Melkor; Evil by Will or Evil by Nature?

[Ancalagon'sFire]

We know the Ainur were the offshoot of the mind of Iluvatar. We know Melkor was the greatest of the Ainur in the beginning. What we do not know is whether Melkor was an embodiment of evil that iluvatar himself already possessed? Was Melkor destined to corrupt, destroy and abuse all in his power because he was the very embodiment of the creators darker nature? Alternatively, did Melkor choose to become this abomination through his own free-will and desires? Did he create envy, jealousy and lust by design or was it simply fate instilled and woven into his fabric from the beginning by Iluvatar? Was Melkor Iluvatars patsy?

[The Silver-shod Muse]

Melkor was not designed to be evil. Melkor, as an Ainur, was given a choice to be, or rather to sing, however he pleased. He could follow the script and see great things come to fruition, or he could trust to his own faulty devices and do his own thing. With the greatest knowledge and skill comes the greatest responsibility and decisions with greater consequences.

Later it seems that Eru was leaving his children and the Ainur to fend for themselves on Arda, but he was merely allowing them to fight and live and choose for themselves, making mistakes and mending them and making them again. A mother doesn't go on dressing her child after he's grown; eventually he must tie his own shoes, even if he ties them in knots.

One of the ways that Eru knew that Aule wasn't trying to set himself up as a dictator or ultimate power was that he created the dwarves to learn and live for themselves, not as witless puppets but as children.

[Ancalagon'sFire]

I fully understand the 'giving of free will' as a gift from Eru to the Ainur. Certainly the comparison is inevitable between the Authors own beliefs and comprehension of 'free will' as a gift from our (his) creator, however, if we (or the Ainur) have no benchmark for knowing wrong or commiting acts of evil, where then does that dissent originally stem from. Is it from the creator?

Surely Melkor, as with any who knows his creator, would only wish to please and seek favour. It must be remembered that;

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the beginning Eru, the One, who....., made the Ainur of his thought.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sil.

So we know that they (The Ainur) were from his mind, of his creation, in his likeness!

Yet, we know that even before the music of the Ainur, Melkor was already spoiled or corrupt;


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of the deeps of Ea she (Varda) came to the aid of Manwe; for Melkor she knew from before the making of the Music and rejected him, and he hated her.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sil.

Yet, how does one truly explain the path Melkor walked? Well, this quote from the Ainulindale sums up my arguement, though it is up to each individual to decide for themselves;


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
for each comprehended only that part of the mind of Iluvatar from which he came, and in understanding of their brethern they grew but slowly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sil.

So Melkor, derived from the thought of Iluvatar, was given the greatest powers, but immediately began to sow discord within the Music from his own imaginings. This is the crux of my thinking on this matter, that these changes were, by design, within Iluvatar himself and maifested by Melkor. He was chosen to cause discord, for this was as Iluvatar meant it to be.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then the themes of Iluvatar shall be played aright, and take being in the moment of their utterance, for all shall fully understand HIS INTENT IN THEIR PART, and each shall know the comprehension of each, and Iluvatar shall give to their thoughts the secret fire, being well pleased
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Melkor might be considered by some, a 'Patsy'. He played out Iluvatars part for him to the letter. His (Melkor) was the fate of creating discord because he was the incarnation of one aspect of Iluvatars persona.

And, having just read all this back to myself, I realise now that I need to get out more! [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

[Tarthang]

Without knowing wether or not Tolkien himself addressed this issue at any point, and given that the Ainur were extensions of Iluvatar's thoughts, I would argue that Melkor was destined to be sow discord. To what degree and to what extents he would go to sow this discord, I believe Iluvatar allowed Melkor to decide. Thus, Melkor was intended as an instrument to sow discord providing a catalyst for change so things would not become locked in stasis, but with a freewill to be at odds with the other Ainur as desired.

[Child of the 7th Age]

What we do not know is whether Melkor was an embodiment of evil that Iluvatar himself already possesed? Was Melkor destined to corrupt, destroy and abuse all in his power because he was the very embodiment of evil that Iluvatar himelf already possessed?

Ancalagan's Fire--

Whoops! The question here is not the natue of Melkor, but rather that of Eru. And what side did you say you were on in the recent contest in Middle-earth to try and destroy the Ring of Power? Or, perhaps, you were on both sides at once, since there does not appear to be a clear delineation between that which is good and that which is evil, at least in terms of ultimate-shall we say Platonic--standards that exist beyond the circles of this world.

Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion in reading and interpreting the writings of Tolkien, but I think I hear the author rolling over in his grave. While there are certainly mythologies which postulate the type of deity you suggest, I do not think you can graft these images onto
the world envisioned by a fairly traditional Catholic scholar and philologist such as Tolkien. It's one thing to debate if evil exists as an independent entity or merely as the negation of good. Or to question if Melkor might repent and receive forgiveness once he comes crawling (or bounding) out of the Void. While I may agree or disagree with a particular point of view, there are paradigms within Christianity which Tolkien might have locked onto in considering questions such as these.

However, I would argue that the dichotomy you suggest within the Godhead itself is unthinkable in this particular book and universe, given who Tolkien was and the way he looked at the question of good and evil. I think there is a huge degree of latitude on how an individual reader can interpret any given author or book, but I do think that there are certain boundaries that need to be respected because of the mindset of the creator of that work. And I think you have just put your toe over a critical line. Certainly fantasy books and mythical universes exist where a question such as you posed is completely legitimate. But I honestly don't think this is one of them.

As some may know who have read my often wordy pleas on behalf of the Shire and Hobbiton, I am an impassioned supporter of Hobbits in general and Frodo Baggins in particular. Now what am I to make of this? Do you mean to tell me that Mr. Frodo trudged all the way to Mordor bearing the Shadow of the world on his neck and sacrificed a great part of his own personal happiness, merely because on Monday, Eru was in the mood to explore the "good" part of his persona? Perhaps if he had waited till Tuesday, Eru would have decided to investigate the other aspects of his being, and the whole War of the Rings might have been avoided. I don't think so. sharon, the 7th age hobbit

p.s. Welcome to the Downs. Post often and have fun.

[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[stone of vision]

Welcome Ancalagon's Fire

I'm called Sil aka stone of vision( though I'm not a silmarillion's expert [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] / It's for Silmaril) .

