The curse of Morgoth in CoH.

[skip spence]

^I'm not convinced Tolkien had these two concepts in mind and tried to balance them. In Tolkien's Eä Eru is allmighty and created everything in it, good or bad, as Raynor pointed out. I guess what we were debating was the orgin of evil. Did Eru create Melkor with knowledge that he would rebel and torment the earth, to test the children and give them the choice to freely choose their path in life? Or did evil arise independently in the mind of Melkor to the dismay of Eru?

And as for the ringwraiths, I don't believe these concepts are applicable on them. Tolkien separates between the spirit world (or a similar term), which concerns the 'fea' (cf. soul) and the physical world which concerns the 'hroa' or the body. The wraiths operate mainly in the spirit world and that's where their powers are greatest. The fear they can put into the mind of others is therefore a more important weapon for them than for example swords. When Frodo puts on the One ring he also enters the spirit world and that's why he can see them clearly. But the spirit world is not inherently evil; far from it. The Valar (with the exeption of Morgoth) exists wholly in the spirit world and their physical bodies are more like clothes to them than an actual part of their being.

[davem]

I just recently read a comment by the late Icelandic scholar Magnus Magnusson on Njal's Saga"

With his (Njal's) wisdom & foresight he struggles to control events which are ultimately uncontrolable because they are pre-ordained, not by some impersonal supernatural force of destiny but by the predispositions & propensities of the human beings involved...

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

I just recently read a comment by the late Icelandic scholar Magnus Magnusson on Njal's Saga"

It's been some time since I read CoH, but this describes my sense at the time, that the terrible consequences arose because of the nature of the people involved.

Rather than yawing about evil, it is perhaps helpful to consider the various defintions of "curse".

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

–noun 1. the expression of a wish that misfortune, evil, doom, etc., befall a person, group, etc.
2. a formula or charm intended to cause such misfortune to another.
3. the act of reciting such a formula.
4. a profane oath; curse word.
5. an evil that has been invoked upon one.
6. the cause of evil, misfortune, or trouble.
7. something accursed.
8. Slang. the menstrual period; menstruation (usually prec. by the).
9. an ecclesiastical censure or anathema.
–verb (used with object) 10. to wish or invoke evil, calamity, injury, or destruction upon.
11. to swear at.
12. to blaspheme.
13. to afflict with great evil.
14. to excommunicate.
–verb (used without object) 15. to utter curses; swear profanely.

. . .

—Synonyms 1, 9. imprecation, execration, fulmination, malediction. 5. misfortune, calamity, trouble. 5, 6. bane, scourge, plague, affliction, torment. 10-12. Curse, blaspheme, swear are often interchangeable in the sense of using profane language. However, curse is the general word for the heartfelt invoking or angry calling down of evil on another: They called down curses on their enemies. To blaspheme is to speak contemptuously or with abuse of God or of sacred things: to blaspheme openly. To swear is to use the name of God or of some holy person or thing as an exclamation to add force or show anger: to swear in every sentence. 13. plague, scourge, afflict, doom.
—Antonyms 1, 9. blessing, benediction. 10. bless.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: bef. 1050; ME curs (n.), cursen (v.), OE curs (n.), cursian (v.), of disputed orig.]

What evidence exists that Morgoth's curse was an actual "charm to cause misfortune" or "an evil that has been invoked"? If we see personality and disposition coming into play, as davem's quote from the Icelandic scholar suggests, then 'curse' is simply "an expression of a wish that misfortune fall" or that "heartfelt invoking or angry calling down of evil". Morgoth was one angry fella. It's easy to be spooked by someone's ill will and quite possibly that is all that operates in any way on Turin, messing with his mind, which is a particularly stubborn, obdurate (perhaps 'unbending' might be more precise), and determined one, as is his mother's.

What might be more useful than arguing definitions of evil is clarifying what "curse" means.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

What might be more useful than arguing definitions of evil is clarifying what "curse" means.

