Good and evil

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Even though we never see Radagast interacting with the animals he is 'fond' of. I think we do see what he meant that Gandalf did know more about the 'birds and beasts' than Radagast's did, and he had more respect from them. As we see a long list of one rescuing the other (though Gwaihir's list of rescuing Gandalf is much longer! ).

Is it that Gandalf's knowledge comes from a more active research than the suspected more passivity of Radagast? Note that Gandalf somewhat aggressively goes searching for knowledge (i.e. Hobbits); did Radagast observe just those flora and fauna that were outside his window?

And, concerning the failure of Radagast, he erred as in the Three Laws of Robotics:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

It's not that the Brown Bomb actively tried to harm anyone, but that, as stated in #1, his inaction resulted in harm. He failed #2 as in not following the original plan, and we know that he would have (or may have) failed #3 as he was terrified of the coming of the Nine. Gandalf was fearful too, and yet he drew some of the Nine off in an effort to help Frodo, Strider etc.

A bad robot Radagast would have made.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by alatar

Is it that Gandalf's knowledge comes from a more active research than the suspected more passivity of Radagast? Note that Gandalf somewhat aggressively goes searching for knowledge (i.e. Hobbits); did Radagast observe just those flora and fauna that were outside his window?

I wouldn't say so. Gandalf shows the best, the "middle point" between Radagast and Saruman. Where Radagast was passive, Saruman was active to that point that he took charge of other beings rather than just aiding them, helping them understand and letting them choose, as Gandalf did. Also, this is that it's not Gandalf who goes "aggressively searching for knowledge", that one is Saruman: yes, aggressively searching for knowledge. Gandalf searches just out of curiosity, or (more often) what he needs: the Scroll of Isildur, for example, he searches for only when he is in need of it (which could be considered even a little setback). But Saruman...

Originally Posted by Elrond's Council

"(...) The white page can be overwritten; and the white light can be broken."
"In which case it is no longer white," said I. "And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom."

Emphasise mine, of course. I think that's one very important thing to consider. Or the same chapter:

Originally Posted by Elrond's Council

"It is perilous to study too deeply the arts of the Enemy, for good or for ill."

As Saruman did this, hungry for knowledge (and so later, for power).

And finaly, we have the testimony of Treebeard:

Originally Posted by Treebeard

[Saruman was] always eager to listen. I told him many things that he would never have found out by himself; but he never repaid me in like kind. I cannot remember that he ever told me anything. And he got more and more like that; his face, as I remember it – I have not seen it for many a day – became like windows in a stone wall: windows with shutters inside.

So I think where Radagast shows passivity, Saruman shows - as alatar said - aggressivity in seeking knowledge; and Gandalf, therefore, presents the "mild middle point", the best alternative.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

So I think where Radagast shows passivity, Saruman shows - as alatar said - aggressivity in seeking knowledge; and Gandalf, therefore, presents the "mild middle point", the best alternative.

You state it much better than I. I thought that the word' aggressively' was too strong, but the alternate - assertively - seemed not right.

A note about Saruman, who you rightly place in the too much pile: In science, there are times that you have to break things to figure out what's going on. Think that what Tolkien meant was research that wasn't carefully done, nor done with any thought or respect or consideration of the means and cost/benefit ratio. If you had one palantir, it would not be wise to cast it into Sammath Naur just to see what happens. You have to step back a moment and ask, "What will I learn, and what price am I willing to pay for that knowledge?" Saruman fooled himself thinking that the price that he payed was small compared to what he learned, but actually it was the reverse. "Can you cross Orc and Man?" may be an interesting question, but just how did Saruman get his subjects and perform the experiments?

Such callousness to the suffering of others eventually did him in.

[tumhalad2]

Personally, I think that there is not necisarilly any absolute 'good' in middle earth, rather Evil and non-Evil. both these are ultimately choices, and the closest that good can come to may be Gandalf, but ultimately, even in Middle-earth, it is to a degree "relitive"-according to circumstance etc. For example, in the story Tal-Elmar, the Numenorians come upon a tribe of natives in (what will become) Gondor, and however sail away with slaves and bounty. Tolkien is showing the reader, first hand, the ability of Men of all sorts, even the great Numenorians, to choose the "Evil" road. 'Non-evil' is therefor a wide ethical spectrum, and as the moral zeitgeist changes, so it does as well. There is no Ethical Standard in Middle earth, ultimately, there is Evil, which is less of a moral thing than a desire for entire nagation of creation, and non evil.