And Eru Smiled

[Iarwain]

Somehow, upon pondering existence a few days ago, I (again, somehow) arrived at the fascinating conclusion that Good and Evil are not perfect opposites. Perhaps I could spend a few pages discussing some philosophical proofs (if such things exist) that verify my conclusion, but perhaps not (you, reading, will know better than I). I will, at least, begin with an explaination and (inevitably) digress from there. Be warned, this will likely become a sort of theology for Middle-Earth ( hmm. that doesn't sound very good, does it?).

As Middle-Earth is inescapably tied to a reality of "ethical monotheism," all things inevitably find their roots in the divinity who presides over it (Eru), and, just for clarity, as it is ethical monotheism, and not dualism in any way, all things, in origin, are "good". I may be quite incorrect here, but it seems to me that within M-E, Arda, Ea, etc. Eru is both omnipotent and omniscient, and existence as a whole is within his sphere of influence. In the end, we could probably argue (and we will) that all existence is a part of Eru himself.


Yes, well, anyway, back to all beings being (in origin) "good." In the Ainulindale we saw the beginning of Melkor's corruption, his first greed, jealousy, etc., which led centrally to his dischord, bringing an end to the first theme. The battle (if it can be termed as such) was fought in the second theme, and Melkor's dischord was overwhelmed by and absorbed into the third theme.

I seem to be jumping about an awful lot, so I'll just get to the point. Here is my theory, in three points:

1: Because of the providence of Eru, the origin of all things is good

2: Because of the corruption of some created beings, evil exists as (primarily) greed, pride, and fear (from which flow hate, etc.) and drives thoseof it to attempt to separate themselves and be independant of Eru. This constitutes a sort of spiritual suicide, since all existence is a part of Eru.

3: But, becaue of the mercy of Eru, and the rational nature of existence, this is impossible, and the fundamental good found in evil beings, actions, etc. is restored back into the harmony of divine exitence, while the evil ceases to exist of its own accord.

Note: by providence, i mean merely that Eru is in control throughout existence, I don't mean the Calvinist principles of predestination, though that will be argued when I return.

Please enjoy,
Iarwain



P.S. I've done a quick read through, and I believe I've caught most misspellings. It's almost funny how themed most of my threads are.

P.P.S. For a discussion on "goodness," see "All those 'Good' Guys."

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Very interesting post above. A few brief comments:
It seems to me clear that Middle-earth is not manichæist in philosophy. The primary cause of evil in Middle-earth (aside from its being rather necessary for a ripping good yarn) is free will. In some other forums some have argued for what seems to me to be a form of dualism in Ea, but I see JRRT accomodating free will with Ea being essentially "good". Two examples: Gandalf says somewhere in LOTR that he will not have wholly failed if anything fair survives (to me implying an eventually resurgence of good even if Sauron triumphed in the War of the Ring), and Iluvatar's comments to Melkor in the Ainulindale:
"And thou, Melkor, shall see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined."

This doesn't mean that rational creatures cannot do evil that negatively effects others and the world, but rather that (eventually) this evil will be redressed.

I hope this isn't too much off the topic, but the concept of free will in Middle-earth is interesting and rather ambiguous (especially as related to Turin and his family).

[lindil]

By and large I agree Iarwain, and welcome to the Downs Tuor.

However, I would nitpick the following:

it seems to me that within M-E, Arda, Ea, etc. Eru is both omnipotent and omniscient, and existence as a whole is within his sphere of influence

Eru is not or perhaps it would be better to say that He rarely exercises omnipotence over the freewill of his children.

I rather imagine you already agree with this but I just wanted to underscore it.

[Boromir88]

The point I have noticed is that no matter how "good" someone is there is always that touch of evil in them. And no matter how "evil" someone is there is always good in them.

You have the most powerful "good" people I can come up with right now, just from LOTR here, umm, Galadriel and Gandalf. Galadriel and Gandalf both made it clear that they were "tempted by the ring," now they passed their "tests" and prevailed, but the "temptation" was the little bit of "evil" they have in them. We can make the assumption Bombadil is all good, since he's not persuaded by the ring at all, and the ring has no effect on him. If you ask me Bombadil really couldn't of been Eru, no Istari or Valar, debatable whether he is Maia or Tolkien. Famous Maiar's in the stories fell to evil, not all Maiars were accounted for but seems like Maiar's would be tempted by greed and power. Which leaves me to say Bombadil is Tolkien writing himself into the stories. Anyway I'm getting too far off track.