Discussing the nature of Melkor, I was thinking you might be interested to have a look at Poisonniel's thread: " the original breaking of the fellowship"
Where you could read various and very worthy interesting pov(s) about Melkor. (do have a look! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img])

Enjoy all the discussions as I do since I'm wandering here and forgive my lazyness for this time [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[stone of vision]

oops, I mean PIOSENNIEL!
Mea culpa! Thousands apologies Piosenniel [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img], with the difference time I'm still sleeping, a real groundhog lol! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Cimmerian]

I think Melkor got really bored of all the drivel that was going on around him and tried to liven up things by playing his own riffs, but old Ilu got irked and the rest is ME History.

[Ancalagon'sFire]

There is no doubt that Tolkiens own background and faith has had some indirect influence on wrtings. Though the acknowledgement that Eru could be somewhat representative of 'christian' monotheism is extremely loose, it is certainly not Tolkiens objective.

"..I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country: it had no stories of it's own (bound up with it's tongue and soil), not of the quality that I sought, and found (as an ingredient) in legends of other lands. There were the Greek, and Celtic, and Romance, Germanic Scandinavian and Finnish (which greatly affected me); but nothing English, save impoverished chapbook stuff. Of course there was and is all the Arthurian world, but powerful as it is, it is imperfectly naturalized, associated with the soil of Britain but not with the English; and it does not replace what I felt missing. For one thing it's `faerie` is too lavish, and fantastical, incoherent and repetitive. For another and more important thing it is involved in, and explicitly contains the Christian religion.

For reasons, which I will not elaborate, that seems to me fatal. Myth and Fairy-story must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truths (or error), but not explicit, not in the known form of the primary `real' world. (I am speaking, of course, of our present situation, not of ancient pagan, pre-Christian days...)

From a letter to Milton Waldman in 1951 published both in the Forward of the Second Edition of the Silmarillion as well as being letter # 131 in the year 2000 edition of The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien.

The fact that Eru is not a 'Christian god', means all thinking explicitly based on Christian principle can be the object of debate. In this case, there is nothing to suggest that Tolkiens 'Iluvatar', was not in equal measures both good and evil. Then again, there is nothing to suggest he is not simply an all-round, loving, caring good guy/girl. However, I do not think it is reasonable to simply draw a conclusion that because Tolkien himself was Catholic, that his mythology should be labeled Christian. Tolkien’s design was to create a pre-Christian mythology for England.

This again leads us into the realms of allegory, from which Tolkien was keen to distance himself, because his intent was an original, non-allegorical creation.

[QUOTE]I disslike Allegory - the conscious and intentional allegory - yet any attempt to explain the purport of myth or fairytale must use allegorical language. [QUOTE]

The fact remains that like it or not, all this work is open to scrutiny, but scrutiny with an open mind, so I would be grateful if you would not discard my thoughts on this matter.

As for Frodo, I think it is admirable that you are such a staunch defender of his purpose and his goals, which were thrust upon him. Yet, in the end it was Gollum who actually completed the destruction of the Ring. Was this part of Erus plan?

Melkor, Evil by Will or Evil by Nature? I am referring to him specifically for he was the instrument of pain, misery, suffering and discord from the very beginning, why him? Where did this discord, this discontent, this desire to create havoc come from? Eru, of course! [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img]

[The Silver-shod Muse]

I have a hard time believing that Eru, who is without doubt represented as a "good guy", or at least positively neutral, would sacrifice harmony because he got bored and decided to "liven things up." He did not desire discord, but a melodious, ever-changing constancy (if that makes any sense at all).

As far as negating good to achieve evil, I don't think that's the idea that Tolkien was shooting for at all. When Eru created offshoots in the form of the Ainur, he intended them to posses the ability to make decisions for themselves. The Ainur became their own at "birth".

The very worse things are those that were once good, but are now corrupted, as we see in Tolkien's idea of creating evil through corruption in the elf to orc transformations. It goes very much against the grain to say that Melkor was not given a choice, but was destined to be evil and to suffer (as I'm sure he did). Again, as at the opening of this correspondence, I used the example of Aule's dwarves to mirror the relationship between Eru and the Ainur. Melkor made a decision that he had to feel the consequences for.

I don't have the Sil nearby, but I recall that there is a passage where it's stated that in the end times, Eru will direct the Ainur to sing again, only this time there will be no flaws. Melkor marred the song as an individual, not as one of Eru's repressed personalities.

In any case, there is no such thing as pure evil, because if you take all the good out of something, there will nothing left. Intelligence, for example, is a good thing, and only when perverted is it made evil.

If any of you own C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters, it has an excellent preface on what I've just written concerning the nature of evil and its source that I highly recommend for the curious. I'm sure Tolkien would've agreed with it, as the ideas illustrated there can be seen reflected in much of his work.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Ancalagon's Fire-

Sorry if I sounded too harsh. When you post at 1:30 a.m. you can go a little crazy. But I still stand on my basic premise: given the inner consistency of Tolkien's story and his characters,the whole fabric of the Ring war, I believe that such a dichotomy in the Godhead is a difficult position to maintain.

This is true even if you leave aside the whole question of Tolkien's Catholic viewpoint. And to tell the truth, I do not feel you can totally ignore that viewpoint. While I am not a Christian, Tolkien was very hesitant to put anything into his picture of Middle-earth which could be construed as a blatant rejection or negation of his Catholic views. This is one reason so much of the spiritual content of the work is in symbolic terms, rather than an explicit depiction of ritual or even theology. And there are many questions such as the end of days where he largely keeps quiet rather than spelling out anything which could be seen as being at odds with the later Christian revelation.

As far as Frodo goes, it's precisely because of Tolkien's views as a Christian author that Frodo had to fail at Mount Doom. Since no human being or hobbit is perfect, including Frodo, the final step must be taken not by Frodo but by Providence. However, this could not have occurred unless the ground had been prepared by the pity and mercy shown first by Bilbo, then by Frodo, and, at the end, even by Sam.
Frodo's job was to get the Ring up to the Crack of Doom. Then other forces simply took over. sharon, the 7th age hobbit [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Nar]

Ancalagon's Fire, excellent question, excellent quotes.

Given Tolkien's description of these works taking place in our word, but an imaginary history, I think he meant Eru to be the same God as in Tolkien's faith, but from a time before the historical Catholic faith.

Tolkien certainly did set out to write an epic set of myths and legends for England. That's absolutely right. I find, however, at least in LotR, (which is not the part with Melkor that you're asking about, but depends on it conceptually) that the spiritual themes of sacrifice, resistance to temptation, pity/charity and redemption, not to mention Child of the 7th Age's providence appear more and more during the later stages of Frodo and Sam's journey.

