Evil in Middle-Earth

[Wayfarer]

*blushes and pretends not to notice RÃ*an's comments*

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

Does that then make Satan "perfect" evil?

I think Pytt gives a sufficient answer to this, but there is also more that can be said.

The relationship between Good and Evil is Asymmetrical. Evil is derivitive from and requires the existance of Good, but good is not derivitave from Evil. The fallacy of Dualism assumes that since they are opposites, they must be equal, which is false.

Satan, AKA Morgoth, is not the 'Perfect' evil for the reasons that have been stated. He is, however, the greatest evil. This comes about in an odd sort of way, for the fact that Morgoth is the greatest evil arises out of the fact that Melkor was once the greatest good. He was the most powerful of the Ainur, and when he fell, he fell the farthest. Ironically enough, it seems that the more good qualities a creature has initially, the further it is capable of deviating, and the more evil it is capable of. Interesting, no? Thoughts?

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Maybe in the beginning he was to perfect. Each of the Valar had their own special thing. Manwe had air, Ulmo water etc. yet Melkor had only parts of each of these gifts. He had more influence on air the Ulmo, yet Manwe had more influence on air than Melkor. The same with Ulmo or Aule. Melkor didn't have a specific talent. Just parts of everyone elses.
This could have resulted in envy and lust for something that he could call his own.

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by inked

Excellent! ... If you prefer a more exacting and exampled review read her translation of Dante's DIVINE COMEDY with her superb footnotes and explications...

Pure evil does not exist for evil is (all together now)...

Derivative!

Thank you! It's been a while, but apparently I can still remember some things. I've been meaning to read some Dante anyway, maybe now I'll have some incentive to do it...

Originally Posted by inked

There is pure good in the absolute sense. It is self-existent and gave existence to all that is otherwise. It is God of whom it is said "In the beginning God said"...and there was. The creation of the hierarchy of being down to and including matter and all the panoply of creatures from the earth up to and including humanity were declared "good" and that by the Creator.

We have a conflict of world views and of faith here. I'd rather not go into it, since RL religious discussion is not the point of this thread, but needless to say I do not agree with you that "God" is pure good (if anything, it seems to me that "God" would be beyond both good and evil), and will need further proof before I can begin to accept that idea.

Furthermore, "pure good" denotes perfection IMO. Perhaps Eru was perfect (though I have seen little proof of this), but would any of the Valar, apart from Morgoth, have evil in them? Can wrong choices arise from a being that is perfect and "pure good"? Arguably, bringing the Elves to Valinor in the first place was a bad choice.

Originally Posted by inked

That is why we say PRIDE is the first sin in ME and this primary world and that all other evils flow from it as a river from its source. For each evil is a good desired, sought, or wrested in the wrong manner, in the wrong degree, or the wrong season.

No disagreement here. Your argument indicates to me that evil is simply another face of good, one might say. I had more to add, but I can't find the words at the moment... Maybe later...

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

The relationship between Good and Evil is Asymmetrical. Evil is derivitive from and requires the existance of Good, but good is not derivitave from Evil. The fallacy of Dualism assumes that since they are opposites, they must be equal, which is false.

I disagree with you here.

IMO, good is as reliant upon evil as evil is upon good. Good may not be derivitive from evil, but if we did not know evil, how could we know good?

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

He was the most powerful of the Ainur, and when he fell, he fell the farthest. Ironically enough, it seems that the more good qualities a creature has initially, the further it is capable of deviating, and the more evil it is capable of. Interesting, no? Thoughts?

Very interesting. Too me, it seems that someone's potential for evil is equal to their potential for good. In Morgoth's case, this idea is clearly logical. In Fëanor's case, perhaps as well. Of him was born the greatest glories of the Noldor, as well as their deepest griefs.

[Attalus]

Originally posted by Ellimire:
Furthermore, "pure good" denotes perfection IMO. Perhaps Eru was perfect (though I have seen little proof of this), but would any of the Valar, apart from Morgoth, have evil in them? Can wrong choices arise from a being that is perfect and "pure good"? Arguably, bringing the Elves to Valinor in the first place was a bad choice.

