Melkor; Evil by Will or Evil by Nature?

[Ancalagon'sFire]

The more one delves into this subject matter the more one must question the strange mix of both Monotheism and Polytheism, whereby we have Eru as a single all-powerful entity, yet we also have a layer of Gods represented in the Valar.
This in itself instantly determines that Eru can not be viewed in the same way that a 'christian god' can be viewed. This tends to lean more closely to Norse and Slavic mythological interpretations of devinity.

Yet, it this lies the essence that good and evil co-exist, for both emanate from the original one, Eru. Light and dark are no more than good and evil, for each gives credence to a determined course. We know that;
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
each comprehended only that part of the mind of Iluvatar from which he came, and in understanding of their brethern they grew but slowly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yet still, even before the music, Melkor had the capacity to hate. What exactly was it that Yvanna knew?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
for Melkor she knew from before the making of the Music and rejected him, and he hated her.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What had she known about Melkor if not that in his very essence he was evil, not dark.

Manwe knew not evil and could not understand it, therefore he is inherently good, not light. This in turn means he is easily decieved by Melkor. This presents another question as to whether one actually views Manwe as good, because his decisions were not entirely rational and forgiving.

My question now leads me to ask why does evil need to be personified in Melkor, yet good is not so easily personfied, but measured?

[Kalessin]

Ancalgon's Fire, you are asking good questions, but I just don't think Tolkien rationalised this area in the way in which we are trying to do.

First of all, please let's stop talking about "the dark side". It constantly brings to mind the words "I am your father, Luke" , and a rather spurious moral framework [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] .

We have to start with the assumption that Good and Evil exist in Tolkien, as primary underlying elements that we can all readily understand, intuitively and/or on the basis of our faith or culture. If Tolkien was attempting, or intending, to actually outline in a philosophical (or rational) sense exactly 'what' Evil was, and precisely how it came into being, he obviously failed (as this thread shows). But I think he was taking as read that our grasp of these concepts might be in line with common assumptions, or perhaps more explicitly with his own beliefs. As he said, the nature of divinity in the Silmarillion would be broadly accessible to anyone with an appreciation of the Holy Trinity. And, as I posited earlier, the question about what Evil is and how it comes to be is not really addressed in a scientific way in The Bible.

Remember, whilst Tolkien attentively constructed an imaginary mythos, he was not creating an all-encompassing 'system' like Plato, Leibnitz, Kant etc. He likened the many appendices and 'filling out' of the narrative with contextual details to the creation of a game. This was years before the RPG scenarios that we all understand now, but I guess similar in some ways. A set of rules, some kind of consistency, and a reasonably straightforward narrative causality. Philosophy and philology are pretty distinct disciplines when it comes to explaining existence, and given Tolkien's imaginative vision and narrative skill I'm willing to spare him a Cartesian onslaught [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

However, you rightly identify where Tolkien perhaps glosses over the issue in relation to Yvanna and Melkor. I suppose that's where suspension of disbelief, or just a willingness to 'go with the flow', as readers, should take over in order to get us through those early chapters. Personally there was a lot of 'going with the flow' for me, and I only just made it to Beren and Luthien [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

I agree with you that the personification of Evil as opposed to Good is something worth exploring. Perhaps a trite answer is to say that it is necessary for the story, but there is probably more to it than that. We're partly back to the "how do I know God(or Eru) is good?" question that I do find interesting philosophically.

But I'm guessing that, again, given Tolkien's culture and worldview, he found it relatively intuitive to construct a causal narrative with a particular identifiable element of discord in contrast to a more abstract generality of 'perfection'. Even removing the religious aspect, one can perhaps imagine him looking out at the English countryside, and seeing the harmonious beauty of nature 'ruined', or compromised, by ugly man-made artefacts of industrialisation.

You could take a slightly postmodern angle to the question and acknowledge that 'villains' as such, have traditionally and often appeared more interesting and rounded characters in all narrative art forms. Against a background of accepted morality, artists delineate the destructive non-conformist with relish (just as actors play those parts with relish). These characters make things happen. And thus are the catalyst for the ebb and flow of narrative.

I would summarise by saying Tolkien doesn't 'prove' that Eru is good, or fully explain why and how Melkor is or becomes evil. But like him, most readers have an intuitive acceptance of the conceptual framework (however unsound it might be empirically), and in our different ways we can work through the tortuous opening chapters and pretty much end up where Tolkien wants us to be when the real storytelling begins (not before time).

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Lord Gothmog]

Ancalagon's Fire.

I agree with you about the way Eru is portrayed in the Silmarillion. He does not come across as compatible with the Traditional Christian God. As I have said before, Tolkien drew upon far more that just Christian traditions to write these books. However, I disagree about your view that Light and Dark are no more than Good and Evil. I do not believe that having Darkness predetermines your course, only that it tends to guide you in that way. In Melkor's case indeed it cannot even be said that he was totally Dark.

To Melkor among the Ainur had been given the greatest gifts of power and knowledge, and he had a share in all the gifts of his brethren.

So for Melkor to have a share in all the gifts of his brethren would mean that to some extent he had a Light side also. To account for his turning his gifts to Evil, we must look at more than just the fact that there was darkness in his make-up.

He had gone often alone into the void, and he was impatient of its emptiness. Yet he found not the Fire, for it is with Ilúvatar. But being alone he had begun to conceive thoughts of his own unlike those of his brethren.

