The curse of Morgoth in CoH.

[skip spence]

I just re-read the Children of Hurin and was struck by the dark tone of the book. The characters, especially the mortal men, just can't do anything right. Whether they have good intentions or not, all their actions lead to further evil.

I thought about Morgoth's curse on Hurin and what it really meant. Hurin thinks Morgoth is lying when he says he can curse his family and affect it from afar. Clearly Hurin was mistaken. So how does this curse work then? This is my theory:

In 'Morgoth's Ring' we're told that the whole ME is to Morgoth what the One ring is to Sauron. In his quest to be the undisputed Lord of ME, Morgoth has dispersed much of his vast powers into the very 'hroa' of the earth, which had the downside of making his own physical persona more earthbound and less potent. On the upside though, the earth itself became charged with his evil and able to exert his will: to urge on the orcs far away from Angband and to cause his enemies to mistrust and fight each other. In fact, if we believe what is written in MR, Melkor isn't just a renegade Vala, doing what is evil; he is evil itself, and the rote cause of everything that is wrong with the world . Without his discord during the creation of Arda there wouldn't be any evil deeds whatsoever, and the whole of ME would have remained a blissful paradise, akin to the garden of Eden.

I imagine the curse of Morgoth to be like an everpresent voice, whispering dark suggestions into Turin's unconsiousness, much like the rings of power does to its carriers. And although his intentions are good and noble, he just isn't strong enough to resist the will of Morgoth which is concentrated on him. And the burden of Morgoth's evil will does not rest on Turin alone. It seems like all the characters in the book are affected badly, as Morgoth's power over Beleriand is great at this time. Just think of the woman Turin rescued from his outlaw buddies and her bloodlust, demanding a head for a bride's gift.

I don't think Morgoth could plan Turin's fate in detail; after all he wouldn't have planned for Turin to slay Glaurung. Also Morgoth doesn't know where Turin is or what he does when he has no direct information from his servants, so he can't send any direct unconscious messages to him. But what he can do is to focus his evil will on Hurin and his kin, making the little red devil on their shoulders so much stronger and causing them to constantly make the wrong decisions.

Any other ideas?

[Hookbill the Goomba]

In 'Morgoth's Ring' we're told that the whole ME is to Morgoth what the One ring is to Sauron. In his quest to be the undisputed Lord of ME, Morgoth has dispersed much of his vast powers into the very 'hroa' of the earth, which had the downside of making his own physical persona more earthbound and less potent.

Do you have quotes? I don't recall this from MR (then again, it's been about a year since I read it). The reason, as far as I could gather, for Morgoth's decrease in power was due to his putting his power into his servants, not the earth itself. His influence seems to go with the creatures that do his bidding. Weather or not this is more prominent in some, like Sauron, or less in others, like orcs, I don't know.
We come again to the 'seeds' of Morgoth, as mentioned most predominately in the Fall of Numenor. We know he was the spreader of lies and the account of his 'rise to power' before the slaying of the trees is a good example, I think, of how he worked.
As for Turin, we have an interesting problem. I do often wonder about his 'bad luck' as it were and exactly how involved Morgoth was in it. This raises further questions about what exactly the power of the Valar even is. Can they influence creatures that are not their servants. Certainly the moving and to an extent, controlling of things tends to be something they do, although I think Morgoth is the only one to do it extensively with living things. (Depending on how you view Manwe's Eagles). It always seemed to me that, in order for a Valar to have an effective influence on someone there had to be some willingness on the part of the one being influenced. Given Turin's hatred (albeit, of Morgoth), it may have been the source of Melkor's hand in him, if indeed this is true.
Then again, it could just be that Turin was dreadfully unlucky. :cool:

[Raynor]

Do you have quotes? I don't recall this from MR (then again, it's been about a year since I read it). The reason, as far as I could gather, for Morgoth's decrease in power was due to his putting his power into his servants, not the earth itself.
It's found in Myths Transformed, HoME X:

Melkor 'incarnated' himself (as Morgoth) permanently. He did this so as to control the hroa, the 'flesh' or physical matter, of Arda. He attempted to identify himself with it. A vaster, and more perilous, procedure, though of similar sort to the operations of Sauron with the Rings. Thus, outside the Blessed Realm, all 'matter' was likely to have a 'Melkor ingredient', and those who had bodies, nourished by the hroa of Arda, had as it were a tendency, small or great, towards Melkor: they were none of them wholly free of him in their incarnate form, and their bodies had an effect upon their spirits.
...
Sauron's, relatively smaller, power was concentrated;Morgoth's vast power was disseminated. The whole of 'Middle-earth' was Morgoth's Ring, though temporarily his attention was mainly upon the North-west.
Edit: x-posted with WCH

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Do you have quotes? I don't recall this from MR (then again, it's been about a year since I read it). The reason, as far as I could gather, for Morgoth's decrease in power was due to his putting his power into his servants, not the earth itself

"To gain domination over Arda, Morgoth had let most of his being pass into the physical constituents of the Earth- hance all things that were born on Earth and lived on or by it, beasts or plants or incarnate spirits, were liable to be 'stained'...Melkor 'incarnated' himself (as Morgoth) permanently. He did this so as to control the hroa, the flesh or physical metter, of Arda. He attempted to identify himself with it...Thus, outside the Blessed Realm, all 'matter' was likely to have a 'Melkor ingredient', and those who had bodies, nourished by the hroa of Arda, had as it were a tendency, small or great, towards Melkor: they were none of them wholly free of him in their incarnate form, and their bodies had an effect upon their spirits.....The whole of Middle-earth was Morgoth's Ring."

EDIT: X-posted with Raynor

[littlemanpoet]

In fact, if we believe what is written in MR, Melkor isn't just a renegade Vala, doing what is evil; he is evil itself, and the rote cause of everything that is wrong with the world . Without his discord during the creation of Arda there wouldn't be any evil deeds whatsoever, and the whole of ME would have remained a blissful paradise, akin to the garden of Eden.

Tom Shippey, in "Author of the Century", pointed out that Tolkien was very careful to keep evil in Middle Earth in a balance of seeming opposites. The two poles are called "Manichaean" and "Boethian". In Manichaeen, evil is considered equal to good, whereas in Boethian, Good is considered to be the ALL, and evil is merely its negative. I think Shippey was right that Tolkien was careful to keep these two poles in balance.

So to say that Melkor was evil itself, would be too Manichaean. Besides, I don't think striking a balance between these two really messes up your thinking here.

[skip spence]

^^I can't be bothered to look up any direct quotes right now, maybe later.

In any case, the title "Morgoth's Ring" is derived from the idea that Morgoth has dispersed his powers into the very fabric of earth in similar fashion to how Sauron put forth his much more limited powers into the One ring. This means that every being that draws its physical being or 'hroa' from the fabric of the earth, comes with a piece of Melkorism in it, which is a capacity and often a tendency towards evil (you might also call it a free will). Read the debate of the Valar in MR concerning the unnatural death of Miriel, mother of Feanor, for more info.

Melkor can't control any of the Children of Illuvatar directly, as the 'fea' (sp?) of the Children is indomitable by nature. He can influence and make them fear him however and does it at all times too. Some can resist his bidding better than others but all are affected. Like I said, in the metaphysics of Arda, Melkor is evil, and when ever someone does what is evil and unnatural, he or she obeys the will of Morgoth. And this goes on even after his defeat and banishment. Just like Sauron can't be destroyed completely unless the One ring is destroyed, the marring of Morgoth can't be wholly undone unless Arda itself is destroyed.