Prove it. I get irritated with you guys making unprovable assertions while we quote chapter and verse. What evil or imperfection can you find in Eru? He is not judged by the actions of the Valar, who are not evil, being unfallen, but definitely are fallible. Their bringing of the Eldar to Valinor might well have been an error, but it was not evil, being intended to protect them.

[Elemmírë]

I'm sorry, Attalus. You misunderstood me. I was not making assertions about the goodness of the Valar. I was simply questioning ideas. I was curious as to whether you believed that the Valar were pure good or "perfect" well.

I believe they are fallible. In all honesty, I don't think that can be debated.

It was a bad example, I suppose, but my point was that all beings in Arda were marred. Perfect goodness did not (and IMHO still does not) exist.

My argument was not that their actions were evil, but that their actions had harmful results. In essence, I was questioning whether something that is "pure good" can cause something that could be considered "evil" or harmful.

One could judge Eru this way as well, though I would rather not...

As to proving it...

Why don't you prove to me that God or Eru is "perfect Good"?

[inked]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

*blushes and pretends not to notice RÃ*an's comments*

I think Pytt gives a sufficient answer to this, but there is also more that can be said.

The relationship between Good and Evil is Asymmetrical. Evil is derivitive from and requires the existance of Good, but good is not derivitave from Evil. The fallacy of Dualism assumes that since they are opposites, they must be equal, which is false.

Satan, AKA Morgoth, is not the 'Perfect' evil for the reasons that have been stated. He is, however, the greatest evil. This comes about in an odd sort of way, for the fact that Morgoth is the greatest evil arises out of the fact that Melkor was once the greatest good. He was the most powerful of the Ainur, and when he fell, he fell the farthest. Ironically enough, it seems that the more good qualities a creature has initially, the further it is capable of deviating, and the more evil it is capable of. Interesting, no? Thoughts?

reiterating:
The creation of creatures with free will necessarily entailed the possibilities of obedience or disobedience. Creatures endowed with that free will had all goodness according to their perfection and place and their capability of creation commensurate. That meant, too, necessarily commensurate potential for disobedience. In each case, the potential for evil could exist without actualization save by deliberate choice of disobedience. And the actualization of the potential was commensurate in the same way with the place and perfection in the hierarchy of being. So in ME Melkor was capable of the most evil potentially and in actuality when he opposed Iluvatar. And great was his fall, and many in his train, to nothingness. So in the primary world, too. From archangel to human, all who knew the good and desired to be in the place of God, actualized their potential and wrought evil in commensurate fashions. That is why we say PRIDE is the first sin in ME and this primary world and that all other evils flow from it as a river from its source. For each evil is a good desired, sought, or wrested in the wrong manner, in the wrong degree, or the wrong season.

The greater the good, the further they can fall. Screwtape (paraphrased)

[inked]

Elemmire,

"Your argument indicates to me that evil is simply another face of good, one might say. "

NOPE. That's the one thing you cannot say. If it were true, evil would be self-existent. Evil feeds or preys on the good and has its origin in the wilful disobedience of an originally good creature. Evil can cause destruction as a perverted and inverted image of creation, but that is the best it can manage.

Check out the behaviour of the Unman in PERELANDRA by CS Lewis.

You have undoubtedly read JRRT's noted statement about evil afore in this thread.

"It was a bad example, I suppose, but my point was that all beings in Arda were marred. Perfect goodness did not (and IMHO still does not) exist."

All creation is marred by the Fall in Arda and the primary world. Were that limited by the Moon's orbital circumference (since 1969 at least ), it was not necessarily so until man set foot upon the next worlds (reference OUT OF THE SILENT PLANET) and potentially limited to the Moon's sphere save by direct transportation of fallen man there. We see in PERELANDRA that redeemed though fallen man(Ransom) is an agent of thwarting the expansion of evil even in the face of direct demonic possession and infiltration by the Adversary (the possessed Unman). Thus in Lewis' post-Incarnational science-fiction we see the outworking of what ME anticipates!

