Evil in Middle-Earth

[inked]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

And thus is the case of Saruman solved.

I misread the "wavering" part. My apologies.

Very nice explanation, inked.

Thanks, but this is my take on wavering. Attalus or others might think differently.

Originally Posted by Elemmire

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?

Morgoth did initially as you recall, but then he returned to his self-will. He repented his repentance and the second falling was worse than the first. Morgoth indeed fell into the void. But both characters commit to self-will and enact it over time until it becomes their very way of being.

I think both Saruman and Morgoth when given their opportunities for final turning from self refused to do so wilfully or had become so self-fixated that they were incapable of choosing otherwise. They had confined their existence to self until implosion. They were irredeemable because they chose to be not redeemed when redemption was proffered.

Yes. It is possible in Middle Earth as Morgoth, Saruman, Wormtongue, and Gollum all demonstrate for us.

True repentance and amendment of life is shown in varying modes in Merry and Pippin and Bilbo and Frodo and Sam. We see the same in Boromir.

Originally Posted by Elemmire

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.

The downfall into evil is not bottomless. The selves we discussed who elect evil until it becomes for them impossible to repent implode into nothingness. Rejecting the good, they become incapable of existence. Evil is found to be derivative ultimately by all who so choose.

Originally Posted by Elemmire

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

I should have to re-read those sections to be specific enough, but I would hold that if they did initially right out of good motive and when offered the opportunity, repented of their self-will and error, they were not irredeemable.
All however had in their degree the choice of self or the Other. To refuse the Divine Will out of self-will ultimately leads to self-destruction.

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by inked

Thanks, but this is my take on wavering. Attalus or others might think differently.

Yes, but I like your take. It makes sense.

Originally Posted by inked

Yes. It is possible in Middle Earth as Morgoth, Saruman, Wormtongue, and Gollum all demonstrate for us.

Sorry, bad wording. I meant that since I had pointed out that both were irredeemable. If one falls so much into evil that one cannot be redeemed, are there still degrees of evil? Clearly Morgoth is more evil than the Fëanorions, but is he more evil than Saruman?

The downfall into evil is not bottomless. The selves we discussed who elect evil until it becomes for them impossible to repent implode into nothingness. Rejecting the good, they become incapable of existence. Evil is found to be derivative ultimately by all who so choose.

Oh! So you do have a different take on it.

Okay. IMHO, if "pure evil" does not exist, this means that no matter how bad you get, you never reach a theoretical spot where you are completely evil and thus could not get more so.

*sigh* A math example comes to mind. I don't know how much of this everyone knows... So, take the equation xy=36. If you graph this, you will see that it is impossible to reach 0, because 0 x anything=0, thus could never equal 36. However, you can continuously get smaller and smaller without touching 0, 360 x .1 = 36.

So on one side the graph goes down towards 0 without ever touching it, and on the other it goes up into infinity...

It's almost 3am, so I can't be sure, but I think I might have at least mathematically proved that your "no true evil"/"perfect good" might be true...!

Anyway, back on topic. If you can never reach 0, "perfect evil", then it seems to me that you can always get worse...

Originally Posted by inked

I should have to re-read those sections to be specific enough, but I would hold that if they did initially right out of good motive and when offered the opportunity, repented of their self-will and error, they were not irredeemable.
All however had in their degree the choice of self or the Other. To refuse the Divine Will out of self-will ultimately leads to self-destruction.

Okay.

I agree with you on the last, btw. Amazing, isn't it?

[Attalus]

I certainly agree that no evil entiety that has not imploded into Zero is irredeemable. Indeed, that would be blasphemy. Christ taught that He came to redeem all men, and by extension we can say Elves and Maiar, even Melko. However, the self-centeredness that is at the core of evil will usually prevent this, except by an exceptional act of will, expressed very well by C.S. Lewis in The Great Divorce. Inked I'm sure will recall the image of the soul with the small demon on his shoulder whispering to him that the soul would be lost without him, but finally, the soul rejects it by ripping it away from his shoulder and throwing it onto the ground. It immediately turns into a magnificent stallion that the soul gladfully mounts and rides away into the hills. The greater the sin, the harder the repentence but the greater the glory thereby.
On another note, I am struck always by the similarities between the ends of Saruman and Sauron. Both, after their mortal destruction are seen as phantoms, the one of Saruman quoted above and the "impenetrable shadow crowned with lightning" that menaces the Captains of the West with a huge hand (the Black Hand?) and then is dispersed by a great west wind. Note the directions of both winds. Saruman wavers, Sauron threratens. Does that not sum them up neatly?

