Lord of the Rings and Philosophy @ Concordia University Wisconsin - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Dûrbelethwen · 02-12-2007, 06:05 PM

1. What is meant by "good" and "evil"?
No question is more important in philosophy, philosophy means love of wisdom, wisdom enables one to live well, this implies a doctrine of goodness to pursue, and a doctrine of evil to eschew, before (what should we do), we need metaphysics:
1) What are good and evil? Do both exist, only one, or neither?
2) If both exist, are good and evil equal in being, power and importance?
3) Tolkien's view: Evil is real and absolutely different from good. But evil is less than, because dependent on good.
If evil is successful in destroying something good, then like a parasite, it either destroys itself or survives only by finding a new host.
Evil cannot survive by itself, and in its quest for power is really a slave to those it depends on. (Everything that is evil is a corruption of what was good. ex. Orcs, trolls) (the Ring the most evil thing has no power when no one claims it, those who had it were originally good.)
Theologically God is good and the ground of all being, therefore everything God creates is good in itself. So evil can only be a perversion of good, never a substance in its own right
Yet evil can infect everything. Virtually everything in Middle-earth is infected, maybe not Bombadil. Even Gandalf is to the extent that he cannot bear the ring. As good as Gandalf is, he cannot withstand the ring's corrupting influence.
4) Evil is very powerful:
Despite its ontological dependence on good, evil is VERY powerful. By themselves, no-one in Middle-earth, not even Gandalf can defeat it. (Those who chase after power invariably fall down, while the humble are the ones who succeed.) (The evil causes disception like Bormir who thought he could use the ring.)
Like modern packaging... The power of the ring cannot be undone by human effort (Providence occurs though evil happens as on the occasion of Boromir's death.)
What is the power of the ring?
1) The ring enhances power of the wielder: more scope for evil
2) The ring grants "invisibility: deception is necessary for evil to prevail
3) The ring destroys community: (When the person is invisible then the person is out of the society of those around him.) (The discord that Melkor put into the song of the creation) It denies our social, inter-related nature, and affirms our radical autonomy.

Estelyn Telcontar · 02-13-2007, 09:49 AM

We've discussed the power of the ring often here, yet I find that the last two points you mention add an interesting dimension.

Invisibility as signifying deception - a fascinating connection! When I stop to think about it, it's very true - from Isildur's escape attempt, to Gollum's petty crimes, to Bilbo's disappearance from pesky relatives - even Sam's appearance as a huge Elf-warrior! I'm not sure this applies to any of Frodo's uses of the ring though. And Sauron apparently does not disappear, so this aspect does not apply to him.

The ring as destroyer of community, of fellowship - of The Fellowship, quite literally! A very interesting concept - though it does create a new fellowship, with those who are also evil and under the same power. I would not agree that it gives autonomy - bondage in place of community is not a very good trade.

littlemanpoet · 02-13-2007, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

We've discussed the power of the ring often here, yet I find that the last two points you mention add an interesting dimension.

Invisibility as signifying deception - a fascinating connection! When I stop to think about it, it's very true - from Isildur's escape attempt, to Gollum's petty crimes, to Bilbo's disappearance from pesky relatives - even Sam's appearance as a huge Elf-warrior! I'm not sure this applies to any of Frodo's uses of the ring though.

Frodo deceives Sauron into thinking that he's not on Amon Hen. (right hill?) On Weathertop, all he did was reveal himself to his attackers and hide himself from his friends; so that's not so much deception of others as a kind of somewhat accidental self-removal from community.

As for a "community of evil", such a thing can only ever be an accident of common purpose as long as the common purpose exists, for evil is by definition self-centered, and will brook no rivalry in its attempts to gain for itself what it desires, certainly at the expense of weaker beings of evil.

davem · 02-13-2007, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dûrbelethwen

3) Tolkien's view: Evil is real and absolutely different from good. But evil is less than, because dependent on good.

Not sure he did - he felt it was a corruption of Good, rather than a thing in itself - therefore it cannot be ''absolutely different' from good.

Quote:

If evil is successful in destroying something good, then like a parasite, it either destroys itself or survives only by finding a new host.
Evil cannot survive by itself, and in its quest for power is really a slave to those it depends on. (Everything that is evil is a corruption of what was good. ex. Orcs, trolls) (the Ring the most evil thing has no power when no one claims it, those who had it were originally good.)