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by inked

Elemmire,

"Your argument indicates to me that evil is simply another face of good, one might say. "

NOPE. That's the one thing you cannot say. If it were true, evil would be self-existent. Evil feeds or preys on the good and has its origin in the wilful disobedience of an originally good creature. Evil can cause destruction as a perverted and inverted image of creation, but that is the best it can manage.

Actually, I think there's a way around that.

If evil is simply another face of good, then good needs to exist for evil to exist. If there was no good, then evil - if it is a face of it - could not exist either.

I did not say good is another face of evil (not yet ). So I haven't claimed by that statement that good is dependent upon evil...

... I think.

Anyway, if evil is a perverted version of good, then IMHO it is no longer good, and yet it still is... contradictory, I know. I can't explain what I'm trying to get at better than this.

Hey. At least we agree on one thing... how to spell my name...

Unlike certain other people...

Originally Posted by inked

All creation is marred by the Fall in Arda and the primary world. Were that limited by the Moon's orbital circumference (since 1969 at least ), it was not necessarily so until man set foot upon the next worlds (reference OUT OF THE SILENT PLANET) and potentially limited to the Moon's sphere save by direct transportation of fallen man there. We see in PERELANDRA that redeemed though fallen man(Ransom) is an agent of thwarting the expansion of evil even in the face of direct demonic possession and infiltration by the Adversary (the possessed Unman). Thus in Lewis' post-Incarnational science-fiction we see the outworking of what ME anticipates!

I have never heard anything like that before. Perelandra you say? I'll have to find it sometime. In the meanwhile, care to rephrase that...?

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

I'm sorry, Attalus. You misunderstood me. I was not making assertions about the goodness of the Valar. I was simply questioning ideas. I was curious as to whether you believed that the Valar were pure good or "perfect" well.

I believe they are fallible. In all honesty, I don't think that can be debated.

It was a bad example, I suppose, but my point was that all beings in Arda were marred. Perfect goodness did not (and IMHO still does not) exist.

My argument was not that their actions were evil, but that their actions had harmful results. In essence, I was questioning whether something that is "pure good" can cause something that could be considered "evil" or harmful.

I haven't been following this as closely as perhaps I should have, but thought I might jump in.

It seems though that you are equating fallibility with not being "perfectly good"--if so I don't see how that follows.

Being perfectly good also does not mean being omniscient...some of the actions or inactions of the Valar had negative results, but the question is whether they foresaw those results and acted anyway, deeming that that is the cost of doing something, or did they act with the best of intentions not knowing or realizing the results? If the latter, then I don't see how you can say that they aren't perfectly good...what they did, they did because as far as they saw it was all good. That in the end it turned out not to be is the nature of Middle Earth after the Fall, not of any failure in the Valar.

[Elemmírë]

It's too late at night, I don't know what I'm doing anymore.

My logic might be faulty, but I'm basically saying that the Valar are not perfect, which seems to be equated often with perfectly good. For the most part, I think your idea that they did not know the eventual results of what would occur is more correct.

For the most part. This is not true about Mandos, I think, he stated after the decision, "So it is doomed." One at least knew of the eventual consequences.

Also... I'm trying to take into consideration that it is Arda Marred we are discussing, not a hypothetical Arda Unmarred. In Arda Marred, I do not see how any creature, be he Atan, Elda, or Vala can have fully escaped the shadow and be perfectly good.

And I am saying that because they are not perfectly good, they are fallible. Not that they are not perfectly good because they are fallible.

Or at least, I hope that's what I've been saying.

