in LotR,this in turn gives us some indication of what Tolkien intended concerning the nature of reality,good, evil etc. in and around ME. So, Melkor was not evil in the beginning. This, I would suggest, means that he was not created evil, but became evil by choice. To pinpoint will as the cause of this, I would point out that both Gandalf and Galadriel refused the ring on the grounds that they would, essentially, become evil if they possessed it. Therefore the potential for evil exists even in the purest characters, while gandalf's hope for Gollum's cure in the care of the woodelves suggests that the opposite potential for good exists even in evil characters. It is all a matter of choice.
In short, evil or good in ME is by will, not by nature. Tolkien intended Melkor and gollum to be evil, not illuvatar.

stone of vision

05-19-2002, 08:19 AM

Passionate and open thread! I'm impressed by so deep insights.

Bienvenue Grendel from Duc William the conqueror's dukedom smilies/smile.gif

Kalessin about Tolkien's work not only
we enter it as it enters us, and experience an unchallenged personal sense of identification and understanding.
but it grows in you and you grow with it.

Pertinent and fascinating points were unraveled about Melkor and I'm sure, encouraging them, that others various arguments/thoughts will come still in the future as our perception will evolve with our experience.

I can't give a complete opinion about Melkor because I haven't found some parts of the puzzle in the background of my own perspectives and for the moment it is just a rough:

Melkor might have made the choice to be the anthesis of what he was destined to by Eru, because he is not Eru but just a part of him.
A part of the puzzle Eru, which is not allowed to have the complete vision. So he doesn't know where is his place and looks deseperatly for it even if it means to create his own place in the puzzle.

The question could also be ask as who from Eru/ Melkor create what Morgoth was with the hunch that both of them are involved...

Out of topic:
Kelessin:
A Buddhist might argue that God is merely the understandable personification of the self as divine, or at a most abstract level (infinite, and outside of existence) a mythologised aspiration to liberation or nirvana.

The notion God/ buddhism questions me :
Wouldn't it be an occidental vision which often considers Buddism as equivalent of a religion in the sense Christian, Islam are a religion?
For the people who grew with buddism preceptes, it is rather like a way of life, moral and thinking than a "faith" in a omniscient and all creative Power upper humanity.
Buddha was a man and his story is the story of a human being 's evolution. By loosing all his samsara (material world) attributes,he succeeded in reaching a state of spiritual essence, part of the nothingness Nirvana. Nirvana where he would be freed from of all human pains and desires.

I don't really know if the ones who reach nirvana might be called" a personification of their self as divine" as they are in a abslolute dimension ,from my pov of the oriental view, where no gods even exists.
One of my feelings is:
Occidental beliefs tend to think that God is that absolute, Oriental ones that absolute is above godS.

Ok, that maybe geeky after all! smilies/rolleyes.gif

Kalessin

05-19-2002, 09:20 AM

Interesting ...

Wouldn't it be an occidental vision which often considers Buddism as equivalent of a religion in the sense Christian, Islam are a religion?

Yes, perhaps, as a form of outdated cultural rationalisation. However, as I said earlier, Spinoza and the other Christian philosophers moved on from the idea of a highly personified God and posited a kind of "infinite essence-of-everything that is God".

So perhaps they key difference is in the idea of 'something' that IS outside all of our perceptions and existence (ie. a basic Judeo-Christian starting point), and the idea that there is 'nothing' outside, and that the 'nothing' is in fact a liberation from the cycle of karma (ie. a basic traditional Buddhist perspective).

My point was an advocate from either camp could argue that the eternal 'something' and the eternal 'nothing' were, in terms of the human psyche, fulfilling the same role.

One of my feelings is: Occidental beliefs tend to think that God is that absolute, Oriental ones that absolute is above gods.

Possibly, although I think one gets into definition of terms here. I think there's also a danger of over-simplification, and I am conscious of that when commenting on world religions or beliefs, all of which have a multitude and range of interpretations and manifestations, despite apparent similarities or a shared origin. There is a world of difference between the Buddhism now popular among non-Asians in the West, and, for example, the traditional cultural model in Thailand. Just as there is between Catholicism and Judaism.

