Absolute Good in Lord of the Rings

[Morthoron]

As Tolkien stated there is nothing or no one 'absolutely evil' in his mythos, I would then have to conclude the opposite is also true -- that there is no 'absolute good'.

Free Will precludes Absolutes, and, conversely, the imposition of an Absolute on Free Will eliminates it. The terms are mutually exclusive.

[The Might]

Well, I don't know.

I mean, the thing is that Eru is the Christian God. He is not a fictional deity, Eru is but a fictional name for the Christian God that Tolkien too worshiped, used although in a fictional context. Tolkien defends his non-orthodox portrayal of God as Eru in his works in letter 154 to Mr. Peter Hastings saying:

We differ entirely about the nature of the relation of sub-creation to Creation. I should have said that liberation "from the channels the creator is known to have used already" is the fundamental function of "sub-creation", a tribute to the infinity of His potential variety [...] I am not a metaphysician; but I should have thought it a curious metaphysic — there is not one but many, indeed potentially innumerable ones — that declared the channels known (in such a finite corner as we have any inkling of) to have been used, are the only possible ones, or efficacious, or possibly acceptable to and by Him!

As such, Eru was for Tolkien THE Christian God and the use within the works was to him but a means of exploring the infinite possibilities of God, "a tribute to the infinity of His potential variety".


Now, the question is, is God for Catholics absolute good? To this question I await your answers since I am an agnostic with no idea about the so interesting teachings of the church. Especially in such philosophical matters I need some assistance, I believe Legate could be helpful, he is studying religion as far as I know. I might PM him about this.

Ok, so the thing is, if Catholics regard God as absolute good, then Eru is absolute good, since he is God, simple transitivity. If not, then not.

[Beregond]

I can't speak for Catholics per se but since the Christian God is a single God, the creator, then all things Good and Evil originated from him. But Evil can be described as that which goes against God, and by that standard you could say God is wholly not Evil - totally Good. Now you could argue semantics and technicalities all day but in the end I think God is beyond such general terms.

And beyond this thread, perhaps. I have the sneaking suspicion Cailín was hoping for more, shall we say, embodied characters?

Unfortunately when you leave out Eru I do not believe there are any absolute Good characters in The Lord of the Rings - plain and simple. If I had to choose the Good-est my gut instinct was Gandalf. Being a Maiar makes him Good no more than it does Sauron; however, he does succeed in his God-given mission when other Istari do not. He does not fall to temptation. Whether is love of Old Toby or his propensity to berate meddlers influence whether he is "Good" or not, who can say? Every single character has flaws - that is basic to life and Tolkien didn't forget it.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by The Might

Now, the question is, is God for Catholics absolute good? To this question I await your answers since I am an agnostic with no idea about the so interesting teachings of the church. Especially in such philosophical matters I need some assistance, I believe Legate could be helpful, he is studying religion as far as I know. I might PM him about this.

Ok, so the thing is, if Catholics regard God as absolute good, then Eru is absolute good, since he is God, simple transitivity. If not, then not.

I can't claim to speak to what all Catholics believe, but I can speak to what their dogma tells them they ought to. Gollum has it essentially correct to say God is all good, and I quote The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Originally Posted by Paragraph 7, 385

God is infinitely good and all his works are good.

And, as the footnote there says, this is philosophically traceable back to St. Augustine, although that's standard Catholic (indeed, most Christian, I'd say, that have philosophic traditions) to say that God is all-good, in addition to all-powerful and all-knowing.

But I think this is getting off track somewhat. Certainly, it answers Cailín's question, but it's a very unnuanced and--I suspect--rather unhelpful. Here's her actual question:

Originally Posted by Cailín

Who, if anyone, in Lord of the Rings embodies absolute good?

Eru may be absolute good... but good luck finding a mention of him in the Lord of the Rings. Of course, I'm being bluntly unuseful myself in pointing that out, so let's try a better tack.

Gollum is right, of course, to say that Eru is the only being in Middle-earth who can be said to perfectly good if only because Tolkien isn't writing an allegory... but I think Cailín might settle for someone less perfect--even if it means someone less good. If we're looking for a useful essay example here, we need someone from the Lord of the Rings who epitomises, as best as possible, goodness.

Two characters leapt to my mind in the middle of writing the above.

Firstly, Sam.

Now, I know Sam isn't perfect. If we cease to harp on the perfection bit, I think it's pretty clear that Sam has more good characteristics than most characters in Middle-earth, and not least in his favour is Tolkien's comment that Sam is perhaps the real hero of the epic. More could be said here but it's late and focusing is not something I'm doing so well at at the moment.

Moving on, the other character that leapt to mind was Théoden... and I'll be honest, I'm not sure I OUGHT to be putting him in... but I'll throw it out anyway because it's late, I'm tired, and it'll make for good discussion if it doesn't get buried as a footnote. It seems to me that, AFTER his cure by Gandalf, Théoden is something of an idealised character: he's noble, he's kind, he's just, he's brave... and he dies a heroic death in battle. If there's any case to what my delusional, tired brain has come up with in presenting Théoden, this might have some interesting things to say about the value of self-sacrifice in Middle-earth.