[inked]

Elemmire,

I was perhaps obtuse with reference to the Moon's sphere! In the Middle AGES of our world the view was commonly held in Western Civ that Ptolemaic astronomy was correct. The philosophers and clerics held that the baleful influence of sin was limited to the planet Earth but that the marred perfection of the Moon (a sphere with variations of shading) indicated a more perfect yet not necessarily sinful or sinless state. Each ascending level of the Ptolemaic system was increased in perfection until one reached the Primum Mobile. CS Lewis discusses this admirably in THE DISCARDED IMAGE along with the hierarchy of being. Both he and Tolkien were immersed in this world view as scholars. Dante uses it to great effect in the Divine Comedy throughout but most notably in the Paradisio which marks the ascent via these spheres to Heaven proper and a wondrous depiction of the Beatific Vision.

Tolkien and Lewis both utilize these concepts in varying degrees. My argument depends on your having read Tolkien's Hobbit, LOTR, and Silmarillion at least and having read OUT OF THE SILENT PLANET, PERELANDRA, and THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTHby Lewis. You shall have great pleasure ahead of you if you have not read the Space Trilogy and enjoyed the concept of space given the medieval world view.

When you have read these my prior comments make more sense (or at least I contend they do ).

Using that conception, one can argue that the local conditions are manifested by a quarantine of the Earth and its inhabitants (including the rebellious angels and their leader) for the safety of the cosmos. Now we have touched the surface of the Moon with human presence ( I make no issue of the persons who have done so personal religious beliefs or state ), I think a medieval worldview would hold it included in the quarantine zone. Lewis does a splendid job addressing these issues in a clearly post-Incarnation mode. Tolkein's ME is anticipatory mode. But both authors employ the Middle age world view to excellent advantage.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Does anyone think that anyone who does evil deeds started with good purposes. In the beginning Melkor's purposes weren't evil and Feanor and his son's were pursueing the Silmarils for what seemed to them to be the right reasons.

[Attalus]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

Why don't you prove to me that God or Eru is "perfect Good"?

Easily. God=Eru is perfect good because he created all that is good. All that is evil came from perverting his will and separation from it. I agree with Forkbeard when he says that you are conflating fallible which is merely a failure of foresight or execution, with evil which means, well we have Wayfarer's excellent definitions. Only God is infallible, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. To refute me, you have to cite an action of Eru's (this thread is about evil in Middle-earth) that was evil. That is what argument is about, not merely coming up with insupportable theses without bases in the Canon.

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by Attalus

Easily. God=Eru is perfect good because he created all that is good. All that is evil came from perverting his will and separation from it. I agree with Forkbeard when he says that you are conflating fallible which is merely a failure of foresight or execution, with evil which means, well we have Wayfarer's excellent definitions. Only God is infallible, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. To refute me, you have to cite an action of Eru's (this thread is about evil in Middle-earth) that was evil. That is what argument is about, not merely coming up with insupportable theses without bases in the Canon.

Is Eru even in Middle-earth? Or is this whole argument off topic?

Despite your assertion that evil is a separation from good, it seems to me that considering the way that evil leads to good and good leads to evil, the two are still very much connected.

here's your Canonical proof:

Morgoth steals the Silmarils (evil), which causes the Noldor to return to ME, undoubtedly causing much good in the long run, especially regarding humans.
Fëanor's sons swear the oath out of love and loyalty for their father. I would argue that this action is good... And there is no debating the evil that came out of it.

I explained my comment on fallibility and something not being perfectly good (I never stated that to be fallible was to be evil). I'll admit that at this point I'm still not sure where I was going with that. I'm expressing vague theories at this point to try to keep this debate from being stale and onesided. If you would prefer, I'll wait until I've thought something through completely before I address them here, though I have always believed that ideas bring forth more ideas. Obviously that is not happening here.

By the way, my last post was not a vague and unsupportable theory, IMHO. It was On Topic, and was based in the Canon.

Concerning the "perfect goodness" of Eru: can you refute that his plan involves both good and evil? Morgoth seems to be a part of his plan for ME. Eru did not prevent evil from coming into existence, and did not create a world where the possibility was impossible. Perhaps you are going to have to define your idea of "Perfect Good" to me.

There is one theoretical question I would like to raise, that is based in the Canon. Almost every argument points to the probability that at the end of Arda, the Elves will simply cease to exist.