It was at this point, in my view that he started down the path to Evil. Had he remained with the rest of the Ainur, he may not have conceived the thoughts that finally set him apart from the followers of Eru's plan for Arda. He might have been then, as he was in the beginning, the Greatest of the Ainur and the greatest of the Valar.

You say.

Yet still, even before the music, Melkor had the capacity to hate. What exactly was it that Yavanna knew?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
for Melkor she knew from before the making of the Music and rejected him, and he hated her.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What had she known about Melkor if not that in his very essence he was evil, not dark.

Yavanna rejected Melkor before the making of the Music because he was Evil I agree. However, I ask 'How long before the making of the Music was it that Yavanna rejected him for this reason. At first she may have been repelled by the Darkness within him, and later, after he had gone alone into the void, when he had turned to evil she totally rejected him. This would have still been before the Making of the Music, but some time after the beginnings of the Ainur. So In his very essence at the beginning, he would not have been Evil, he would have only had a tendency to that way, the Evil would have come later by his choices. It might even be the case that the rejection by Yavanna was the final straw that turned him completely. He could not have the love and respect of Yavanna so he went totally against those who would become the Valar.

You next say.

Manwë knew not evil and could not understand it, therefore he is inherently good, not light. This in turn means he is easily deceived by Melkor. This presents another question as to whether one actually views Manwë as good, because his decisions were not entirely rational and forgiving.

You have in this paragraph given the very reason why I chose to use the terms "Light" and "Dark" instead of "Good" and "Evil". Manwë and Melkor were the extreme ends of the spectrum of "Light" to "Dark". You say at the beginning that Manwë is "Good" not "Light" then ask if Manwë can be "Good". No, his decisions were not entirely rational and forgiving, the very fact that he was as far or even further into the Light as Melkor was into the Dark means that there is a danger that he could be as much of a dictator as Melkor, and even worse for the peoples of Middle-earth. Anything taken to the extreme can become Evil. In Manwë's case I think it was only that he did not have as much "Free Will" as Melkor that prevented him from going to the point of doing Evil for Good intentions.

finally you ask.

My question now leads me to ask why does evil need to be personified in Melkor, yet good is not so easily personified, but measured?

In the case of Evil being personified in Melkor while Good is not. Melkor is the Most Dark, Manwë is the Most Light, in between there are all the rest of the Ainur. Of those who came to Arda, the rest of the Valar, the Maiar, the Servants of Morgoth (Sauron, Balrogs and all others) show that Light or Dark, both are measured from one extreme to the other. it is only the each end that is personified.

And I give to you another question that arises from this.

Is being the "Greatest" a guarantee of Goodness or of Evilness?

Melkor was the "Greatest" of the Ainur. Later we have Féanor being called the "Greatest" of the Elves. Both fell from the hights of Greatness to the utter depths of Darkness. Is there a link between them and their "Greatness".
[img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Kalessin]

Interesting post, Lord Gothmog. Perhaps I should move my response to Ancalagon so that it follows yours, as we are both addressing the specific points he raised, but my interpretation also applies to your analysis [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] However, I have been attempting to refine my ideas on this a little, so here goes ...

(Eru) does not come across as compatible with the Traditional Christian God. As I have said before, Tolkien drew upon far more that just Christian traditions to write these books

In his letter to Milton Waldman Tolkien writes that the divinity of The Silmarillion are -
" ... beings of the same order of beauty, power, and majesty as the 'gods' of higher mythology, which can yet be accepted ... by a mind that believes in the Blessed Trinity."

I think this partly validates your point about the range of mythic influences. And his creation myth is clearly not an intended allegory of the Book of Genesis. However, Tolkien's last point is a key one, that I referred to in my previous post. In the end, the divine concept at work is one that can be 'accepted' by a Christian. Now, I have Spinoza floating around my head at the moment, so forgive my references from now on [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] ... but given the Christian concept of the divine as perfect, infinite, complete and all-encompassing, both the source and essence of everything (in contrast to a number of other mythic cosmogonies), this inevitably implies that a believer in the Blessed Trinity (such as Tolkien, or the audience he expected) would conceive of Eru and the creation as something comparable or approaching a Christian conception. NOT as allegory, clearly, but something that could be accepted intuitively (by virtue of culture or faith). Zeus, with his philandering interventions, or the Tuatha de Danaan, with their disinterested secretiveness, for example, are far more detached and finite than the Spinoza model of divinity, and thus much further from Tolkien's conception than the Judeo-Christian model.

I realise from re-reading Tolkien's letter that he also directly addresses the inception of Evil, thus -
" ... the problem: that this frightful evil can and does arise from an apparently good root ... is a recurrent motive.". He footnotes this with a specific reference to Melkor - " ... the Beginner of Evil: his was a sub-creative Fall ...".

I think this illustrates my point in answer to Ancalagon. Tolkien 'outlines' what happens, that Melkor is the beginner of evil, and that a contradiction exists between utopia as a causality of discord. This issue we know, as it forms the substance of this thread. But he does NOT resolve the issues philosophically (ie. logically, or with a priori rationalisation).

In this, as I argued, he in effect mirrors Christian mythos in providing an effect - a structure of 'truth' - but WITHOUT a rationalised or necessary causality. That is why I think the 'varying degrees of dark and light' or 'darkness contains some light' extrapolations and speculations are interesting, but don't apply to The Silmarillion. They are a construct we are attempting to overlay on what is an essentially a 'mysterious' myth of origin, yet one that is accessible by virtue of its Christian (and to a lesser extent, other mythological) connotations. It seems to me that, even taking Christianity out of the equation, Tolkien's myth of origin taken at face value represents a 'truth' so distant, infinite and outside our perceptive plane that it is pretty much antithetical to scientific rationalism or the kind of logically arising causality that our attempts to extrapolate infer. Christianity is at least an effective model to illustrate such a possibility.