Peace smilies/smile.gif

akhtene

05-19-2002, 04:43 PM

Uph, read so much and got so many fresh and inspiring ideas.Probably given free will by his creator it was Melkor's choice to turn to "evil"

But don't you find that Melkor is the only one,besides Eru himself, who really makes any choice?Others seem to accept or follow the Maker's Plan, or their given nature; some are led by fate, chosen or doomed.

Wrote this and decided to quickly look through the book. And what I came across? And Thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can anyone alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in devising of things more wonderful,whiich he himself hath not imagined
from Ainulindale

So maybe even he wasn't given any choice?

[ May 19, 2002: Message edited by: akhtene ]

Daniel Telcontar

05-19-2002, 04:48 PM

Melkor was given a choice. He made his own music into the great theme, thus planting disharmony. And many ainur followed him in rebellion against Eru, by choice. And when Eru says, that Melkor's evil plans are in fact Eru's plan, he means that he can turn Melkor's evildoing into something good.

Lord Gothmog

05-22-2002, 02:39 PM

Kalessin

When you use the letter refering to something being accepted, this does not mean that the view of Eru is automaticaly going to be that of the Christian God. To use this argument is to say that the "Intended or Expected Audience" would be made up of those who had closed minds and Narrow view-points. The choice of Zeus and the Tuatha de Danaan, makes it seem that the only choice allowed is either to be the 'Perfect' good of the traditional Christian God or the exessivness of the most outrageous types of god. There is a middle ground which while allowing for darkness in the Godhead still has that God being a God of Good. This would be acceptable to many Christian peoples in a work of Fantasy, as it does not put Evil into the God only Knowledge of Evil. Many Christians Accept Mythological Deities as they are not required to believe in them, so a slightly less than perfect Godhead in a story can still be acceptable without claiming to be in the Same Position as the Christian God. If Eru was shown as haveing an "Evil" side to him, then no doubt many devout Christians would have trouble with this view. However, there is nothing to show that Eru was in any way "Evil" in fact to have a "Darkness" within and still be "Good" showes that Good is the more powerful side. Therefore that Evil will not triumph.

In reference to your comment about Melkor being the beginner of evil. I do not dispute this, I only dispute where the ability to begin the evil came from. In my view that ability came from Eru. As for the 'varying degrees of dark and light' I find that in my reading of the books, this very thing shows through in the way the various characters are portrayed in the writings. Other than Melkor and Manwe, All the other Valar and Maiar who are given enough space in the story are shown to be well rounded characters with good and bad, otherwise shown as Light and/or Dark in their make-up. This is to be sure only my view of the way they appear. As for "even taking Christianity out of the equation", I have said that Tolkien was using what he concidered to be the Truths Behind Christianity and other Religions and Mythologies. You say that Christianity is an effective model, I say that many Religions can do the same as these Truths lie behind many belief systems.

For your answer to my "What-if" point. I agree that there would not be a story without the fall of Melkor. The reason I used that "What-if" is to show that if Melkor had not been given the chance within the story to "Go alone into the Void" then the Fall might not have happened and there would have been no story, hence my view that Melkor was not evil at the begining but had knowledge of evil. In going away from the rest of the Ainur, he gained the chance to explore this knowledge and to turn to evil by his choices. Thereby also showing that the "Evil" did not come from Eru as it would have done if Melkor had been "Evil by Nature".

Is being the "Greatest" a guarantee of Goodness or of Evilness?