[Raynor]

In fact, if we believe what is written in MR, Melkor isn't just a renegade Vala, doing what is evil; he is evil itself, and the rote cause of everything that is wrong with the world . Without his discord during the creation of Arda there wouldn't be any evil deeds whatsoever, and the whole of ME would have remained a blissful paradise, akin to the garden of Eden.
I disagree that Melkor himself introduced evil as a moral category: I would say he was merely its most potent agent. The choice to do good or evil was there, given to him and all the others by their Creator; I would say it is a prerequisite of free will, which all the Valar/Eruhini have. The potential for good and evil actions/thoughts would have existed without Melkor; we could speculate if it would have been better worse without Melkor, but that's fallaciously based on a hypothesis contrary to "reality", so I don't think it could serve us much.
Like I said, in the metaphysics of Arda, Melkor is evil, and when ever someone does what is evil and unnatural, he or she obeys the will of Morgoth.
I disagree; one counter-example is Ungoliant:
But she had disowned her Master, desiring to be mistress of her own lust, taking all things to herself to feed her emptiness; and she fled to the south, escaping the assaults of the Valar and the hunters of Oromë

Just like Sauron can't be destroyed completely unless the One ring is destroyed, the marring of Morgoth can't be wholly undone unless Arda itself is destroyed.In the Atrabeth, it is presumed by Finrod that Eru himself will enter and heal Ea - without destroying it.
Finrod, however, sees now that, as things were, no created thing or being in Arda, or in all Ea, was powerful enough to counteract or heal Evil: that is to subdue Melkor (in his present person, reduced though that was) and the Evil that he had dissipated and sent out from himself into the very structure of the world. Only Eru himself could do this. Therefore, since it was unthinkable that Eru would abandon the world to the ultimate triumph and domination of Melkor (which could mean its ruin and reduction to chaos), Eru Himself must at some time come to oppose Melkor.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

One reason the Valar refrained from making war on Melkor was the fear that in so doing, all of Middle-earth or indeed Arda would be undone. We see what did in fact happen to Beleriand.

[Raynor]

One reason the Valar refrained from making war on Melkor was the fear that in so doing, all of Middle-earth or indeed Arda would be undone. We see what did in fact happen to Beleriand.
Yes, I am aware of that passage from MT; however, since skip's statement was not qualified, I felt compelled to make my argument.

[skip spence]

I disagree that Melkor himself introduced evil as a moral category: I would say he was merely its most potent agent. The choice to do good or evil was there, given to him and all the others by their Creator; I would say it is a prerequisite of free will, which all the Valar/Eruhini have. The potential for good and evil actions/thoughts would have existed without Melkor; we could speculate if it would have been better worse without Melkor, but that's fallaciously based on a hypothesis contrary to "reality", so I don't think it could serve us much.


The Ainur existed before the creation, but whether they have a free will to do good or evil is not certain, although I belive thay do. It is possible though that Eru created Melkor to do exactly what he did, so his children could rise above it. After all, good deeds aren't possible without a choice to do wrong. Obviously there are a lot of parallells to christian mythology in Tolkiens works. Now, the use of the word "evil" can be debated, but I certainly believe that Morgoth was the rote cause of "evil" or whatever you want to call it, and that Arda was marred by 'Melkorism' from the very beginning.


I disagree; one counter-example is Ungoliant:


When I say that doing evil is doing Morgoth's bidding I'm not talking about obeying a direct order. Feanor for example wouldn't dream of obeying Morgoth directly, but certainly did so indirectly, inflamed by his lies and subtle influence.
So when Ungoliant disowns her master, she disowns Morgoth as an incarnate being, but not the primeval discord he put on Arda.


In the Atrabeth, it is presumed by Finrod that Eru himself will enter and heal Ea - without destroying it.

Eru is the exception as he is omnipotent. He is free to end or heal the world at any time. Besides, Finrod is a character, and although he is wise, he is merely speculating.

[Raynor]

The Ainur existed before the creation, but whether they have a free will to do good or evil is not certain, although I belive thay do.
Are you implying that Eru created the valar without free will? I would say this goes contrary to his work and I know of no future point where they are given such free will. Or do you imply there can be free will without the ability to choose between good and evil? I don't think I follow.
Feanor for example wouldn't dream of obeying Morgoth directly, but certainly did so indirectly, inflamed by his lies and subtle influence.
So when Ungoliant disowns her master, she disowns Morgoth as an incarnate being, but not the primeval discord he put on Arda.I believe we are talking again about two different things: choosing rather freely between good and evil (and Feanor did his share of bad choices) and being coerced towards evil, which is what Melkor's marring was in essence about. To return to my previous example, Ungoliant was perfectly well outside Melkor's will when she nearly finished him off when he refused to honor their understanding.
Eru is the exception as he is omnipotent. He is free to end or heal the world at any time. Besides, Finrod is a character, and although he is wise, he is merely speculating.Then again, I think we should ask which is the proper perspective: that of Eru, of hope, of faith, or that of the marring. All throughout the works, there are numerous and consistent references to the level of involvement of Eru, to the futility of evil, even in temporal times and to how He guarantees the success of good.

[skip spence]

I've a feeling you're arguing mostly for the sake of the argument, as you've cut out the parts I wrote that can answer your questions. I didn't suggest that the Valar lack free will, although it is a possibility, depending on how you define "free will". Besides, the Valar would remain untouched by the marring as they are all spirit and without a 'hroa' drawn from ME.

In Arda Unmarred the Children were meant to be pure and to do only what is good and natural for them, by the resoning in MR. This you may or may not call lack of free will, depending on how you definie it. If you mean the ability to make a decision, for example of whether to have fish or steak for dinner, then they certainly were meant to have a free will even in Arda Unmarred. But if you mean the ability to do right or wrong, than they weren't meant to have a free will, as they could do only what is good according to their nature.

From Raynor
"I believe we are talking again about two different things: choosing rather freely between good and evil (and Feanor did his share of bad choices) and being coerced towards evil, which is what Melkor's marring was in essence about. To return to my previous example, Ungoliant was perfectly well outside Melkor's will when she nearly finished him off when he refused to honor their understanding."

The choice between good and evil is a direct result of Melkors marring IMO. Feanor was able to choose only as a result of the marring. In Arda Unmarred Feanor would never have acted as he did, as the thought to do so never would have occured to him. As for Ungoliant, I already explained how she could disobey him in person and at the same time do his bidding, just like Feanor did. Besides, Ungoliant is an intentional enigma, much like Tom Bombadill.

But let's get back on subject: How do you think the curse of Morgoth did work?

[Raynor]

I've a feeling you're arguing mostly for the sake of the argument, as you've cut out the parts I wrote that can answer your questions. I am sorry if you feel that way about my post, it was not my intention. Concerning your statement that Morgoth was the rote cause of "evil", my understanding is best expressed in this (bolded) passage, from a version of Ainulindale in BOLT 1:
Through him has pain and misery been made in the clash of overwhelming musics; and with confusion of sound have cruelty, and ravening, and darkness, loathly mire and all putrescence of thought or thing, foul mists and violent flame, cold without mercy, been born, and death without hope. Yet is this through him and not by him; and he shall see, and ye all likewise, and even shall those beings, who must now dwell among his evil and endure through Melko misery and sorrow, terror and wickedness, declare in the end that it redoundeth only to my great glory, and doth but make the theme more worth the hearing, Life more worth the living, and the World so much the more wonderful and marvellous, that of all the deeds of Iluvatar it shall be called his mightiest and his loveliest.Even in the published Silmarillion, Eru makes a similar statement about Melkor being but an instrument in his design.

Besides, the Valar would remain untouched by the marring as they are all spirit and without a 'hroa' drawn from ME.
...
The choice between good and evil is a direct result of Melkors marring IMO. I don't know how to reconcile these two statements of yours. If the ability per se to choose between good and evil appears only because of Melkor's marring, and if the valar are not affected by the marring, then how could they have this ability to choose?
In Arda Unmarred the Children were meant to be pure and to do only what is good and natural for them, by the resoning in MR.Hm, where is that said?
But if you mean the ability to do right or wrong, than they weren't meant to have a free will, as they could do only what is good according to their nature.In my opinion, the foremost sign of the existence of a fea would be the very ability to discern and choose between good and evil, and, again, I know of no reference about the Eruhini not having this ability by nature, for better or for worse. I don't see how Melkor could change in such a fundamental way the very essence of these beings - Ainulindale, at least, makes it clear that "none of the Ainur had part in their making". Not only did he modify them, he added to them this, what I believe, greatest manifestation of the spirit, the moral choice.

