Sauron vs. Your Mama - A Discussion of Power in Middle-earth

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

. Also, such analysis is bound to reach only one conclusion in order to be coherent with Tolkien's larger work, where it is stated that Eru is to be seen as good, and thinking otherwise is the root of evil - thus rather excluding your right to question whether Eru is good or not.

So you're still arguing that whatever Eru does is 'Good' simply because Eru does it, & therefore 'Good' means 'Whatever Eru does'. There's no actual objective standard of Good which can be defined & which beings, from Eru down, can be judged by?

Even Aragorn's words from the Appendices imply, at least to me, a benevolent God. I don't need to play a fictitious hide-and-seek with the quotes outside LotR, where Tolkien clarifies what is implicit in the text; and if others choose to ignore the in-text implicit part, and the out-of-text clarification, then fine by me also.

All they 'imply' to me is that Aragorn believes in a benevolent God. LotR as a stand alone work speaks to 20th/21st century world. The M-e of LotR is full of folk who believe in 'something else', something beyond themselves, as 'ordering principle' or driving force behind events. Yet the reader is never told what that is - or even whether that 'perception' is correct. The reader of TH & LotR is in the same position as a 20th/21st century person - they can choose to believe in something 'else' ir they can believe that there is nothing 'beyond' the world & put references to it down to the characters' faith. Its only the Silmarillion that changes that. The Silmarillion 'forces' the reader to accept Eru - and, significantly to my mind, changes our perception of the characters & our understanding of their nature - Aragorn, Galadriel, et al go from being characters with 'faith' in something else to characters who know something other characters don't. In other words we move from a world where some folk have faith & others don't to a world where some characters are right & some are wrong.

So I don't see the value of arguing over an interpretation that is lacking in information - one which neither you nor I share. We both have read the work in its entirety, LotR and Silmarillion, and I believe it is safe to say that Eru as part of the entire picture, and the same can be expected of the average reader who has access to the books.

Again, I'm not 'arguing over an interpretation'. All I've been arguing is that Tolkien was wrong when he claimed LotR can't be understood without a knowledge of The Sil. Maybe it can't be understood in the way he wanted it to be understood, but its simply nonsense to say LotR can't be understood (ie is nonsensical or meaningless) by a reader unfamiliar with The Sil.

Edit

It seems to me that there has to be an objective standard of Good by which Eru can be judged. If, for example, Eru suddenly released Morgoth at the end of the Third Age to take over from Sauron, or at the other extreme, if he made an extra arm grow out of everyone's head - ie if he did something which supported evil or something irrational - we would have to question his goodness or his sanity. In other words, we can accept an 'unknowable' dimension to Eru, but his behaviour & acts must remain within certain bounds. We wouldn't (if only from an an artistic, if not a 'theological' viewpoint) accept any behaviour on Eru's part (we may accept the idea of Eru incarnating into Arda but we wouldn't accept an account that depicted Eru incarnating as a talking rhinoceros). Therefore its perfectly valid to ask whether Eru's behaviour at any point takes him beyond those bounds.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

There's no actual objective standard of Good which can be defined & which beings, from Eru down, can be judged by?

In short, no, because it is humanly impossible to define such a standard or to apply it. Even if one would have such a desire, to judge God, which I personally don't, regardless the context, how could such a thing be possible? How could the finite devise any sort of system by which to measure morality at transcendental level? I don't see how. In our case too, only Eru could judge Eru; anything else done at human level would satisfy a barren curiosity, which, due to its unwarranted reductionism and severe lack of information, wouldn't meet our own standards of relevancy. If one wants to fallaciously "approximate" Eru as just another character and judge him as such then .... whatever. We are warned against judging even Manwe, (a finite being and thus inherently faulted) since we don't have his wisdom, his knowledge of the Music, and his recourse to Eru. I share Tolkien's opinion that we can't even judge a finite being (such as Gollum), at the absolute level, since this would be to investigate "Goddes privite". Going even beyond these seems ...

Maybe it can't be understood in the way he wanted it to be understood, but its simply nonsense to say LotR can't be understood (ie is nonsensical or meaningless) by a reader unfamiliar with The Sil.

