Lord of the Rings and Philosophy @ Concordia University Wisconsin - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

littlemanpoet · 02-13-2007, 02:52 PM

Quote:

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 · 02-13-2007, 03:07 PM

Quote:

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 · 02-14-2007, 10:37 AM

Quote:

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 · 02-14-2007, 01:14 PM

Quote:

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 · 02-15-2007, 10:28 AM

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 · 02-15-2007, 12:54 PM

Quote:

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'.

Quote:

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.

littlemanpoet · 02-15-2007, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davem

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

So Morgoth owes himself redemption? Can he just order it up? I'm really not trying to be facetious, but what you are saying makes no sense. How can Morgoth repay to himself a debt he has made to himself? What debt is this? He has become evil, and therefore owes himself a debt of not-evil? And pays himself by what means? I'm trying to identify some strand of logic in all this.

Quote:

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.

I'm aware of the philosophical background of what you are saying. I'm asking you to defend it based on what Tolkien has written.

02-15-2007, 10:28 AM	#5
littlemanpoet Itinerant Songster Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The Edge of Faerie Posts: 7,066	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.