This question was even simpler than you thought. I was refering to Tolkien's work only in that Two beings in the work are described in the Book as "The Greatest in their begining", Melkor Greatest of the Ainur, Feanor Greatest of the Elves. Both fell from their hights. Is it Tolkiens idea that too much greatness will lead to a fall? If this is so, then it too can find acceptance in both oriental and occidental beliefs. In western view, Pride Goeth before a Fall. In Eastern Yin/Yang views, When all is Yin it becomes Yang, when all is Yang it becomes to Yin. Both of these views are entirely compatible with the "Greatest" of both the Ainur and of the Elves turning from the path of Good to Evil ways.
To be of Any religion requires an act of Blind Faith. It is this that defines a follower of a Religion. Other belief systems can be explained from start to finish. In fact taken at face value, The Silmarillion, and to a lesser extent The Lord of the Rings, Has NO RELIGION whatsoever. There is no need for any of the Charaters in the Silmarillion to indulge in an act of Blind Faith as they have met and talked with the Powers of Arda and some of them are still there in Middle-earth in the time of The Lord of the Rings.

akhtene
But don't you find that Melkor is the only one,besides Eru himself, who really makes any choice?Others seem to accept or follow the Maker's Plan, or their given nature; some are led by fate, chosen or doomed.
Many of the Ainur made a choice to follow Melkor. But he was not alone. for of the Maiar many were drawn to his splendour in the days of his greatness, and remained in that allegiance down into his darkness; and others he corrupted afterwards to his service with lies and treacherous gifts. Dreadful among these spirits were the Valaraukar, the scourges of fire that in Middle-earth were called the Balrogs, demons of terror.
Among those of his servants that have names the greatest was that spirit whom the Eldar called Sauron, of Gorthaur the Cruel. the Silmarillion: of the Enemies.
The rest Chose to Follow the path of Eru. So All of the Ainur used thair "Free will".

Kalessin

05-22-2002, 03:32 PM

Gothmog, thanks for your insights smilies/smile.gif

In reference to your comment about Melkor being the beginner of evil. I do not dispute this, I only dispute where the ability to begin the evil came from. In my view that ability came from Eru

Well, I can only go back to Tolkien's words here - both the contextual writing and the narrative itself. At no point is it stated or even intimated that "the ability to begin the evil came from Eru". As I said earlier, Tolkien clearly comments on the apparent contradiction - that Evil can arise from Good - as a recurrent theme, but never addresses it directly.

... to have a "Darkness" within and still be "Good" showes that Good is the more powerful side.

This doesn't follow, certainly not as an a priori statement, and again is not evidenced in the work itself. Tolkien clearly states - and the narrative bears out - the motif of Evil defeated by Evil (itself). It is not necessarily the case that Good is more powerful - it is not the Good that defeats the Evil. It is simply that Evil is ultimately self-destructive. Indeed, without this self-destructive element Evil might well prevail. There are a number of moments where, if Morgoth (or later Sauron) had not made critical mistakes, the battle would have been over and the dark victory complete. You could, I suppose, argue that this in effect means Good is more powerful, but it seems to me a leap of interpretation.

(with reference to 'light and dark') ... I have said that Tolkien was using what he concidered to be the Truths Behind Christianity and other Religions and Mythologies. You say that Christianity is an effective model, I say that many Religions can do the same as these Truths lie behind many belief systems.

I guess I am wary of attempting to place a comprehensive rationalisation (especially a somewhat modern one) over what is an unfinished mythos. To look for a neat and universal causal framework when the author himself acknowledges "contradiction" as a central theme. And the idea that "Christianity and many other religions share" a Godhead in which light and dark coexist is highly contentious - I would expect it to be challenged by those to whom faith is more central. As moral, or philosophical, paradigms, "Pride goeth before a fall" and 'the dominance of Yin thereby becoming Yang' are not at all related, and are rooted in explicitly different worldviews. I suppose I'm just hesitant to attempt to combine these, along with Tolkien's possible themes, or his concept of divinity, into a very modern and inclusive interpretation.

However, I agree (yay smilies/wink.gif ) that religion is not part of the culture of the races in the narrative, for the reasons Gothmog mentioned. I'm not sure who was asserting that, it's clearly not the case.

Peace smilies/smile.gif

Lord Gothmog

05-24-2002, 03:04 PM

Kalessin,

When you say that 'At no point is it stated or even intimated that "the ability to begin the evil came from Eru". ' This is true but it is also true that it is now stated or intimated where this ability comes from. therefore we have this interesting little thread where we all put forth our opinions based on how we read the work.

You could, I suppose, argue that this in effect means Good is more powerful, but it seems to me a leap of interpretation.

