Redefining Good & Evil

[davem]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I think with LOTR, he was trying to remove the Eru factor as much as possible, but the point still since Eru is unrivalled, and he is good, good will win in the end ,so it really does take away Frodo's (or anyone else's) ability to decide the fate of the world.

And the removal of Eru - or his inclusion - depending whether you read LotR as a stand alone work or in the light of the Sil, actually changes your experience of the story profoundly. Without Eru one is in Eddings/Pullman territory, where one's acts can determine the fate of the world as well as the fate of one's soul. Hence, the quest is given infinitely greater significance & meaning. So, the presence of Eru actually lessens the drama but increases the hope of the reader.

What's interesting is that for over twenty years people had to read LotR in one way, but now can read it in another way entirely (though its still not the case that all readers of LotR will read (or if they do, will take into account) the Sil. Without the Sil LotR can be read from an 'Eddings-esque'/Pullman-esque' perspective. Yet, what's interesting to me is that the idea of 'good' as self- sacrifice, love, compassion, making oneself imperfect,& 'evil' as seeking self-perfection, self-containment, rejection of weakness & attainment of some kind of Nietzchean ideal, is shared by all the authors. The real difference between Tolkien's & Eddings/Pullman's worlds is the presence of Eru (& the quality of imagination, of course).

[Pitchwife]

Great stuff and loads of engaging thoughts by everybody - thanks for a great read! Unfortunately, I haven't read Eddings myself, but anyway, here's my farthing's worth on some of the points that have been addressed up to now.

Originally Posted by davem

And the removal of Eru - or his inclusion - depending whether you read LotR as a stand alone work or in the light of the Sil, actually changes your experience of the story profoundly. Without Eru one is in Eddings/Pullman territory, where one's acts can determine the fate of the world as well as the fate of one's soul. Hence, the quest is given infinitely greater significance & meaning.

Indeed, and I think this goes to show once more Tolkien's wisdom in avoiding any overt statement on the religion/theology of Middle-Earth in LotR. Wouldn't it be boring if the characters had read the Ainulindale and knew that everything will work out fine in the end? It will, of course, but our friends (except, probably, Gandalf/Olórin) don't know and can't be sure of the outcome; they may get some fleeting glimpses and intimations of light and high beauty beyond the reach of the Enemy, but in general, they can only hope and do their best.
However, I can't agree that in Tolkien's world, the characters' actions affect only their own souls. For example, while Frodo's sacrifice may not have made any difference to the fate of the world in the long run, it made a huge difference to everybody living in Middle-Earth in the meantime. Maybe if Frodo had failed (e.g. by killing Gollum instead of having mercy on him) and Sauron had regained the Ring, the Valar or Eru himself would have intervened to prevent Sauron from gaining dominion over all Middle-Earth, but even in this case, what would have been the cost in human/elven/dwarven suffering, if another War of the Powers, another Drowning of Númenor had occurred?
As to your point about the Elves' 'embalming' desire for perfection being evil according to Eddings' standard, isn't it interesting that it was chiefly the Noldor (Galadriel!) who were obsessed with arresting change, much less the Sindar and Silvan Elves, and that they clearly caught the disease in Aman? They got hooked on changelessness in the Undying Lands and, as Boro has said, tried to reproduce the conditions they had got used to there in M-E. Moreover, the Valar themselves weren't entirely innocent of the desire to resist change, shutting their Earthly Paradise off from events in the rest of the world. I'm sure Tolkien wouldn't have gone as far as calling this desire 'evil', but I think I remember he censured the Powers for their fainéance.
As to good intentions producing evil results, my first thought reading that great quote from Lewis was - Gandalf, if he had taken the Ring.

Just a few more stray thoughts before I let my wife at the computer:

Boro: All I can really know for certain is death and pain.
Nogrod: Why be so pessimistic? Why don't you say that all we can really know for certain is life and happiness?

Isn't it obvious? Happiness is never certain; death always is - i.e. it's the only thing that's guaranteed to happen to all of us sooner or later; that's why life and happiness are so precious (no Gollumish pun intended). "The future is uncertain, the end is always near."

