The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Kalessin · 01-05-2003, 05:24 PM

Thanks for these interesting contributions, Bill [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

I think we have to also bear in mind that Tolkien acknowledges the philosophical problem inherent in his moral narrative - how evil can arise from apparent good - and in other threads some of us have participated in lengthy (and perhaps rather technical) discussions on the nature of free will in the context of omnipotent creation.

I still do not see how this problem is 'solved' as such in a metaphysical sense - rather, I feel it is resolved in the narrative, with the necessary allowances for our experience of literature and our human ability to work through contradictions (faith and mortality might be profound examples of this aspect of our humanity).

In narrative terms, Evil IS a "thing" in itself, for example in the sense in which 'it' is ultimately self-defeating. The argument that, in Tolkien, evil is also an adjective, has to be allowed - since the creations of Eru, of ultimate Good, can be and are the authors of evil subcreation ... yet, as very importantly pointed out, the Christian concept of redemption is NOT explicitly available in Middle Earth, Arda etc. This means that a teleological interpretation of the narrative chronology towards an ultimately Good conclusion is more difficult.

The paradox of evil arising from good is of the same order as free will and omniscience (I do not accept the 'letting your kids put their hands in the fire' as a valid rationalisation of free will [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] ).

Anselm, Aquinas, Descartes and Spinoza haven't really killed off the arguments, neither does Tolkien ... and I can't either [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ...

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

Kalessin

[ January 05, 2003: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

01-05-2003, 05:24 PM	#23
Kalessin Wight Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Earthsea, or London Posts: 175	Thanks for these interesting contributions, Bill [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] I think we have to also bear in mind that Tolkien acknowledges the philosophical problem inherent in his moral narrative - how evil can arise from apparent good - and in other threads some of us have participated in lengthy (and perhaps rather technical) discussions on the nature of free will in the context of omnipotent creation. I still do not see how this problem is 'solved' as such in a metaphysical sense - rather, I feel it is resolved in the narrative, with the necessary allowances for our experience of literature and our human ability to work through contradictions (faith and mortality might be profound examples of this aspect of our humanity). In narrative terms, Evil IS a "thing" in itself, for example in the sense in which 'it' is ultimately self-defeating. The argument that, in Tolkien, evil is also an adjective, has to be allowed - since the creations of Eru, of ultimate Good, can be and are the authors of evil subcreation ... yet, as very importantly pointed out, the Christian concept of redemption is NOT explicitly available in Middle Earth, Arda etc. This means that a teleological interpretation of the narrative chronology towards an ultimately Good conclusion is more difficult. The paradox of evil arising from good is of the same order as free will and omniscience (I do not accept the 'letting your kids put their hands in the fire' as a valid rationalisation of free will [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] ). Anselm, Aquinas, Descartes and Spinoza haven't really killed off the arguments, neither does Tolkien ... and I can't either [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ... Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] Kalessin [ January 05, 2003: Message edited by: Kalessin ]