[Kalessin]

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 [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] 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 [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] ... 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 [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ) ...

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 [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] . 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 [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

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 [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Peace

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