I don't believe in "curses" either

And I suppose Tolkien's various curses and prophesies (that all come true) are narrative tecnique more than anything else. Reminds me of the old greek tragedies where the protagonist goes to Delphi, is told his (un-)fortune and spends the rest of the play vainly trying to avoid it.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by skip spence

I don't believe in "curses" either

And I suppose Tolkien's various curses and prophesies (that all come true) are narrative tecnique more than anything else. Reminds me of the old greek tragedies where the protagonist goes to Delphi, is told his (un-)fortune and spends the rest of the play vainly trying to avoid it.

Actually, if all we do is read for what we personally believe in, then we read solipsistically without much chance of understanding or learning anything new or challenging.

So one's belief or lack of belief in curses or absolute evil might be a starting point in the reading process, but if that process does not engage with how the text presents those ideas, then no communication truly takes place.

Your comparison to Delphi raises an interesting question, though: does Tolkien employ Greek/Classical notions of fate or does he look to Northern notions? Is there in fact any difference between the two cultures?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Your comparison to Delphi raises an interesting question, though: does Tolkien employ Greek/Classical notions of fate or does he look to Northern notions? Is there in fact any difference between the two cultures?

Tolkien was probably more influenced by the concept of Wyrd

Wyrd refers to how past actions continually affect and condition the future, but also how the future affects the past. The concept of Wyrd highlights the interconnected nature of all actions and how they influence each other. Wyrd, though related, is not the same as predestination. Unlike predestination, Wyrd allows for the expression and assertion of one's individual wyrd - essentially one's will or destiny. However, this is always constrained by the wyrd of others. Nevertheless, one is able to influence to some extent the 'weaving' of fate.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyrd

I think the most interesting question about the 'curse' is whether it is strictly necessary - ie, would anything have turned out differently, given the nature of the individuals involved, if Morgoth had simply lied to Hurin about having cursed his children? Is there anything in the story which actually requires an active curse, or was the idea of the curse sufficient? I can't help but feel that, given 'the predispositions & propensities of the human beings involved' an active force of 'Evil' driving Turin & Nienor to their doom is somewhat surplus to requirements. Or, to put it another way, if the curse element was removed from the story, would there be any aspect of it that made no sense?

[Bêthberry]

Quickly and off the top of my head, I'd say that Morgoth's gloating torture of Hurin would lose a fair bit of its vengeful force. (Still, there are many parents who are forced to watch their children make unfortunate choices which they (the parents) are powerless to advise or correct.) And I suppose that Nienor's fate would seem too improbable? I'd have to reread to be sure of that.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by davem

Tolkien was probably more influenced by the concept of Wyrd

I think the most interesting question about the 'curse' is whether it is strictly necessary - ie, would anything have turned out differently, given the nature of the individuals involved, if Morgoth had simply lied to Hurin about having cursed his children? Is there anything in the story which actually requires an active curse, or was the idea of the curse sufficient? I can't help but feel that, given 'the predispositions & propensities of the human beings involved' an active force of 'Evil' driving Turin & Nienor to their doom is somewhat surplus to requirements. Or, to put it another way, if the curse element was removed from the story, would there be any aspect of it that made no sense?

As for the concept of Wyrd and whether Tolkien was influenced by it or not I can't say much as I'm not familiar with it.

As far as I can remember there are no parts of CoH that require an active curse. Yet the curse is treated as quite real and active in the narrative and by the characters involved. And IMO the curse is active as I think I've explained (or tried to) previously in this thread. I believe Melkor's marring is meant to have an effect on 'the predispositions & propensities of the human beings involved' and that the curse is working as a moral corruption upon the afflicted people much like the general marring, but more concentrated.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by skip spence

I'm not convinced Tolkien had these two concepts in mind and tried to balance them. In Tolkien's Eä Eru is allmighty and created everything in it, good or bad, as Raynor pointed out.

As Tolkien points out through the words of Elrond, nothing was evil in the beginning.

I guess what we were debating was the orgin of evil. Did Eru create Melkor with knowledge that he would rebel and torment the earth, to test the children and give them the choice to freely choose their path in life? Or did evil arise independently in the mind of Melkor to the dismay of Eru?

These questions are unanswerable from the texts. Tolkien's own beliefs no doubt informed his writing, however, and from these one may discern that nothing came into being as a "surprise" to Eru. Foreknowledge is not, however, the same thing as predetermination. Be that as it may, I still think you're wasting your time.