Tolkien wrote those stages during the later days of WWII and just after and sent them to his son Christopher, who was at one point training for the RAF-- which means he wrote them while his son was under threat of dying in a war, and just after, and as a vet who had lost friends, he knew that death and loss could really happen to him and his. Having a child in jeopardy does tend to bring out the spiritual side of a person. In Tolkien's case, that side was Catholic. I find less of these spiritual themes, and more of the epic and pagan themes in FotR --Tom Bombadil, for example, is pure pagan, like the Green Man (of course, Tom could also be the Secret Fire incarnate). Goldberry is a river nymph.

However, even supposing Tolkien's Catholic side influenced his storytelling at times, it is still perfectly reasonable to ask your question about Melkor and Eru-- it's a perfectly reasonable question for a Catholic writer to consider. In the Catholic (and indeed Christian) faith, the redemption was triggered by treachery and betrayal, so was that God's only plan? That is a similar question, and one Catholics and other Christians have often considered. (I'm a lapsed Episcopalian myself, but my husband's Catholic, so I'm a secondhand expert.)

I do think the Silmarillion is much more epic and pagan in spirit than the later books of LotR I mentioned. However, I think the question of Melkor's responsibility or not for his own path is very much affected by Tolkien's Catholic side and should be answered with that in mind, along with the Epic side which is also applicable. Was Melkor set up by Eru? Is there a way Melkor could have fulfilled his role of creating change and development, history, the whole bleeding plot for the mythos, without the suffering: killing the trees, murdering various elf-monarchs, twisting and torturing prisoner elves to create orcs (that was really rotten of him! The poor orcs! Always some war, some lousy boss or other, never any hope of living reasonable lives with booty and orc-wenches in a nice dark cave!)

My answer is yes. You are right, I think, Melkor was gifted by Eru with Eru's own yen for change, growth, and working the angle. (At this point, I admit, I'm mainly interpreting the story from my own world view and my own notion of God. Go on, listen to the lapsed Episcopalian! I can lead you to the land of qualified ambivalence!) However, Eru did not pre-determine how Melkor would play out his nature. That was all him. Melkor was determined to parlay his role into one of maximum power and grandeur. He had heard the entire song, and knew exactly what that would require of the world and its children, and he did not turn aside. In choosing this particular way of fulfilling his role, Melkor accepted all the suffering for others and cruelty from him it required.

Now that's a different question. Melkor chose his path while singing the song, so:
a. Did he have an inkling that he was defining the elements of a world
b. Were all the events of middle earth included in the song (I think yes)
c. So could he repent while in the world, if he didn't during his part in the song that defined the world and its events?
d. I don't care, he's still a rat fink! Poor orcs!

[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]

[Kalessin]

Interesting post, and some thoughtful contributions above [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

The problematic duality and/or ambiguity in Tolkien's myth of origin reflects to some degree the unresolved - though perhaps intuitively manageable - contradictions in the Christian concept of omnipotent Creation and Free Will. Simply put, if Eru (or God, if you like) creates and knows everything (or creates beings or forces that themselves create in turn), then the presence of evil, and the evil that may and does result from free will, are a known, inextricable and inherent part of that creation. The 'Fall', in whatever form, cannot arise from some power or source outside of Eru (there is none), nor can Eru be unaware that it will happen. Yet Eru's reaction is an increasing anger towards Melkor's discord, and he is at regular intervals "punished" by the Valar (acting with the will of Eru).

Now, I think this IS a contradiction - or perhaps mystery is more apt - yet one that is central to Christian faith and the moral sensibility of Tolkien's work. I do NOT believe there was any sense of an Eastern 'balance' between good and evil, nor do I think there is a kind of moral determinism ie. "evil is required to act as a catalyst for good". These interpretations are antithetical to Tolkien's beliefs and to the text itself, in which the end of utopian (harmonious) existence and the destruction of nature are clearly tragic and regrettable. The ultimate (and complete) triumph of good over evil in LotR illustrates the values at work.

Of course, dramatically, or in structural terms, 'discord', 'opposition' or 'dangerous unpredictability' etc. are necessary narrative elements, and obviously Tolkien was telling a story. This is probably more important than we have acknowledged - Tolkien was not a philosopher, and not primarily concerned with creating a rationalisation of existence, nor was he constructing an RPG scenario with a straightforward background in causality. He was a storyteller (much of his writing arose out of the telling of stories to his children). And stories need ... well, a story.

Logic, or an academic analysis of Tolkien's stories or contextual writings, will not in this instance resolve the essential contradiction. But for most people, this and similar dualities have been part of our collective culture since Descartes. Art can and does reflect the irreconcilable within ourselves, moral and otherwise, and our individual states of conscience and consciousness. And on that level, we have the capacity to intuitively grasp personal, and I guess, philosophical, contradictions.

Personally, I find contradictory and co-existing realities reasonably effective as a rational framework for humanity (or mortality) if you will, although traditional Catholicism a la Tolkien is nodoubt more absolutist. But the kind of philosophical logic (or 'systems analysis', if you prefer)we take for granted these days was not prevalent at the time of the Gospels. In the 11th Century (sigh ...) Anselm and other medieval philosophers developed the "ontological argument" for proving the existence of God (which is irrefutable but can be sidestepped [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] ) as part of an attempt to reconcile Christianity with the ancient Greek philosophers, but in the end, Western rationality will always allow for competing paradigms - only faith provides (philosophically unsound) certainty.

This takes us back to the subject (phew) ... Tolkien's faith, therefore, allows for a narrative of Creation and Fall in which the archetypal manifestation of Evil is consistent. And the telling of a story (in the tradition of the great myths he so admired) demands that a pantheon of archetypal (and in differing degrees oppositional) forces (and characters) is present.

Perhaps I should have just said "poetic licence" and left it at that [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

Peace

[piosenniel]

Tolkien's faith, therefore, allows for a narrative of Creation and Fall in which the archetypal manifestation of Evil is consistent. And the telling of a story (in the tradition of the great myths he so admired) demands that a pantheon of archetypal (and in differing degrees oppositional) forces (and characters) is present.