[Cailín]

Some very interesting answers, thank you. I did not wish to go off-topic, because this is a Tolkien forum, but some of you might still be interested why I pose this question. The question actually arose from an article ("From Elfland to Hogwarts") I read by John Pennington, who finds fault with the Harry Potter series by comparing it to The Lord of the Rings, and some other famous fantasy works which he considers to be at the heart of fantasy (Chronicles of Narnia, for example). His main point is basically that Harry Potter is “fundamentally failed fantasy”. One of the reasons was most intriguing to me:

But the archetypal theme of good versus evil appears to be what the Potter books are about. Harry's education is cemented in this ultimate dichotomy that Tolkien, Lewis, and LeGuin privilege in their texts. So just what are the Harry Potter books about? (...) All is ripe for the good old-fashioned battle between good and evil. But that tone is quickly undercut--Harry is often more interested in being able to visit Hogsmeade and practice Quidditch than he is in fighting evil.

And later:

Finally, what ultimately is the role of the archetypal good versus evil dichotomy in the series? Voldemort represents the darkest of evil. But what of the good? Is there an overarching figure of good--a supreme being, for example, not necessarily God--whom Harry and his friends follow? They certainly are in a Christian universe, for they celebrate the Christmas season. If there are the Dark Arts, are there the Light or White Arts? Dumbledore is a Merlin and Gandalf figure, but Dumbledore does not achieve any grandeur; his name evokes bumble and bumbling, reminiscent of Tweedledee and Tweedledum, those foolish characters. There seems to be a good in the novel, but that goodness seems individual rather than archetypal. Thus the archetypal evilness in the Potter universe has no real antidote other than Harry and his friends (who do not seem to take that evil too seriously).

Since Rowling’s work is constantly contrasted with The Lord of the Rings, presumably Pennington did find the archetypes he was looking for in Tolkien’s writing. Perhaps he was indeed referring to Eru - though as Formendacil rightly points out, Eru is not really mentioned in The Lord of the Rings. He may be the source of goodness, as he is the source of everything, but like Tom Bombadil, the Ring seems to be beneath his concerns and Sauron’s far lesser evil is sufficiently balanced by characters such as Gandalf, who are not supreme archetypes. The goodness in Lord of the Rings seems to me quite individual and I think it would somehow detract from characters such as Sam and Frodo that their goodness is ultimately nothing more than some sort of divine infusion from above.

P.S. I’m not sure how many Potter fans / readers are present, but of course after the publication of Deathly Hallows it is quite clear that the Potter universe is indeed Christian. The article quoted above is from 2002, and was written before the fifth instalment in the series was published.

[Lalwendë]

Just a quickie here for now...because I'll have to rummage out a bible in order to answer Gollum about Job

Originally Posted by Cailin

He may be the source of goodness, as he is the source of everything, but like Tom Bombadil, the Ring seems to be beneath his concerns and Sauron’s far lesser evil is sufficiently balanced by characters such as Gandalf, who are not supreme archetypes. The goodness in Lord of the Rings seems to me quite individual and I think it would somehow detract from characters such as Sam and Frodo that their goodness is ultimately nothing more than some sort of divine infusion from above.

I agree. Eru isn't significant in Lord of the Rings, in fact what we're presented with is a world without faith, religion etc and the characters seem to have to decide for themselves what is good and what is evil. In that respect, those who choose to opt for the side of Light seem all the better for it somehow, in the face of all too tempting odds offered by the Dark side.

And that's another thought - maybe it might be better to think of dualities in terms of Light/Dark in Tolkien's work rather than Good/Evil?

Originally Posted by Geezer that Cailin quotes

Harry is often more interested in being able to visit Hogsmeade and practice Quidditch than he is in fighting evil.

That's a grossly unfair criticism! Harry Potter is a teenage boy, not a saint. The Harry Potter books are as much takes of friendship and boarding school life as they are of 'fighting evil'.

[Boromir88]

First off, I want to say it's lovely to have you back Cailin - I hope you can stick around, and I sorely miss you in those WW villages.

And also, here's TM again! Maybe in my own absenses I've missed some things, but it seems like it's been forever since I've seen you posting in a thread. As expected a great find!

The one thing I want to caution to answer this question, is using Tolkien letters. That's a great find TM, but I will just point out that Peter Hastings was one of Tolkien's Catholic friends. Peter Hastings was the manager of the Newman Bookshop, a Catholic book store. And what's significant about that? Professor Kilby (one of the leading Silmarillion gurus) has observed (as well as others) that Tolkien had the tendancy to say completely different things to different people. I suggest Tolkien's friend Norman Cantor's view, and that is while Tolkien's letter are interesting to read, they can't always be authorial to the text (The Silm, LOTR...etc). Tolkien was consciously thinking and answering questions from several different people about his books, long after he had written them. Books that had undergone several reworkings, rewritings, and Tolkien even saying parts that were written some 30 years ago, admitting he didn't "know everything."