Again, it all comes down to the personal standard of relevancy, doesn't it? But there are many references, spiritual or historical, in the text or the appendices, that require the larger story to be properly understood, even if the epic line in itself is accessible.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

In short, no, because it is humanly impossible to define such a standard or to apply it. Even if one would have such a desire, to judge God, which I personally don't, regardless the context, how could such a thing be possible? How could the finite devise any sort of system by which to measure morality at transcendental level? I don't see how.

So, if Eru tortured innocent people, even children, for no reason that would still be a 'Good' act, simply because Eru did it? Or would you argue that Eru, because he is 'Good' would not torture the innocent?

If the former, then 'Good' as a moral concept is meaningless, because it can be applied to any kind of behaviour at all if Eru commits it. 'Good' & 'Evil' would mean nothing at all in an 'objective' or logical sense, & morality, definitions of 'Good' & 'Evil', would have to be invented by Elves & humans, because it could not be drawn from Eru.

If the latter, then 'Good' is an absolute standard, which restricts (by choice on his part) even Eru. If this is the case then we can judge whether Eru acts outside this standard.Even if you argue that 'Good' is an aspect of Eru's nature & that he cannot act against the Good then you are still arguing that Good is an absolute which binds even Eru & determines his behaviour.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

If this is the case then we can judge whether Eru acts outside this standard.Even if you argue that 'Good' is an aspect of Eru's nature & that he cannot act against the Good then you are still arguing that Good is an absolute which binds even Eru & determines his behaviour.

I don't think that a human could approach this subject, just as we can't know when it is good for a person to die and in what way. We lack the perspective, authority, wisdom, and knowledge usually associated with an absolute being, capable of ensuring that even death can be superseded and more than compensated. We have little if any idea of how God would relate to a human, other than infinite compassion and capability to turn even a (or any) " divine punishment" into a "divine gift", as Tolkien mentioned in the letters. To talk in human terms, even in our system of justice, a minor theft of a rather insignificant object can be more than compensated; I personally hold this to be true all the more on the divine level, regardless the loss or suffering. This divine logic, whether it concerns birth, death or any other circumstance of life, is beyond us, and any approximation of it would be inherently human, limited, faulted.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

We have little if any idea of how God would relate to a human, other than infinite compassion and capability to turn even a (or any) " divine punishment" into a "divine gift", as Tolkien mentioned in the letters. .

So you accept that 'God' (or Eru in this case) will, by his nature, behave with "infinite compassion and capability to turn even a (or any) " divine punishment" into a "divine gift"". Hence there is a certain 'objective' standard by which we can judge the actions of Eru - if at any point he displays other than 'infinite compassion' he would be behaving out of character, & his behaviour would not be 'Good'. 'Callous disregard' is 'Evil'. Thus we can say that Eru is 'Good' because he displays, among other things, 'Infinite Compassion' & that Morgoth is 'Evil' because he displays 'Callous Disregard'.

And, apart from primacy of existence & innate power, we can say that Eru is 'morally superior' to Melkor/Morgoth because his behaviour corresponds to an objective standard of Goodness which includes 'Infinite Compassion', & that Morgoth is immoral because his behaviour corresponds to an objective standard of Badness/Evil which includes 'Callous Disregard'. Hence, an objective standard is being used to judge the Goodness of Eru & the wickedness of Morgoth, & we are not simply saying 'whatever Eru does is good because Eru does it'. We require Eru to display 'Infinite Compassion' if we are to accept him as 'Good' (even if we cannot fully understand the way that 'Infinite Compassion' works through in time). Or, in short, 'Infinite Compassion' is a standard of judgement we apply in judging Eru to be 'Good'.

Or to put it another way, if you were a Man, or Elf in M-e confronted by Eru & Morgoth, both claiming to be the Supreme Being, & with no knowledge of who they were, how would you determine which one was Good & which Evil if you could not apply an objective standard of Good/Evil?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

We require Eru to display 'Infinite Compassion' if we are to accept him as 'Good' (even if we cannot fully understand the way that 'Infinite Compassion' works through in time)

While you and I may agree to define good as infinite compassion, we would have no way to understand how this can be best achieved or applied in regards to one human or all humanity. In regards to what might have been the best marriage possible, Tolkien said:

Originally Posted by Letter #43

Only a very wise man at the end of his life could make a sound judgement concerning whom, amongst the total possible chances, he ought most profitably to have married!