Furthermore, don't you agree that even small choices can carry a moral aspect, one choice being morally superior to another, no matter the triviality of the issue - like say, sleeping instead of helping, in general choosing comfort over responsibility?

I might also add that another sign of the Eruhini being conceived by Eru alone is that the elves were created with a body to endure until the end of time, but this wasn't made to take into calculation the marring of Melkor.

I believe the closest we can come to reconciling these positions is that Melkor was a great source of making conflicts, thus creating a much greater necessity (not the ability per se) to choose.
Feanor was able to choose only as a result of the marring. In Arda Unmarred Feanor would never have acted as he did, as the thought to do so never would have occured to him.But this is the essence of the problem; even if he may not have had to act (or react), he still retained the ability to do so, regardless of the existence of Melkor and his marring. Moreover, the lack of marring does not guarantee that certain thoughts would not come to someone, or that that everybody would have the strength to resist temptations, however trivial they may be.
Besides, Ungoliant is an intentional enigma, much like Tom Bombadill.Hm, I know of Tom being said to be an intended enigma, in the Letters, but not of Ungoliant; there are "credible" sources of information regarding her, unless we consider all maiar, and by extension all spirits, an enigma.
How do you think the curse of Morgoth did work?Seeing that Isildur to put under a "spell" an entire people, who remained so long after his death, I would say that the "mistery of names" allows, in certain conditions of "legitimacy", to do such things. However, with Melkor being evil and having evil reasons, I would say it was mostly his power at work at a "causal" level, if I am allowed to say so. I also allow for the possibility that the curse was just a piece of the puzzle, allowed to take effect to test those were greatly endowed - "unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required".

[skip spence]

Concerning your statement that Morgoth was the rote cause of "evil", my understanding is best expressed in this (bolded) passage, from a version of Ainulindale in BOLT 1:
...
Even in the published Silmarillion, Eru makes a similar statement about Melkor being but an instrument in his design.

True, Melkor was created by Eru. But was Melkor always destined to rebel against Eru like he did? Because if he was, he did not have a free will and was only doing what Eru created him to do. I say he acted independently of Eru however, as I don't think it fits the mythology to have Eru himself as the prime cause of "evil" as your resoning would suggest, even if the evil in the end will make the world a more beautiful place.

This is a quote from Morgoth's Ring; Ulmo is speaking regarding the death of Miriel:

"And death is for the Eldar an evil, that is a thing unnatural in Arda Unmarred, which must proceed therefore from the marring. For if the death of Miriel was otherwise, and came from beyond Arda (as a new thing, having no cause in the past) it would not bring grief or doubt. For Eru is the Lord of All, and moveth all the devices of his creatures, even the malice of the Marrer, in his final purpuses, but he doth not of his prime motion impose grief upon them."

So death, grief and sorrow would not exist in the perfect vision that is Arda Unmarred. These things come from the marring and Morgoth, and without him none of it would occur. The Valar were also greatly surprised to find that sorrow and death could be brought into the hallowed Valinor. Why were they surprised? If the Eldar could do wrong, then the Valar would surely not have been surprised to find that they eventually faultered, even in the Blessed Realm. Yet they were. This leads me to the conclusion that the Eldar in Arda Unmarred (had it been) weren't meant to be able to do wrong. Well, maybe they still would be able to do wrong, but they would never have had the will for it.



I don't know how to reconcile these two statements of yours. If the ability per se to choose between good and evil appears only because of Melkor's marring, and if the valar are not affected by the marring, then how could they have this ability to choose?


The marring concerns the created world. The Ainur existed before the creation and whether they have the ability to make moral choices is an different question than what effect the marring had on the Children. I certainly think that the Ainur had a free will to act independently of Eru.


In my opinion, the foremost sign of the existence of a fea would be the very ability to discern and choose between good and evil, and, again, I know of no reference about the Eruhini not having this ability by nature, for better or for worse. I don't see how Melkor could change in such a fundamental way the very essence of these beings - Ainulindale, at least, makes it clear that "none of the Ainur had part in their making". Not only did he modify them, he added to them this, what I believe, greatest manifestation of the spirit, the moral choice.


We're actually having a discussion about fictional theology here (christ, don't we have anything better to do?). But what we are talking about is basically the "fall of man", straight from christianity. Adam and Eve at first lived blissfully in Eden, in complete obedience to God. This is parallelled with life as it would have been in Arda Unmarred or life in Valinor without Morgoth. Then Eve is tempted or decieved by the snake, eats from the forbidden tree and gains knowledge of good and evil. The part of the snake is in Arda played by Morgoth. You can certainly criticise the logic in Genesis, and you can also criticise the logic in Tolkien's religious ideas. This, however, is the basic idea: What Morgoth brought into creation is a lower path to choose, apart from the high road ordained by God. And without a possible low road to take, good deeds would be without merit.


But this is the essence of the problem; even if he may not have had to act (or react), he still retained the ability to do so, regardless of the existence of Melkor and his marring. Moreover, the lack of marring does not guarantee that certain thoughts would not come to someone, or that that everybody would have the strength to resist temptations, however trivial they may be.


I agree that Feanor always had the abilily to make choices. I have never said anything different. I don't agree that the thoughts of pride and rebellion that arose in Feanor could have done so without the marring. No, they were a direct result of the marring and of Morgoths discord in the great music.

[Raynor]

Because if he was, he did not have a free will and was only doing what Eru created him to do.
Then again, even we are capable of predicting a certain behavior, given certain characteristics. And Eru knew Melkor better than anyone could; even if Melkor retained free will all throughout, Eru could still predict quite easily what he would do, at least in certain circumstances (as we could too, if we had that knowledge, I would venture to say) - and I do not presume in this case prescience, simply a very good use of psychology.
I don't think it fits the mythology to have Eru himself as the prime cause of "evil" as your resoning would suggest, even if the evil in the end will make the world a more beautiful place. I disagree, since this mythology sees Eru as the source of everything there is or could be; and I would add that this is "exonerated" by his omnipotence - if I may quote:
A divine 'punishment' is also a divine 'gift', if accepted, since its object is ultimate blessing, and the supreme inventiveness of the Creator will make 'punishments' (that is changes of design) produce a good not otherwise to be attained
So it's not even a zero-sum "game", it's plus-sum.
So death, grief and sorrow would not exist in the perfect vision that is Arda UnmarredI disagree with your reasoning. First, this death is of an Elf - death definitely happens for all Men, and even Elves could still die by whatever material means (killed, by accident or not as they are not invulnerable). Moreover, this particular death raised concern because it was willed, to a certain extent.
Why were they surprised? If the Eldar could do wrong, then the Valar would surely not have been surprised to find that they eventually faulted, even in the Blessed Realm.Then again, the Eruhini were a mistery to the valar, I doubt they would presume they could really understand them.

Moreover, at least for Men, I would expect a certain level of "entropy"; that is, even if they would have good intentions, their mind is failable, and left to their own devices they would build societies, structures and rules that would come to, gradually, degrade conditions for at least some of them. Thus, grief and despair are not out of the question, and a great deal of them (or at least wrongly perceiving, since, again, their minds are failable) could lead to a loss of hope in Eru, which, by and large, is a fundamental sin.
(don't we have anything better to do?)Well, for me, it beats other hobbies, such as tweaking Xubuntu or learning Python; ceteris paribus, I bet we will be at this for years to come :D.
This, however, is the basic idea: What Morgoth brought into creation is a lower path to choose, apart from the high road ordained by God.True, but, as argued in a previous post, there can be other paths, in normal circumstances, still below the "moral" optimum, which do imply or require moral choice, no matter how mundane they are. Nobody will ever come so low as Melkor, nor will one test others as he did; but tests and testers always exist, even if only because of diversity.
I don't agree that the thoughts of pride and rebellion that arose in Feanor could have done so without the marring. Then again, even in a Arda Unmarred it is possible for an accumulation of circumstances that would stress one's limits, understanding or faith, too much; simply statistically speaking. Accidents are still possible, and the capability of Men, esspecially, to deal with them is limited; they are the frailest of all Eru's Children.