Again, not if evil is a perversion of good, because to the extent it contains 'good' (even Orcs desire freedom) it can survive without a source of 'pure' good to feed off. The fact that evil is perverted or corrupted good guarantees the possibility of redemption even in the most evil

Quote:

Theologically God is good and the ground of all being, therefore everything God creates is good in itself. So evil can only be a perversion of good, never a substance in its own right

Which contradicts the earlier point (as I stated)...

Quote:

What is the power of the ring?
1) The ring enhances power of the wielder: more scope for evil
2) The ring grants "invisibility: deception is necessary for evil to prevail
3) The ring destroys community: (When the person is invisible then the person is out of the society of those around him.) (The discord that Melkor put into the song of the creation) It denies our social, inter-related nature, and affirms our radical autonomy.

1) the question is does the Ring enhance the power of the wielder - or does it 'lend' power to the wielder in order to trick him/her into believing it is enhancing his/her power?

2) I'm not sure 'deception' is necessary for evil to prevail - but power is - a supremely powerful being would not need to deceive anyone about anything.

3) define 'community' ...

littlemanpoet · 02-13-2007, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davem

The fact that evil is perverted or corrupted good guarantees the possibility of redemption even in the most evil.

Indeed? Please explain. This appears to assume too much. Such as, on what is this supposed 'guarantee' based? Although I see that you have qualified your statement by saying "possibility" rather than something more definite.

davem · 02-13-2007, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Indeed? Please explain. This appears to assume too much. Such as, on what is this supposed 'guarantee' based? Although I see that you have qualified your statement by saying "possibility" rather than something more definite.

Well, Tolkien's universe not being dualistic, Evil is not a thing in itself, but a 'perversion' of something else (good). Evil is 'absence' (of good) rather than 'presence' (of evil). Hence a wholly evil thing or being would not actually exist. For anything to exist it must retain some element of its original (good) nature. It seems to me that existence in itself is a guarantee of some innate remnant (however perverted) of good which can be redeemed. Even Melkor may be redeemed in the end, as even though he was cast into the void 'he' still existed.

Like energy, good cannot be destroyed, only transformed - & that transformation can happen either way. While a sentient being exists 'repentance' is possible (ie return to its original state).

littlemanpoet · 02-14-2007, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davem

Well, Tolkien's universe not being dualistic, Evil is not a thing in itself, but a 'perversion' of something else (good). Evil is 'absence' (of good) rather than 'presence' (of evil). Hence a wholly evil thing or being would not actually exist. For anything to exist it must retain some element of its original (good) nature. It seems to me that existence in itself is a guarantee of some innate remnant (however perverted) of good which can be redeemed. Even Melkor may be redeemed in the end, as even though he was cast into the void 'he' still existed.

That which is not bolded I have no argument with. How mere existence, by virtue of some good, "no matter how perverted", can be redeemed, is not conclusively based on the information not bolded. How does the perversion not remove the chance for redemption?

davem · 02-14-2007, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

That which is not bolded I have no argument with. How mere existence, by virtue of some good, "no matter how perverted", can be redeemed, is not conclusively based on the information not bolded. How does the perversion not remove the chance for redemption?

Because the 'evil' is absence - what remains in existence is 'good'. I don't say the chance is high, but that it remains. If any chance of redemption (by which, as I stated, I mean return to the individual's original state, not 'salvation' btw) is removed while some part is still 'good' (ie the individual still 'exists' to some degree) then we introduce 'damnation' into the picture - Eru will deny a return to the original state while it is still 'technically' a possibility.

littlemanpoet · 02-15-2007, 10:28 AM

Since you are using the word "redemption", I assume you know what it implies: namely, payment of a debt, in some form of currency that is acceptable to the one to whom the debt is owed. In the case of evil, what is the currency? Perhaps some law has been broken? Some code transgressed? Whatever the case, what payment are you considering to be possible in this case? What has Tolkien said from which one could deduce a form of currency in terms of this guaranteed redemption of which you speak?

To address another part of this problem, how much good must be left in an entity for that entity to be redeemed? One percent? Less than one percent? An infinitessimal degree, so long as it is just this one little smidgen of good? My reason for asking this is that it stands against all reason and good sense. Consider, would you give a Lawyer's license to a prospect who got one answer out of 100 correct on the bar exam? Would you allow someone to drive who got precisely one aspect of driving correct out of 100? Of course not. Why, then, should one expect a moral code to be some kind of fantastic exception such that scoring 1% on your morality exam passes you into the realm of that one who has set up the exam? It's preposterous.