And as for the ringwraiths, I don't believe these concepts are applicable on them. Tolkien separates between the spirit world (or a similar term), which concerns the 'fea' (cf. soul) and the physical world which concerns the 'hroa' or the body. The wraiths operate mainly in the spirit world and that's where their powers are greatest. The fear they can put into the mind of others is therefore a more important weapon for them than for example swords. When Frodo puts on the One ring he also enters the spirit world and that's why he can see them clearly.

Of course they're applicable. There are only so many modes that Evil can take:

• evil is the negative of good
• good is the negative of evil (perhaps impossible)
• evil & good co-exist from the beginning

One or more of these modes necessarily inform any story ever written about good and evil; it simply cannot be otherwise. Therefore, every event in a story that involves evil is necessarily going to describe the evil in these terms, perhaps with great nuance such as is found in LotR: the word wraith is related to writhe, wreath, wrath, even write; these words all are derived from an ancient Germanic proto-word meaning "bent-ness". Evil as "bent" fits the description of "evil as the negative of good" while simultaneously keeping the idea of evil squarely in the real world. Anything bent must necessarily have a material form. Thus the very word Tolkien uses to describe the Ringwraiths combines both views of evil at once. It forms what I call a mythic unity.

Yet the Lord of the Nazgul is also described, at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, thusly. He throws back his hood: 'he had a kingly crown; and yet upon no head visible was it set'. Merry's blade cleaves "undead flesh". So there is flesh, but in the negative realm that Frodo discovers on Weathertop. This shows the negative, but very corporal, both functioning at the same time, in the Ringwraiths. The Nazgul Lord's blade bites deep into Frodo's shoulder. His mace wrecks Eowyn's shield and breaks her arm. That's not mere fear. So there's physical presence as well as negative.

The Valar (with the exeption of Morgoth) exists wholly in the spirit world and their physical bodies are more like clothes to them than an actual part of their being.

Gobtwiddle! The way Tolkien describes Valinor, it seems like a very physical place, and upon entering Arda the Valar take on physical forms after their nature. Nothing immaterial here!

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

These questions are unanswerable from the texts. Tolkien's own beliefs no doubt informed his writing, however, and from these one may discern that nothing came into being as a "surprise" to Eru. Foreknowledge is not, however, the same thing as predetermination. Be that as it may, I still think you're wasting your time.

Although I wouldn't call it a waste of time I agree that you can gain any sure knowledge of these questions from the text. I also suggested we'd drop this a few posts up. But then again, every theory in theology or philosofy are unprovable by nature and despite of this many people much smarter than us spend a lot of time on the subject.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Of course they're applicable. There are only so many modes that Evil can take:

• evil is the negative of good
• good is the negative of evil (perhaps impossible)
• evil & good co-exist from the beginning

How about: there is no evil? Or that evil is everything? Maybe evil was invented in the 19th century by Charles Darwin? All these possibilities seem equally valid to me. Personally I don't believe in the existance of evil in any absolute sense. "Evil" is a relative concept invented by men and exist only as a cultural and lingusitic construct.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

...Yet the Lord of the Nazgul is also described, at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, thusly. He throws back his hood: 'he had a kingly crown; and yet upon no head visible was it set'. Merry's blade cleaves "undead flesh". So there is flesh, but in the negative realm that Frodo discovers on Weathertop. This shows the negative, but very corporal, both functioning at the same time, in the Ringwraiths. The Nazgul Lord's blade bites deep into Frodo's shoulder. His mace wrecks Eowyn's shield and breaks her arm. That's not mere fear. So there's physical presence as well as negative.

I never suggested that the wraiths had powers only in the spirit world and that they did not have physical bodies. It is clear that they can wield swords, ride horses and wear clothes.

To me it seems that the rings of power can take the wearer into the spirit world, altering/heightening their perception and let them see things that are hidden from others. Those of strong will can also manipulate and seek to dominate the minds (soul/'fea') of others with the rings. Invisibility is just a side effect. An important point for Tolkien is how moral choices are much more important than physical strenght. This is also why the powers of the nazgul are mostly mental, and the ability to resist them is measured in moral character and strenght of will, not by physical potency.

