Absolutely Evil

[Boromir88]

In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think there is such a thing, since that is Zero. I do not think at any rate any 'rational being' is wholly evil.... In my story Sauron represents as near an approach to wholly evil will as is possible.~Letter #183

I ran across this letter and started thinking about what is "absolute evil," and how Tolkien thinks about it. Now he says in his writings there is no absolute, or whole evil (and I think I'll take his word for it ), but Sauron is the closest to being absolutely evil.

I've been thinking what is "absolute evil" and can anything actually be absolutely evil? Tolkien didn't seem to agree with anything being absolutely evil, but can someone be "wholly evil?"

I think of absolute evil in a few different ways, perhaps it's just sums up everything, but...
1) Being evil from the very first breath to your very last. Which I've always believed that no one is "born" evil, we all have the capability of doing evil, but I just don't think that someone can be evil right as a baby.

2) Eru being the creator here and I think the representation of absolute good...I mean Tolkien doesn't say there isn't an absolute good? So, if Eru is the absolute good and he is the creator of everything, can he create something absolutely evil? Can he create an equal and opposite force?

3) One beyond any ounce or smidget of good in them whatsoever. I mean Sauron doesn't go around starting war and killing people unless he has to...which I guess is a good thing. He offers treaties and basically says "be my slaves for the rest of your pathetic life," but hey he doesn't ruthlessly go around just destroying everyone...then there would be no one to rule .

I think that sums it about up, of course I'd love to hear your input.

[The 1,000 Reader]

I think it means two things.

1. No one is born evil.

2. No one does something thinking that they themselves are evil. They see themselves as a good person, or the person does not see at all.

[Boromir88]

2. No one does something thinking that they themselves are evil. They see themselves as a good person, or the person does not see at all.

Interesting, and I agree. I think this describes Saruman quite well. I think a majority of the "evil-doers" in history, in literature...etc had felt like what they were doing was right, it was just. It's sort of like the ends and means sort of thing. Who cares if I commit these heinous acts the end will justify the means. And there's a quote from the Council of Elrond where we see Saruman fit perfectly into this category:

We can join with that Power. It would be wise, Gandalf. There is hope that way. Its victory is at hand; and there will be rich reward for those that aided it. As the Power grows; its proved friends will also grow; and the Wise, such as you and I, may with patience come at last to direct its courses, to control it. We can bide our time, we can keep our thoughts in our hearts, deploring maybe evils done by the way, but approving the high and ultimate purpose: Knowledge, Rule, Order; all the things that we have so far striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than helped by our weak or idle friends. There need not be, there would not be, any real change in our designs, only in our means.~The Council of Elrond

To Saruman it doesn't matter how he does it, who gets hurt, what he does, what matters is in the end he thinks that what he's doing is right. He thinks what he's doing is why the Istari were sent to Middle-earth. He thinks, doesn't matter if he joins with Sauron, because in the end he plans to backstab him and complete his mission. And we all know Saruman is fooled and has leddown the wrong path.

[Kuruharan]

Eru being the creator here and I think the representation of absolute good...I mean Tolkien doesn't say there isn't an absolute good? So, if Eru is the absolute good and he is the creator of everything, can he create something absolutely evil? Can he create an equal and opposite force?

I believe this is partially why Tolkien did not think there could be absolute evil.

Judging from some of Morgoth's behavior, I don't think it would be too much to say that Tolkien associated evil in many respects with nullity. Morgoth just destroys and ruins. In that light, Tolkien's comment about evil=0 makes perfect sense. Something absolutely evil would destroy itself because that would be the ultimate conclusion of its own evil, the necessary end point of that line of thought and action. Sauron is never associated with that sort of thinking, and even Morgoth was only vaguely.

[Legolas]

I'm caught up in a long paper on Paradise Lost due in a few hours, so this hits close to what my mind is on (but coincidentally, I'm short on time and will have to return later).