Likewise, I hold that judging whether what happened during lifetime is an expression of good is possible at most at the end of it, but even that may have little value, since one's relation to God most likely extends beyond one human life, maybe beyond all creation. And we hardly have any insight into that.

Or to put it another way, if you were a Man, or Elf in M-e confronted by Eru & Morgoth, both claiming to be the Supreme Being, & with no knowledge of who they were, how would you determine which one was Good & which Evil if you could not apply an objective standard of Good/Evil?

Men have already been deceived by Melkor once, and he was worshiped instead of Eru. Lacking (at least) infinite knowledge, such a tragedy is rather possible on the human level.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

While you and I may agree to define good as infinite compassion, we would have no way to understand how this can be best achieved or applied in regards to one human or all humanity.

No, but Good = Infinite Compassion, & if Eru didn't act with Infinite Compassion he would not be good. Hence Infinite Compassion is a standard by which Eru can be judged as Good. If it could be proven that the destruction of Numenor was motivated purely by anger & hatred on Eru's part & he displayed a callous disregard to the resultant suffering we would have to say that it was not a 'Good' act according to the criteria laid down by Tolkien. You seem, if I understand you, to be arguing that we have to accept that whatever Eru does is 'Good' in the sense that he can only do Good (whether that is clear to a creature or not) , not that 'anything' Eru does is 'Good' even of it is cruel, mean, petty or spiteful. But this is, to my mind, to argue that there is an objective standard of Good by which are judging Eru's behaviour - we are saying 'Eru's behaviour is in conformity with The Good' not Eru can behave like Morgoth & that behaviour would still 'Good' simply because Eru was the one behaving in that way.

Men have already been deceived by Melkor once, and he was worshiped instead of Eru. Lacking (at least) infinite knowledge, such a tragedy is rather possible on the human level.

Or more likely inevitable. If Eru is playing the long game, not appearing to men in a clear & unambiguous form & explaining what's going on then its inevitable that Men have to do their best, make the best choice they can in the circumstances. Moreso if Eru has decided to give Morgoth a free reign in Arda. Maybe that's necessary in the long run, but I don't see that having put Men in that position Eru can complain about their choices.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

If it could be proven that the destruction of Numenor was motivated purely by anger & hatred on Eru's part & he displayed a callous disregard to the resultant suffering we would have to say that it was not a 'Good' act according to the criteria laid down by Tolkien.

But no such thing is possible, regardless which human would write the story, or which person attempts to prove.

My point is that we cannot investigate beyond what is limited and created. If I were to venture a speculation, then even if Eru was supposed somehow to make an error and deviate from what would be the best application of infinite compassion (which I thoroughly disagree with), then, at least insofar as effects are concerned, he would have all that it takes to transform that and to make it more than worth it and thus any "mistake" would be at best temporary, achieving greater good in fact. Or, to try to better approximate the perfection we attribute to him, through all his actions he can achieve a greater good on a scale that may elude us, as limited beings.

Maybe that's necessary in the long run, but I don't see that having put Men in that position Eru can complain about their choices.

Well, the standard to which Men are apparently judged is more lenient than making the best possible choice:

Originally Posted by Note to Melkor Morgoth, Myths Transformed, HoME X

Every finite creature must have some weakness: that is some inadequacy to deal with some situations. It is not sinful when not willed, and when the creature does his best (even if it is not what should be done) as he sees it - with the conscious intent of serving Eru.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

But no such thing is possible, regardless which human would write the story, or which person attempts to prove.

But i don't see that attaining such proof is logically impossible.

If I were to venture a speculation, then even if Eru was supposed somehow to make an error and deviate from what would be the best application of infinite compassion (which I thoroughly disagree with), then, at least insofar as effects are concerned, he would have all that it takes to transform that and to make it more than worth it and thus any "mistake" would be at best temporary, achieving greater good in fact. Or, to try to better approximate the perfection we attribute to him, through all his actions he can achieve a greater good on a scale that may elude us, as limited beings.