It is not a "Leap of Interpretation" but simply My interpretation. I may be right or wrong in how I view what I read, but the views I have expressed here are only mine.

I guess I am wary of attempting to place a comprehensive rationalisation (especially a somewhat modern one) over what is an unfinished mythos. To look for a neat and universal causal framework when the author himself acknowledges "contradiction" as a central theme. And the idea that "Christianity and many other religions share" a Godhead in which light and dark coexist is highly contentious - I would expect it to be challenged by those to whom faith is more central. As moral, or philosophical, paradigms, "Pride goeth before a fall" and 'the dominance of Yin thereby becoming Yang' are not at all related, and are rooted in explicitly different worldviews. I suppose I'm just hesitant to attempt to combine these, along with Tolkien's possible themes, or his concept of divinity, into a very modern and inclusive interpretation.
It seems that I was not as clear in my writing as I had thought. I never claimed that Christianity, or in deed any particular religion had a Godhead in which Light and dark co-exist. I was refering to the Truths striped of all religious conotations that Tolkien used as the basis of his charaterisatons. That of Goodness, Mercy and others. It is these that are shared to some extent by defferent religions, the godhead of each can be and will be different. Christianity claims a perfect God, I cannot dispute this as I have never met him, other religions have their own views on how their god is but many teach the same basic Truths.
I used the Pride quote as equal to the Yin Yang only in respect to the case of "The Greatest in their begining also Falling, as in both cases the being were called the Greatest of his people only to become the worst. It was not intended to claim that these statements were equivilent in any other cases. I am sorry if I gave the impression that I was trying to prove otherwise. This does not have a problem with the differing World views of east and west, it shows that in certain cases there is more similarity than is at first seen. I hope that I have cleared up any missconceptions from my privious post.

I know that you concider this to be a very modern view, however, as I am a somewhat modern person, this has to be as I have difficulty holding other views than my own. We are all the sum of our experiences and we bring this to our reading of Tolkien's work. The very fact that we can all find so much in such a few books shows the quality of the work and the lack of limitations placed on that work by the Author. We should all take a moment to concider that and give thanks that it is so.

Kalessin

05-27-2002, 07:51 PM

An interesting thread smilies/smile.gif

... the lack of limitations placed on that work by the Author. We should all take a moment to concider that and give thanks that it is so.

I agree, and that is in a way the basis of my point. Like any great work, Tolkien's LotR draws us in, and we feel both some kind of implicit and personal understanding of, and indentification with, the narrative. And from there comes our analytical interpretation of his words in our own way, and our desire to discuss (and argue) the possible meanings etc. here amongst people who share the respect and admiration for his writing.

To me, in many ways the mystery and 'lack of limitations' are part of the magic and universality of the books. For example, I have had plenty of arguments on these boards with people who assert that his narratives are explicitly Christian apologia. I may think one thing, and they another, but we are all entitled to hold, and share, our differing views. The point is that they are indeed our views, and sometimes fairly tenuously related to the conceptions of Tolkien himself, which is why I quite like to leave some room for that individual magic, to allow imagination (mine, or any reader's) to make the most of his narratives.

Where the discussion becomes particularly analytical ie. "Tolkien wrote this because he thought that" etc., or "Although Tolkien didn't say so, his work is definitely a Buddhist allegory" etc., smilies/smile.gif then in my view a good solid debate will involve some challenging or oppositional insights. The last thing I want is to join a self-congratulatory clique, and unlike many similar ventures the Barrow-Downs boards are wonderfully diverse and full of clever people (such as you) and argumentative people (such as me smilies/tongue.gif ).

My points in answer to your various posts were really along those lines - that we can of course place our own extended or extrapolated theories upon Tolkien's cosmology, "filling in the gaps", so to speak (and, yours included, these are often thought-provoking and well articulated) - but that this should from time to time be put in the context of the author and his work itself. Partly, simply, to maintain the 'lack of limitations' for which, like you, I am thankful smilies/wink.gif

Compliments again on the intelligent and insightful contributions to this thread smilies/smile.gif

Peace smilies/smile.gif