[skip spence]

Then again, even we are capable of predicting a certain behavior, given certain characteristics. And Eru knew Melkor better than anyone could; even if Melkor retained free will all throughout, Eru could still predict quite easily what he would do, at least in certain circumstances (as we could too, if we had that knowledge, I would venture to say) - and I do not presume in this case prescience, simply a very good use of psychology.


So you're saying that when Eru created Melkor he already knew he was going to rebell and torment everything that lives in Arda? Like I said, I don't think this is what Tolkien meant to convey. Wasn't Melkor supposed to be like a brother to Manwe in the original plan? When Melkor rebelled, Eru became angry and had to react, making some adjustments to the original plan. In his infinite wisdom he made sure that Melkor's marring in the end would lead to an even more beautilful world. If he knew what Melkor was going he knew he created a monster.

"...For Eru is the Lord of All, and moveth all the devices of his creatures, even the malice of the Marrer, in his final purpuses, but he doth not of his prime motion impose grief upon them.."

So Eru does not impose grief upon his childern of his prime notion, but yet he creates an prime force of evil and makes him the mightiest being in all of existence? Does that make any sense to you?

The problem here is one that christians have wrestled with for ages: if God is allmighty and good, how come he allows good people to suffer horribly. To find a satisfactory answer to this question one must jump to a conclusion or take a leap of faith if you wish. I don't find Tolkiens answer (as can be deducted from his ME his writings) very satisfactory, although it's certainly to be prefered to the stories in the bible. As I'm not a religious man I stick to what can see and comprehend. And from my point of view, it doesn't really make sense to presume that there's an allmighty God, that he is Good. This axiom will make for some unsolvable questions such as this one.

(The missus is nagging me to use the computer, got to go!)

[Raynor]

I am in a hurry too, but I hope we will have time to enjoy this discussion properly..
So you're saying that when Eru created Melkor he already knew he was going to rebell and torment everything that lives in Arda?
Most likely, yes; the most relevant passage that comes to my mind is:
And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite.
As for the question of evil:
Nonetheless this gift of Iluvatar to the Valar has its own peril, as have all his free gifts: which is in the end no more than to say that they play a part in the Great Tale so that it may be complete; for without peril they would be without power, and the giving would be void.
As for the the balance...
The Voice had spoken to us, and we had listened. The Voice said:

- Ye are my children. I have sent you to dwell here. In time ye will inherit all this Earth, but first ye must be children and learn. Call on me and I shall hear; for I am watching over you.

[skip spence]

I am in a hurry too, but I hope we will have time to enjoy this discussion properly..


Allright, but you'll have to wait just a bit longer. Think I will be able to write a reply later this afternoon. :)

[skip spence]

Right, let me see if I can remember what we were arguing about.

I believe what we're really discussing is whether Morgoth is the prime cause of evil in the world, or if Eru, since he in fact is the utmost cause of everything in the created world, also is the prime cause of evil.

You claim that the latter is true and I can't disagree. In this mythology Eru Illuvatar is the source of everything; he created Melkor and must therefore be the rote cause of everything Melkor conceives of also.

Yet Melkor it was that marred Arda with his discord. To speculate about the how much pre-knowledge Eru could've had about this is taking the analysis to absurd levels. Melkor wasn't born evil; he "fell" from his preordained high path and rebelled against Eru. You come with many argument that the choice to do good or bad was always there, regardless of Melkors marring. And this is a resonable conclusion if we weren't talking about a fictual mythology but rather an underlying real world that the stories referes to. But it isn't a real world. It is a fictional mythology. It is my opinion that within this mythology as it is written Melkor introduced evil as a moral cathegory. Notice that during the elder days, nothing bad even happens without Melkor behind it. The fall of men, the rebellion of the noldor, the slaying of the trees, the destruction of the lamps; it's all Morgoth.

We have also read about the marring. Melkor has dispersed himself into the very fabric of earth, making everybody who draws a physical body from matter of Arda fallable and tainted. When Miriel died she wasn't the first elf to want to die in Aman, she was the first elf to die in Aman period. Even though elves' bodies theoretically could be destroyed which would "kill" them, this wasn't suppose to happen in Arda Unmarred or the blessed Aman. When it did anyway the Valar were alarmed and took it as proof that Morgoth's marring could be brought even to Aman. Without the marring of Morgoth Miriel wouldn't have died, the Valar agreed on, as life in Aman (without Melkor) was supposed to be blessed, without sorrow or grief.

IMO the evil of Morgoth is twofold. Firstly, Morgoth the person is an incarnate Dark Lord, doing many evil deeds conciously. Secondly, Morgoth is also evil itself, represeted by the marring of creation. This marring of creation affects all creatures on Middle Earth, and is, among other things, a capacity or rather a tendency towards evil in them. The marring is working independently of Morgoth, and when Morgoth the person was ousted from Arda, Sauron inherited the marring. Yet I believe the incarnate Melkor (before his ousting) could concentate his evil will on certain objects, like Hurin and his children. You speculate that the culmination of certain events might have caused rational being to do evil even without the marring of Melkor. And like I said, had it been a real world you'd would probably be right. But in the mythology as it is written Melkor represents evil and without him there would not have been any; he is after all the original Dark Lord or Satan if you wish.

Hm, I'm rambling on and I don't know if that made any sense. Well, here you have it anyway.;)

[Raynor]

To speculate about the how much pre-knowledge Eru could've had about this is taking the analysis to absurd levels.
In my opinion, I have presented evidence that this is so; then again, we may have to agree to disagree :).
Melkor wasn't born evil; he "fell" from his preordained high path and rebelled against Eru.Though we was not born evil, I retain my interpretation that Eru pretty much put him on a set course, given the powers he had given him. As Later Quenta Silmarillion (to which we made several indirect references) states, the greatest are the most potent for evil. And correlated with MT, ("every finite creature must have some weakness: that is some inadequacy to deal with some situations"), I would say it is quite reasonable to expect Melkor to go this way.
You come with many argument that the choice to do good or bad was always there, regardless of Melkors marring. And this is a reasonable conclusion if we weren't talking about a fictual mythology but rather an underlying real world that the stories refers to. But it isn't a real world. It is a fictional mythology. It is my opinion that within this mythology as it is written Melkor introduced evil as a moral category.Eru made His Children as rational beings - and free, as the valar noter in the Ainulindale.Thus, from the very start, they have the (general) ability to choose. Why would they lack the ability to choose between good and evil? Why would Eru limit their ability to choose, in regards to what is, ultimately the most important issue, that of morality, since it is, by and large, the only aspect that can connect the Eruhini back to their Creator? And, moreover, why would He allow his foremost "enemy" to crown them with this, arguably, greatest of all gifts? I particularly have problem with this last aspect, since:

- if Melkor introduced the moral category of evil, he must have also introduced that of good (them being complementary facets);
- it also means: either that he amended even the creation of the Ainur by giving them the ability to choose between good and evil (but you already disagreed with this) or that the Ainur had this ability but the Eruhini didn't - and none of this seems to me to be in accordance with Tolkien's work;
- most importantly of all, "none of the Ainur had part in their [the Eruhini's] making" (Ainulindale).

