(1) By asserting that Morgoth's 'sin' was against himself and not against Eru is tantamount to saying that Morgoth being true to himself - an integrated self - is more important than obedience to Eru.
(2) The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but one takes priority over the other since Morgoth's sin was, as Tolkien says, against Eru.
(3) Perhaps "start with himself" was
meant, but it was not
stated until now. If one does not hold that there is enough power in oneself to achieve integration, then one must consider integration to be either unachievable, or the necessary power to achieve it to be accessible through some other means. If Morgoth's self-integration is unachievable, then the assertion that his 'sin' against himself was to be untrue to himself falls apart, because he cannot therefore be completely and fully himself once he has committed this 'sin' against himself. If, on the other hand, Morgoth's true-to-himself-ness is achievable through means outside himself only, what other means, and what does this imply?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davem
I don't see it as an 'admission' as it isn't actually in contradiction to anything else I've ever said.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davem
There is no internal evidence for either universal redemption or eternal damnation in the writings.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davem
Even Melkor may be redeemed in the end, as even though he was cast into the void 'he' still existed.
|
|
|
As shown here, the earlier assertion that Melkor could be redeemed, was the first instance of Universalism. My request that it be defended from Tolkien's writings was met with the admission that such a stance cannot be defended from Tolkien's works.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davem
And what is 'the way things actually are'? The point of philosophy (as opposed to theology) is to ask this very question & strive to answer it from experience or logical investigation, not to start from the position of 'assuming that which is to be proved' & trying to make reality fit owns own pre-conceived belief system. I haven't come across any indisputable theory about what 'reality' actually is.
|
As is known by anyone familiar with philosophical paradigms, experience and logical investigation are not alone as the basis for philosophical pursuit. Certain presumed beliefs always underlie them. Any belief that is not admitted at the outset, results in blind spots that do not fail to affect the philosopher's conclusions negatively.