Gwath: But I don't understand where good can come from if it does not come from God? How could such a thing exist in an impersonal, arbitrary, random world unless we make it ourselves

Sorry for philosophical nitpicking, but this is a perfect example of thought stumbling into the pitfalls of language. Just because 'good' can be used as a noun in most European languages, we tend to think of it as a thing or entity of some sort that 'exists' and, because it exists, must be 'made' by somebody; but good is nothing that exists, its just what we do - and so is evil.
But if you really mean where our standards for judging certain actions as good or evil come from, I find Nogrod's answer quite satisfying.

No time for more at the moment, but I hope this will go on for a while.

[davem]

However, I can't agree that in Tolkien's world, the characters' actions affect only their own souls. For example, while Frodo's sacrifice may not have made any difference to the fate of the world in the long run, it made a huge difference to everybody living in Middle-Earth in the meantime. Maybe if Frodo had failed (e.g. by killing Gollum instead of having mercy on him) and Sauron had regained the Ring, the Valar or Eru himself would have intervened to prevent Sauron from gaining dominion over all Middle-Earth, but even in this case, what would have been the cost in human/elven/dwarven suffering, if another War of the Powers, another Drowning of Númenor had occurred?

Of course, we don't know what Eru can or can't/will or won't do. Would Eru have permitted Sauron to win? Would he have permitted Frodo to fall if that would have allowed Sauron to win? Point being: if Eru's ultimate victory is guaranteed this not only sets out the end of the journey, but actually sets its general direction. The really interseting thing in this context is that while only Gandalf among the good guys may truly know the outcome of things, among the bad guys both Saruman & Sauron know it too - yet they actually try to bring about a different result.

Clearly, once the Sil appeared LotR became a different work. An absolutely different work. Once you've read the Sil you can't read LotR in the same way again. For better or worse it becomes a different work - it has suddenly become a small part of a greater whole, & events take on a different meaning & significance. Actions are seen in a different light. What were originally odd (in both senses of the word) references to 'the One, the West, the Valar (interestingly appearing in Gandalf's speech at Aragorn's coronation only in the second edition of LotR) suddenly gain new relevance - in fact, in a way, come to dominate in the reader's mind. I'm reminded of the letter by Tolkien which has just been sold at auction, & which did not appear in the Carpenter collection

http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/l...b-47091f3318ed

'A DREADFUL YEAR OF LOSS AND FRUSTRATION': on the death of C.S. Lewis and the 'simultaneity of different planes' in The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien responds to a sympathetic letter from his correspondent to pour out a tale of 'a dreadful year': 'The loss reached for me its climax on Nov. 22nd, not for me the day Kennedy was murdered, but the day C.S. Lewis died'; then, Tolkien and his wife were so ill as not to be able to celebrate Christmas; the next disaster was in their son Christopher's divorce -- 'A shadow, only guessed by us, has been falling on my son Christopher and his wife ... soon after Christmas disaster came on them and us. His wife walked out ... I fear they have left their allegiance to our Mother [the Church]'. The letter continues with a detailed discussion of The Lord of the Rings, considering Mroczkowski's suggestion as to 'the simultaneity of different planes of reality touching one another ... part of the deeply felt idea that I had ... Beyond that too I feel that no construction of the human mind, whether in imagination or the highest philosophy, can contain within its own "englobement" all that there is ... There is always something left over that demands a different or longer construction to "explain" it ... This is like a "play", in which ... there are noises that do not belong, chinks in the scenery', discussing in particular the status of Tom Bombadil in this respect. The letter concludes with apologies if this seems too earnest, and references to his wife's ill-health.

These mentions of events/characters from the Sil are very much like these 'noises that do not belong, chinks in the scenery', which 'demands a different or longer construction to "explain" it'., & when it is so 'explained', transforms the original work profoundly. The Sil is transformative of LotR - motives, values, the sruggles of the characters are shown in a diefferent light. The fate of the world is seen not to be in Frodo's hands, or Aragorn's, or Gandalf's (who are all capable of 'dropping' it) but in Eru's (who is not). In the 'limited' world (for all its apparently overwhelming size the first time we read it) of LotR is suddenly seen to be tiny in both time & space. The journey is longer than we could have imagined, greater, more meaningful....yet, it also becomes, in a sense, more 'limited' because we are given the beginning, middle & end, & so we know that all would have been well in the end anyway - even if Sauron had won the battle he would have lost the war. What's more, Sauron himself must have known that too. 'They cannot conquer forever!' is truer than we realised - its a simple statement of fact.