02-12-2007, 06:05 PM	#1
Dûrbelethwen Haunting Spirit Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 80	Good and Evil 1. What is meant by "good" and "evil"? No question is more important in philosophy, philosophy means love of wisdom, wisdom enables one to live well, this implies a doctrine of goodness to pursue, and a doctrine of evil to eschew, before (what should we do), we need metaphysics: 1) What are good and evil? Do both exist, only one, or neither? 2) If both exist, are good and evil equal in being, power and importance? 3) Tolkien's view: Evil is real and absolutely different from good. But evil is less than, because dependent on good. If evil is successful in destroying something good, then like a parasite, it either destroys itself or survives only by finding a new host. Evil cannot survive by itself, and in its quest for power is really a slave to those it depends on. (Everything that is evil is a corruption of what was good. ex. Orcs, trolls) (the Ring the most evil thing has no power when no one claims it, those who had it were originally good.) Theologically God is good and the ground of all being, therefore everything God creates is good in itself. So evil can only be a perversion of good, never a substance in its own right Yet evil can infect everything. Virtually everything in Middle-earth is infected, maybe not Bombadil. Even Gandalf is to the extent that he cannot bear the ring. As good as Gandalf is, he cannot withstand the ring's corrupting influence. 4) Evil is very powerful: Despite its ontological dependence on good, evil is VERY powerful. By themselves, no-one in Middle-earth, not even Gandalf can defeat it. (Those who chase after power invariably fall down, while the humble are the ones who succeed.) (The evil causes disception like Bormir who thought he could use the ring.) Like modern packaging... The power of the ring cannot be undone by human effort (Providence occurs though evil happens as on the occasion of Boromir's death.) What is the power of the ring? 1) The ring enhances power of the wielder: more scope for evil 2) The ring grants "invisibility: deception is necessary for evil to prevail 3) The ring destroys community: (When the person is invisible then the person is out of the society of those around him.) (The discord that Melkor put into the song of the creation) It denies our social, inter-related nature, and affirms our radical autonomy.

02-13-2007, 09:49 AM	#2
Estelyn Telcontar Princess of Skwerlz Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: where the Sea is eastwards (WtR: 6060 miles) Posts: 7,500	We've discussed the power of the ring often here, yet I find that the last two points you mention add an interesting dimension. Invisibility as signifying deception - a fascinating connection! When I stop to think about it, it's very true - from Isildur's escape attempt, to Gollum's petty crimes, to Bilbo's disappearance from pesky relatives - even Sam's appearance as a huge Elf-warrior! I'm not sure this applies to any of Frodo's uses of the ring though. And Sauron apparently does not disappear, so this aspect does not apply to him. The ring as destroyer of community, of fellowship - of The Fellowship, quite literally! A very interesting concept - though it does create a new fellowship, with those who are also evil and under the same power. I would not agree that it gives autonomy - bondage in place of community is not a very good trade. __________________ 'Mercy!' cried Gandalf. 'If the giving of information is to be the cure of your inquisitiveness, I shall spend all the rest of my days in answering you. What more do you want to know?' 'The whole history of Middle-earth...'

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

02-15-2007, 10:28 AM	#9
littlemanpoet Itinerant Songster Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The Edge of Faerie Posts: 7,066	Since you are using the word "redemption", I assume you know what it implies: namely, payment of a debt, in some form of currency that is acceptable to the one to whom the debt is owed. In the case of evil, what is the currency? Perhaps some law has been broken? Some code transgressed? Whatever the case, what payment are you considering to be possible in this case? What has Tolkien said from which one could deduce a form of currency in terms of this guaranteed redemption of which you speak? To address another part of this problem, how much good must be left in an entity for that entity to be redeemed? One percent? Less than one percent? An infinitessimal degree, so long as it is just this one little smidgen of good? My reason for asking this is that it stands against all reason and good sense. Consider, would you give a Lawyer's license to a prospect who got one answer out of 100 correct on the bar exam? Would you allow someone to drive who got precisely one aspect of driving correct out of 100? Of course not. Why, then, should one expect a moral code to be some kind of fantastic exception such that scoring 1% on your morality exam passes you into the realm of that one who has set up the exam? It's preposterous.