Moreover, Tolkien didn't want his Middle Earth to be alien to our world, quite the opposite, as he stated in his letters or BBC interview.
Notice that during the elder days, nothing bad even happens without Melkor behind it.Given that he dispensed a great deal of power to promote evil, I would say that this is a rather natural outcome, that most, or all, evil events are connected to him, by receiving his "world-wide" support.
Even though elves' bodies theoretically could be destroyed which would "kill" them, this wasn't suppose to happen in Arda Unmarred or the blessed Aman.In my opinion, if this was supposed to be so, then the elves would have had invulnerable bodies. However, not even the Valar, not even Melkor, enjoy such a trait. Therefore, it is reasonably to presume that death is a possibility, left as such by the Creator. Moreover, the Valar do not understand the complete purpose of Creation, the Eruhini the least of all. (Did sorrow lacked completely in Aman, I wonder? What about Elwe and Olwe, brothers being separated? Or kindreds separated? Or the Noldor missing Middle Earth? Or what about the Elves in Aman that, most likely, had members of their clan or family being taken away by Melkor, while they were all still in Middle Earth? Didn't this sorrows already made their way in Aman (not all of them related to Melkor, since separation of kin can appear in any circumstances)? And if the Valar didn't see this, doesn't this say how little they understood them or their purpose?)

[littlemanpoet]

Allow me to quote myself, since I have offered the only reasonable answer to your debate, which would have been unnecessary had you paid attention. ;)

Tom Shippey, in "Author of the Century", pointed out that Tolkien was very careful to keep evil in Middle Earth in a balance of seeming opposites. The two poles are called "Manichaean" and "Boethian". In Manichaeen, evil is considered equal to good, whereas in Boethian, Good is considered to be the ALL, and evil is merely its negative. I think Shippey was right that Tolkien was careful to keep these two poles in balance.

So to say that Melkor was evil itself, would be too Manichaean. To say that evil originated with Eru would be taking the Boethian argument too far. Both points of view are going to be able to find material in Tolkien to support your view because he put both in there. He kept them in balance. We would do well to do the same in our understanding of his works.

[skip spence]

...And, moreover, why would He allow his foremost "enemy" to crown them with this, arguably, greatest of all gifts? I particularly have problem with this last aspect, since:

- if Melkor introduced the moral category of evil, he must have also introduced that of good (them being complementary facets);
- it also means: either that he amended even the creation of the Ainur by giving them the ability to choose between good and evil (but you already disagreed with this) or that the Ainur had this ability but the Eruhini didn't - and none of this seems to me to be in accordance with Tolkien's work;
- most importantly of all, "none of the Ainur had part in their [the Eruhini's] making" (Ainulindale).


Well, let me retract the statement that Melkor introduced the moral category of evil. This wording I took from you I believe because I thought it had a nice ring to it. In fact, I don't think Melkor altered the Children of Eru so they could recognize what is good from what is bad, and that they weren't meant to be able to do so originally. I think Eru (according to JRRT) created all rational creatures with this ability (which you may call free will) or, in the case of Dwarves, granted it to them.

But all the rational beings under Eru were created with this free will to choose between the good and the bad, so that they would do good IMO. Melkor, the mightiest under Eru, failed this hope. We can speculate whether Eru already knew Melkor was going to rebel (which indirectly would be an argument against free will) or if he didn't. I suggest we drop this point as you can find plenty of support for both options in the texts.

Melkor didn't create evil per se, that I can go along with. But he is still the mythologiocal equivilance of evil. What he did do was to corrupt the creation with his discord, so that the creatures on earth would be swayed towards doing was is bad, something that would've been against their nature without the marring.


Moreover, Tolkien didn't want his Middle Earth to be alien to our world, quite the opposite, as he stated in his letters or BBC interview.


This is obvious already from the introductory chapters of LOtR. But Tolkien didn't write stories based on real historical events. There hasn't been any immortal elves, fire-breathing dragons, or demiurgic godlike Valar who molded the earth. When you speculate that evil would have arisen even without Morgoth it's beside the point. When we read about Roman history we can speculate about what really happened. Here, all we have is the text. What is omitted from it doesn't exist, now or in the past. In this mythology Morgoth is the represention of "evil", and like I said, everything bad that happens can be attributed to him, either directly as a person or indirectly as a source of moral corruption. The question of evil without Melkor is moot.

Oh, I browsed Morgoth's Ring and immideately found a quote to support my view (though I do not doubt you can do the same):

This is from 'the orgin of orcs' writings:

"Orcs can rebell agaist him [Sauron (my addition)] without losing their own irremediable alligiance to evil (Morgoth)."

So there you have it in JRRTs own words: Morgoth is evil. :cool:


(Did sorrow lacked completely in Aman, I wonder? What about Elwe and Olwe, brothers being separated? Or kindreds separated? Or the Noldor missing Middle Earth? Or what about the Elves in Aman that, most likely, had members of their clan or family being taken away by Melkor, while they were all still in Middle Earth? Didn't this sorrows already made their way in Aman (not all of them related to Melkor, since separation of kin can appear in any circumstances)? And if the Valar didn't see this, doesn't this say how little they understood them or their purpose?)

Sorry, but it's all Morgoth. There would've been no need for the sundering without the malice of Morgoth as he was the reason the Valar withdrew to Valinor, and also the main reason behind why some of the elves chose not to heed the Valar's calling and go to Aman. And like I said, maybe separation of kin could happen without Melkor, but that's a moot question.

[skip spence]

Allow me to quote myself, since I have offered the only reasonable answer to your debate, which would have been unnecessary had you paid attention. ;)


You didn't really expect us to go along with that, did you? :p


So to say that Melkor was evil itself, would be too Manichaean. To say that evil originated with Eru would be taking the Boethian argument too far. Both points of view are going to be able to find material in Tolkien to support your view because he put both in there. He kept them in balance. We would do well to do the same in our understanding of his works.

And if I ignored you, it was because I didn't really understand this Shippey fella's ideas and what significance they have to our debate. And I'm afraid I don't now either. Perhaps I'm not clever enough. :confused:

Did Tolkien ever use these terms?

[Raynor]

We can speculate whether Eru already knew Melkor was going to rebel (which indirectly would be an argument against free will) or if he didn't. I suggest we drop this point as you can find plenty of support for both options in the texts.
Though I would gladly debate over whether pure psychological knowledge is at odds with free will, I guess we will have to bag this.
But all the rational beings under Eru were created with this free will to choose between the good and the bad, so that they would do good IMO. Melkor, the mightiest under Eru, failed this hope.
...
Melkor didn't create evil per se, that I can go along with. But he is still the mythologiocal equivilance of evil. What he did do was to corrupt the creation with his discord, so that the creatures on earth would be swayed towards doing was is bad, something that would've been against their nature without the marring.I believe we are in complete agreement over this; I also previously called him the most potent agent of evil.
The question of evil without Melkor is moot.

Oh, I browsed Morgoth's Ring and immideately found a quote to support my view (though I do not doubt you can do the same):

This is from 'the orgin of orcs' writings:

"Orcs can rebell agaist him [Sauron (my addition)] without losing their own irremediable alligiance to evil (Morgoth)."

So there you have it in JRRTs own words: Morgoth is evil.Hm, those are some very interesting points for me to ponder over these few days, until I have the pleasure to return to our discussion ;).

[littlemanpoet]

You didn't really expect us to go along with that, did you? :p :D
And if I ignored you, it was because I didn't really understand this Shippey fella's ideas and what significance they have to our debate. And I'm afraid I don't now either. Perhaps I'm not clever enough. :confused:

Did Tolkien ever use these terms?No doubt he was familiar with them, whether he made reference to them himself. The names for the two points of view aren't important. The content is. Simply put: View # 1 is a creator originated all good things, and that being good, cannot have created evil; yet evil exists. The answer to how it can exist, is that evil is the negative of good. View #2 is that good and evil are equal and in an eternal struggle for dominance. Shippey is saying that Tolkien held these two views in tension, in balance, in his descriptions of evil in LotR (and probably elsewhere). The Ringwraiths, for example, are described as actual beings with real (though unseen) flesh, but they exist on a negative, "wraithed" plane, as it were. So both views #1 & #2 are implicit. Hope that helps.

[skip spence]

^I'm not convinced Tolkien had these two concepts in mind and tried to balance them. In Tolkien's Eä Eru is allmighty and created everything in it, good or bad, as Raynor pointed out. I guess what we were debating was the orgin of evil. Did Eru create Melkor with knowledge that he would rebel and torment the earth, to test the children and give them the choice to freely choose their path in life? Or did evil arise independently in the mind of Melkor to the dismay of Eru?