So, does the existence of the Sil detract from LotR, or add to it? Does it detract from the sacrifices made, the struggles undergone? Actually, shouldn't, mustn't, the bad guys be able to win, ultimately & for all time, if individuals are to be truly 'free'? The existence of a figure like Eru means absolute freedom, of choice & action, & moe importantly, absolute good & evil, are impossible. Only good is true, evil is a corruption of it, & 'good' therefore must win in the end. But then, why fight at all? Surely its only the battle that could really go either way that is worth the fight?

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

Of course, we don't know what Eru can or can't/will or won't do. Would Eru have permitted Sauron to win? Would he have permitted Frodo to fall if that would have allowed Sauron to win?

Given the remote and uninvolved character of Eru, I think the idea that he would directly intervene to prevent Frodo from failing is out of the question. Melkor ruled Middle-earth for many long ages and Eru did not intervene; why would he treat Sauron differently?

Moreover, even if one admits a small possibility that Eru would not let the quest fail (and I for one do not admit it), this is still a far cry from certain knowledge that he will intervene, so it certainly does not follow that the fight against Sauron is 'not worth fighting'.

Clearly, once the Sil appeared LotR became a different work.

I agree that the Silmarillion offers one a new way of looking at LotR. But I simply can't see how it could 'detract from the sacrifices made, the struggles undergone' as you suggest. There is certainly no assurance in the Silmarillion that good will defeat evil within the world, nor anything to rule out the possibility of Sauron's victory and dominion over Middle-earth.

The matter of Dagor Dagorath and Arda Remade concerns the end of the world, and that only. So yes, if one believes the Second Prophecy of Mandos then Melkor and his servants will at the end of time be defeated. In that sense, the final victory of good is certain. But this does not preclude the victory of evil within Arda; it does not preclude the immense death and suffering that would result from Sauron's victory. To suggest that Eru's final victory makes that suffering (and the heroic efforts to prevent it) irrelevant would be like suggesting that the eventual victory of the Allies in World War II made the Holocaust irrelevant.

Moreover, there are in Tolkien's writings no more than a few brief hints of the Last Battle and the final triumph of good; it is by no means assured. In the published Silmarillion there is no hint of it at all. Yes, the existence of Eru is stated there - but there is no hint, and certainly no assurance, of the ultimate victory of good over evil.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Davem wrote:
Given the remote and uninvolved character of Eru, I think the idea that he would directly intervene to prevent Frodo from failing is out of the question. Melkor ruled Middle-earth for many long ages and Eru did not intervene; why would he treat Sauron differently?

This is a point I've made numerous times - the remote & uninvolved nature of Eru - & been informed that he is constantly at work in the world 'in a hidden way'. But while he is so hidden in LotR that the reader of that work is not aware he is even there (or even actually necessary), The Sil places him firmly in the action - & most importantly in the mind of the reader. The whole universe is transformed by his presence, both its essential nature & its ultimate fate.

I agree that the Silmarillion offers one a new way of looking at LotR. But I simply can't see how it could 'detract from the sacrifices made, the struggles undergone' as you suggest. There is certainly no assurance in the Silmarillion that good will defeat evil within the world, nor anything to rule out the possibility of Sauron's victory and dominion over Middle-earth.

Yes, the whole 'long defeat' thing is there - but again, that's another change. From a reading of LotR as a stand alone (with TH tacked on) work, we know very little of 'Melkor', of any of the 'ancient history' of the world, so we have none of the context for events in LotR that the Sil provides (anyone want to argue that a reader of LotR who then comes to the Sil is able to retain their concept of Elves as heroic, beautiful, wise & good?). LotR is made smaller & more limited by the existence of the Sil in the reader's mind - the 'Great War against Evil!' becomes 'another war against evil'. 'Frodo's Great Sacrifice of Himself to save the World!' becomes 'another great sacrifice of another hero to save the world (again)'. Its difficult to argue (wrongly, of course, of course) that Frodo is a 'Christ' figure (which is possible after a reading of LotR) when one has read of the repeated sacrifices of heroes throughout the whole history of Arda. I repeat - Good & evil become choices which only affect the individual & his or her own time & place but cannot affect or determine the ultimate fate of the world.