Of course, this eventuality cannot be proven or disproven, but it is an obvious possibility.

How could that be the work of a truly "perfectly good" Eru?

Perhaps, however, we should avoid discussing the theoretic "Perfect Goodness" of Eru for the time-being, since it seems to be leading to nothing but animosity.

TD: I agree completely with what you're saying.

[Attalus]

Eru's plan did not involve good and evil. Evil was introduced by Melkor, deviating from the will of Eru. But there has been no argument by anyone here that good may not come of evil. That is the power of Eru's perfect goodness. He can make good of anything, but He would be happier if there had been no evil to begin with, as on Perelandra. Turning evil into good is a good,even saintly act, and does not argue any evil in the changer. And of course God=Eru is in Middle-earth. He is omnipresent, which means being everywhere at once. He does not have a distinct, physical presence in Middle-earth, but that is another thing entirely.

[Elemmírë]

Okay. The presence of Eru/God in ME is nothing something I'm clear on in Tolkien's mythology or in Christian theology itself...

New question entirely, and one that I hope hasn't been covered before.

This one is a question. I haven't thought enough about it yet to develop any annoying theories on my own .

At the end of LotR, it is said:

...about the body of Saruman a grey mist gathered, and rising slowly to a great height like smoke from a fire, as a pale shrouded figure it loomed over the Hill. For a moment it wavered, looking to the West; but out of the West came a cold wind, and it bent away, and with a sigh dissolved into nothing.

How far must one fall into evil to be irredeemable? Before the First Age, the Valar clearly considered Morgoth "redeemable" enough to release him. Did Saruman become more evil than Morgoth had been at that point?

Who else would have fallen into this category? Was Fëanor irredeemable? His sons? Eöl or Maeglin?

[Wayfarer]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

How far must one fall into evil to be irredeemable? Before the First Age, the Valar clearly considered Morgoth "redeemable" enough to release him. Did Saruman become more evil than Morgoth had been at that point?

Who else would have fallen into this category? Was Fëanor irredeemable? His sons? Eöl or Maeglin?

I think that's a good question. My tenative answer is going to be 'I think Morgoth was irredeemably evil because he was no longer capable of even desiring to turn back to goodness.'

[Elemmírë]

Tentative answer.

I'll respect that. Let's delve deeper into this theory...

What about some of the other characters?

Why was Morgoth not irredeemably evil at the end of the first war between him and the Valar? -at least in their eyes...

Saruman looked back towards Valinor. Considering this could one not argue that he actually had still been capable of turning back to goodness?

[inked]

Elemmire,

Wayfarer has the final answer in his tentative answer:"I think that's a good question. My tenative answer is going to be 'I think Morgoth was irredeemably evil because he was no longer capable of even desiring to turn back to goodness.' "

If we closely look at JRRT's description, which you quote, we can see the final actualization of Saruman's series of choices. Saruman was sent on the same mission as the other Istari, and all of them save Gandalf failed utterly because of their distraction from that goal. We know how Radagast failed - he became too absorbed in the natural world leading to the failure to pursue his mission - a failure of focus and persistence. We speculate that was a likely cause of the two out to the East though this cannot be known exactly. But in Saruman's case we actually have a case study of how the replacement of Divine purpose with self-will results in self-absorption and inversion of that Divine will to selfish purpose and ends in the loss of the world, the object of pursuit, and true existence.

"...about the body of Saruman a grey mist gathered, and rising slowly to a great height like smoke from a fire, as a pale shrouded figure it loomed over the Hill. For a moment it wavered, looking to the West; but out of the West came a cold wind, and it bent away, and with a sigh dissolved into nothing."