This leads me to my second point that evil cannot survive without good. No one is born "evil," a 6 month year old isn't going to say "i'm going to murder 11 million people later on in life." Everyone at one point in time was "good." It was their decisions later on, their choices, and their greed, that led them to become evil. So Evil would not exist if it wasn't for good. And it seems like good can't live without evil. Even after all the good years with Elessar as king, I'm sure down the line someone like a Morgoth will say I want all this to myself and turn evil. So, in conclusion Good and Evil "coexist" without one the other just simply doesn't exist. If some of that is confusing just say so I'll try to clear it up, I just kind of threw all my thoughts down at once.

[Son of Númenor]

An interesting and (dare I say it?) good thread idea, Iarwain.

The way I see it, Eru, being the sole Creator, is the lone arbiter of goodness; his will is the only objective measure of what is 'good'. Melkor was the first entity whose will conflicted with Eru's. Ergo, Melkor is evil. Melkor could not exist, nor have a will to oppose the will of the Creator, without the Creator creating him and his will. I have just deductively proven that, in Middle-earth, 'evil' owes its existence to 'good'. Good is Eru's Will, and Evil is an Opposing Will. Any omnipotent and omniscient God is an ethical God, for it is God who decides (in monotheistic theory, of course) the Ethics.

And no sooner had he typed his first paragraph, than he was called away to give counsel on matters of grave importance (Should sun-tan lotion be brought? If so, how much? What SPF? Etc.) Hopefully I'll be able to elaborate, lest each sentence of my post is angrily refuted whilst I am helpless to defend it.

Ciao, Downers.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

...the "temptation" was the little bit of "evil" they have in them. (Boromir88)

I don't think temptation in itself is evil. After, the world's only perfect person was tempted himself.

But I see part of what you mean. Galadriel's temptation...

...when at last all that [Galadriel] had desired in her youth came to her hand, the Ring of Power and the dominion of Middle-earth of which she had dreamed...

(UT II 3 - emphasis mine)

...came from her inherent desire to own the Ring and destroy Sauron with it. A good quest, but the dominion of Middle-earth afterwards?

Gandalf's on the other hand came from his desire to do good. [Sorry, no quotes!] So his temptation is not evil. If he succumbed, he would have thought he did good, then it would get evil quickly.

So there. That's it. all other things that I would have said myself had already been said.

Oh, yeah. Evil never wins.

[Iarwain]

I think I'll respond to Encaitare first, because your post struck me particularly. I disagree with the system you describe:

I guess that Eru is neither good nor evil, he simply is everything... Good and evil need each other to survive, I think, because they play off and feed off of each other. No doubt Eru could destroy Morgoth or any other evil in a second, but he's wise enough to realize that this would throw off the balance that good and evil have, and this would basically wreak havoc on the world. (Encaitare)

But, as Son of Numenor described above, Eru is necessarily good, because good is judged according to the nature of Eru. Also, though you say you agree with me, your post says the opposite in that you think Tolkien's created existence (I'll abbreviate as TCE from now on) is subject to a form a dualism. This, according to my understanding, is not so. In order for it to be true, Melkor and Eru would have to be equals, or a higher being on "Melkor's side" (good and evil would no longer be objective, but subjective- both sides would be "right" according to their diety) would be needed who could and would contend with Eru. However, as TCE stands, Eru is supreme and he stands alone, leaving your statement about "the balance" as a sort of divine masochism. Evil by nature is a disruption in the balance. Eru is perfection (solely because he is Divine), and therefore evil (a rebellion against Eru's will) is utterly imperfect and it wreaks havoc on the world. An instant, forced elimination of evil by Eru would also, however, destroy some good.

This brings me to my "remnants of good." Evil (and Tolkien says this in the letters) can never be complete. The moment a being becomes totally evil is the moment that being ceases to exist, because it has separated itself from Eru, and as Eru is existence, it has also separated itself from existence itself (spiritual suicide). Therefore, it is necessary for all evil beings to have some good in them, otherwise they would not be in the first place. I don't know how else to explain... Hopefully you understand.