Originally Posted by Gwath

If we should be careful of saying that good or bad are things that exist in and of themselves, then we should be equally careful of saying that good and bad are nothing more than terms developed to indicate certain patterns of behavior. Both are ditches that lie on opposite sides of the road. Plato found his way into the first ditch, where the only real thing was the ultimate good (i.e. the Forms). The other ditch is just as bad, where the term "good" has been stripped of all vestiges of permanence or transcendence.

I think it could be argued that in LotR while good & evil are not exactly stripped of all vestiges of permanence or trancendence, they are choices which can be made freely by any individual - & their reward or punishment is simply the kind of world they get to live in. They don't have any 'cosmic' significance. Characters make the kind of bed they want to lie in, & whatever choice they make is not going to please or anger any higher power, & either side can win. Good & evil as permanent/transcendent states (or good as truly permanent/transcendent/evil as its illusory shadow) only come in with the Sil. Building the 'Republic of Heaven' is the task for the victors of LotR as stand alone work - they have to make their paradise, as best they can, with the tools they have to hand. Bring in the Sil & the only option is the Kingdom of Eru (when he finally gets around to bringing it about).

[alatar]

Good thoughts, Nogrod and others. I was hoping to get time to post 'we are animals,' but ya beat me to it.

Though some many not agree, we are animals. Sure, we have credit cards and cell phones, but animals just the same.

But, for discussion, let's pretend that there is some gulf between us and the other inhabitants of this globe. So my question then is, is there good or evil in the animal kingdom? Animals 'murder' in that they do kill for non-sustenance reasons. Rape and incest exist there as well. So what's the difference between them and us?

At first I thought that it might be premeditation. Do animals think out their actions before acting upon them, or is it all instinct/gene-driven? In the case of apes, I would say that 'forethought' (darn Prometheus!) does happen, as observed here. If we have the same actions taking place within the animal world, how then do we then say that as humans, we have knowledge of 'good and evil' whereas the animals just do what they do?

So what is it? Do all animals, human included, have the ability to commit acts of good or evil? Or can only we humans act thus? Hate to sound all relativistic, but are these concepts just in the eye of the beholder?

And, if evil is 'selfish,' and if we cannot exclude animals from evil acts, then isn't this just 'survival,' and yet we want to call it something else?

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

This is a point I've made numerous times - the remote & uninvolved nature of Eru - & been informed that he is constantly at work in the world 'in a hidden way'. But while he is so hidden in LotR that the reader of that work is not aware he is even there (or even actually necessary), The Sil places him firmly in the action - & most importantly in the mind of the reader.

To be fair, I'm not among those who have informed you that Eru is constantly at work 'in a hidden way'.

But I was actually thinking more of the Silmarillion. Eru is not invisible there, as he more or less is in LotR, but he is rather remote - certainly far more removed from worldly affairs than the God of the Torah, for example. Indeed, if one were to judge solely from his portrayal of Eru, without any biographical information, one would almost think Tolkien closer to Enlightenment-style deism than to traditional Catholicism. The point is that, even taking the Silmarillion fully into account, Eru is far enough removed from worldly events that the victory of good seems anything but inevitable. Or at least, it does to me.

[Alfirin]

Originally Posted by alatar

Good thoughts, Nogrod and others. I was hoping to get time to post 'we are animals,' but ya beat me to it.

Though some many not agree, we are animals. Sure, we have credit cards and cell phones, but animals just the same.

But, for discussion, let's pretend that there is some gulf between us and the other inhabitants of this globe. So my question then is, is there good or evil in the animal kingdom? Animals 'murder' in that they do kill for non-sustenance reasons. Rape and incest exist there as well. So what's the difference between them and us?