Had (Melkor) remained with the rest of the Ainur, he may not have conceived the thoughts that finally set him apart ...

The "what-if?" causal speculation is also interesting, but I think all what-ifs arising from the narrative should take account of the nature of the work. I spoke above about the relish of narrative artists in personifying and delineating Evil, and that narrative catalyst was the essence of a good story. I see that Tolkien himself said -
" There cannot be any 'story' without a fall - all stories are ultimately about the fall ...".
My argument is in line with this.

The key discussion is whether The Silmarillion acts primarily as a narrative in which the myth of origin initiates and encircles all ensuing 'adventures' - this is my position - or whether the myth of origin is complete and comprehensive in a philosophical sense, and therefore allows all qualities of the subsequent events to be explained by and within it.

If the first notion is valid (or "more valid", if you like, I'm not proud), then it is as literary device that Tolkien's cosmogony must be first considered. This then allows us to leave the contradictions unresolved (in the light of his, and our, cultural context) but to intuitively absorb the imaginative nature of his vision (as readers), and therefore accept the dramatic backdrop to individual storylines.

However, for the second conception to work, we MUST find philosophical resolutions and "inevitability" throughout the work - and all narrative events must have 'self-evidence' in the context of the structure of existence in the work (and in the work alone). And as this thread shows, we cannot extrapolate or even fully explain the cosmogony or subsequent events in those terms. We can only add our external interpretations, which as I have said I do find very stimulating!

Is being the "Greatest" a guarantee of Goodness or of Evilness?

I like this. It is, in effect, the same question as "How do I know God is Good?". Perhaps Spinoza is again relevant here (sorry, I'll move on soon [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ) ...

In order to find a way to justify or prove the existence of God, the philosophers (ie. the scientists of their day) originating the 'ontological' argument, and subsequent variations to the same end, formulated a conception of God as "the greatest" (and absolute, complete, perfect, infinite and immeasurable etc.). More precisely, God is (and can only be) "something that there can be nothing greater than". If you think this God does not exist, that in effect means God only exists in your mind. If God exists in your mind, He nonetheless exists. But, since nothing can be greater than God, for Him to exist only in your mind is illogical (absurd, since there can obviously be something greater than existence in your mind alone), and therefore He must "actually" exist as defined.

This argument is irrefutable with classical logic but is not satisfactory. It seems more like a trick than a rational method of explanation. However, along with the "since nothing exists that disproves God, He necessarily exists as the essence of everything" (I won't go into that one) argument, it really provided the basis for Western Christian philosophy (and by collective culturality our inherited assumptions about the divine).

However, this development brought another problem. If God is infinite and all-encompassing, then Evil must be as much "of" God as well as Good. The traditional notion of Original Sin, or the Biblical distinction between immorality and perfection that allows God to 'judge' man (collectively and individually) is utterly irreconcilable.

This is the problem we are wrestling with here as a result of Tolkien's apparently unresolved causality - and it is the nub of the interesting questions.

To address it, philosophers had to therefore accept the 'lesser of two evils', so to speak, and here's where Spinoza comes in. He was one of the first to argue that Good and Evil do not "exist" in their traditional sense. They are perceptions (ie. they are our interpretation, no more) of the effect that particular actions or circumstances have upon us. The first hint of 'moral relativism', if you like, circa the mid-1600s. But this was an understandable development. The 'two evils' comment indicates that it was better to have a rationalist argument which proved the existence of God, but necessarily made Good and Evil relative to humanity, rather than a divine concept that was a 'house of cards' in the face of logical enquiry.

Of course, we have progressed a long way since, philosophically and otherwise [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] . It is pretty much accepted now that to be a Christian is defined by an act of blind faith (as Gilthalion says, there is no other kind) and for that faith to transcend (or exist outside) the rationalised perceptions and day-to-day empiricism with which we live our lives. It's very much an "all-or-nothing" scenario, which allows Christians to accept the Biblical framework in which God is both infinite and omnipotent yet quintessentially Good and not Evil, where Evil acts against the will of God in man (and often succeeds) yet is not the result of God. And so on [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Apologies for the length, mea culpa, I singularly lack succinctness - but I wanted to address the pure Tolkien aspects and the equally fascinating generalities you guys have touched on. Thanks for making it a great discussion, and respect for your excellent and articulate contributions [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Peace

[ May 17, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[The Silver-shod Muse]

How bout this? It's from the chapter of the Sil 'Of Feanor and the Unchaining of Melkor':

"For Manwe was free from evil and could not comprehend it, and he knew that in the beginning, in the thought of Iluvatar, Melkor had been even as he"

This means that in the "thought of Iluvatar", Melkor had been good or light or protagonistic or whatever you want to call it, just as Manwe was. It may have been Melkor's doom to become corrupted, but it still came about because of his own decisions.

[ May 17, 2002: Message edited by: The Silver-shod Muse ]

Tolkien created a world where "free will" existed "within bounds". I find it absurd for someone to argue that Melkor acted absolutely within the realm of "free will" and absent any predestined direction from the top, so to speak. Eru was the planner. From his mind sprung the Ainur (the activators of the plan). Had Melkor not sowed discord and "revealed" (not created) evil... what kind of world would Middle-earth (or any other world for that matter) have been? Let's see... good, good, good, good, good...... nothing but good.