And as for the ringwraiths, I don't believe these concepts are applicable on them. Tolkien separates between the spirit world (or a similar term), which concerns the 'fea' (cf. soul) and the physical world which concerns the 'hroa' or the body. The wraiths operate mainly in the spirit world and that's where their powers are greatest. The fear they can put into the mind of others is therefore a more important weapon for them than for example swords. When Frodo puts on the One ring he also enters the spirit world and that's why he can see them clearly. But the spirit world is not inherently evil; far from it. The Valar (with the exeption of Morgoth) exists wholly in the spirit world and their physical bodies are more like clothes to them than an actual part of their being.

[skip spence]

Hm, those are some very interesting points for me to ponder over these few days, until I have the pleasure to return to our discussion ;).

I look forward to it.:)

[davem]

I just recently read a comment by the late Icelandic scholar Magnus Magnusson on Njal's Saga"

With his (Njal's) wisdom & foresight he struggles to control events which are ultimately uncontrolable because they are pre-ordained, not by some impersonal supernatural force of destiny but by the predispositions & propensities of the human beings involved...

[littlemanpoet]

I'm not convinced Tolkien had these two concepts in mind and tried to balance them. In Tolkien's Eä Eru is allmighty and created everything in it, good or bad, as Raynor pointed out.As Tolkien points out through the words of Elrond, nothing was evil in the beginning.

I guess what we were debating was the orgin of evil. Did Eru create Melkor with knowledge that he would rebel and torment the earth, to test the children and give them the choice to freely choose their path in life? Or did evil arise independently in the mind of Melkor to the dismay of Eru?These questions are unanswerable from the texts. Tolkien's own beliefs no doubt informed his writing, however, and from these one may discern that nothing came into being as a "surprise" to Eru. Foreknowledge is not, however, the same thing as predetermination. Be that as it may, I still think you're wasting your time.

And as for the ringwraiths, I don't believe these concepts are applicable on them. Tolkien separates between the spirit world (or a similar term), which concerns the 'fea' (cf. soul) and the physical world which concerns the 'hroa' or the body. The wraiths operate mainly in the spirit world and that's where their powers are greatest. The fear they can put into the mind of others is therefore a more important weapon for them than for example swords. When Frodo puts on the One ring he also enters the spirit world and that's why he can see them clearly.Of course they're applicable. There are only so many modes that Evil can take:

evil is the negative of good
good is the negative of evil (perhaps impossible)
evil & good co-exist from the beginning

One or more of these modes necessarily inform any story ever written about good and evil; it simply cannot be otherwise. Therefore, every event in a story that involves evil is necessarily going to describe the evil in these terms, perhaps with great nuance such as is found in LotR: the word wraith is related to writhe, wreath, wrath, even write; these words all are derived from an ancient Germanic proto-word meaning "bent-ness". Evil as "bent" fits the description of "evil as the negative of good" while simultaneously keeping the idea of evil squarely in the real world. Anything bent must necessarily have a material form. Thus the very word Tolkien uses to describe the Ringwraiths combines both views of evil at once. It forms what I call a mythic unity.

Yet the Lord of the Nazgul is also described, at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, thusly. He throws back his hood: 'he had a kingly crown; and yet upon no head visible was it set'. Merry's blade cleaves "undead flesh". So there is flesh, but in the negative realm that Frodo discovers on Weathertop. This shows the negative, but very corporal, both functioning at the same time, in the Ringwraiths. The Nazgul Lord's blade bites deep into Frodo's shoulder. His mace wrecks Eowyn's shield and breaks her arm. That's not mere fear. So there's physical presence as well as negative.

The Valar (with the exeption of Morgoth) exists wholly in the spirit world and their physical bodies are more like clothes to them than an actual part of their being.Gobtwiddle! ;) The way Tolkien describes Valinor, it seems like a very physical place, and upon entering Arda the Valar take on physical forms after their nature. Nothing immaterial here!

[skip spence]

These questions are unanswerable from the texts. Tolkien's own beliefs no doubt informed his writing, however, and from these one may discern that nothing came into being as a "surprise" to Eru. Foreknowledge is not, however, the same thing as predetermination. Be that as it may, I still think you're wasting your time.


Although I wouldn't call it a waste of time I agree that you can gain any sure knowledge of these questions from the text. I also suggested we'd drop this a few posts up. But then again, every theory in theology or philosofy are unprovable by nature and despite of this many people much smarter than us spend a lot of time on the subject.


Of course they're applicable. There are only so many modes that Evil can take:

evil is the negative of good
good is the negative of evil (perhaps impossible)
evil & good co-exist from the beginning



How about: there is no evil? Or that evil is everything? Maybe evil was invented in the 19th century by Charles Darwin? All these possibilities seem equally valid to me. Personally I don't believe in the existance of evil in any absolute sense. "Evil" is a relative concept invented by men and exist only as a cultural and lingusitic construct.


...Yet the Lord of the Nazgul is also described, at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, thusly. He throws back his hood: 'he had a kingly crown; and yet upon no head visible was it set'. Merry's blade cleaves "undead flesh". So there is flesh, but in the negative realm that Frodo discovers on Weathertop. This shows the negative, but very corporal, both functioning at the same time, in the Ringwraiths. The Nazgul Lord's blade bites deep into Frodo's shoulder. His mace wrecks Eowyn's shield and breaks her arm. That's not mere fear. So there's physical presence as well as negative.


I never suggested that the wraiths had powers only in the spirit world and that they did not have physical bodies. It is clear that they can wield swords, ride horses and wear clothes.

To me it seems that the rings of power can take the wearer into the spirit world, altering/heightening their perception and let them see things that are hidden from others. Those of strong will can also manipulate and seek to dominate the minds (soul/'fea') of others with the rings. Invisibility is just a side effect. An important point for Tolkien is how moral choices are much more important than physical strenght. This is also why the powers of the nazgul are mostly mental, and the ability to resist them is measured in moral character and strenght of will, not by physical potency.

And I'm afraid I find your theory of the nazguls existing in a "negative realm" at the same time as in the actual physical realm far fetched. The separation betwen a physical world and a spirit world I spoke of isn't just something I made up. Tolkien wrote quite explicitly about this and it is a very important part of the metaphysics of Arda. That the ringswraiths primarly exist and are most powerful in the spirit world is something I think is well founded by the texts. Can't be bothered to look for quotes now but read the parts when Frodo wears the ring again and I think you will see what I mean. And consider Glorfindel, and how he is mighty in both worlds, or something like that.


Gobtwiddle! ;) The way Tolkien describes Valinor, it seems like a very physical place, and upon entering Arda the Valar take on physical forms after their nature. Nothing immaterial here!

I stand by my previous statement. What I said I believe is explicitly written in 'The Silmarillion' or 'Morgoth's Ring'. The children are a 'fea' and a 'hroa' living in harmony. The 'hroa' of the Ainur is just a rainment and they can choose to to travel 'naked' without losing any part of their being.

[littlemanpoet]

How about: there is no evil? Or that evil is everything? Maybe evil was invented in the 19th century by Charles Darwin? All these possibilities seem equally valid to me. Personally I don't believe in the existance of evil in any absolute sense. "Evil" is a relative concept invented by men and exist only as a cultural and lingusitic construct.Well, this explains a lot. No wonder we've been talking past each other. I see that there's no further use in discussing evil with you, since you don't believe it exists. I of course find such a notion to be at least untenable and at worst delusional. I mean that, of course, in the nicest possible way. ;)

[Eönwë]

there is no evil

Which means that there also is no good, as both of these are just ideas of the e human mind, whicch always needs to characterise things (other examples are time and numbers which also don't exist really).

[skip spence]

Which means that there also is noe evil, ans both of these are just ideas of the e human mind, whicch always needs to characterise things (other examples are time and numbers which also don't exist really).