Is the being Melkor the archetypal manifestation of evil, an objective reality, so to speak. Or is the archetypal manifestation of evil Melkor's actions which are a negation of the Creation of Eru. If he is the archetypal manifestation of evil, is he fated to always be evil. If it's Melkor's actions which are evil because they are a negation of the 'good', then is there the possibility for him to choose a different course of action given that he has an abundance of time in which to reflect and re-choose.

[Ancalagon'sFire]

Let's then assume in this instance that Eru is an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient creator, fashioned after Christian monotheism. Surely his design for all his creation is pre-ordained, fated and marked-out for every individual and natural occurence?
We have Earthquakes, volcano eruptions, disasters, floods to name but a few, also all carefully mapped out in Eru's great plan for the world.

If all this is known in advance, surely Melkors actions were also woven into this great tapestry, possibly a vessel for Eru to test the faith, strength and resolve of his own Children. I must state clearly that I do not believe the Ainur to be Children of Iluvatar, but they ARE Iluvatar. One might consider the 'Holy Trinity' and amplify. Therefore, Melkor also being part of Iluvatar himself, was in essence an aspect of Eru's own persona.

If you consider the SIN factor; Sin stems Satan, who stems from God, therefore Sin stems from God? Is it impossible to think that because we have 'free will', the origin of our desire to commit sin ultimately comes from the one who is testing us? In other words, we were presented with sin as a means of finding our way back to our God? So, who therefore does Sin originate from, surely not Satan, for he would prefer us not to have a choice at all. Surely God has pre-ordained sin on our behalf, in order for us to decide whether we should ultimately choose him over our own desires?

So what role does Satan play? His is to sow discord, to tempt, entice and entrap. Yet, ultimately all his actions, devilry and devision stems ultimately from the One.

Free Will we all have, yet some are simply set-up for the benefit of others. Was Judas a patsy so Jesus could ultimately be betrayed and sacrifice himself on a cross? What if, when faced with the choice, he said no! Of course not, it had been written centuries before, because he had a role to play in opening the gates of heaven through Jesus. Where is he now?

In the same way, Melkor has played the role. He is of the mind of Eru, therefore he is the mind of Eru. The two cannot be detatched simply because it seems unpalitable that a loving creator would sacrifice so many for the righteous few and Melkor was his instrument, his alter-ego if you like, for sowing the seeds.

Hey, these are just my ramblings, offered to the good members of the forum for debate and criticism.

[Thenamir]

Melkor, dope or dupe? An interesting question. What are the influences and motivations that caused Melkor to play the sour notes on his Cosmic Tuba? Perhaps he got a few bad pepperonis on the pizza they ordered at choir practice the day before. Indigestion can get anyone out of sorts, not to mention food poisoning. Just think of the peace and harmony that would have arisen on Middle Earth if Domino's had just read the expiration dates on the meat-packages...

Or perhaps Melkor had to stand next to someone who forgot their deodorant that morning. Probably Sauron's least-favorite cousin Herbert (the one who liked to make faces while sticking macaroni noodles into his nose and ears...a disgrace to the entire family). It is impossible to maintain proper breathing control when sitting in the presence of that kind of stink, and so he was perhaps improvising shorter notes in an attempt to keep from breathing the toxic fumes any more than necessary.

If, as some suppose, Tom Bombadil is the embodiment of Eru himself, one has only to look at the silly stuff he sang to wonder whether Melkor might have thought he could write better material. (That could explain why Middle Earth was sometimes such a silly place, and why the singing of the Elves, the Children of Iluvatar, considered by some to be superior poetry and "not to be missed," consists of Bombadillish lyrics such as "Fa la la lally...". Of course, this would suppose that the creature could have more talent than the Creator, which is a logical impossibility.)

On a different note (pun intended), perhaps the name change from Melkor to Morgoth had nothing to do with Feanor and all the rest of that folderol. Perhaps Eru liked classical a-capella choir music, but Melkor decided that he was into black-leather outfits and metal and hi-amp electric guitars. That would give new meaning to his new name -- He wanted more Goth, and less classical.

I look forward to the feedback which my theories will inevitably provoke.

[piosenniel]

'Melkor, dope or dupe'

What a concise summing up of the theme of this thread!

How about, though, neither of those choices - how about: Melkor, free thinker?!

[Thenamir]

In a more serious tone:

We as mortal humans can have no idea of the meaning of creating autonomous self-determining beings, whether in fantasy or in Christan reality. Once such a being is created and "set in motion," if you will, the cause-effect link between creator and created is severed. Such a being can, as in some science-fiction TV shows and movies, "grow beyond it's programming." The inputs and experiences of that being will affect it's judgement. It is capable of deciding for itself whether to serve the good of the entire universe, or merely to serve its own selfish ends.

Now throw emotion into the mix. If there is a "good" jealousy (such as a man jealous for his wife so that he protects her from other suitors), then there is also the possibility of using that same emotion in a bad way, (such as Melkor being jealous of Eru becuase of his position and authority and capabilities.) Melkor became jealous of the Creator, and sought to become like him, or perhaps even MORE powerful, so that all would worship him -- that he could force his will on HIS creation.

The point is that a self-determining autonomous being is just that -- you cannot blame the parents, the creator, or other external circumstances for the behavior of a being that can choose it's own way. Certain reactions may be easier (like punching-back someone who punches you in the mouth), but that does not mean that you are *forced* to do so...you always have the choice. That's the nature of free will.

Eru is, in this sense, no more or less blameable for Melkor's actions than Sauron. Self-determination implies self-responsibility. It's like that bumper-sticker -- "What we are is God's gift to us. What we become is our gift to God." If a being has no choice of what he/she/it becomes, then how can he/she/it be blameworthy or praiseworthy?

I shall now relinquish the soapbox to those who wish to tear down my edifice of cards...

[Thenamir]

piosenniel:

Unfortunately, in this story there is "Eru's way" and "All the others". "Free Thinking" is just a euphemistic way of saying "I can do it better than Eru", which is untrue.

[piosenniel]

Sometimes, though, that is how evil is defined - subjectively - simply as the reaction in negation to the proposed 'good'.

[Thenamir]

That *is* how it is defined. When men do it, it is stifling and restrictive, becuase men have not the gift of omniscience...becuase their view *is* limited.

When a benevolent, all-knowing being says "this is the way -- walk in it," it is not "free thinking" to question that being's judgement, it is suicide.