I disagree with a previous poster who stated that Eastern Philosphy is not present in Tolkien's works. I think yin and yang dominate Tolkien's works just as the dominate the Christian world (albeit unknowingly to most Christians). Eru created the potential for evil in Melkor so that all the testing that must go on in the Human/Elf/Dwarf/Hobbit/Orc/ experience would lead to the betterment of one's existence/soul/race etc.

A world without evil = a world without soul.

[Kalessin]

Harad [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

I think yin and yang dominate Tolkien's works just as the dominate the Christian world (albeit unknowingly to most Christians).

I'm not sure about either point. If by yin and yang you mean an equilibrium arising from oppositional forces, and/or that everything exists must have an opposite (male/female, dark/light etc.), I'd have to say that this is not articulated in Tolkien's narrative or his contextual writing. Given his careful consideration of morality and the nature of myth, it seems unbelievable that he would not mention this conception or offer more obvious pointers.

Your second point is equally problematic. It's a bit like saying Jesus or a Judeo-Christian God dominate the Buddhist world, albeit unknowingly to Buddhists. If you have a faith that excludes other belief systems, then of course you can argue that other beliefs are merely modes of interpretation or awareness. For example, a Christian could easily argue that as God created everything, and gave mankind free will, all human beings live and act by the grace of God and in his image etc. A Buddhist might argue that God is merely the understandable personification of the self as divine, or at a most abstract level (infinite, and outside of existence) a mythologised aspiration to liberation or nirvana.

Most faiths could claim that all the others are unknowing vessels of their particular worldview. However, I don't like these arguments, and really they don't help in a down-to-earth analysis of Tolkien. Whilst you see things in Tolkien or Christianity that to you resonate elements of Chinese mysticism, others will see an absolute affirmation of their "born-again" Christianity, atheists or secular humanists will see something else, and so on. I'm not convinced anyone can 'prove' that they are right and everyone else is wrong, outside the walls of faith.

Eru created the potential for evil in Melkor so that all the testing that must go on in the Human/Elf/Dwarf/Hobbit/Orc/ experience would lead to the betterment of one's existence/soul/race etc.

Again, this is just NOT articulated anywhere. In my earlier post, I quoted Tolkien's exact words - "(Melkor is) the Beginner of Evil; his was a sub-creative Fall". That is about as explicit and straightforward as you can get. As far as Tolkien is concerned (and he wrote the darn book [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] ), Melkor's acts stem from Melkor, not Eru, and are not part of some divine Darwinian testing.

As I keep saying, we are overlaying and extrapolating on this with ideas that are interesting but cannot be authoritative. The Christian model - and its unresolved contradiction of omnipotence and free will - provide us with, I believe, the closest approximation to Tolkien's conception, but no more than that ... a vehicle for appreciation, if you will. The Silmarillion was neither allegory not evangelism. But from an academic standpoint, Tolkien's own culture and beliefs (and his contextual writings) are reasonably the most pertinent framework.

Why do we feel such a need to complete the parts of the puzzle that Tolkien left incomplete? Perhaps it is the joy of his (or any) great work that through reading, we enter it as it enters us, and experience an unchallenged personal sense of identification and understanding.
I'm not sure. But as I said, he was a writer - and absolutely not a philosopher [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] Watch out, or I'll have to unleash more Spinoza upon the boards [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Peace

[ May 17, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Kuruharan]

Why do we feel such a need to complete the parts of the puzzle that Tolkien left incomplete? Perhaps it is the joy of his (or any) great work that through reading, we enter it as it enters us, and experience an unchallenged personal sense of identification and understanding.

Or...

1) We have too much time on our hands. [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

2) We have so much to do that we simply drop everything else to do something fun for a while. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] I mean, after all, if you can't get it all done, why run yourself ragged trying to? Not that I'm rationalizing for my chronic procrastination or anything like that...no...not at all... [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Actually, you are probably right on part of the reason why we love his works so much. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[piosenniel]

I was thinking about the original question more in terms of St. Augustine vs. Manicheism.

In Manicheism [which might be seen as a combination of pagan,Zoroastrian, & Gnostic Christian elements]'good' and 'evil' are a duality, two opposing principles of light and darkness, god and devil, soul and body. These two principles are coexistent, objective realities which strive for control.

Opposed to this view, was the view of St. Augustine whose basic premise was that there is only God and from him proceeds creation. God and the actions of God(since there is nothing 'other'with which to compare) are the primary standard for what is subjectively called 'good'. All creatures are variations of this good according to the choices made by them through the grace of free will. There is no objective 'evil' only shadings of the original good; subjective reactions against the 'good' of the Creator.

Tolkien, it seems to me, attempts an uneven balance between these two poles of thought. There are objective, real examples of evil - the Ring, for one, and even Morgoth and his twisted creations which have fallen so far from the good. But still it is 'good' of the Creator which is always the final standard for the outcome. Underlying all creation is the hand of Providence, continuously offering moments of grace and light as needed.

Morgoth, imo, is not/cannot be evil by nature. His nature is Eru's nature; & Eru's nature is the standard for the subjectively termed 'good'.

Is Morgoth evil by choice? If you mean by this does he deny 'good' and choose 'evil', I would say he can't even do this - there is no 'evil' to choose.

Morgoth is termed 'evil' because his choice of actions are for those actions opposed to the will of Eru. Given the possibility of grace and the underlying pervasiveness of Providence, even Morgoth has potential for an epiphany and for redemption.