At first I thought that it might be premeditation. Do animals think out their actions before acting upon them, or is it all instinct/gene-driven? In the case of apes, I would say that 'forethought' (darn Prometheus!) does happen, as observed here. If we have the same actions taking place within the animal world, how then do we then say that as humans, we have knowledge of 'good and evil' whereas the animals just do what they do?

So what is it? Do all animals, human included, have the ability to commit acts of good or evil? Or can only we humans act thus? Hate to sound all relativistic, but are these concepts just in the eye of the beholder?

And, if evil is 'selfish,' and if we cannot exclude animals from evil acts, then isn't this just 'survival,' and yet we want to call it something else?

Well, in my darker moments I have always though that humanity is proably unique in our capacity for sadism and scadenfreude, that is, the we are likey the only cretures who are capable of taking pleasure in the pain and suffering of others (I would even in such a state, go so far as to say that that is the main way we are different than animals). Other animals may hurt and kill kill but we are likey the only ones who engagle in recreational torture for the sheer fun of it (well, maybe a cat toying with a mouse, but that's a grey area)

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I can't agree with such a 'deterministic' interpretation of Tolkien's universe. The datum that ultimately good will prevail is merely an endpoint, not a prescribed path thereto. It's rather like a Bach tocatta- you know where it'll wind up, but you have no idea how or when it'll get there (and there are constant surprises on the way.)

Pitchwife is on the right track, I think. There are no guarantees short of the Great End. The Quest could have failed, and Gandalf the White makes clear that failure is always a possibility. Frodo gets the Divine Nudge only because he has pushed himself to the absolute end of his physical and moral endurance, and brought the Ring to the brink. But it didn't have to happen. He could have remained silent at the Council and not taken on the Quest- and then what? There have been many choices in Arda's history which made things worse, which fueled rather than diminished evil: Feanor's choices, the later Numenorean kings' choices culminating in Ar-Pharazon, Isildur's refusal to destroy the Ring. Even smaller choices, such as Earnur's pride leading him to death at Minas Morgul and the end of the royal line.

How many need not have died had Saruman not gone bad? How many had he repented at Orthanc? And ultimately hopeless as the War of the Jewels ultimately was, how much worse was it made by the dreadful Oath and the Kinslaying?

[Nogrod]

I'm in a hurry as well but just couldn't help commenting on this one.

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Sorry for philosophical nitpicking, but this is a perfect example of thought stumbling into the pitfalls of language. Just because 'good' can be used as a noun in most European languages, we tend to think of it as a thing or entity of some sort that 'exists' and, because it exists, must be 'made' by somebody; but good is nothing that exists, its just what we do - and so is evil.

Exactly! There is also the way we tend to "ontologize" linguistic / conceptual differentiations (the difference between these two would call for a dissertation - many of which have been made already, beginning at least from the middle-ages).

Like we talk of different species of animals. But are there really "species" in the world in itself or are species just a way we conseptualise / talk about the variety of animals we find around us?

I'd be careful with saying that "good" (or "bad" to that matter) is something that exists as such in the universe, but I would say - following Pitchwife - that good is something we do and which defines us as human beings as a behaviour...

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

There is also the way we tend to "ontologize" linguistic / conceptual differentiations (the difference between these two would call for a dissertation - many of which have been made already, beginning at least from the middle-ages).

Like we talk of different species of animals. But are there really "species" in the world in itself or are species just a way we conseptualise / talk about the variety of animals we find around us?

I'd be careful with saying that "good" (or "bad" to that matter) is something that exists as such in the universe, but I would say - following Pitchwife - that good is something we do and which defines us as human beings as a behaviour...

I really should go to bed, but I'd better have a go at this anyway.

If we should be careful of saying that good or bad are things that exist in and of themselves, then we should be equally careful of saying that good and bad are nothing more than terms developed to indicate certain patterns of behavior. Both are ditches that lie on opposite sides of the road. Plato found his way into the first ditch, where the only real thing was the ultimate good (i.e. the Forms). The other ditch is just as bad, where the term "good" has been stripped of all vestiges of permanence or transcendence.

As always, truth lies at the point of balance between extremes.

And now I really have to go to bed, though there is a lot more I should say.