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: Thenamir ]

[Ancalagon'sFire]

How then is it possible to differentiate between 'fate' and 'free-will', when one considers that Eru has a plan? Does Eru have a plan? Does he know in advance who will falter and who will succeed? Does devine intervention on the part of Eru render 'free-will' no more than lip service?
Should we even be looking at this through 'omnipotent god goggles' in the Christian sense, or more open minded considering Eru to be fallible and impotent, generous loving and vindictive in equal measures.

Was Melkor Evil by Will or Evil by Nature? Was Melkor simply one of Eru's more dominant personalities in a fractured, schizophrenic mind?
Eru = Good Cop, Melkor = Bad Cop!

[stone of vision]

Hey! You should tell me there was a mega-from- Hell- creation concert playing the Ainulindale symphony, here! [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img]
Eru and his Valar ' s band staring Melkor in solo what a show!
A wery witty, cynical, but so enjoyable musical and " gastronomic" review, Thenamir. lol! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]
See, how the work of an ochestra chief is harsh! Providing ripe food, because he is broke, and feeding his musicians, forces them, terrorizes them to play his genious
- only for him of course- composition to pay his credences.
And when one of them, Melkor decided to play a different, more electrical, and shaken way, he was fired out to hell! Oh! Bitter world!
Who says that music sooth the soul ( translation?) " la musique adoucit les moeurs".

Oh my! I' m delirious! Time for me to go to bed! I promise to come back when i could regain a bit of reason and think seriously about that Melkor/ Eru 's affair.

Good night all, and sweet and thoughtful dreams

[Cimmerian]

Agreed piosenniel.

Some of these posts are of such deep thought...shudder!

[Lord Gothmog]

Melkor when he was first created was given, like the rest of the Ainur, that which we call 'Free Will' That is he could make choices within certain limitations. But when he 'Sprung from the Thought of Iluvatar' he must have had some darkness within him. This darkness can only have come from Iluvatar himself as all that the Ainur were in the begining came from the One. Melkor was not the only Ainu to be possesed of this darkness.

For Manwë was free from evil and could not comprehend it, and he knew that in the beginning, in the thought of Ilúvatar, Melkor had been even as he; and he saw not to the depths of Melkor's heart, and did not perceive that all love had departed from him for ever. But Ulmo was not deceived, and Tulkas clenched his hands whenever he saw Melkor his foe go by; for if Tulkas is slow the wrath he is slow also to forget.

from the Silmarillion: chapter 6, of the unchaining of Melkor.

So we have Manwe who "was free from Evil and could not comprehend it" while Ulmo "was not deceived" and Tulkus who "is slow to forget". Both Ulmo and Tulkas had to have some darkness within to understand the Darkness of Melkor, while Manwe had no darkness as is shown by his complete lack of understanding of Melkor.

So in the begining all of the Ainur were of different parts of Iluvatar, some light some dark most inbetween. All then had chances to grow and choices of how to grow. Melkor decided to to alone into the void and conceived thoughts unlike the rest of the Ainur. This was his choice and the path he Chose.

In saying this, he could not have chosen this path unless he had darkness from Iluvatar in the first place, Manwe could not have chosen to walk this as he had not the means of concidering it. So we seem to have the opposite ends of Iluvatar's spectrum of thought in Melkor at the Darkest and Manwe at the lightest with all the rest somewhere in between. So Melkor was made in the begining the greatest of the Ainur and was also given the greatest freedom of action to decide his path. Manwe although only slightly less powerful was given almost no freedom. Then Iluvatar gave the Ainur themes to improvise about, something like a map with a start and an end but no paths. The paths were then given in the Music made by the Ainur. It was at this point that Melkor started to show what he had done with the freedom allowed him by Iluvatar in that he wove into the music discords and thoughts that were not in tune. Iluvatar used Manwe to fight against all that Melkor did.

So in my opinion Melkor was not Evil by Nature, he was he was dark by nature but had the freedom to choose his path. His darkness would tend to push him toward evil however. So it looks like Iluvatar wanted him to rebel and hoped he would do so. Manwe on the other hand was there to put limits on Melkor, he had no other perpose. When the thoughts of Melkor went too far, Iluvatar would start a new theme using his puppet Manwe.

Conclusion:
Melkor - Dark by nature, Evil by choice.
Manwe - Light by nature, Puppet by no choice.
[img]smilies/cool.gif[/img]

[Nar]

Lord Gothmog-- Welcome to the Downs! Excellent, excellent gloss on Melkor-- very well balanced and thoughtful. Good work! I think you're too hard on Manwe-- it's a thankless task being a 'good side' fictional character as the possibilities of drama and grand gesture are limited by the obedience angle, but the contrarian in me always wants to defend them.

I think I agree with you that Manwe doesn't have a dark side-- your quote is very compelling. I'm not sure Manwe couldn't go wrong, though-- couldn't he be too narrow, didactic, strict or intolerant? He doesn't seem to have fallen that way, but could he? I'm pretty sure that too much good isn't within Tolkien's spiritual roots-- but there are surely ways of giving in to smaller, more banal temptations within an overarching dedication to obedience and goodness.

Moving beyond the issue of good/bad and varieties of temptation and fall, is it really the case that free will is only indicated by this choice of good or bad? Couldn't there be different aspect of good-- different ways of building, sub-creating, or living, on which a free choice could be excercised? After all, there is more than one 'good' vala (is that the right word?) --each contributing goodness to the world in a different way. Can we go further and say that within their different natures, they can excercise a choice as to how they develop their specialty in the creation?

[Amarinth]

the question has been burning some of the previous threads, and it does seem that the silmarillion itself is not clear on this as shown by what has been discussed above by all ye excellent folks [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]. melkor did emanate from eru who is the source of everything, and by the principle of the conservation of mass if melkor hath evil in him then so should eru. if eru is pure good, then melkor needs attain evil from a source outside of eru that, by definition, does not exist. in spite of this simple logic though i believe quite differently, that is, eru is just good and evil is just melkor [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

from what i understand of the silm it was somewhat of a process rather than a matter of being that melkor came to wear the face of evil -- he was first made sentient (birth of the ainur), then given self-expression (music of the world), then began self-will (marring of arda) and finally self-rule, declaring himself the dominator of arda. he first began exploring the possibilities of evil with disruption of the music of the ainur. "evil" in this sense, and certainly how melkor is characterized in the silm in these early stages, is being in total tangent with the maker's original purposes and principles, and by this token evil is a negation of eru, or "order", an insinuation of a different order with melkor himself at the principal theme, rather than an exercise of some innate, coexistent force to battle "good". it can be argued that this deed of melkor was an act driven by fate, but then again it can also be argued that this is just inciendary talent "jazzing" up some of that classical music.