[Amarinth]

whew! kalessin brings the house down once more [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] and after that this certainly becomes trite, but...

lord gothmog -- in answer to your inquiry, methinks melkor is evil by will.

[Lord Gothmog]

lord gothmog -- in answer to your inquiry, methinks melkor is evil by will.

Amarinth,
In giving the above answer, you are in fact agreeing with my basic answer to the question put forward by Ancalagon's Fire, as it was he who started this thread. However, I am happy that you do indeed agree with me.
[img]smilies/cool.gif[/img]

[Daniel Telcontar]

You have all spoken well, and I apologize if my arguments have already been posted. But I believe that Melkor was evil by will, because:
He was the greatest of the ainur, so it must have made him mad when Manwë became the highest ranking, because he understood Eru better.
if it was because he was enviuos, I doubt that it was something in his nature. Eru had chosen Manwë to be his closest servant;
If Melkor was like Eru in mind, he would have been pleased, hence I do not believe that he was evil by nature, but something he chose because he did not follow Eru faithfully, but walked his own path.

[greyhavener]

Tolkien's a writer, not a theologian. Archetects who are Christians don't just build churches. Writers who are Christians don't just write Christian books. I think as a student of folklore Tolkien blended a lot of elements from several cultures into his stories. I tend to agree with whoever said Eru being the source of evil sort of cheapens Frodo's struggle up Mount Doom.

As far as Christianity is concerned I think whoever brought up Mystery is onto something. I'd like to add another concept to that: Trust and Faith. I choose to use my free will to believe that God is the origin of all good and that evil cannot exist in His presence. As a creation I am not privy to the entire mind or motives of the Creator, but I choose to trust and cooperate with Him. I'll let Him keep His position as Guy in Charge.

My best understanding of this question of evil would be to begin with God's nature. A relationship with any being that would satisfy a Him whose nature is Love must include freedom to return that love at will. In that freedom there is a potential to reject. The result of that rejection is ultimately evil. God perhaps created the potential for evil in allowing for possible rejection, however I think that His nature would not allow for enslavement, another evil. Free will must have extended even to the angels, since one-third followed Lucifer. Lucifer chose to reject God in his refusal to accept his position (which was top angel by the way--second or fourth from the top depending on how you view the Trinity). Instead he wanted to be equal to His own Creator. I don't even know if he had an agenda for change in heaven, he just wanted to be in charge. I doubt he found his separation from God or his resulting position as head evil guy satisfying. I doubt the other angels are particularly cooperative seeing they all want to be in charge themselves. The temptation in the garden was perhaps the same sort of temptation..."you can know what God knows." I'm no theologian, that's just my take on it. This is a wonderfully thought provoking discussion. Everyone that's posted has given me something to ponder. Thanks.

[ May 18, 2002: Message edited by: greyhavener ]

[Daniel Telcontar]

You are taking the words out of my mouth, Greyhavener. I could not have expressed it better myself. Now I only hope someone disagrees, so we can continue this discussion. [img]smilies/cool.gif[/img]

[VanimaEdhel]

As many have said (I just wanted to say something), Melkor/Morgoth was given a choice , and he chose evil. It is much like the human race here, I believe (except very not like in practice). We are all born with the ability to be good and the ability to be evil. Morgoth was given that choice by Iluvatar/Eru...and he chose evil...well, he chose fear and jealousy, which became evil.

[Grendel]

I havn't read all that is written in the above discussion, so someone may already have pointed this out. Forgive me for being inexact, but there is a point in the LotR where Gandalf says something along the lines of " ... nothing is evil in the beginning..". I don't think it is far from the mark to suggest that Gandalf is the LotR ME spokesman for all that is good and wise regarding ME. Even Elrond gives way to his counsel (e.g. concerning M & P's presence as part of the 9 walkers). Since we are thus led to trust Gandalf as the number one voice, at least in LotR,this in turn gives us some indication of what Tolkien intended concerning the nature of reality,good, evil etc. in and around ME. So, Melkor was not evil in the beginning. This, I would suggest, means that he was not created evil, but became evil by choice. To pinpoint will as the cause of this, I would point out that both Gandalf and Galadriel refused the ring on the grounds that they would, essentially, become evil if they possessed it. Therefore the potential for evil exists even in the purest characters, while gandalf's hope for Gollum's cure in the care of the woodelves suggests that the opposite potential for good exists even in evil characters. It is all a matter of choice.
In short, evil or good in ME is by will, not by nature. Tolkien intended Melkor and gollum to be evil, not illuvatar.

[stone of vision]

Passionate and open thread! I'm impressed by so deep insights.

Bienvenue Grendel from Duc William the conqueror's dukedom [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Kalessin about Tolkien's work not only

we enter it as it enters us, and experience an unchallenged personal sense of identification and understanding.

but it grows in you and you grow with it.

Pertinent and fascinating points were unraveled about Melkor and I'm sure, encouraging them, that others various arguments/thoughts will come still in the future as our perception will evolve with our experience.

I can't give a complete opinion about Melkor because I haven't found some parts of the puzzle in the background of my own perspectives and for the moment it is just a rough:

Melkor might have made the choice to be the anthesis of what he was destined to by Eru, because he is not Eru but just a part of him.
A part of the puzzle Eru, which is not allowed to have the complete vision. So he doesn't know where is his place and looks deseperatly for it even if it means to create his own place in the puzzle.