Good Day to All!
Iarwain

[davem]

Originally Posted by Iarwain

This brings me to my "remnants of good." Evil (and Tolkien says this in the letters) can never be complete. The moment a being becomes totally evil is the moment that being ceases to exist, because it has separated itself from Eru, and as Eru is existence, it has also separated itself from existence itself (spiritual suicide). Therefore, it is necessary for all evil beings to have some good in them, otherwise they would not be in the first place. I don't know how else to explain... Hopefully you understand.

This is very like Meister Eckhart's idea - God is only aware of 'good', which He holds in existence. To the extent that we are 'good' we are held in being by God. If at any point we were to become wholly evil, God would instantly cease to be aware of us, & consequently of the need to hold us in existence, & we would simply cease to be.

Of course, Eckhart complicates things by saying that God is constantly creating Past, Present & Future from a point outside serial time, so that would require God to be aware of, & be creating, the person the person in the past, while they were good, but not aware of them in the present, when they had ceased to be good & become entirely evil. But you'd think He'd notice something was wrong if the person was there, needing to be created (ie 'held in being') in the 'past', but not there in the 'present' or the 'future', all of which periods would exist for God 'now'.

[Encaitare]

Hmm... fascinating. Perhaps my respose was just me trying to get philosphical and failing

But in response, I don't think it's an actual "dualism" as in Eru has an evil equal or anything, but it seems that in his outline of the Song he has a plan for everything and knows what is going to happen, unlike any of the Valar or Morgoth. He's definitely a good force, but he seems to understand that good and evil both have their place.

Hopefully this clears some stuff up...

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

Iarwain got to this first, but I would also like to share my disagreement. Here are my reasons.

1. Evil did not co-exist with good in the beginning. No-one was evil from the beginning, after all.

2. Evil is but a corruption of good.

First, of course, good would have to be defined in the context of Arda.
What is good? It is the fact that creation - the ability to create and the fruits of the ability - belongs to Eru alone, and that the Children of Ilúvatar deserve life.
So, in this context, how did evil begin? Melkor desired to be creator himself, and when he couldn’t do so, he defaced creation instead.

It is said that Morgoth’s worst evil was the creation of Orcs. Why? Because he corrupted the works of Eru both on the outside and on the inside. By inducing this race to hate, to disrespect others’ right to live, he removed the Orcs’ right to live.

I know this seems wrong, but have you noticed that nobody has called a truce with an Orc? It is because they’d either kill you anyway if you sue for peace, or that they wouldn’t understand your mercy and fight to the death.

3. Good and evil could not co-exist forever. They are both locked in a battle for survival. The history of Middle-earth is a testimony to that. In the end, one would have to be utterly destroyed, and the other would rule. Considering the history of Middle-earth, and Eru himself, we could see the outcome of such a battle.

So, in conclusion: Evil did not share its beginnings with good, and it would not share its end. There is no balance of good and evil in Arda, except maybe that evil should be non-existent.

Oh, Melkor. You naughty, wayward child.

[Encaitare]

Indeed you are correct... as I said, I tried to get philosophical going on my own opinions and it seems that I completely failed to look at things through the Middle-earth lens.

You're right, Nilpaurion, and looking at it in the context of Tolkien's world I'm realizing that you guys have definitely got it here.

Oh, Melkor. You naughty, wayward child.

lol, indeed. Oh well, there's always one

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

Does this wilful act of rebellion put an end to the 'free will' so that, as in the case of Melkor, the rebel can no longer act out of goodness, and is utterly controlled by evil? (SoN)

Well, I think Melkor's consummate fall is not judgment, but foresight. There’s a part in the Gospels where Jesus addresses a group of Pharisees, saying that they could never be saved (or something like that . . . I don’t have exact quotes): I think it’s not that they can’t be saved, but they refuse to. Same as Melkor, perhaps. He is still of Eru. He could be saved. Unfortunately, he’s so consumed with what he wants that he forgot that.

Or perhaps he just no longer comprehends good—cf. Manwë not comprehending evil.

You said "Melkor", Noldo. Noldor don't say that.

Oops.