And I'm afraid I find your theory of the nazguls existing in a "negative realm" at the same time as in the actual physical realm far fetched. The separation betwen a physical world and a spirit world I spoke of isn't just something I made up. Tolkien wrote quite explicitly about this and it is a very important part of the metaphysics of Arda. That the ringswraiths primarly exist and are most powerful in the spirit world is something I think is well founded by the texts. Can't be bothered to look for quotes now but read the parts when Frodo wears the ring again and I think you will see what I mean. And consider Glorfindel, and how he is mighty in both worlds, or something like that.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Gobtwiddle! The way Tolkien describes Valinor, it seems like a very physical place, and upon entering Arda the Valar take on physical forms after their nature. Nothing immaterial here!

I stand by my previous statement. What I said I believe is explicitly written in 'The Silmarillion' or 'Morgoth's Ring'. The children are a 'fea' and a 'hroa' living in harmony. The 'hroa' of the Ainur is just a rainment and they can choose to to travel 'naked' without losing any part of their being.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by skip spence

How about: there is no evil? Or that evil is everything? Maybe evil was invented in the 19th century by Charles Darwin? All these possibilities seem equally valid to me. Personally I don't believe in the existance of evil in any absolute sense. "Evil" is a relative concept invented by men and exist only as a cultural and lingusitic construct.

Well, this explains a lot. No wonder we've been talking past each other. I see that there's no further use in discussing evil with you, since you don't believe it exists. I of course find such a notion to be at least untenable and at worst delusional. I mean that, of course, in the nicest possible way.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Well, this explains a lot. No wonder we've been talking past each other. I see that there's no further use in discussing evil with you, since you don't believe it exists. I of course find such a notion to be at least untenable and at worst delusional. I mean that, of course, in the nicest possible way.

You find my statement that evil doesn't exist to be untenable?? Well, "delusional" is also a relative concept and I'd like to see you prove that evil indeed exists. That is to me an untenable notion but I mean it in the nicest possible way too. I'm certainly not here to disrespect anyone's religious beliefs.

Gobtwiddle by the way... Gobtwiddle! That's a word I've never come across. Care to enlighten us?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by skip spence

You find my statement that evil doesn't exist to be untenable?? Well, "delusional" is also a relative concept and I'd like to see you prove that evil indeed exists. That is to me an untenable notion but I mean it in the nicest possible way too. I'm certainly not here to disrespect anyone's religious beliefs.

I must decline to pick up that gauntlet, for it would mean having first to prove that philosophical relativism is itself untenable (which I hold to be the case), and that would not be fitting to this thread, nor do I care to involve myself in such a debate; I have better and more interesting things to do with my time on the Downs.

Gobtwiddle by the way... Gobtwiddle! That's a word I've never come across. Care to enlighten us?

I made up the word, here on the Downs, as a matter of fact, in response to something posted by someone else that I instantly recognized as nonsense. So for starters, Gobtwiddle = nonsense; however, it's a more graphic rendering since it is related to "Shut yer gob!" - - which is to say, "shut your mouth!" So a "gob" being mouth, or for the sake of my coining, "lips", to "twiddle" one's "gobs" is to pass one's forefinger over one's lips while mildly humming. In the end, it's just a whimsical new way to say "nonsense".

[skip spence]

^So your saying it's just an euphemism for "Shut up!"

Why I oughta...

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I must decline to pick up that gauntlet, for it would mean having first to prove that philosophical relativism is itself untenable (which I hold to be the case)...

Probably a good call that.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Well, this explains a lot. No wonder we've been talking past each other. I see that there's no further use in discussing evil with you, since you don't believe it exists. I of course find such a notion to be at least untenable and at worst delusional. I mean that, of course, in the nicest possible way.

I'm quoting myself because someone, who apparently has not the courage to identify him- or herself, gave me a negative rep, describing the above as "haughty". Thank you for the honor of so naming what I said. I have arrived at last.