by the time of the making of arda melkor had of course completely tumbled off the path set out by eru and made his self-will painfully manifest in arda. it is at this stage when evil had clearly been created, by melkor and not eru, and made tangible in the material world. certainly melkor had the capacity to create and destroy, and by fashioning for himself a different role and destiny in which he alone was the motivation, he had recreated himself as his finest masterpiece. he had created evil. acknowledged that the ingredients for it he derived from eru -- greatness, talent, power -- but the recipe he concocted himself.

i also see melkor's "pre-ordained role" as the great disturbance in arda as a measure of the power of eru to "foresee" the various paths stringing out of melkor's own choices. this form of power intuitively only eru can own, since its totality is parceled off to the ainur. mandos has the power of doom, but he can only see a specific for each; eru alone has the ability to see all dooms possible and see what doors must shut and open in order for that specific doom to prevail. each vala has a specific strength, each creature has a specific will, all of which at once calculate and act in concert in the mind of illuvatar, that manwë need seek it often. eru is the great orchestrator, and because he sees far wider, deeper and with greater connectivity into the space-time continuum, melkor's choices play out like a map in front of him.

jeez, i don't know if that made sense...i've been accused here at bd of losing purpose in meaning and thinking quite off the track, i wouldn't be surprised if someone gets a similar rash reading this [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[ May 11, 2002: Message edited by: Amarinth ]

[Lord Gothmog]

Nar, I thank you for your welcome and your compliments. To answer some of the points you raise:

I'm not sure Manwe couldn't go wrong, though-- couldn't he be too narrow, didactic, strict or intolerant? He doesn't seem to have fallen that way, but could he?

Some would view his treatment of the Elves who did not come to Aman in the first place and the Noldor who left, in just the terms you say he doesn't seem to have shown.

Moving beyond the issue of good/bad and varieties of temptation and fall, is it really the case that free will is only indicated by this choice of good or bad? Couldn't there be different aspect of good-- different ways of building, sub-creating, or living, on which a free choice could be excercised? After all, there is more than one 'good' vala (is that the right word?) --each contributing goodness to the world in a different way. Can we go further and say that within their different natures, they can excercise a choice as to how they develop their specialty in the creation?

In my post I was compearing Manwe and Melkor who seem to be the extream opposites of the spectrum. However, I also used both Ulmo and Tulkas to show that there are Valar who fall between these. In fact All of the Ainur not just those who came to Arda, fall between these extreams. Also it is the choice that comes from 'Free Will'. Do you choose good or evil, then which path within either good or evil do you follow. In Melkor's case he was at the darkest end of the spectrum and he chose to walk the Darkest path of all. So Yes each of the 'Good' Valar would act in a different way and show different aspects of 'Good'.

Amarinth

melkor did emanate from eru who is the source of everything, and by the principle of the conservation of mass if melkor hath evil in him then so should eru. if eru is pure good, then melkor needs attain evil from a source outside of eru that, by definition, does not exist. in spite of this simple logic though i believe quite differently, that is, eru is just good and evil is just melkor

I used the terms Light and Dark to avoid 'Good' and 'Evil' as while I believe that Melkor was Dark by nature due to the Dark side of Iluvatar, this does not mean that Iluvatar was evil, only that he had both sides to him. It was Melkor who had too much of the Darkness in him.

from what i understand of the silm it was somewhat of a process rather than a matter of being that melkor came to wear the face of evil -- he was first made sentient (birth of the ainur), then given self-expression (music of the world), then began self-will (marring of arda) and finally self-rule, declaring himself the dominator of arda. he first began exploring the possibilities of evil with disruption of the music of the ainur.

Yes, but without his dark nature how would he have come to this path? No other of the greatest powers even concidered it.

by the time of the making of arda melkor had of course completely tumbled off the path set out by eru and made his self-will painfully manifest in arda. it is at this stage when evil had clearly been created, by melkor and not eru, and made tangible in the material world. certainly melkor had the capacity to create and destroy, and by fashioning for himself a different role and destiny in which he alone was the motivation, he had recreated himself as his finest masterpiece. he had created evil. acknowledged that the ingredients for it he derived from eru -- greatness, talent, power -- but the recipe he concocted himself.

True it was Melkor's choice that brought about the Evil in Arda but the darkness of Melkor had to come from Iluvatar. It is for that reason I said that Melkor was Dark by Nature but Evil by Choice.

[Daniel Telcontar]

Gothmog, you write that Melkor had something dark in him from the beginning. But since Tolkien was a Christian, I do not believe that I am totally wrong when I compare Melkor's fall from Eru with the fall of Lucifer, Satan, from God. And since God is only good, or light, as you might prefer, then so is Eru.
That means, that Melkor did not have any dark inside him from his "birth", but that it was all his own decision to become evil.

[Lord Gothmog]

Gothmog, you write that Melkor had something dark in him from the beginning. But since Tolkien was a Christian, I do not believe that I am totally wrong when I compare Melkor's fall from Eru with the fall of Lucifer, Satan, from God.

Daniel, Tolkien based his stories on far more that Christianity. He drew upon many pre-Christian myths and legends, also he went to great pains to remove all religious forms from the work. So while it will obviously reflect certain beliefs of the author, it not wise to compare such things when tolkien himself said there was no intent for such comparison.

And since God is only good, or light, as you might prefer, then so is Eru.

1. How do you know that God is only good?
2. If God is how do you know that Eru is?

That means, that Melkor did not have any dark inside him from his "birth", but that it was all his own decision to become evil.

With no dark he would have been the same as Manwe who "was free from evil and could not comprehend it". Therefore Melkor had to have the darkness first else he could not have turned to Evil.

[Daniel Telcontar]

You are right when you write that Tolkien disliked allegories, and I only meant it as a theory if Tolkien drwaed any comparison between Eru and God.

But you write, how can I know that God is good?
I cannot; That is the whole concept of belief.
I belive in it, because I have seen more evidence suggesting it than the opposite; But I cannot be sure until i die.

Your next statement is: How can Melkor be seduced if he is not at some point evil/dark from the beginning?
Again, we are at the point of belief and not fact. And although I know that Tolkien wanted to keep his books free from christian allegories, I still think that he thought upon Eru as a being of good, simply because that was the most obvious for Tolkien.