If Eru is perfect he cannot make errors. Making errors is due to imperfection. All the actions of a perfect being must, of necessity, be perfect. To make an error which he then has to put right implies he is learning from his mistakes. But an Omniscient being cannot 'learn' anything because they would always have absolute knowledge of everything. Eru knows everything that was, is & will be because he exists outside time, in 'Eternity'. Learning implies 'evolution' from a 'lower' to a 'higher' state. Eru cannot 'evolve' to a higher or 'better' state from a lower or 'worse' one. Eru is always Eru. You can't posit an original, 'imperfect' Eru evolving into a final, 'perfect' Eru.

And, again, attributing 'perfection' to Eru is judging him according to a standard of perfect-imperfect & requiring perfection of him - If he is Eru he must be perfect ('perfect' here being used in a moral sense)..

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

But i don't see that attaining such proof is logically impossible.

Well, I still hold that a finite cannot comprehend the infinite, let alone judge it. How could we recognise inherently human emotions/motivations at an infinite level? It would be flawed from the start.

If Eru is perfect he cannot make errors.

I know. I believe I made it clear in my post that this was somewhat of a (unnecessary, sidetracking) reductio ad absurdum, exploring that even if Eru was imperfect, he would still be able to achieve overall good results. And as far as Eru being morally perfect, again, only someone with his attributes could judge the optimality of any of his actions, in accordance with the greater good.

[davem]

So is it possible that Eru could be imperfect, even evil, according to human standards of Good & Evil? If not, then Eru corresponds to what we would consider The Good (in M-e terms). Eru is Good - according to the M-e definition of Good (infinite Compassion, absolute love - not to mention omniscience, omnipotence). Therefore we have Eru, & we have a moral value system which defines Good as 'X' & according to that moral value system Eru ticks all the boxes for 'X' & is therefore Good.

How would we be able to say 'Eru is Good' if we didn't measure him against our criteria for Good & Evil? If Eru were to do something which we consider 'evil' - ie, if he was to commit an (on the face of it) 'Morgothian' act & torture & corrupt an innocent being would we be justified in calling him 'Evil' because he behaved like the living manifestation of Evil in M-e? And if we, because of our creaturely limitations must not judge Eru to be 'evil' simply because he committed what seemed to us an evil act, how can we justify judging Morgoth evil for committing exactly the same act?

We as readers don't judge Morgoth evil simply because Tolkien says he is. We adjudge him evil because of his acts. The idea that both Eru & Morgoth could commit the same 'evil' act & one (Morgoth) be judged 'evil' for committing it, but the other (Eru) be beyond judgement is, to me, not logical.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

The idea that both Eru & Morgoth could commit the same 'evil' act & one (Morgoth) be judged 'evil' for committing it, but the other (Eru) be beyond judgement is, to me, not logical.

But your logic is flawed even in human terms, as the same act of harming someone can have different moral connotations, depending on the circumstances and the intentions. As to the difference between Eru and Morgoth, any resemblance in the intention to perpetuate evil is considered a priori wrong, in Tolkien's universe too.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

But your logic is flawed even in human terms, as the same act of harming someone can have different moral connotations, depending on the circumstances and the intentions. As to the difference between Eru and Morgoth, any resemblance in the intention to perpetuate evil is considered a priori wrong, in Tolkien's universe too.

But if I can only know Eru & Morgoth by their actions (ie by their direct effect on myself & the world around me ) how can I know one is 'good' & one is 'evil' - unless I use some kind of objective standard?

Your theory is fine, but for practical purposes I (as an inhabitant of M-e) have to decide which one is right & which one is wrong, & whose side I will be on. And to do that I have to have a set of standards by which I make a judgement - unless I resort to tossing a coin. I can only decide 'X' is good & 'Y' is evil according to a strict, pre-existing set of standards.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

Your theory is fine, but for practical purposes I (as an inhabitant of M-e) have to decide which one is right & which one is wrong, & whose side I will be on. And to do that I have to have a set of standards by which I make a judgement - unless I resort to tossing a coin. I can only decide 'X' is good & 'Y' is evil according to a strict, pre-existing set of standards.