I don't think you can compare a concept such as evil with time and numbers. The names of our days and numbers are manmade constructions but not time and numbers themselves. They can be described with pure mathematics and are therefore real in an absolute sense within the limits of our perception.

You shouldn't post under influence btw :D

[Eönwë]

You can, because evil is an idea, it is a concept. You can do something in one place that is evil, but doesn't count on another. Time is relative (depending on how fast you go). But maybe I wasn't right comparing the other two but you get the idea. We just put things in classes to understand them.

But ok, I get your point. But at least, you say there is no evil
Which means that there also is no good

[skip spence]

^Sure, to say that there's no evil is to say that there's no good too.

I should (again) point out that I don't believe in 'Good' or 'Evil' in any absolute sense or theological application. I certainly think that some actions, such as helping people, are better than other actions, such as killing people. But that's an opinion, nothing more.

[skip spence]

Well, this explains a lot. No wonder we've been talking past each other. I see that there's no further use in discussing evil with you, since you don't believe it exists. I of course find such a notion to be at least untenable and at worst delusional. I mean that, of course, in the nicest possible way. ;)

You find my statement that evil doesn't exist to be untenable?? Well, "delusional" is also a relative concept and I'd like to see you prove that evil indeed exists. That is to me an untenable notion but I mean it in the nicest possible way too. I'm certainly not here to disrespect anyone's religious beliefs.

Gobtwiddle by the way... Gobtwiddle! :) That's a word I've never come across. Care to enlighten us?

[littlemanpoet]

You find my statement that evil doesn't exist to be untenable?? Well, "delusional" is also a relative concept and I'd like to see you prove that evil indeed exists. That is to me an untenable notion but I mean it in the nicest possible way too. I'm certainly not here to disrespect anyone's religious beliefs.I must decline to pick up that gauntlet, for it would mean having first to prove that philosophical relativism is itself untenable (which I hold to be the case), and that would not be fitting to this thread, nor do I care to involve myself in such a debate; I have better and more interesting things to do with my time on the Downs.

Gobtwiddle by the way... Gobtwiddle! :) That's a word I've never come across. Care to enlighten us?I made up the word, here on the Downs, as a matter of fact, in response to something posted by someone else that I instantly recognized as nonsense. So for starters, Gobtwiddle = nonsense; however, it's a more graphic rendering since it is related to "Shut yer gob!" - - which is to say, "shut your mouth!" So a "gob" being mouth, or for the sake of my coining, "lips", to "twiddle" one's "gobs" is to pass one's forefinger over one's lips while mildly humming. In the end, it's just a whimsical new way to say "nonsense". :)

[skip spence]

^So your saying it's just an euphemism for "Shut up!"

Why I oughta...

I must decline to pick up that gauntlet, for it would mean having first to prove that philosophical relativism is itself untenable (which I hold to be the case)...

Probably a good call that.

[littlemanpoet]

No, not for "shut up", but for "that's nonsense". As in, "you're just twiddling your lips". :p But yes. It's time for me to be moving on now. It's been fun.

[littlemanpoet]

Well, this explains a lot. No wonder we've been talking past each other. I see that there's no further use in discussing evil with you, since you don't believe it exists. I of course find such a notion to be at least untenable and at worst delusional. I mean that, of course, in the nicest possible way. ;)I'm quoting myself because someone, who apparently has not the courage to identify him- or herself, gave me a negative rep, describing the above as "haughty". Thank you for the honor of so naming what I said. I have arrived at last. :D

But seriously, why would someone consider the above haughty? I raise the question because it has to do with the concept of evil, which, since this discussion has closed in terms of any other topic, might as well continue as a discussion of our beliefs towards evil (certainly in reference to Tolkien's works).

If I were to take a guess as why the above seemed haughty, it is because I named someone else's belief as both logically untenable and delusional. First, definitions. "Logically untenable" means that a belief cannot be defended by logic. "Delusional" means that a belief is held in spite of clear evidence to the contrary, precisely because the one holding the belief refuses to acknowledge that a thing is what it is; in this case, evil.

So allow me to ask: is the evil depicted in Tolkien a mere fantasy, something that does not actually exist in the world in which we live? Are there no modern day Sarumans who bend and 'filet' truth and reality into rationalizations to justify their own agendas, desires, and motivations? Are there no murderers who are just as willing to steal, kill and destroy as the orcs of LotR (after all, how many times did Tolkien refer to modern-day orcs?)?

I eagerly await anyone's answer as to how evil does not exist; my thanks in advance.

[skip spence]

If I were to take a guess as why the above seemed haughty, it is because I named someone else's belief as both logically untenable and delusional. First, definitions. "Logically untenable" means that a belief cannot be defended by logic. "Delusional" means that a belief is held in spite of clear evidence to the contrary, precisely because the one holding the belief refuses to acknowledge that a thing is what it is; in this case, evil.

I'm sorry but that does not make any sense whatsoever. I don't believe in the existance of evil in any absolute sense. This you deem delusional. Why? Because there's clear evidence to the contrary, you say. The evidence that evil in fact does exist is the existance of evil, and my delusion is refusing to accept it. Is that what you're trying to say? :rolleyes:

But I can see where you're coming from. You are obviously a christian who believe in a good god who created the world and everything in it. If you accept this axiom it's also easy to accept that God made certain rules for men to follow, although reading the Bible tends to confuse at least me regarding how to follow them (are we or are we not supposed to kill fex.?). But even if you accept this as a fact (which no serious scientist would) the existance of "evil" is not proved still. The world is not black and white as you probably know, and just because there is a good way to act does not nessesarily make any deviation from it "evil". Is someone who've helped millions of people all his life suddenly evil if he cheats on his wife without regretting it? Is the president of Iran an evil man? Is the president of the US an evil man? The answer you would recieve from these questions would be very different depending on who you ask and where. And the motivations behind a yes or no would never be based on any 'proof', only more or less vague feelings and opinions. If there is a god then he/she/it can probably answer, but no one have been able to prove that either. Maybe you find a certain definition of 'evil' true in your heart, but such 'truth' can only be true within your self. And just because you find something to be true in your heart, does not give you the right to impose that belief upon someone else.

You may believe this to be delusional but the existance of concepts such as 'good' or 'evil' are unprovable within the limits of our perception and therefore I'm (almost) certain they do not exist.

Would have written more and checked my post for clarity but I have to go now. I hope I haven't offended you in any way.

[Bêthberry]

I just recently read a comment by the late Icelandic scholar Magnus Magnusson on Njal's Saga"



With his (Njal's) wisdom & foresight he struggles to control events which are ultimately uncontrolable because they are pre-ordained, not by some impersonal supernatural force of destiny but by the predispositions & propensities of the human beings involved...


It's been some time since I read CoH, but this describes my sense at the time, that the terrible consequences arose because of the nature of the people involved.

Rather than yawing about evil, it is perhaps helpful to consider the various defintions of "curse".


–noun 1. the expression of a wish that misfortune, evil, doom, etc., befall a person, group, etc.
2. a formula or charm intended to cause such misfortune to another.
3. the act of reciting such a formula.
4. a profane oath; curse word.
5. an evil that has been invoked upon one.
6. the cause of evil, misfortune, or trouble.
7. something accursed.
8. Slang. the menstrual period; menstruation (usually prec. by the).
9. an ecclesiastical censure or anathema.
–verb (used with object) 10. to wish or invoke evil, calamity, injury, or destruction upon.
11. to swear at.
12. to blaspheme.
13. to afflict with great evil.
14. to excommunicate.
–verb (used without object) 15. to utter curses; swear profanely.

. . .

—Synonyms 1, 9. imprecation, execration, fulmination, malediction. 5. misfortune, calamity, trouble. 5, 6. bane, scourge, plague, affliction, torment. 10-12. Curse, blaspheme, swear are often interchangeable in the sense of using profane language. However, curse is the general word for the heartfelt invoking or angry calling down of evil on another: They called down curses on their enemies. To blaspheme is to speak contemptuously or with abuse of God or of sacred things: to blaspheme openly. To swear is to use the name of God or of some holy person or thing as an exclamation to add force or show anger: to swear in every sentence. 13. plague, scourge, afflict, doom.
—Antonyms 1, 9. blessing, benediction. 10. bless.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: bef. 1050; ME curs (n.), cursen (v.), OE curs (n.), cursian (v.), of disputed orig.]