My arguments are not the best, but it is hard to come up with something better since we ae discussing something that is hypothetical and not facts.

[Lord Gothmog]

You are right when you write that Tolkien disliked allegories, and I only meant it as a theory if Tolkien drwaed any comparison between Eru and God.
But you write, how can I know that God is good?
I cannot; That is the whole concept of belief.
I belive in it, because I have seen more evidence suggesting it than the opposite; But I cannot be sure until i die.

Your next statement is: How can Melkor be seduced if he is not at some point evil/dark from the beginning?
Again, we are at the point of belief and not fact. And although I know that Tolkien wanted to keep his books free from christian allegories, I still think that he thought upon Eru as a being of good, simply because that was the most obvious for Tolkien.

My arguments are not the best, but it is hard to come up with something better since we ae discussing something that is hypothetical and not facts.

The reason I answered as I did was because The vast majority of quotes by Tolkien that I am aware of state in one form or another that The Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion are not and never were intended to have comparisons with Any religion. It was his intent to write these as a Pre-Christian Mythology for England. Therefore it is unwise to put in christian comparisons to a work that he has stated is not to be Christian.

The reason I asked 'How do you know that God is Good' was in hope of getting the very answer you gave. It is a matter of belief. This being the case, an author can also explore other ideas to get the same results in terms of how good and evil work in a world.

You are the one who is saying that Melkor was Evil in his begining, I said that he was Dark. This allowed him to find the path that lead to Evil. I also said that the Darkness came from Iluvatar. This does not mean that Iluvatar is evil only that he has both Light and Dark, if he did not have darkness in himself, how could he deal with Evil as he, like Manwe would not be able to comprehend it?

The one problem with using Tolkien's religion is that while we can know the teachings that he learned, we cannot know how Tolkien himself interpreted them, so we also cannot know what was the most obvious view for him to have for Eru. So we are left with our own interpretations of his writings.

[Daniel Telcontar]

You are right about many things, both Tolkien's vision of a mythology for England and that we cannot be sure how he interpreted his teachings. That leaves us in the situation where everyone has his opinion, but I enjoyed our debate and I hope others will gain something by reading it.

have fun, Gothmog [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Nar]

Oh, without a doubt, Lord Gothmog, I agree with you, Manwe was wrong there:

Some would view his treatment of the Elves who did not come to Aman in the first place and the Noldor who left, in just the terms you say he doesn't seem to have shown.

However, I must say that though I think Manwe was defining good too narrowly, showing a lack of neighborly imagination, succumbing to the besetting sins of the 'teacher's pet,' he never became 'fallen' in the sense that Melkor did, going against Illuvatar and sewing desolation across Middle-Earth. If flawed (in my opinion also), he remained, like Aule, basically in accord with Illuvatar. When I said 'fallen' I meant something more than 'made one or two mistakes.'

Of course, as Manwe was leader of the Valar, even one or two mistakes would have extensive consequences-- still, that's not the same as deliberately seeking ruin. Manwe eventually changed his policy and came to the aid of middle earth. To take a real world example from English history, Cromwell was someone who, in my opinion, actually fell through narrow self-righteousness: an unimaginative definition of good narrowly defined, leading to tyranny. I don't see Manwe as a Cromwell.

I do, however, think evil can result from something other than chaos or the archetypal unconscious or too much heavy metal or, heaven protect us, modern music's dissonance [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] or whatever else we're meaning by 'dark side.' (For any beleagured modern music fans, sorry for the cheap crack; I actually own the sheet music to Schoenberg's 'Book of Hanging Gardens' -- I can't play it, but I like to look at it sometimes.)

I'm glad you seem to agree about the Valar's different aspects, what about free will within a specific Vala's mission, free will that does not involve the great question of allegience or good/evil: If Aule chooses to make a mountain range to the north, rather than a grassy plain just there, can't that be considered an excercise of free will, even though it doesn't involve a dark/light, obedience/disobedience or charity/cruelty choice?

[Kalessin]

Interesting post, and touching on themes that inevitably take us closer to 'Trilogy and Bible' territory.

It was his intent to write these as a Pre-Christian Mythology for England. Therefore it is unwise to put in christian comparisons to a work that he has stated is not to be Christian.

I cannot bear to rehash everything from that other thread, but I would question the intent to create 'Pre-Christian' mythology. I would say, rather, a mythos that is non-referential-to-Christianity (or one consistent with itself), but one that is inevitably informed by Tolkien's own culture and faith. I think 'comparisons' (or theoretical contextualising) to Christianity, or to the tenets of Catholicism, ARE possible with an appropriate sense of perspective. Of course we are not talking allegory here, or quid pro quo symbolism, but - as Tolkien himself said - a 'nature of divinity' that could be understood by one familiar with the Holy Trinity. And in addition, a traditional Christian morality underpinning the narrative, that culminates in the triumph of Good over Evil rather than a restoring of yin-yang equilibrium.

I also said that the Darkness came from Iluvatar. This does not mean that Iluvatar is evil only that he has both Light and Dark

As above, I am not sure that the somewhat more Eastern or humanist idea of the necessary coexistence of Good and Evil (or Light and Dark as pathways to either) is entirely appropriate with regard to interpreting Tolkien. It seems to me that a reasonably traditional Christian sensibility - in that Evil is not symbiotic with Good - is at work. In the end, the victorious conclusion of each struggle is the utter defeat of evil, and it doesn't appear to me that evil is ever accepted or tolerated as "part of the cosmic balance" or other such framework.

This is indeed the philosophical contradiction that Christianity must wrestle with in relation to free will, as I discussed in a previous post. But I'm not convinced that it is correctly resolved in terms of the Silmarillion by inferring a moral sensibility antithetical to Tolkien's own faith, and where there are so many narrative elements (and the author's contextual writing) which imply a particular absolutist worldview. In fact, the contradiction as such is just not a big part of Tolkien's works at all.

I am content not to have a clear external solution (or resolution) to the issues of pre-determination, free will, good and evil that can be found in Tolkien's work - just as I cannot resolve these issues in 'real life' [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. We can intuitively deal with the themes of the narrative, with such conundrums present, through our imagination - our suspension of disbelief, the application of our particular spiritual worldview, our ability not to rationalise everything we perceive and experience, and so on.

By the way, I find the sub-topic "how do I (we) know that God is good?" fascinating, although perhaps too directly theological to justify lots of time on a Tolkien message board [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]. But if anyone knows a place where we can go and thrash it out, let me know!