The title of Sauman was initially Saruman the White, Chief of the Order of the Istari (per Gandalf). Among the Council of the Wise he was the acknowledged leader, and this was a position he seemed to covet, if I read LOTR aright. This suggests a sense of pride and desire to rule not in keeping with the mission per se, an initial subtle redirection of purpose from the opposition to Sauron to the aggrandizement of Saruman - almost merely vanity. But the process continues and as Saruman delves deeper into ring lore, he becomes more desirous that he should have the rule and ring to empower it. To that end he misdirects and slows the Council in their actions.
This is ominous and not fully realized until he reveals himself to Gandalf and attempts IN HIS PRIDE to subvert Gandalf with his Voice and announces his success with Radagast in scorn and preemptory pride. Indeed it was this overweening pride that led to his attempt to subvert Gandalf and thus revealed his true purpose and NATURE (that which he had become by increasing self-centredness during his sojourn in ME). He is revealed to have imagined himself overpowering and replacing Sauron; which falsity Sauron played nicely to subvert the mission of the Istari and the Council and Saruman. He then subcreates for destruction of men and nature the Orcs of the White hand and commits thereby further hubris - "improving" the orc nature to resist aversion to sunlight for his heinous purposes (not the good of the orcs), cross-breeding men and orcs, arrogating the palantir to himself alone and not revealing its existence to the other Istari or Council. Then he molds an army, ostensibly to assist Sauron, but actually to empower Saruman against men, other orcs, and ultimately against Sauron. When caught out in this purpose and defeated, he turns to personal destructive activity in Wormtongue and the Shire. This process of self-absorption continues downward until in his treatment of Wormtongue after Saruman's defeat by the Hobbits we see the degradation which self-absorption penultimately leads! Other creatures are but objects to be manipulated and abused and scorned save in their yielding to the will of Saruman. When Wormtongue's fear and loathing have overwhelmed him, he imitates his master in destructivity, and assasinates him (and for the same reason, pitiful wretch, Saruman can no longer suffice Wormtongue's designs for self-aggrandizement which have brought him to such lowly state). Then we see the ultimate acts of Saruman, once the White, who chose to be the many coloured (rejecting in a visible image the unity of the light for its broken components, which change mirrors Saruman's loss of purpose in mission for the components of self-will), who now can only be represented by a grey mist, a smoke. The light is now absorbed completely in the Saruman who has refracted so completely into competing desires and wishes like the particles of water in mist or motes in smoke!

It is this self-destroyed by self-will Saruman who is given one last chance to disavow the self and affirm the Divine will! - "...about the body of Saruman a grey mist gathered, and rising slowly to a great height like smoke from a fire, as a pale shrouded figure it loomed over the Hill. For a moment it wavered, looking to the West;" - here the final moment of choice, the mist wavers, as though offered or called to return to the west and considering the choice! Think of it: Saruman from Maiar to Istari to despot to slain man and still offered opportunity to turn again to the Divine Will ...but wavering in that moment of choice. Even at the last so caught in self-will that it refuses the summons by tottering on the fence! So caught in self-will that it can no longer choose the Divine Will or, refuses to do so for pride, unwilling to humiliate itself by acknowledgement of the Divine Source from which it came! and then, " but out of the West came a cold wind, and it bent away, and with a sigh dissolved into nothing."

That is what self-will in opposition to the Divine Will must always lead to - the complete disintegration of the person into the particulates of desire, lust, avarice, greed, covetousness,wrath, vengeance, and utter destruction of the self by abnegation of the good.

Damn, but JRRT could write a picture worth thousands of words!

[Elemmírë]

And thus is the case of Saruman solved.

I misread the "wavering" part. My apologies.

Very nice explanation, inked.

It works very well regarding Saruman, I think, but I would still have some questions regarding Morgoth ( ). According to your argument, despite everything he did, Saruman would have still been given a second chance by the Valar.

In the VoE, however it is written, that Morgoth "sued for peace and pardon."

Was Morgoth, who was irredeemable, more evil than Saruman at the end, who was also irredeemable, that his request for mercy would not be heeded? Is this even possible?

Does the downfall into evil have a floor, or is it bottomless?

Considering what we've discussed so far, my guess would be bottomless, since a "floor" would have to be pure evil, I think, a concept that we agree and Tolkien says doesn't exist.

And what would be your take on the redeemablity of characters such as Maeglin and the Fëanorions?