I'm not sure how Absolute Evil is defined. According to the definitions you've presented, Absolute Evil would only be able to exist in the absence of some Absolute Good (Eru) or perhaps be equal in origin. Would something that is Absolute Evil would have to be eternally present, if for no other reason than that its end would be good?

[Cailín]

What a complicated issue! I have been thinking a lot on good and evil recently... And came up with no conclusions, so this might make no sense at all.

1) Being evil from the very first breath to your very last. Which I've always believed that no one is "born" evil, we all have the capability of doing evil, but I just don't think that someone can be evil right as a baby.

I often hear say that young children are innocent and unspoiled. Before children learn morals, they are neither capable of doing right nor wrong, since they have no concept of these things. As long as you are unaware of the law, you cannot break it. Consequentially, most and possibly all children have a unique self-centeredness, allowing them to experiment freely with the boundaries of human morals without feeling restraint out of fear for causing others pain. In that sense, children are really the most evil beings of us all, but blissfully unaware of it - till they see the reaction of their surroundings.

As soon as being evil becomes a choice, it cannot be pure anymore. However, humans perceive evil that was not done consciously as a lesser crime.

I am not sure what I am trying to say. If someone is absolutely evil, he or she will not know good. S/he cannot choose to be not evil. Is a person then still evil? Is not what we humans think of as evil only evil because it was a willful act?

2) Eru being the creator here and I think the representation of absolute good...I mean Tolkien doesn't say there isn't an absolute good? So, if Eru is the absolute good and he is the creator of everything, can he create something absolutely evil? Can he create an equal and opposite force?

Assuming dualism has some grain of truth in it, if there is absolute good, there is absolute evil. By his mere existence, Eru would have ensured the presence of an opposing force. In that sense, he could have created it indeed.

The only thing I eventually can come up with: wholly good is, as wholly bad, the absence of all action and therefore nothing. Logically, Tolkien is right in saying that it cannot truly exist, only as a hypothetical zero point.

[Kuruharan]

As long as you are unaware of the law, you cannot break it.

I'm afraid not. The law is something outside of you that is present whether you are aware of it or not. Hence the "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" bit.

Consequentially, most and possibly all children have a unique self-centeredness, allowing them to experiment freely with the boundaries of human morals without feeling restraint out of fear for causing others pain. In that sense, children are really the most evil beings of us all

This sounds like you are arguing that humanity is born bad.

If someone is absolutely evil, he or she will not know good. S/he cannot choose to be not evil.

I disagree. I think part of evil is knowing good and deliberately rejecting it. Under this definition absolute evil would be a total rejection of any good or positive action...in other words, total destruction.

wholly good is, as wholly bad, the absence of all action

How so? You don't think good could be a creative force and still be good?

[Boromir88]

I'm not sure how Absolute Evil is defined. According to the definitions you've presented, Absolute Evil would only be able to exist in the absence of some Absolute Good (Eru) or perhaps be equal in origin. Would something that is Absolute Evil would have to be eternally present, if for no other reason than that its end would be good?~Legolas

I don't know what it is, or am not absolutely sure how to define it. Those are just some things I've come up with and of course await to hear your input.

I often hear say that young children are innocent and unspoiled. Before children learn morals, they are neither capable of doing right nor wrong, since they have no concept of these things. As long as you are unaware of the law, you cannot break it.~Cailin

I agree with Kuru in that you can break the law and yet not be aware that you are breaking it, but I do see what your saying. Instead of the "law" however, perhaps morals would be the better term. As a newborn can you have concept of what is morally right or morally wrong? I don't think so, it's your upbringing and experience that effects ones morals, as a newborn I don't think they have a concept of what is "right and wrong" until they get older.

Assuming dualism has some grain of truth in it, if there is absolute good, there is absolute evil. By his mere existence, Eru would have ensured the presence of an opposing force. In that sense, he could have created it indeed.

I don't know if Eru is in fact "wholly good," but thinking that he is, I don't think he actually could create something as evil as he was good. To do so wouldn't that mean he would have to create something as powerful as himself? If so, can Eru do that, create a force that is equal to him?

This sounds like you are arguing that humanity is born bad.

Well we are all born with the ability to do "bad," so perhaps in some way we are.

I've also been thinking about Tolkien saying that "evil is only a perversion of good." So in order to have an "evil" there must be something good and it's twisted...therefor nothing can be "wholly evil" since it's only a perversion of good.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Oh how I wish I'd kept those PMs with Aimè.

What they boiled down to is that good and evil are not "real" (which, of course, begs the question of trying to define reality); they're merely social constructs. It comes down to a matter of perspective.

It's not as though you can spot evil and yell to your companions "Look, look! There it is, over by that tree. Careful, don't touch it... it's evil!"

Besides, one person's evil is another person's "Hey, that's a really good idea. Sounds fun, let's try it."

Since you can't even define good and evil or pin them down, how can you claim that they come in absolutes? Everyone and everything's got a redeeming quality. Even Morgoth; remember snow? And any cynic can tell you that good isn't all that good.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Legolas

I'm caught up in a long paper on Paradise Lost due in a few hours, so this hits close to what my mind is on (but coincidentally, I'm short on time and will have to return later).

I hope Ulmo will return with some cogitations on Milton. I recall one wag saying to me once upon a time that Milton's problem was understanding how God's creations always turned out fallible. The Creator's creations were never as powerful or as perfect as He was--how to account for that.

[Kuruharan]

As a newborn can you have concept of what is morally right or morally wrong? I don't think so, it's your upbringing and experience that effects ones morals, as a newborn I don't think they have a concept of what is "right and wrong" until they get older.

Ah. But my underlying point was that if morality is out there, it is out there whether we are aware of it or not...ergo, we can be judged by that standard. Under such circumstances, our own concepts of it are irrelevant.

Of course, the next question is how moral is it to judge one by a standard they are unaware of, but that is a discussion for another time.

"Hey, that's a really good idea. Sounds fun, let's try it."

-Quoted from Reinhard Heydrich at the Wannsee Conference

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

-Quoted from Reinhard Heydrich at the Wannsee Conference

No, love, you've quoted me. And you can't call me on plagiarism when I didn't know I was doing it. That's about as fair as calling kids on committing evil that they don't know exists.

[Kuruharan]

No, love, you've quoted me.

No, love, I was using a rhetorical device to make a point about destruction and devastation...

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Ah. But my underlying point was that if morality is out there, it is out there whether we are aware of it or not...ergo, we can be judged by that standard. Under such circumstances, our own concepts of it are irrelevant.

As you are applying a legalistic approach to questions of moral culpability, it is probably pertinent to point out that, in most developed legal systems, there are special rules for addressing criminal acts on the part of minors and others of limited capacity. Generally, if a person lacks the capacity to appreciate (and therefore intend) the consequences of their action, there will not be a sufficent mental element (the mens rea) to establish liability.

[Kuruharan]

As you are applying a legalistic approach to questions of moral culpability, it is probably pertinent to point out that, in most developed legal systems, there are special rules for addressing criminal acts on the part of minors and others of limited capacity. Generally, if a person lacks the capacity to appreciate (and therefore intend) the consequences of their action, there will not be a sufficent mental element (the mens rea) to establish liability.

...pssst...I think you missed something I said...

Of course, the next question is how moral is it to judge one by a standard they are unaware of, but that is a discussion for another time.

-me

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

...pssst...I think you missed something I said...

No. I was responding directly to this point of yours:

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

But my underlying point was that if morality is out there, it is out there whether we are aware of it or not...ergo, we can be judged by that standard.

Applying the legalistic approach, we cannot judge someone against an independently existing standard if they lack the capacity to appreciate or intend the consequences of them breaching that standard.

Applying this to the discussion at hand, a baby is neither evil nor good because they lack the capacity to judge whether their actions measure up to our assessment of what is evil and what is good. A baby is morally neutral.

[Boromir88]

I don't think "legality" is going to be of any help. Laws and Rules are concrete and easily defined. "You do this...you get this punishment." (Or at least that's how the legal system should work...if you think that's how it does you're fooled ). Laws are society based, just as morals. But Morals aren't as easily defined. We here in America think there's something wrong with walking around nude, or breast feeding in public, my understanding is other places around the world think nothing of it.

But I would disagree with Fea in that just because morals are society based and more "opinionated" doesn't mean that since you find this act right, that means it can't be the "bad" thing to do. Sauron found it right to control the world and make everyone his slave, doesn't make it good, as Tolkien would say that is indeed evil. So, which brings I guess to the question of what is wrong and what is right?

Morals and "what is wrong" I think are to different things. I'm sure I hold many things of what is moral and what isn't then my fellow BD companions. But, what is evil is the harm of someone else, that is what "evil" is and that's what makes Sauron evil. Just because he wants to make Middle-earth his dominion and he thinks that right, that doesn't make him right. It makes him "evil" because he brings harm to others. It's the "crossing the line" so to say, when what you think is good crosses over and harms others.

Morals aren't so clear cut and dry, but what is good/evil is I think much more concrete.

Edit:
So I guess I'll give an example of what I'm meaning to say, as I think I jumbled and rambled some nonsense.

Let's go back to the nudity example. Americans think walking around nude is "wrong" while other cultures don't find it wrong at all, it's actually something more spiritual. To Americans that's not moral, we shouldn't be doing that.

So, let's say since I find that "wrong" I went around killing and mass genocide people who walked around nude in public. Now that would be what evil is. The crossing the line, crossing over into other peoples morals. I crossed the line and said "since you don't agree with me I'm going to bring physical harm to you." That is what I find evil and the difference between what is moral and what is good/evil. (Please don't think I'm going to going to go around killing people who walk around in the nude now )

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by B88

Laws and Rules are concrete and easily defined.

If that were true, being a lawyer would not be such a lucrative trade ...

Originally Posted by B88

But Morals aren't as easily defined.

Kuru's point was, I believe, based on the assumption that moral standards are objective and exist independently of temporal or regional trends. If true, they would be more "fixed" than the laws which we make for themselves (the assumption, I suppose, necessarily involving the concept of morality being externally formulated and imposed by God).

Personally, I don't subscribe to that view (and I have no idea whether Kuru does). While some aspects of morality vary little over time and space (and they are the aspcts that tend to be adopted within the framework of our self-imposed laws), other aspects can vary widely from one society or one age to another. In that respect, they are, as Fea has postulated, self-imposed by a particular society on itself (for the good of that society?)

Originally Posted by B88

Morals aren't so clear cut and dry, but what is good/evil is I think much more concrete.

I would disagree. While an immoral act is not necessarily evil (although some might regard it as such), it seems to me that an evil act must necessarily be immoral. And I am not so sure that the converse is true. A good act is a moral one and a moral act is a good one, surely.

Hmm. It seems that I'm just tying myself up in knots here ...

[Kuruharan]

Applying the legalistic approach, we cannot judge someone against an independently existing standard if they lack the capacity to appreciate or intend the consequences of them breaching that standard.

First of all, you are making great presumptions about what might or might not be included in the standard.

Second, my point was that if the standard is out there, then our perceptions (and even our existence) are irrelevant to it. That was why I said that questions of application didn't really belong. True, I did make a passing remark about application (which you've seized on) but that was not my primary point.

The crossing the line, crossing over into other peoples morals.

Now I'm slightly confused. Do you mean that crossing into other people's morals is evil or that causing physical harm is evil...or both?

EDIT...typed before I saw The Saucepan Man's last post.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

2) Eru being the creator here and I think the representation of absolute good...I mean Tolkien doesn't say there isn't an absolute good? So, if Eru is the absolute good and he is the creator of everything, can he create something absolutely evil? Can he create an equal and opposite force?

Though Eru can be considered goodly, I would never place it as "absolutely good." It made Melkor and the Void. It seems to have set up the game and lets each team play (unless Manwë gets whiny and asks for Daddy Eru to go get his ball...), knowing which team will eventually win in the end (one side has the advantage of love), but still is excited about the play.

[Boromir88]

Now I'm slightly confused. Do you mean that crossing into other people's morals is evil or that causing physical harm is evil...or both?

Sorry Kuru, for being confusing, I mean to say there there is a line between morals and what is good/evil. And that crossing the line bye physically (or even emotionally harming someone- because of their morals, or for whatever reason that matter) is indeed evil.

Take Hitler, he didn't like anyone that was of the "Superior Race," but what made him "evil" was the attempted mass genocide of all the "inferior races/peoples." Hope that's a little more clearer, sorry for getting everything all jumbled.

Perhaps Tolkien's thoughts on orcs may shed some more light on the matter as well:

They would be Morgoth’s greatest Sins, abuses of his highest privilege, and would be creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad (I nearly wrote ’irredeemably bad’; but that would be going too far. Because by accepting or tolerating their making - necessary to their actual existence - even Orcs would become part of the World, which is God’s and ultimatly good.)~Letter #153

So, we can say Orcs were brought into this world as "evil" being Morgoth's "greatest sins," but even they were not beyond redemption.

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

Personally, I don't subscribe to that view (and I have no idea whether Kuru does). While some aspects of morality vary little over time and space (and they are the aspcts that tend to be adopted within the framework of our self-imposed laws), other aspects can vary widely from one society or one age to another. In that respect, they are, as Fea has postulated, self-imposed by a particular society on itself (for the good of that society?)

Well, each society imposes its own laws on individuals, but their reasons for doing so may differ - some will take a utilitarian approach - what will bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number of us (but this begs another question - what do we mean by 'happiness'? Are we talking about what makes us feel good, or what is morally good for us?)

The other approach may be to ask 'What does God/the Gods require of us? Whatever that is we should do it, whether it makes us happy or not. A further difficulty may arise if the society decides that the happiness of its own people is more important than the happiness of other societies. At its ultimate extreme this leads to slavery/ genocide, at its 'best' a sense of moral superiority which leads to callousness in the treatment of 'other ethnic/religious groups.

So, Good & Evil are often relative, even in 'religious' societies. As I've had a few digs at Christianity in another thread I'll use another example of 'religiously' inspired behaviour which I came across on another board:

When it comes to wars of antiquity, Muslims waged no less than 80 wars against infidels in a 154-year period during the initial expansion from 623 AD to 777 AD - during that time they overran the whole of Spain and Portugal (with Portugal only getting liberated with the help of the Crusaders in 1147, and Spain in one of the longest wars in history - the 769-year-long Reconquista from 722 AD to 2nd January 1492 - and Charles Martel did defeat invading Islamists at Poitiers and Tours in 732 AD). And they murdered up to 80 million Hindus in what is now modern day India, Pakistan and Afghanistan (the Hindu Kush is named after the massacre of Hindus by Muslims).

Now, this behaviour was 'inspired' by the desire of Muslims at that time to obey the will of Allah/Muhammad - in other words they believed they were doing 'good'. Muhammad himself took part in more than sixty battles where non-Muslims were killed. Some of those battles were fought in self defence, others were part of a deliberate policy of expansionism of the Muslim empire. From the Muslim perspective it was highly moral behaviour because they were doing the will of God. From this perspective the Crusades (as Chesterton argued) were hardly an unprovoked invasion & slaughter of innocents but a very necessary self defensive action.

Of course, both perspectives are biassed. Christians have also taken part in the unprovoked slaughter of non-Christians in the belief that they were doing the will of God, & therefore doing a 'Good' thing.

All that to say, doing 'good' is more complex than at first it may appear. But the difference between a 'utilitarian' approach & a 'religious' one says a great deal about the society that chooses one or the other. Of course, if you happen to be in the receiving end of their 'goodness' you may find the difference quite academic.

To the original question. Evil in Tolkien's view was necessarily a perversion of Good. Now, it could be argued that Good & evil are equal & opposite, so it would be just as true to say that Evil was primary & 'good' is the corruption of it. The problem with this approach has been pointed up by Michael Harris:

However, this conception just doesn't correspond to reality. For example, who conceives of 'making love' as a distorted substitute of rape? Who accuses the moderate eater of twisting & warping proper gluttony? Who would admonish one who generously gives of their material resources, 'cut it out - you're making a mockery of greed & selfishness?'

So, logically, (Tolkien would say) Good has to be primary & evil a twisting of it by selfish individuals. For this reason, absolute Evil cannot exist, because while we can logically see how evil could come into being from Good, we cannot logically see how Good could come into being from evil. Evil requires Good for its very existence, but Good does not require evil. Evil needs something to fight against, to dominate, to destroy. Good does not.

[Kuruharan]

It made Melkor and the Void.

I'm not sure I follow you here, specifically with the reference to the Void. Surely, if there is anything that could be described as totally neutral it is a vacuum.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I'm not sure I follow you here, specifically with the reference to the Void. Surely, if there is anything that could be described as totally neutral it is a vacuum.

If Eru is God, then It created all things. Or does It live in a space created by an even bigger fish? If there is a Void, then, it had to come from somewhere (and the Void doesn't seem like a very nice place to be, and so...).

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by davem

Evil requires Good for its very existence, but Good does not require evil. Evil needs something to fight against, to dominate, to destroy. Good does not.

How can one recognize good if there is nothing to off-set it?

[Kuruharan]

If there is a Void, then, it had to come from somewhere (and the Void doesn't seem like a very nice place to be, and so...).

The Void is just where nothing was put, or at least where nothing has been put yet. I fail to see how it is evil just because nothing is there.

How can one recognize good if there is nothing to off-set it?

There would not be any need to recognize it because it just would be.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

How can one recognize good if there is nothing to off-set it?

Well, it wouldn't be recognisable as 'good' in that sense, as it wouldn't have any moral definitions, but that wouldn't make it boring. Variety would still exist - colours, shapes, textures, tastes, even sadness & happiness (not all tears are an evil). In other words, evil is not a necessity. The elves look forward (if we can use such a phrase about such a 'backward-looking' people) to Arda Unmarred - Arda as it should have been sans Melkor's rebellion (OK, not exactly as Eru intended, as Melkor was to have been part of the original vision).

The point being that all that constitutes 'good' qua 'good' could exist without its 'opposite' - except evil is not technically 'opposite' to Good in the sense of being an equal force co-existing alongside it.

Of course, this would mean that 'Good' has its origin in Eru, & is what Eru says it is. The question then arises as to whether what Eru says is Good is Good simply because Eru says it is, or whether Eru Himself is bound by an objective standard of Good/evil. If Eru was said to have ordered the Noldor to kill the Teleri would that make it a Good act? The Bible says God told the Israelites to kill the Canaanites' children, so was that a 'Good' act? Either it was a Good act because whatever God commands is Good because of the fact that God said it was, or it was Evil because it broke some objective standard which binds even God Himself. Or maybe killing Canaanite children is an objectively good thing - at least in certain circumstances.....

Originally Posted by Boromir 88

So, if Eru is the absolute good and he is the creator of everything, can he create something absolutely evil? Can he create an equal and opposite force?

I suppose this brings up the old question: Can God create a rock that is too heavy for Him to move? If he can't then he isn't omnipotent, if He can, then he isn't omnipotent, either....

[Aiwendil]

Tolkien's view of the relation between good and evil has always seemed rather Augustinian to me. In The City of God, Augustine says:

The sins of men and angels do nothing to impede the "great works of the Lord which accomplish His will." For He who by His providence and omnipotence distributes to every one his own portion, is able to make good use not only of the good, but also of the wicked. And thus making a good use of the wicked angel, who, in punishment of his first wicked volition, was doomed to an obduracy that prevents him now from willing any good, why should not God have permitted him to tempt the first man, who had been created upright, that is to say, with a good will?

For who will dare to believe or say that it was not in God's power to prevent both angels and men from sinning? But God preferred to leave this in their power, and thus to show both what evil could be wrought by their pride, and what good by His grace.

This strikes me as being remarkably similar to Iluvatar's words to Melkor:

And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.

The idea here, whether one thinks it wise or absurd, is clear: the existence of evil enriches good. I suspect that Augustine would say that the "grace" imparted by Jesus's sacrifice surpasses even the Edenic human state. In this connection, it's worth pointing out that what davem said here is not quite correct:

The elves look forward (if we can use such a phrase about such a 'backward-looking' people) to Arda Unmarred - Arda as it should have been sans Melkor's rebellion

It is not just Arda Unmarred, Arda Hastaina, to which the Elves look forward; it is Arda Healed, Arda Envinyanta. Tolkien makes the Augustinian point quite clearly through Manwe in "Finwe and Miriel":

The second is the Unmarred that shall be: that is, to speak according to Time in which they have their being, the Arda Healed, which shall be greater and more fair than the first, because of the Marring . . .

And again in the "Athrabeth", through Finrod:

For that Arda Healed shall not be Arda Unmarred, but a third thing and a greater, and yet the same.

[davem]

=Aiwendil It is not just Arda Unmarred, Arda Hasteina, to which the Elves look forward; it is Arda Healed, Arda Envinyanta.

I take the point, but this begs another question - was Eru's original vision - Arda Unmarred - 'Perfect'? If it can be surpassed by Arda Envinyanta, then it was imperfect, but how could Eru's vision be less than perfect, given it is Eru's vision? If it can then this implies that Eru's thought can evolve, be improved upon by the actions of created beings. Unless Eru already had Arda Envinyanta in His thought from the beginning - in which case why not just make the final version without all the messing around?

Or to extend this to the Biblical story - did God already have the Redeemed world in mind before the Fall? If so, why get mad at Adam & Eve?

[Aiwendil]

I take the point, but this begs another question - was Eru's original vision - Arda Unmarred - 'Perfect'? If it can be surpassed by Arda Envinyanta, then it was imperfect, but how could Eru's vision be less than perfect, given it is Eru's vision?

Not necessarily. That a thing is perfect does not necessarily mean that it is better than all other things. For example, I think that Mozart's 41st symphony is just about as nearly "perfect" as any piece of music can be. But I think that Beethoven's 5th symphony is better - more imperfect, but better.

But I don't think that the question of whether the posited relations of Arda Unmarred, Arda Marred, and Arda Healed are possible need be entered into. It seems quite clear to me that, whatever our views, Tolkien at least believed that such things made sense. I would've thought that, as a member of the "Author's Intention" party, you would take Tolkien's word and leave it at that . . .

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

Or to extend this to the Biblical story - did God already have the Redeemed world in mind before the Fall? If so, why get mad at Adam & Eve?

Was it Eru's plan to allow some free will agents to run wild and free in its universe, knowing that, in the end, the whole would be more than the sum of the parts and would achieve that which Eru could foresee but not by itself create? And I can't help but think of a better way to torque Melkor off than, at the end of all things, show him what beauty all of his petty schemes, plots and perversions created (as mentioned, snowflakes).

"You wasted so much time and your self, your being, as all you'll be remembered for throughout eternity is being the creator of snow. Loser."

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Not necessarily. That a thing is perfect does not necessarily mean that it is better than all other things. For example, I think that Mozart's 41st symphony is just about as nearly "perfect" as any piece of music can be. But I think that Beethoven's 5th symphony is better - more imperfect, but better.

But I don't think that the question of whether the posited relations of Arda Unmarred, Arda Marred, and Arda Healed are possible need be entered into. It seems quite clear to me that, whatever our views, Tolkien at least believed that such things made sense. I would've thought that, as a member of the "Author's Intention" party, you would take Tolkien's word and leave it at that . . .

But surely 'Perfect' is Perfect & cannot be bettered. Perfect implies absence of any flaws. If a thing can be bettered it is not perfect. And if we are speaking of something made/concieved by a perfect being surely the thing should be beyond improvement?

