Lord of the Rings and Philosophy @ Concordia University Wisconsin

[davem]

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.

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

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)...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

What has Tolkien said from which one could deduce a form of currency in terms of this guaranteed redemption of which you speak?

Clearly the 'debt' is owed to oneself. I was using the word in the colloquial sense of 'redeeming oneself'.

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.

Its Universalist. I don't see any evidence in the texts that universal 'redemption' is impossible. One can retake tests. Where there's life, there's hope. The soul of each single one of us is sent that the universe may be complete, as Plotinus said.