Basically, Tolkien could give different answers to different people, because of the depth of his books, and the very many different influences that he drew from - religion, Norse myth, war, languages...etc.

The other thing I want to ask is (I think davem, or someone else has asked this before) but particularly for Gollum - does a Christian carmaker create christian cars? Or in this case - does a Christian author necessarily write a Christian book? To deny a Christian influence would be ridiculous, it would be taking away an important part of Tolkien's life - it would be like denying he served in WW1.

However, I must disagree with the statement that since Tolkien was Catholic, he created a Catholic god in Eru, and thus Eru represents absolute good. I want to point out a statement by another author, one who typically gets labelled a writing a Christian story, but it's a very fascinating comment - in Christianity and Literature; "Christian Reflections":

It would be possible, and perhaps edifying, to write a Christian cookery book. Such a book would exclude dishes whose preparation involves unnecessary human labour or animal suffering, and dishes excessively luxurious. That is to say, its choice of dishes would be Christian. But there could be nothing specifically Christian about the actual cooking of the dishes included. Boiling an egg is the same process whether you are a Christian or a Pagan. In the same way, literature written by Christians for Christians would have to avoid mendacity, cruelty, blasphemy, pornography, and the like, and it would aim at edification in so far as edification was proper to the kind of work in hand.

And the person who I'm quoting is....

::drumroll please::

C.S. Lewis

It's interesting how those who are quick to label Lewis as being a Christian writer, Narnia being a Christian allegory overlook some of Lewis' comments. I would argue that Lewis (and Tolkien) were writers who were Christian, and obviously were influenced by their faith. But to say Tolkien created a Christian God in Eru, I think, is taking things a step too far. As Tolkien put it, he doesn't preach, nor does he teach.

So, my answer to you Cailin is, Eru was 100% correct in saying that he "is," and that is - he is what you want to believe he is. Is there an absolute good in LOTR? I don't know, my guess is no, because as Morthoron and others have argued there is no absolute evil. But I wouldn't presume to speak for yours, Tolkien's, or anyone else's beliefs - particulary religious ones.

[mark12_30]

I'd like to return to Cailin's second post...

Originally Posted by Cailín

. The question actually arose from an article ("From Elfland to Hogwarts") I read by John Pennington.

Harry's education is cemented in this ultimate dichotomy that Tolkien, Lewis, and LeGuin privilege in their texts. So just what are the Harry Potter books about? (...) All is ripe for the good old-fashioned battle between good and evil. But that tone is quickly undercut--Harry is often more interested in being able to visit Hogsmeade and practice Quidditch than he is in fighting evil.

Interesting, because Frodo would have liked to go back to the inn and drink beer, and reprise his previous hobbitish pastimes, if he could have. He didn't, because he couldn't; he was wearing a homing beacon on a gold chain, and ringwraiths being the sorts of creatures that they are, Frodo didn't take time off til he got to Rivendell. After Rivendell, he accepted his new responsibility, and carried it through.

Finally, what ultimately is the role of the archetypal good versus evil dichotomy in the series? Voldemort represents the darkest of evil. But what of the good? Is there an overarching figure of good--a supreme being, for example, not necessarily God--whom Harry and his friends follow?

Frodo follows (staunchly) their example and their expectation to fight against evil, whether he feels like detouring to an inn for the next three years, or not. Elrond, Aragorn, Gandalf, Galadriel, Goldberry, and even Arwen are all archetypal, at least they seem so to me; but not absolute good. However the author doesn't seem to be requiring absolute good.

The author implies it below, I think, that Dumbledore should have been more Gandalf-like, in other words, more of a Good. (A Gooder?)

Dumbledore is a Merlin and Gandalf figure, but Dumbledore does not achieve any grandeur;... There seems to be a good in the novel, but that goodness seems individual rather than archetypal. Thus the archetypal evilness in the Potter universe has no real antidote other than Harry and his friends (who do not seem to take that evil too seriously).

In contrast to Gandalf, who does achieve grandeur. Imperfect, to be sure, but grand. Gandalf's goodness is archetypal, whereas Dumbledore's is not. I would agree. There are numerous characeters whose goodness is archetypal in LOTR; not absolute; but archetypal. I would argue here that Frodo 'follows' such personages as Gandalf, Elrond, the elves in general, Aragorn, to a degree Faramir. I would also add, however, that Frodo draws subtle strength from three others: Goldberry, Arwen, and Galadriel; whether from the good-is-beautiful, or from the beautiful-is-good, or from they-happen-to-be-both-good-and-beautiful. Regardless, they are all three, archetypal expressions of "Good".

Edit: Guess I cross-posted with Cailín .
Another Edit: Whoa. Guess I cross posted with several people.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

As so often when issues bordering on religion and politics are discussed, this thread is veering in a direction that could cause it to be closed. The last couple of posts have returned to the Tolkien topic; please continue the discussion in that vein and avoid direct conflicts and personal accusations. The moderators and administrators are monitoring posts here closely and may edit or delete those which do not comply with forum rules.