But seriously, why would someone consider the above haughty? I raise the question because it has to do with the concept of evil, which, since this discussion has closed in terms of any other topic, might as well continue as a discussion of our beliefs towards evil (certainly in reference to Tolkien's works).

If I were to take a guess as why the above seemed haughty, it is because I named someone else's belief as both logically untenable and delusional. First, definitions. "Logically untenable" means that a belief cannot be defended by logic. "Delusional" means that a belief is held in spite of clear evidence to the contrary, precisely because the one holding the belief refuses to acknowledge that a thing is what it is; in this case, evil.

So allow me to ask: is the evil depicted in Tolkien a mere fantasy, something that does not actually exist in the world in which we live? Are there no modern day Sarumans who bend and 'filet' truth and reality into rationalizations to justify their own agendas, desires, and motivations? Are there no murderers who are just as willing to steal, kill and destroy as the orcs of LotR (after all, how many times did Tolkien refer to modern-day orcs?)?

I eagerly await anyone's answer as to how evil does not exist; my thanks in advance.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

If I were to take a guess as why the above seemed haughty, it is because I named someone else's belief as both logically untenable and delusional. First, definitions. "Logically untenable" means that a belief cannot be defended by logic. "Delusional" means that a belief is held in spite of clear evidence to the contrary, precisely because the one holding the belief refuses to acknowledge that a thing is what it is; in this case, evil.

I'm sorry but that does not make any sense whatsoever. I don't believe in the existance of evil in any absolute sense. This you deem delusional. Why? Because there's clear evidence to the contrary, you say. The evidence that evil in fact does exist is the existance of evil, and my delusion is refusing to accept it. Is that what you're trying to say?

But I can see where you're coming from. You are obviously a christian who believe in a good god who created the world and everything in it. If you accept this axiom it's also easy to accept that God made certain rules for men to follow, although reading the Bible tends to confuse at least me regarding how to follow them (are we or are we not supposed to kill fex.?). But even if you accept this as a fact (which no serious scientist would) the existance of "evil" is not proved still. The world is not black and white as you probably know, and just because there is a good way to act does not nessesarily make any deviation from it "evil". Is someone who've helped millions of people all his life suddenly evil if he cheats on his wife without regretting it? Is the president of Iran an evil man? Is the president of the US an evil man? The answer you would recieve from these questions would be very different depending on who you ask and where. And the motivations behind a yes or no would never be based on any 'proof', only more or less vague feelings and opinions. If there is a god then he/she/it can probably answer, but no one have been able to prove that either. Maybe you find a certain definition of 'evil' true in your heart, but such 'truth' can only be true within your self. And just because you find something to be true in your heart, does not give you the right to impose that belief upon someone else.

You may believe this to be delusional but the existance of concepts such as 'good' or 'evil' are unprovable within the limits of our perception and therefore I'm (almost) certain they do not exist.

Would have written more and checked my post for clarity but I have to go now. I hope I haven't offended you in any way.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by skip spence

there is no evil

Which means that there also is no good, as both of these are just ideas of the e human mind, whicch always needs to characterise things (other examples are time and numbers which also don't exist really).

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

Which means that there also is noe evil, ans both of these are just ideas of the e human mind, whicch always needs to characterise things (other examples are time and numbers which also don't exist really).

I don't think you can compare a concept such as evil with time and numbers. The names of our days and numbers are manmade constructions but not time and numbers themselves. They can be described with pure mathematics and are therefore real in an absolute sense within the limits of our perception.

You shouldn't post under influence btw

[Eönwë]

You can, because evil is an idea, it is a concept. You can do something in one place that is evil, but doesn't count on another. Time is relative (depending on how fast you go). But maybe I wasn't right comparing the other two but you get the idea. We just put things in classes to understand them.

But ok, I get your point. But at least, you say there is no evil

Originally Posted by me

Which means that there also is no good

[skip spence]

^Sure, to say that there's no evil is to say that there's no good too.

I should (again) point out that I don't believe in 'Good' or 'Evil' in any absolute sense or theological application. I certainly think that some actions, such as helping people, are better than other actions, such as killing people. But that's an opinion, nothing more.