Absolutely Evil

[davem]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

How can one recognize good if there is nothing to off-set it?

Well, it wouldn't be recognisable as 'good' in that sense, as it wouldn't have any moral definitions, but that wouldn't make it boring. Variety would still exist - colours, shapes, textures, tastes, even sadness & happiness (not all tears are an evil). In other words, evil is not a necessity. The elves look forward (if we can use such a phrase about such a 'backward-looking' people) to Arda Unmarred - Arda as it should have been sans Melkor's rebellion (OK, not exactly as Eru intended, as Melkor was to have been part of the original vision).

The point being that all that constitutes 'good' qua 'good' could exist without its 'opposite' - except evil is not technically 'opposite' to Good in the sense of being an equal force co-existing alongside it.

Of course, this would mean that 'Good' has its origin in Eru, & is what Eru says it is. The question then arises as to whether what Eru says is Good is Good simply because Eru says it is, or whether Eru Himself is bound by an objective standard of Good/evil. If Eru was said to have ordered the Noldor to kill the Teleri would that make it a Good act? The Bible says God told the Israelites to kill the Canaanites' children, so was that a 'Good' act? Either it was a Good act because whatever God commands is Good because of the fact that God said it was, or it was Evil because it broke some objective standard which binds even God Himself. Or maybe killing Canaanite children is an objectively good thing - at least in certain circumstances.....

Originally Posted by Boromir 88

So, if Eru is the absolute good and he is the creator of everything, can he create something absolutely evil? Can he create an equal and opposite force?

I suppose this brings up the old question: Can God create a rock that is too heavy for Him to move? If he can't then he isn't omnipotent, if He can, then he isn't omnipotent, either....

[Aiwendil]

Tolkien's view of the relation between good and evil has always seemed rather Augustinian to me. In The City of God, Augustine says:

The sins of men and angels do nothing to impede the "great works of the Lord which accomplish His will." For He who by His providence and omnipotence distributes to every one his own portion, is able to make good use not only of the good, but also of the wicked. And thus making a good use of the wicked angel, who, in punishment of his first wicked volition, was doomed to an obduracy that prevents him now from willing any good, why should not God have permitted him to tempt the first man, who had been created upright, that is to say, with a good will?

For who will dare to believe or say that it was not in God's power to prevent both angels and men from sinning? But God preferred to leave this in their power, and thus to show both what evil could be wrought by their pride, and what good by His grace.

This strikes me as being remarkably similar to Iluvatar's words to Melkor:

And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.

The idea here, whether one thinks it wise or absurd, is clear: the existence of evil enriches good. I suspect that Augustine would say that the "grace" imparted by Jesus's sacrifice surpasses even the Edenic human state. In this connection, it's worth pointing out that what davem said here is not quite correct:

The elves look forward (if we can use such a phrase about such a 'backward-looking' people) to Arda Unmarred - Arda as it should have been sans Melkor's rebellion

It is not just Arda Unmarred, Arda Hastaina, to which the Elves look forward; it is Arda Healed, Arda Envinyanta. Tolkien makes the Augustinian point quite clearly through Manwe in "Finwe and Miriel":

The second is the Unmarred that shall be: that is, to speak according to Time in which they have their being, the Arda Healed, which shall be greater and more fair than the first, because of the Marring . . .

And again in the "Athrabeth", through Finrod:

For that Arda Healed shall not be Arda Unmarred, but a third thing and a greater, and yet the same.

[davem]

=Aiwendil It is not just Arda Unmarred, Arda Hasteina, to which the Elves look forward; it is Arda Healed, Arda Envinyanta.

I take the point, but this begs another question - was Eru's original vision - Arda Unmarred - 'Perfect'? If it can be surpassed by Arda Envinyanta, then it was imperfect, but how could Eru's vision be less than perfect, given it is Eru's vision? If it can then this implies that Eru's thought can evolve, be improved upon by the actions of created beings. Unless Eru already had Arda Envinyanta in His thought from the beginning - in which case why not just make the final version without all the messing around?

Or to extend this to the Biblical story - did God already have the Redeemed world in mind before the Fall? If so, why get mad at Adam & Eve?

[Aiwendil]

I take the point, but this begs another question - was Eru's original vision - Arda Unmarred - 'Perfect'? If it can be surpassed by Arda Envinyanta, then it was imperfect, but how could Eru's vision be less than perfect, given it is Eru's vision?

Not necessarily. That a thing is perfect does not necessarily mean that it is better than all other things. For example, I think that Mozart's 41st symphony is just about as nearly "perfect" as any piece of music can be. But I think that Beethoven's 5th symphony is better - more imperfect, but better.

But I don't think that the question of whether the posited relations of Arda Unmarred, Arda Marred, and Arda Healed are possible need be entered into. It seems quite clear to me that, whatever our views, Tolkien at least believed that such things made sense. I would've thought that, as a member of the "Author's Intention" party, you would take Tolkien's word and leave it at that . . .

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Not necessarily. That a thing is perfect does not necessarily mean that it is better than all other things. For example, I think that Mozart's 41st symphony is just about as nearly "perfect" as any piece of music can be. But I think that Beethoven's 5th symphony is better - more imperfect, but better.

But I don't think that the question of whether the posited relations of Arda Unmarred, Arda Marred, and Arda Healed are possible need be entered into. It seems quite clear to me that, whatever our views, Tolkien at least believed that such things made sense. I would've thought that, as a member of the "Author's Intention" party, you would take Tolkien's word and leave it at that . . .

But surely 'Perfect' is Perfect & cannot be bettered. Perfect implies absence of any flaws. If a thing can be bettered it is not perfect. And if we are speaking of something made/concieved by a perfect being surely the thing should be beyond improvement?

As to the quotes you gave re: Arda Envinyantar - these are only Elvish speculations or hopes, it seems to me, & therefore we cannot necessarily take them as 'facts'.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by davem

But surely 'Perfect' is Perfect & cannot be bettered. Perfect implies absence of any flaws.

Aye, but sometimes you don't want perfect. Sometimes you want a flaw or two so that you can relate. Nobody wants to read a story about a perfect character. Nobody wants a friend or lover with no flaws. If there's any way to make you see your own, it's to be next to someone without. Sometimes the more perfect specimen of any variety is the one that's just slightly off kilter. Savvy? Every so often, it's the lack of perfection that makes you like someone or something that much more. You still revere the perfection, you just like the flaws a lot more. After all... perhaps Eru knew what we all secretly (or not so secretly) know: perfection is boring.

[narfforc]

Exactly, Fea , what is the point of the story of Utopia without corruption, or Hell without redemption, where is the struggle for the noble spirit to shine through and win the day, There are no brave heroic warriors needed in Utopia, what is there to fight, if Utopia is not marred by evil, then it just exists to function. Atlantis was such a place, until it became corrupt, the story of Numenore is not new by any means. We see in our own world, shining civilisations fall to greed and corruption, we live in Paradise Lost and we are tested every day, every person and every nation.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

Or to extend this to the Biblical story - did God already have the Redeemed world in mind before the Fall? If so, why get mad at Adam & Eve?

Was it Eru's plan to allow some free will agents to run wild and free in its universe, knowing that, in the end, the whole would be more than the sum of the parts and would achieve that which Eru could foresee but not by itself create? And I can't help but think of a better way to torque Melkor off than, at the end of all things, show him what beauty all of his petty schemes, plots and perversions created (as mentioned, snowflakes).

"You wasted so much time and your self, your being, as all you'll be remembered for throughout eternity is being the creator of snow. Loser."