Well, it doesn't look like a M-e inhabitant would have it going any easier than us. They too are required Estel in Eru's works. I don't see any objective standard to be usable by a limited being, seeing that its "perfection" cannot be translated into results if we only have, limited as we are, inadequate information. In the end, it all comes down to making the best attempt, with the best of intentions, whether in thought or in action, no matter the magnitude of deceit and doubt facing us.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Well, it doesn't look like a M-e inhabitant would have it going any easier than us. They too are required Estel in Eru's works. I don't see any objective standard to be usable by a limited being, seeing that its "perfection" cannot be translated into results if we only have, limited as we are, inadequate information. In the end, it all comes down to making the best attempt, with the best of intentions, whether in thought or in action, no matter the magnitude of deceit and doubt facing us.

Yet when Eomer asks: 'How shall a man judge what to do in such times?'
Aragorn:'As he ever has judged. Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves : and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them.'

So discerning between good & ill is a requirement, based on some kind of 'eternal', or at least pre-existing standard. In fact it is a man's part - an obligation if you will. But what then is the source of this pre-existing standard? A)Men's (& by extension, Elves' & Dwarves') ancestors - ie a creaturely 'invention'? B)The Valar? Or C) Eru himself?

If A) is this creaturely invention consonant with some kind of divine standard? Does it just happen to correspond to a divine standard, or is it at odds with such a divine standard?

If B) Is this 'demi-urgic' invention consonant with a divine standard set down by Eru, or is it at odds with it?

If C) Is this divinely authorised standard a reflection of Eru's own personal moral value system, or at odds with it?

Whatever, Aragorn clearly states that there is an objectively existing Moral value system by which Men & other self-conscious incarnates should judge between right & wrong. Aragorn clearly trusts Eru to be 'good' & not 'evil' & he must base this trust on a value judgement.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

But what then is the source of this pre-existing standard?

Well, I would say it is ultimately Eru; but afterwards, everyone else had a hand in it. He directly taught the Men and the Valar; the valar taught directly the elves and Aule the dwarves. In turn, the elves were the primary teachers of the Men, and Men probably took from dwarves a little bit more than just parts of their language. Afterwards, each and every society of Men would build various cultural "lenses" through which such teachings are interpreted. And ultimately, all understanding is subjective. And even if we remove all these personal, cultural and historical layers, and would somehow have access to the original revelation, I doubt we can derive from that how would a God see good in its ultimate complexity, seeing that many, if not most, of the mysteries of life and creation are hidden.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

Think that this is what I was getting at. If, in heaven, there will be free-willed spirits/souls, and, by definition, being in the presence of God cannot contain evil, why could not the Creator create a world with free will and not evil (or, again as some posit, so much)? Why the "prerequisite?"

Regardless, as I don't want to start another brouhaha, but how does evil differ in the world that Tolkien created? To me it seems that the free will - evil connection is not to the same degree, if it exists at all in Arda.

Well, I don't want to start that brouhaha you wished to avoid, but isn't the real problem the fact that the Creator, whether it is Eru or Tolkien's real God, cannot create something as perfect as He is? (I seem to recall this as a topic of discussion on "Paradise Lost". Could even have been a Second Age discussion, it was that long ago.)

So for every Creator, the actual object of creation always fails to live up to the concept originally entertained?

[obloquy]

"As perfect"? Are there degrees of perfection?

Any theory of what an infinite, omnipotent being is capable of is suspect. The dimensions of God (even simply as a concept) are so far from being fathomable that application of physical laws or philosophical ideas is akin to using a ruler to determine the temperature of the sun. If you're going to ask questions about the abilities of a being that supposedly predates all physical creation, it should be this: How could God be subject to laws that, by definition, govern that which is created?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Well, I don't want to start that brouhaha you wished to avoid, but isn't the real problem the fact that the Creator, whether it is Eru or Tolkien's real God, cannot create something as perfect as He is? (I seem to recall this as a topic of discussion on "Paradise Lost". Could even have been a Second Age discussion, it was that long ago.)

By definition. Or not, as what created God? How could perfection create non-perfection? Unless what we perceive as paradise lost is actually perfect, albeit from a different point of view.

Even I haven't the energy to whip this horse.

So for every Creator, the actual object of creation always fails to live up to the concept originally entertained?

As far as we know. It's been considered that the death of gods comes from boredom. What's the point if you know everything that is, was and will be, down to the fall of every sparrow's feather? Maybe the perfect universes don't include sentient beings or entropy - kind of like well-made dioramas.