What evidence exists that Morgoth's curse was an actual "charm to cause misfortune" or "an evil that has been invoked"? If we see personality and disposition coming into play, as davem's quote from the Icelandic scholar suggests, then 'curse' is simply "an expression of a wish that misfortune fall" or that "heartfelt invoking or angry calling down of evil". Morgoth was one angry fella. It's easy to be spooked by someone's ill will and quite possibly that is all that operates in any way on Turin, messing with his mind, which is a particularly stubborn, obdurate (perhaps 'unbending' might be more precise), and determined one, as is his mother's.

What might be more useful than arguing definitions of evil is clarifying what "curse" means. :)

[skip spence]

What might be more useful than arguing definitions of evil is clarifying what "curse" means. :)

I don't believe in "curses" either ;)

And I suppose Tolkien's various curses and prophesies (that all come true) are narrative tecnique more than anything else. Reminds me of the old greek tragedies where the protagonist goes to Delphi, is told his (un-)fortune and spends the rest of the play vainly trying to avoid it.

[Bêthberry]

I don't believe in "curses" either ;)

And I suppose Tolkien's various curses and prophesies (that all come true) are narrative tecnique more than anything else. Reminds me of the old greek tragedies where the protagonist goes to Delphi, is told his (un-)fortune and spends the rest of the play vainly trying to avoid it.

Actually, if all we do is read for what we personally believe in, then we read solipsistically without much chance of understanding or learning anything new or challenging.

So one's belief or lack of belief in curses or absolute evil might be a starting point in the reading process, but if that process does not engage with how the text presents those ideas, then no communication truly takes place.

Your comparison to Delphi raises an interesting question, though: does Tolkien employ Greek/Classical notions of fate or does he look to Northern notions? Is there in fact any difference between the two cultures?

[davem]

Your comparison to Delphi raises an interesting question, though: does Tolkien employ Greek/Classical notions of fate or does he look to Northern notions? Is there in fact any difference between the two cultures?

Tolkien was probably more influenced by the concept of Wyrd

Wyrd refers to how past actions continually affect and condition the future, but also how the future affects the past. The concept of Wyrd highlights the interconnected nature of all actions and how they influence each other. Wyrd, though related, is not the same as predestination. Unlike predestination, Wyrd allows for the expression and assertion of one's individual wyrd - essentially one's will or destiny. However, this is always constrained by the wyrd of others. Nevertheless, one is able to influence to some extent the 'weaving' of fate.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyrd

I think the most interesting question about the 'curse' is whether it is strictly necessary - ie, would anything have turned out differently, given the nature of the individuals involved, if Morgoth had simply lied to Hurin about having cursed his children? Is there anything in the story which actually requires an active curse, or was the idea of the curse sufficient? I can't help but feel that, given 'the predispositions & propensities of the human beings involved' an active force of 'Evil' driving Turin & Nienor to their doom is somewhat surplus to requirements. Or, to put it another way, if the curse element was removed from the story, would there be any aspect of it that made no sense?

[Bêthberry]

Quickly and off the top of my head, I'd say that Morgoth's gloating torture of Hurin would lose a fair bit of its vengeful force. (Still, there are many parents who are forced to watch their children make unfortunate choices which they (the parents) are powerless to advise or correct.) And I suppose that Nienor's fate would seem too improbable? I'd have to reread to be sure of that.

[littlemanpoet]

I don't believe in the existance of evil in any absolute sense.I don't believe in "curses" either

Prove the existence of belief and unbelief.

[skip spence]

Prove the existence of belief and unbelief.

Just a brief comment as I'm afraid the post will disappear.

In a strict sense you can't really prove anything with absolute certainty. In practice you can prove some things, such as the laws of thermodynamics or gravity. "Belief" or "unbelief" are just words to describe an indirectly observable human action, much like "afraid" or "hungry". There's no need to prove them as the concepts are universally agreed upon, even though the words used differ from culture to culture. Therefore I don't think it is fair to compare them with evil, which isn't an observable concept, directly or indirectly. Unlike "belief" or "unbelief", the distinction between "good" or "evil" is a creation of man (or god if you believe in that).

[skip spence]

Tolkien was probably more influenced by the concept of Wyrd

I think the most interesting question about the 'curse' is whether it is strictly necessary - ie, would anything have turned out differently, given the nature of the individuals involved, if Morgoth had simply lied to Hurin about having cursed his children? Is there anything in the story which actually requires an active curse, or was the idea of the curse sufficient? I can't help but feel that, given 'the predispositions & propensities of the human beings involved' an active force of 'Evil' driving Turin & Nienor to their doom is somewhat surplus to requirements. Or, to put it another way, if the curse element was removed from the story, would there be any aspect of it that made no sense?

As for the concept of Wyrd and whether Tolkien was influenced by it or not I can't say much as I'm not familiar with it.

As far as I can remember there are no parts of CoH that require an active curse. Yet the curse is treated as quite real and active in the narrative and by the characters involved. And IMO the curse is active as I think I've explained (or tried to) previously in this thread. I believe Melkor's marring is meant to have an effect on 'the predispositions & propensities of the human beings involved' and that the curse is working as a moral corruption upon the afflicted people much like the general marring, but more concentrated.

[littlemanpoet]

Just a brief comment as I'm afraid the post will disappear.

In a strict sense you can't really prove anything with absolute certainty. In practice you can prove some things, such as the laws of thermodynamics or gravity. "Belief" or "unbelief" are just words to describe an indirectly observable human action, much like "afraid" or "hungry". There's no need to prove them as the concepts are universally agreed upon, even though the words used differ from culture to culture. Therefore I don't think it is fair to compare them with evil, which isn't an observable concept, directly or indirectly. Unlike "belief" or "unbelief", the distinction between "good" or "evil" is a creation of man (or god if you believe in that).

Show that the concepts of good and evil are not universally agreed upon.

[skip spence]

^I believe that's selfevident by our disagreement.

I will however gladly concede that a majority, including me, agrees about many key distinctions between "good" and "evil". But I think this discussion should end here as we won't progress any further with it.

[skip spence]

Regarding Morgoth's curse and his ability to govern the mind of Turin and others I found these passages and came to think of this old thread:

From HoME X: Myths Transformed

...'thought transference'... [is a] process of mind reading: this is but the reception, and interpretation by the receiving mind, of the impact of a thought, or thought-pattern, emanating from another mind, which is no more the mind in full or itself than is the distant sight of a man running the man himself. Minds can exibit or reveal themselves to other minds by the action of their own will (though it is doubtful if, even when willing or desiring this, a mind can actually reveal itself wholly to any other mind). It is thus a temptation to minds of greater power to govern or constrain the will of other, and weaker, minds, so as to induce or force them to reveal themselves. But to force such a revelation, or to induce it by lying or deception, even for supposedly 'good' purposes (including the 'good' of the person so persuaded or dominated), is absolutely forbidden. To so this is a crime, and the 'good' in the purposes of those who commit this crime swiftly becomes corrupted...

...and with regard to the enemy, Melkor, in particular, he [Manwe] could not penetrate by distant mind-sight his thought and purposes, since Melkor remained in a fixed and powerful will to withhold his mind, which physically expressed took shape in the darkness and shadows that surrounded him.

This seems to indicate that powerful beings such as Manwe and Melkor/Morgoth have the ability to penetrate and dominate the minds of lesser beings by means of distant mind-sight, although it is a crime to forcefully do so.

This might be what the curse in practice meant: that Morgoth tried to design a horrible fate for Hurin and his kin by means of distant mind-sight and mental domination. This process however would not be perfectly accurate, and the unwillingness and strength of will the objects in question would make it more difficult still. But do not doubt the power of Morgoth Bauglir! :cool: