The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Tar-Telperien

Actually, "holy" has a bunch of different meanings. Most of them refer to being in the service of God. As the Ainur (which actually is not even a native Elvish word; it is adapted from Valarin) were his direct servants in bringing about the creation of Eä, wouldn't this be a better interpretation of the intended meaning of "holy" in this context? Especially since Tolkien directly contradicts the notion that the Valar were "perfect": "Every finite creature must have some weakness: that is some inadequacy to deal with some situations" (Essay VI, "Myths Transformed"). This was in direct reference to the actions of the Valar upon Arda. Thus, I reject the notion that any of the Ainur were at any time "flawless".The explanation that they were holy because they were created to serve Eru directly seems to make much more sense. ...And what exactly is "evil" in this context? Doesn't it refer to incarnate-constructed notions of good and evil? Generally people aren't raising Orc-armies from day one of their being on earth, no. In that sense I would agree with Elrond. But if you use evil to mean "flawed", then "all finite creatures" are very much evil, by Tolkien's own statements. Being flawed is an intrinsic aspect of their finititude.

A distinction is needed between imperfect as limitation and imperfect as morally flawed. Aulë is not at his best in the Air while Manwë is, and vice versa. These are limitations designed into them, and thus they are inadequate out of their arenas of strength; this fits with the quote from Myths Transformed. This is not equivalent to moral flaw. On the other hand, Melkor is morally flawed, resulting from choices made in his pride that violate the Music.

It's equally important to consider what "holy" does NOT mean. Holy obviously does not mean evil. Thus neither Melkor nor any of the other Ainur can be understood to have been evil from the beginning.

Originally Posted by Tar-Telperien

I might as well respond to this, too. Melkor's shame didn't arise as a result of anyone's responsibility. It came about because Eru matter-of-factly told him that his course of action would fail. Whether or not it was your fault that your desire to do something would fail, wouldn't you feel ashamed and angry about being informed of that in front of your peers?

On the contrary. Eru says, "...nor can any alter the music in my despite..." Eru names Melkor's act as one of despite against Eru himself; that is, malice or hatred against Eru. That goes beyond mere predicted failure.

Originally Posted by Tar-Telperien

They define "evil" as going against Eru's Will (Indómë). But to me Eru's statements to Melkor show that no one can "get outside" Indómë, no matter how hard they try! It will just evolve and continue right along with their changing choices. It's laughable to think of a creation actually having any success in defying its creator, and that is what Eru is trying to show. His creatures have freedom of choice, yes, but they will never truly interfere with the Will of Eru. Rebellion is thus an illusion, and this is what is bad about it; it constitutes lying to oneself by thinking that one can escape Indómë even though one can't really possibly imagine a situation outside of Eru's influence.

I agree up to a point: they will never truly overthrow the Will of Eru, no matter how much interference they attempt. This must be the case, for if rebellion is a mere illusion, then Eru has no basis for punishing anyone who attempts to disobey his Will ... unless that is illusion also; but if you argue this to its necessary end, then the whole thing is illusion and nothing is real, including the Will of Eru.

I also agree that self-deception is at the core of Melkor's evil, and is a fundamental aspect of it. It is in lies that evil beliefs and actions find their justifications.

Originally Posted by Tar-Telperien

It's not about defeating Melkor, it's about escaping falsehoods. This is why I can't believe that Eru really would prefer "good" over "evil", because he has not been shown to be bound to a specific morality, since morality is a constructed notion. Eru prefers it when people can see through lies, and he knows that everyone will eventually, so why hurry?

If morality is not absolute, then Eru has no basis for punishing anyone who does evil, for if evil is a constructed notion, then who is to say that Melkor was evil and Manwë was good? It could be argued that it was vice versa, and a raging and vain debate would ensue that could not have a solution, and Tolkien's themes in The Silmarillion, which are presented in the Ainulindalë, are a sheer vanity and can hold no weight. So morality cannot be a constructed notion; it must come from Eru.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by lmp

If morality is not absolute, then Eru has no basis for punishing anyone who does evil, for if evil is a constructed notion, then who is to say that Melkor was evil and Manwë was good? It could be argued that it was vice versa, and a raging and vain debate would ensue that could not have a solution, and Tolkien's themes in The Silmarillion, which are presented in the Ainulindalë, are a sheer vanity and can hold no weight.

What is anything in Arda if it is not constructed? Everything is constructed by Eru, he is everything, he is omnipotent. Please tell me where evil comes from if Eru did not make it? Because if he did not make it then Eru's Authority instantly falls apart. Tolkien states it plainly - Eru is All. Those are the rules we begin, and end, with.

Let's imagine that one day in Middle-earth the Orcs were suddenly blessed with a lot of good luck, which happened to come from Eru (and bear in mind that the text also states that the Ainur do NOT know all of Eru's intentions, he keeps rather a lot back, in fact most of time is known only to Eru), and that Elves and Men suddenly started to fail. we would say that evil had come to Middle-earth. But would we still consider this evil if Eru did it? And I know what's going to be said now, that Eru would never do such a thing! How can you think that?! Well he could if he wanted to. Is Eru bound by your rules, my rules, the rules of Men, the rules of Melkor? No. If he is bound by anyone's rules but his own then yet again he loses his Authority. All anyone can do is hope that Eru is on their side, and sometimes he isn't, as shown by those innocents who die at Numenor.

So morality cannot be a constructed notion; it must come from Eru.

So where did the concept come from if Eru did not make it? If he made everything?

That means someone, something, else is at work which has Authority over Eru. And that doesn't work. If Eru is not omnipotent in this world then the entire work falls apart.