As to the quotes you gave re: Arda Envinyantar - these are only Elvish speculations or hopes, it seems to me, & therefore we cannot necessarily take them as 'facts'.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by davem

But surely 'Perfect' is Perfect & cannot be bettered. Perfect implies absence of any flaws.

Aye, but sometimes you don't want perfect. Sometimes you want a flaw or two so that you can relate. Nobody wants to read a story about a perfect character. Nobody wants a friend or lover with no flaws. If there's any way to make you see your own, it's to be next to someone without. Sometimes the more perfect specimen of any variety is the one that's just slightly off kilter. Savvy? Every so often, it's the lack of perfection that makes you like someone or something that much more. You still revere the perfection, you just like the flaws a lot more. After all... perhaps Eru knew what we all secretly (or not so secretly) know: perfection is boring.

[narfforc]

Exactly, Fea , what is the point of the story of Utopia without corruption, or Hell without redemption, where is the struggle for the noble spirit to shine through and win the day, There are no brave heroic warriors needed in Utopia, what is there to fight, if Utopia is not marred by evil, then it just exists to function. Atlantis was such a place, until it became corrupt, the story of Numenore is not new by any means. We see in our own world, shining civilisations fall to greed and corruption, we live in Paradise Lost and we are tested every day, every person and every nation.

[Kuruharan]

And if we are speaking of something made/concieved by a perfect being surely the thing should be beyond improvement?

Perhaps its ability to be imperfect is part of its ultimate perfection...especially if there is a process to go through to get there.

Aye, but sometimes you don't want perfect.

This statement really reflects more on the human condition than on any perfection. We are fundamentally unstable beings and when we are stable we tend to get bored.

Nobody wants a friend or lover with no flaws.

Try me, specifically the second one. It should be something to inspire you to be better rather than something to make you bitter.

perfection is boring.

I'm afraid I'd have to argue that no human being is really in a position to know because (as far as I know) no human being has ever been there.

Besides, if perfection is so boring, why is it that practically everybody is trying to better themselves in some way?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I'm afraid I'd have to argue that no human being is really in a position to know because (as far as I know) no human being has ever been there.

Besides, if perfection is so boring, why is it that practically everybody is trying to better themselves in some way?

I'm feeling arrogant enough this morning to answer this . What is this perfection that people are striving for? How do you define it? Anorexics see themselves as needing to lose weight, but the rest of the world sees them as medically ill and wraith-like. Cosmetic surgery is so popular because people just want something different. In the cases that I've seen, if you think that the person was made 'more perfect,' well, then, I guess everyone has opinions. Isn't perfection situational? My wife may be the perfect fit for me but not for any other, and so she's then imperfect but perfect, I guess.

We are creatures adapted to recognize change. It's a survival trait, as you definitely want to know when to run. We say that all that we'd like to do is sit by a river and fish for the rest of our lives, but after a few days or weeks, the sameness would have us finding either some problem or job that just has to be fixed/done. We squirm in perfect cages.

Like Tolkien's humans, we're travellers, never happy with the status quo.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Besides, if perfection is so boring, why is it that practically everybody is trying to better themselves in some way?

Striving for the impossible means that you'll never run out of something to work toward. Why bother doing anything if you already have everything?

A thought... Captain Jack Sparrow once said that you can always trust a dishonest person to be dishonest. It's the honest ones you have to watch out for, honestly, because you can never tell when they're about to do something really stupid.

If there was such thing as absolute evil, even in a fictional world, it would be too easy to combat; too predictable.

[JennyHallu]

I'm afraid I'd have to argue that no human being is really in a position to know because (as far as I know) no human being has ever been there.

Adam and Eve experienced perfection and were dissatisfied, defying the only law they had.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by JennyHallu

Adam and Eve experienced perfection and were dissatisfied, defying the only law they had.

Subject to debate [though not on this forum].

[JennyHallu]

Fea: Shush! Trying to agree with you here!

But seriously, the only historical or religious mention we have of a perfect world is Eden, and that would certainly be what the Christian Tolkien would have thought of. And in that case, men were dissatisfied with perfection, and tested it.