And Eru Smiled

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

But that's hardly an "ethical approach" as we would understand it, is it? (The Saucepan Man)

Of course. For Eru to "ethically" cleanse evil from the world, he would have to destroy it. Rather, in his Ethics, he allowed Melkor's music to merge with his themes, instead of destroying him right then and there. I could not understand why he did so, considering there is no eternal life or punishment that we know of in Arda.

Instead of uprooting evil with a force of violence he moved on with his plan, but he used Melkor's discordant themes to improve the Ainulindalë.

So there. The Ethics of Eru's passivity. Personally, I would be scared for Arda if Eru is not passive. Remember what happened to the Flat Earth Theory?

[Iarwain]

Time for responses!

Tour, I agree with you completely, and your post was as on topic as it could be.

Lindil, you were right, it is extremely rare that Eru excercises his will on "creation," but somehow I still think he has supreme power, but he also excercises judgement on when to use it.

Boromir, I disagree with you very much. I recall a point in "The Unchaining of Melkor" when Tolkien states that Manwe could not fathom the will of Melkor, because Manwe's mind was untainted. So, there is one example of good without evil. Also, if we look at supremes, on the "good" side is Eru who has no trace of evil, and Melkor is reverse, but Melkor has traces of good. I think I understand your argument, but please don't mention Tom Bombadil again in this thread, it's very dangerous.

Bravo, Son of Numenor! I like the thoughts, please elaborate.


And now, my 30 minutes of downers time are up for the day. I must get to class, but I hope to respond to the rest tomorrow.

Fare thee well,
Iarwain

[Iarwain]

I agree with Saucepan. To say that Eru 'willed evil' is irrational. It's sort of like me willing the blood vessels in my hand to rupture. (not the best analogy, I know)

And here, part 3 of my composition comes into focus. Because of the mercy of Eru, Melkor's rebellion was not immediately annihilated. I think this ties in with the fact that there is no heaven or hell in M-E. Perhaps being evil is it's own punishment. Imagine Melkor as a sort of Sisyphus, eternally struggling to separate himself and be victorious over Eru, but doomed to eternally fail. And thus, perhaps Eru was unwilling to remove Melkor because of the remnants of goodness that remained within him. (And the word "good" becomes even more ambiguous.)



Good Day to you All!
Iarwain

[Evisse the Blue]

If I'd wanted to be really sarcatic I'd say: "Thus, the vicious circle of suffering is completed. Melkor suffers because he's evil, the others suffer because he's evil, Eru watches mercifully over all."
But as I did a little more thinking, I realized that putting an end to this neverending misery rests not with the good, but the evil: should Melkor use his free will and decide to be good, it would all end, and he would himself be pardoned. Makes sense. Eru did think of everything. (as did Tolkien).

[Lhunardawen]

But it could also end in another way. Should Melkor and his minions choose to remain contending with the will of Eru (which they did, I think), the good would have to take the matter into their hands and act upon this "war" once and for all to end it. Eru could finally stop being passive and use his omnipotence to destroy evil, however he will do it. Nothing was evil in its beginning. Even Melkor was not so. It could be that no evil will remain in the end. Since Eru put everything into existence--even evil, but just indirectly--he could probably choose to put something out of existence if it would be for the good of all.

Oh my, I'm actually working with just speculations here.

[Son of Númenor]

2: Because of the corruption of some created beings, evil exists as (primarily) greed, pride, and fear (from which flow hate, etc.) and drives thoseof it to attempt to separate themselves and be independant of Eru. This constitutes a sort of spiritual suicide, since all existence is a part of Eru. (Iarwain)

I perfectly agree with this, particularly the part about evil's want to be independent of Eru and the emotions/'sins' that you pinpoint as the manifestations of evil. In some of these topics, threads seem to stray far into the abstract and philosophical, but your theory, and this part in particular, is very well-grounded in Tolkien's beliefs about his world, imho.

I do not understand, however, your suggestion that Melkor had "remnants of goodness" within him. It says in the Silm (which is conveniently packed away in my luggage in the car so that I cannot quote from it) that Melkor's evil is complete and utter, and that he has become so corrupt that any chance of his thinking a 'good' thought (much less doing a good deed) is beyond hope. This, actually, raises an interesting question: does exercising one's will in an 'evil' way, to become independent of Eru and attempt (as in the cases of Sauron, Melkor, Saruman) to become an omnipotent tyrant, in the end ultimately negate one's Eru-given 'free will'? Does this wilful act of rebellion put an end to the 'free will' so that, as in the case of Melkor, the rebel can no longer act out of goodness, and is utterly controlled by evil?

[Lhunardawen]

I belive you are right, Son of Numenor. Melkor could have had the false sense of free will, but used it entirely for evil. And without realizing it, he himself is controlled by his desire to wreak havoc in Arda, and all his actions became bent on that desire.

Sauron, however, had the chance to turn his back from this, only he did not. He still had his free will, but when he chose to continue the evil works of his master, he had totally and finally forsaken it. Not that I could blame him, for the seeds of evil were sown deep into his heart.