The question could also be ask as who from Eru/ Melkor create what Morgoth was with the hunch that both of them are involved...

Out of topic:

Kelessin:
A Buddhist might argue that God is merely the understandable personification of the self as divine, or at a most abstract level (infinite, and outside of existence) a mythologised aspiration to liberation or nirvana.

The notion God/ buddhism questions me :
Wouldn't it be an occidental vision which often considers Buddism as equivalent of a religion in the sense Christian, Islam are a religion?
For the people who grew with buddism preceptes, it is rather like a way of life, moral and thinking than a "faith" in a omniscient and all creative Power upper humanity.
Buddha was a man and his story is the story of a human being 's evolution. By loosing all his samsara (material world) attributes,he succeeded in reaching a state of spiritual essence, part of the nothingness Nirvana. Nirvana where he would be freed from of all human pains and desires.

I don't really know if the ones who reach nirvana might be called" a personification of their self as divine" as they are in a abslolute dimension ,from my pov of the oriental view, where no gods even exists.
One of my feelings is:
Occidental beliefs tend to think that God is that absolute, Oriental ones that absolute is above godS.

Ok, that maybe geeky after all! [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

[Kalessin]

Interesting ...

Wouldn't it be an occidental vision which often considers Buddism as equivalent of a religion in the sense Christian, Islam are a religion?

Yes, perhaps, as a form of outdated cultural rationalisation. However, as I said earlier, Spinoza and the other Christian philosophers moved on from the idea of a highly personified God and posited a kind of "infinite essence-of-everything that is God".

So perhaps they key difference is in the idea of 'something' that IS outside all of our perceptions and existence (ie. a basic Judeo-Christian starting point), and the idea that there is 'nothing' outside, and that the 'nothing' is in fact a liberation from the cycle of karma (ie. a basic traditional Buddhist perspective).

My point was an advocate from either camp could argue that the eternal 'something' and the eternal 'nothing' were, in terms of the human psyche, fulfilling the same role.

One of my feelings is: Occidental beliefs tend to think that God is that absolute, Oriental ones that absolute is above gods.

Possibly, although I think one gets into definition of terms here. I think there's also a danger of over-simplification, and I am conscious of that when commenting on world religions or beliefs, all of which have a multitude and range of interpretations and manifestations, despite apparent similarities or a shared origin. There is a world of difference between the Buddhism now popular among non-Asians in the West, and, for example, the traditional cultural model in Thailand. Just as there is between Catholicism and Judaism.

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[akhtene]

Uph, read so much and got so many fresh and inspiring ideas.Probably given free will by his creator it was Melkor's choice to turn to "evil"

But don't you find that Melkor is the only one,besides Eru himself, who really makes any choice?Others seem to accept or follow the Maker's Plan, or their given nature; some are led by fate, chosen or doomed.

Wrote this and decided to quickly look through the book. And what I came across?

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

from Ainulindale

So maybe even he wasn't given any choice?

[ May 19, 2002: Message edited by: akhtene ]

[Daniel Telcontar]

Melkor was given a choice. He made his own music into the great theme, thus planting disharmony. And many ainur followed him in rebellion against Eru, by choice. And when Eru says, that Melkor's evil plans are in fact Eru's plan, he means that he can turn Melkor's evildoing into something good.

[Lord Gothmog]

Kalessin

When you use the letter refering to something being accepted, this does not mean that the view of Eru is automaticaly going to be that of the Christian God. To use this argument is to say that the "Intended or Expected Audience" would be made up of those who had closed minds and Narrow view-points. The choice of Zeus and the Tuatha de Danaan, makes it seem that the only choice allowed is either to be the 'Perfect' good of the traditional Christian God or the exessivness of the most outrageous types of god. There is a middle ground which while allowing for darkness in the Godhead still has that God being a God of Good. This would be acceptable to many Christian peoples in a work of Fantasy, as it does not put Evil into the God only Knowledge of Evil. Many Christians Accept Mythological Deities as they are not required to believe in them, so a slightly less than perfect Godhead in a story can still be acceptable without claiming to be in the Same Position as the Christian God. If Eru was shown as haveing an "Evil" side to him, then no doubt many devout Christians would have trouble with this view. However, there is nothing to show that Eru was in any way "Evil" in fact to have a "Darkness" within and still be "Good" showes that Good is the more powerful side. Therefore that Evil will not triumph.

In reference to your comment about Melkor being the beginner of evil. I do not dispute this, I only dispute where the ability to begin the evil came from. In my view that ability came from Eru. As for the 'varying degrees of dark and light' I find that in my reading of the books, this very thing shows through in the way the various characters are portrayed in the writings. Other than Melkor and Manwe, All the other Valar and Maiar who are given enough space in the story are shown to be well rounded characters with good and bad, otherwise shown as Light and/or Dark in their make-up. This is to be sure only my view of the way they appear. As for "even taking Christianity out of the equation", I have said that Tolkien was using what he concidered to be the Truths Behind Christianity and other Religions and Mythologies. You say that Christianity is an effective model, I say that many Religions can do the same as these Truths lie behind many belief systems.

For your answer to my "What-if" point. I agree that there would not be a story without the fall of Melkor. The reason I used that "What-if" is to show that if Melkor had not been given the chance within the story to "Go alone into the Void" then the Fall might not have happened and there would have been no story, hence my view that Melkor was not evil at the begining but had knowledge of evil. In going away from the rest of the Ainur, he gained the chance to explore this knowledge and to turn to evil by his choices. Thereby also showing that the "Evil" did not come from Eru as it would have done if Melkor had been "Evil by Nature".

Is being the "Greatest" a guarantee of Goodness or of Evilness?

This question was even simpler than you thought. I was refering to Tolkien's work only in that Two beings in the work are described in the Book as "The Greatest in their begining", Melkor Greatest of the Ainur, Feanor Greatest of the Elves. Both fell from their hights. Is it Tolkiens idea that too much greatness will lead to a fall? If this is so, then it too can find acceptance in both oriental and occidental beliefs. In western view, Pride Goeth before a Fall. In Eastern Yin/Yang views, When all is Yin it becomes Yang, when all is Yang it becomes to Yin. Both of these views are entirely compatible with the "Greatest" of both the Ainur and of the Elves turning from the path of Good to Evil ways.
To be of Any religion requires an act of Blind Faith. It is this that defines a follower of a Religion. Other belief systems can be explained from start to finish. In fact taken at face value, The Silmarillion, and to a lesser extent The Lord of the Rings, Has NO RELIGION whatsoever. There is no need for any of the Charaters in the Silmarillion to indulge in an act of Blind Faith as they have met and talked with the Powers of Arda and some of them are still there in Middle-earth in the time of The Lord of the Rings.

akhtene

But don't you find that Melkor is the only one,besides Eru himself, who really makes any choice?Others seem to accept or follow the Maker's Plan, or their given nature; some are led by fate, chosen or doomed.

Many of the Ainur made a choice to follow Melkor.

But he was not alone. for of the Maiar many were drawn to his splendour in the days of his greatness, and remained in that allegiance down into his darkness; and others he corrupted afterwards to his service with lies and treacherous gifts. Dreadful among these spirits were the Valaraukar, the scourges of fire that in Middle-earth were called the Balrogs, demons of terror.
Among those of his servants that have names the greatest was that spirit whom the Eldar called Sauron, of Gorthaur the Cruel.

the Silmarillion: of the Enemies.
The rest Chose to Follow the path of Eru. So All of the Ainur used thair "Free will".

[Kalessin]

Gothmog, thanks for your insights [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

In reference to your comment about Melkor being the beginner of evil. I do not dispute this, I only dispute where the ability to begin the evil came from. In my view that ability came from Eru

Well, I can only go back to Tolkien's words here - both the contextual writing and the narrative itself. At no point is it stated or even intimated that "the ability to begin the evil came from Eru". As I said earlier, Tolkien clearly comments on the apparent contradiction - that Evil can arise from Good - as a recurrent theme, but never addresses it directly.

... to have a "Darkness" within and still be "Good" showes that Good is the more powerful side.

This doesn't follow, certainly not as an a priori statement, and again is not evidenced in the work itself. Tolkien clearly states - and the narrative bears out - the motif of Evil defeated by Evil (itself). It is not necessarily the case that Good is more powerful - it is not the Good that defeats the Evil. It is simply that Evil is ultimately self-destructive. Indeed, without this self-destructive element Evil might well prevail. There are a number of moments where, if Morgoth (or later Sauron) had not made critical mistakes, the battle would have been over and the dark victory complete. You could, I suppose, argue that this in effect means Good is more powerful, but it seems to me a leap of interpretation.

(with reference to 'light and dark') ... I have said that Tolkien was using what he concidered to be the Truths Behind Christianity and other Religions and Mythologies. You say that Christianity is an effective model, I say that many Religions can do the same as these Truths lie behind many belief systems.

I guess I am wary of attempting to place a comprehensive rationalisation (especially a somewhat modern one) over what is an unfinished mythos. To look for a neat and universal causal framework when the author himself acknowledges "contradiction" as a central theme. And the idea that "Christianity and many other religions share" a Godhead in which light and dark coexist is highly contentious - I would expect it to be challenged by those to whom faith is more central. As moral, or philosophical, paradigms, "Pride goeth before a fall" and 'the dominance of Yin thereby becoming Yang' are not at all related, and are rooted in explicitly different worldviews. I suppose I'm just hesitant to attempt to combine these, along with Tolkien's possible themes, or his concept of divinity, into a very modern and inclusive interpretation.

However, I agree (yay [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ) that religion is not part of the culture of the races in the narrative, for the reasons Gothmog mentioned. I'm not sure who was asserting that, it's clearly not the case.

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Lord Gothmog]

Kalessin,

When you say that 'At no point is it stated or even intimated that "the ability to begin the evil came from Eru". ' This is true but it is also true that it is now stated or intimated where this ability comes from. therefore we have this interesting little thread where we all put forth our opinions based on how we read the work.

You could, I suppose, argue that this in effect means Good is more powerful, but it seems to me a leap of interpretation.

It is not a "Leap of Interpretation" but simply My interpretation. I may be right or wrong in how I view what I read, but the views I have expressed here are only mine.

I guess I am wary of attempting to place a comprehensive rationalisation (especially a somewhat modern one) over what is an unfinished mythos. To look for a neat and universal causal framework when the author himself acknowledges "contradiction" as a central theme. And the idea that "Christianity and many other religions share" a Godhead in which light and dark coexist is highly contentious - I would expect it to be challenged by those to whom faith is more central. As moral, or philosophical, paradigms, "Pride goeth before a fall" and 'the dominance of Yin thereby becoming Yang' are not at all related, and are rooted in explicitly different worldviews. I suppose I'm just hesitant to attempt to combine these, along with Tolkien's possible themes, or his concept of divinity, into a very modern and inclusive interpretation.

It seems that I was not as clear in my writing as I had thought. I never claimed that Christianity, or in deed any particular religion had a Godhead in which Light and dark co-exist. I was refering to the Truths striped of all religious conotations that Tolkien used as the basis of his charaterisatons. That of Goodness, Mercy and others. It is these that are shared to some extent by defferent religions, the godhead of each can be and will be different. Christianity claims a perfect God, I cannot dispute this as I have never met him, other religions have their own views on how their god is but many teach the same basic Truths.
I used the Pride quote as equal to the Yin Yang only in respect to the case of "The Greatest in their begining also Falling, as in both cases the being were called the Greatest of his people only to become the worst. It was not intended to claim that these statements were equivilent in any other cases. I am sorry if I gave the impression that I was trying to prove otherwise. This does not have a problem with the differing World views of east and west, it shows that in certain cases there is more similarity than is at first seen. I hope that I have cleared up any missconceptions from my privious post.

I know that you concider this to be a very modern view, however, as I am a somewhat modern person, this has to be as I have difficulty holding other views than my own. We are all the sum of our experiences and we bring this to our reading of Tolkien's work. The very fact that we can all find so much in such a few books shows the quality of the work and the lack of limitations placed on that work by the Author. We should all take a moment to concider that and give thanks that it is so.

[Kalessin]

An interesting thread [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

... the lack of limitations placed on that work by the Author. We should all take a moment to concider that and give thanks that it is so.

I agree, and that is in a way the basis of my point. Like any great work, Tolkien's LotR draws us in, and we feel both some kind of implicit and personal understanding of, and indentification with, the narrative. And from there comes our analytical interpretation of his words in our own way, and our desire to discuss (and argue) the possible meanings etc. here amongst people who share the respect and admiration for his writing.

To me, in many ways the mystery and 'lack of limitations' are part of the magic and universality of the books. For example, I have had plenty of arguments on these boards with people who assert that his narratives are explicitly Christian apologia. I may think one thing, and they another, but we are all entitled to hold, and share, our differing views. The point is that they are indeed our views, and sometimes fairly tenuously related to the conceptions of Tolkien himself, which is why I quite like to leave some room for that individual magic, to allow imagination (mine, or any reader's) to make the most of his narratives.

Where the discussion becomes particularly analytical ie. "Tolkien wrote this because he thought that" etc., or "Although Tolkien didn't say so, his work is definitely a Buddhist allegory" etc., [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] then in my view a good solid debate will involve some challenging or oppositional insights. The last thing I want is to join a self-congratulatory clique, and unlike many similar ventures the Barrow-Downs boards are wonderfully diverse and full of clever people (such as you) and argumentative people (such as me [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] ).

My points in answer to your various posts were really along those lines - that we can of course place our own extended or extrapolated theories upon Tolkien's cosmology, "filling in the gaps", so to speak (and, yours included, these are often thought-provoking and well articulated) - but that this should from time to time be put in the context of the author and his work itself. Partly, simply, to maintain the 'lack of limitations' for which, like you, I am thankful [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Compliments again on the intelligent and insightful contributions to this thread [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Ancalagon'sFire]

Following a discussion with Lord Gothmog, one of the main contributers to this thread, I decided to give it a little nudge as we feel the matter has yet to be resolved. Possibly some new blood may bring new thoughts while more deliberations take place by those who have battled it out thus far [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Arvedui]

You definitly have to agree that the parallels betwen the first chapter of the Silmarillion and Genesis are there. It is the classic 'freewill' argument that pervades Christianity today. was he evil in the beginning when he was created or did his pride drive him to evil, etc. a lot to read over here, and some good arguments! I'll write more later but the dinner needs tending.

[Ancalagon'sFire]

In the latter the Fall of Man is subsequent to and a consequence (though not a necessary consequence) of the 'Fall of the Angels' : a rebellion of created free-will at a higher level than Man; but it is not clearly held (and in many versions is not held at all) that this affected the 'World' in its nature: evil was brought in from outside, by Satan. In this Myth the rebellion of created free-will precedes creation of the World (Eä); and Eä has in it, subcreatively introduced, evil, rebellions, discordant elements of its own nature already when the Let it Be was spoken. The Fall or corruption, therefore, of all things in it and all inhabitants of it, was a possibility if not inevitable.

Letter 212
Herein lies the essence that differentiates Genesis from Tolkiens own creation, shown in Ainulindale. Interestingly, he suggests himself that the corruption of all things was not only a possiblity, but more likely an inevitability, of which Melkor was the chief protagonist. Was it through choice that he was the protagonist or was it the route pre-ordained for him?

[Nils]

The corruption of Ea was due to the Music. It was sung wrong, therefore evil was woven into the very fabrics of Ea.

From "Of the Beginning of Days"

Therefore he(Eru) willed that the hearts of Men should seek beyond the world and should find no rest therein; but they should have a virtue to shape their life, amid the powers and chances of the world, beyond the Music of the Ainur, which is as fate to all things else; and of their operation everything should be, in form and deed, completed, and the world fulfilled unto the last and smallest.

Melkor's fall was not a result of the Music. Therefore, I'd say that Melkor's reason for being evil is not the same reason that some of the creatures of Middle-earth would be evil.

I believe Melkor became evil because he fell to the temptation of the creator. He believed that what he created was his to control. He forgot that everything belonged to Eru. Because of this error, he longed to control what he had no right to control. He rejected Eru's way for his own, thereby becoming evil.