[Boromir88]

Could someone explain it to me, particularly the part about good and evil not both being true? It's either very simple or very stupid, I'm not sure which, but either way I don't understand it. Thanks, sorry for being dense.~Gwath

I hope you can pardon the Star Wars analogy, it's just that last week I had a marathon and watched all 6, and it's still stuck in my head.

The entire storyline of the 1st three movies is about Anakin fulfilling the prophecy that he is the chosen one who will "bring balance to the force." That is you could say a traditional definition of good and evil, and the view that Tolkien held, which can be seen in The Silm and LOTR. (I said 'traditional' simply as a way to distinguish between Eddings' definition vs. the other, Star Wars, Tolkien, Christianity, however you want to classify it). The traditional definition is dependent on balance between good and evil. This balance is probably not going to be "even," but for one to exist, the other has to. Evil must be allowed to exist because it validates good, "good" is promoted as a moral path that is to be followed. However, good must exist for evil, because evil needs something to rebel against. In the traditional view, evil is pretty much rebelling/rejection of good. There is a divine power (in Star Wars it's 'the force,' there is a light and a dark), and that divine power permits evil to exist because for one to exist, the other has to.

As Formendacil has laid out, Eru permitted Melkor to rebel, and despite Melkor's vigorous efforts all of his discord actually ended up strengthening good. So, in the traditional view, good needs evil and vice versa, however evil can never be as powerful as good. Good will always be victorious, because good is what the divine power is, and the divine power has no other superior, or there is no other power that is equal. Melkor and Sauron never come close to achieving Eru's power, because they simply can't.

In Eddings' definition he is saying that good and evil are separate natures all together, and that they are not dependent on one another. You see in the traditional view, that since good and evil are dependent on eachother, this must mean they are both "true." Eddings is arguing they are two independent and different natures. Good doesn't need evil, nor does evil need good. So, taking from Form again, in Eddings' view there doesn't need to be a divine power that distinguishes between good and evil, good and evil are equal natures, and evil actually can defeat good because of it. Eddings' view relies on the individual, evil doesn't exist because a divine power allows it, evil exists because individuals follow it.

Now, according to Eddings' evil is an imperfect person's desire for perfection. They are full of pride, and lust to be perfect. In this search for pefection, evil is selfish, and therefor evil can not 'win' because evil looks out for itself. Even if good and evil are equal natures, evil can not work together, and therefor evil will lose. Good is the recognition of an imperfect person, is imperfect and can not achieve perfection. However, what makes a person good, is they are selfless, sacrifice for others, or simply care for others. It is this building of community which makes good stronger than evil (not a divine power)...because through giving you are making the entire community stronger, where evil takes for itself and can not work together.

So, where Eddings was going with the statement that both cannot be "true," (at least I think so), is to say that good and evil are separate natures:

They are each the "soul" of the universe, and this reality isn't big enough for the both of them."

In the traditional view, the universe is big enough for good and evil, because they need the other to exist, therefor they are both true. Simply put, Eddings' disagrees, one does not need eachother, good and evil exist because people decide to be selfless and sacrifice (good) or prideful and strive for perfection (evil).

Hopefully, I didn't confuse anyone further, I think I may have confused myself,but at least that's what I took from what Eddings was saying.

P.S. I will just add that I don't think that LOTR is as simple as Nogrod and Form are proposing. That is I think it is not as simple as "LOTR is not Manichean." But I will have to explain at another time.