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

[Lord Gothmog]

Daniel,
I too enjoyed greatly our debate. Hopefully we will have others giving as much enjoyment. In such cases as this you are right we each end up with our own opinion. These can be shared and discussed without rancour and give pleasure and occasionally some enlightenment to others. Until we meet again, enjoy yourself. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Nar, I agree with you about Manwe not falling completely into the trap of too much good. The points I made about what he did showed that he was on the edge of doing so but did not fall. This means that the possiblity of doing great harm through being too Good was there, but Manwe managed to avoid the Fatal Slip.

As for the Dark side of a being, in my view this would includ such things as jealosy, anger, decitfulness and pride. These when taken too far will show as evil.

I'm glad you seem to agree about the Valar's different aspects, what about free will within a specific Vala's mission, free will that does not involve the great question of allegience or good/evil: If Aule chooses to make a mountain range to the north, rather than a grassy plain just there, can't that be considered an excercise of free will, even though it doesn't involve a dark/light, obedience/disobedience or charity/cruelty choice?

You are correct in what you say about 'Free Will'. In my posts I was concentrating too much on the extreams as I was discussing Melkor and Manwe, in doing so I overlooked the lesser expressions of free will. It is easy to look at the great events and forget that the "GREAT" events are actualy made up of many small events. [img]smilies/cool.gif[/img]

Kalessin,
When I said 'A pre-Christian mythology' I meant it as comparable to the Norse myths from before Christanity had come to Europe. I have no problem with your view of what he tried to do as essentaly it is the same. In many of the mythologies from before Christianity all gods had good and bad or light and dark in them. So it would not be surprising to find Tolkien using that model for Eru. His beliefs did not need christian models in the story to show through. In my view Tolkien used themes and moral codes that lay behind Christianity and are true whatever religion teaches them. It is these codes and themes that are in his works. I agree that he was writing about good triumphing over evil rather than keeping balance, but this does not get in the way of having Eru with a dark side to his nature.

I am not sure that the somewhat more Eastern or humanist idea of the necessary coexistence of Good and Evil (or Light and Dark as pathways to either) is entirely appropriate with regard to interpreting Tolkien. It seems to me that a reasonably traditional Christian sensibility - in that Evil is not symbiotic with Good - is at work. In the end, the victorious conclusion of each struggle is the utter defeat of evil, and it doesn't appear to me that evil is ever accepted or tolerated as "part of the cosmic balance" or other such framework.

As I have said before, Eru having a dark side does not mean that there is evil in him, only that he would be able to understand and deal with evil. The other option is to have two equal beings one 'Good' the other 'Evil'. This does not appear in Tolkien's work.

I am content not to have a clear external solution (or resolution) to the issues of pre-determination, free will, good and evil that can be found in Tolkien's work - just as I cannot resolve these issues in 'real life' . We can intuitively deal with the themes of the narrative, with such conundrums present, through our imagination - our suspension of disbelief, the application of our particular spiritual worldview, our ability not to rationalise everything we perceive and experience, and so on.

i too am content to have no clear external solution (or resolution) to these issues, after all if such happened we would have nothing to debate on these topics. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] It all comes down to our own interpretations of what Tolkien wrote.

By the way, I find the sub-topic "how do I (we) know that God is good?" fascinating, although perhaps too directly theological to justify lots of time on a Tolkien message board . But if anyone knows a place where we can go and thrash it out, let me know!

yes this sub-topic is fasinating, however, as previously explained I only used it to get a reaction to help my answer to be understood. it might be interesting one day to have a go at it. [img]smilies/cool.gif[/img]

[Legolas]

I have nothing to say on this, but great topic.

[Rimbaud]

With reference to the argument that the inclusion of the evil or rather, disharmonious within the Song of Creation was fully intentional, I was reminded of a quote:

"The Enemy in successive forms is always 'naturally' concerned with sheer Domination, and so the Lord of magic and machines; but the problem: that this frightful evil can and does arise from an apparently good root, the desire to benefit the world and others* - speedily and according to the benefactor's own plans - is a recurrent motive."

*Not in the Beginner of Evil: his was a sub-creative Fall, and hence the Elves (the representatives of sub-creation par excellence) were peculiarly his enemies and the special objects of his desire and hate - and open to his deceits. Their Fall is into possessiveness and (to a lesser degree) into perverson of their art to power.

Letter to Milton Waldman, 1951, as printed in Letters, No. 131, pp.143-157

Although in discussion last week I pointed out that IMHO, omniscience assumes prescience and so all events have been approved by Eru beforehand...

A remarkably erudite and stimulating thread, ladies and gentlemen, keep it up.

[ May 12, 2002: Message edited by: Stephanos ]

[Amarinth]

lord gothmog-- thanks for the comments, and i do understand what you mean, the distinction between possessing a "dark side" and being evil in the sense of truly practicing it. but what i intended to show was that melkor needed only the seeds of greatness, talent, inherently "good" or, at the least, "neutral" traits, to eventually forge evil with himself as his crucible. it's just like finding you have great power in the beginning, testing it out, then really using it to its full force until such time you end up creating god knows what with it, and by that time you've invented a completely new world-order featuring yourself as the bad, bad guy! hey, i think this actually happened already during rcent history! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

anyway, this interpretation does not need a prerequisite darkness for melkor to have tapped into. notice in the silm that even eru was quite neutral with describing his "jazzed up" contribution to the music of the ainur, this again being interpreted in a sense (by myself [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]) as an act of innovation from such a great a talent. consciousness of his actual evil manifests only when his innovation passes into the material world, i.e., when enacted, and that is where his position as an enemy is truly established.

i totally agree with you about not knowing if god or eru is completely good though. i can only go as far as to say that "good" pertains to everything consistent with eru's world order, melkor's deeds having given rise to another thus gave the distinction to "good" because his was antithetical and given the role of "evil".

this are just some interpretations among many, naturally, and though it disagrees in part with yours it's great though to have your and everyone else's take on this, i really had a blast!

[Lord Gothmog]

Amarinth,
I understand that we have differing views as to the basic make up of Melkor in his begining and I am quite content to have it so [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] . But am I correct in my interpretation of your posts that you agree with my view that Melkor became "Evil" by his own choice rather than being "Evil" from the moment of his "Birth"? Regardless of whether he had a "Dark" side or not. Therefore, "Evil" by will?