[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

(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.

It could be argued Morgoth's 'sin' was against his essential (Eru given) nature. Of course, it could also be argued that if he hadn't rebelled the story would have been a very short & very boring one. Morgoth may introduce 'evil' into the the world, but it also introduces rebellion, & introduces the possibility of defying Morgoth himself. If obedience to Eru doesn't involve being an integrated (ie whole) person the individual will remain conflicted & not know peace. Simply, if Morgoth hadn't defied Eru nothing would have happened of any interest to any reader. When Morgoth introduces his dissonance into the Music things start to happen, & the reader thinks 'Right, now its going to get interesting!' Its not simply that Morgoth's existence is necessary its that his rebelllion is necessary too - if only from the persepective of making the story interesting. Morgoth hurts, destroys, introduces cruelty, pain, heartbreak, offends, upsets & is generally a pain, but without him there would be nothing to struggle against, to challenge or be challenged by.

Morgoth is the Dionysian element that stops everything stagnating & being 'embalmed' in a state of 'perfection'. He is the Prometheus of M-e, who steals the fire (the Silmarils) from Heaven, & while he may not give them to Men, he makes it possible for Men to get hold of them - if they are willing to take the same risk he took to steal them in the first place. Because of Morgoth the Light of Paradise enters into M-e (& remains there, in the Air (bound to the brow of Earendel) in the Earth & in the Sea). As I said, Morgoth's rebellion is necessary, & therefore inevitable. He serves his purpose at the most terrible cost to himself - inner fragmentation & exile in the Void. To deny all possibility of return & reconciliation to him seems morally 'iffy' to say the least.....

(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.

Well, it was Tolkien's judgement that was the case.

(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?

One does not have to hold that view, of course. It is the orthodox Christian view, but then we are back at the whole 'Is the Legendarium a 'Christian' work question. We don't know that Morgoth's self integration was impossible. One would have to prove that M-e works according to Christian rules - which has to be proved, not assumed.

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.

No - we're speculating, because we have no proof either way from Tolkien's writings. One only has to show that 'X' is possible in order to have a debate. I can argue for Universalism in M-e because it is logically possible & there is no contradictory evidence. We come back to a question of aesthetics.

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.

As long as we acknowledge that our beliefs are unfounded - if we could 'prove' them then we wouldn't need to 'believe' them - & are prepared to give up, or alter, our beliefs if they do not stand up to scrutiny - or accept at the least that other beliefs may be correct & our own incorrect.