[inked]

Attalus, an excellent point. For those with "ink"lination to do so, reading THE GREAT DIVORCE by CS Lewis will shed much light on this subject of how evil gains a foothold and proceeds to envelope and consume the agent by compliance of the will. He does with characters what Tolkien does! And while entirely enjoyable, THE GREAT DIVORCE is far too short, IMHO!

[Attalus]

Originally Posted by inked

Attalus, an excellent point. For those with "ink"lination to do so, reading THE GREAT DIVORCE by CS Lewis will shed much light on this subject of how evil gains a foothold and proceeds to envelope and consume the agent by compliance of the will. He does with characters what Tolkien does! And while entirely enjoyable, THE GREAT DIVORCE is far too short, IMHO!

Indeed, I would wish it four times longer. A great book with stunning imagery.

[Wayfarer]

Originally Posted by Elemmere

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?

Hmm. It seems that this, like many of the other questions you've raised, is a complex matter.

Both Morgoth and Saruman, I think, were irredeemable and yet, could have been redeemed. It seems I must defer to elvish wisdom and answer both 'yes' and 'no'.

It's not that Saruman, and even Morgoth, couldn't have been redeemed. It's that they couldn't be redeemed against their will, and they didn't want to be redeemed. Does that make sense?

If, as Inked suggests, Saruman really is offered the chance to reform (or rather, to be reformed) and return to his original purpose, then he really wasn't irredeemable - he simply refused redemption when it was offered. The state of evil is such, I think, that even in the moments of lucidity when the corrupt individual realizes that they are in opposition to the divine will, they often do not repent, but instead attempt, in a tragic irony, to redeem themself by their own will (thus relying on their self-will even in their desire to return to the divine will).

Okay. IMHO, if "pure evil" does not exist, this means that no matter how bad you get, you never reach a theoretical spot where you are completely evil and thus could not get more so.

*sigh* A math example comes to mind. I don't know how much of this everyone knows... So, take the equation xy=36. If you graph this, you will see that it is impossible to reach 0, because 0 x anything=0, thus could never equal 36. However, you can continuously get smaller and smaller without touching 0, 360 x .1 = 36.

So on one side the graph goes down towards 0 without ever touching it, and on the other it goes up into infinity...

It's almost 3am, so I can't be sure, but I think I might have at least mathematically proved that your "no true evil"/"perfect good" might be true...!

Anyway, back on topic. If you can never reach 0, "perfect evil", then it seems to me that you can always get worse...

Yes. Actually, I think what you're trying to get across is something I've said before - evil is asymptotic (which is a more succinct way of saying everything you just said ).

Actually, I've played with (but cannot really stand behind) the idea that both good and evil are asymptotic, at least from the perspective of human experience. A fallen creature is incapable, at least through its own efforts, of abolishing evil within itself and becoming pure good, but is likewise not ever able to annihilate themself and in doing so attain pure evil.

That is of course, not to say that pure good does not exist - just that it cannot be distilled out of a marred existance.

Interesting to note that Sauron, ultimately, never became 'pure evil'. Tolkien himself wrote that, with the destruction of the ring, Sauron would be

reduced to a shadow, a mere memory of malicious will.

Tragically enough, even in his ultimate fallen state, Sauron retained a last shred of goodness that allowed him to continue existing.

[ItalianLegolas]

i think evil could be most simply put as the failure to do good

[Elemmírë]

I'll respond to WF a bit now... I've got to go in about half a minute...

Yes. Actually, I think what you're trying to get across is something I've said before - evil is asymptotic (which is a more succinct way of saying everything you just said ).

Asymptotic. Yes, exactly. Thank you.

My math skills have dropped so far that I couldn't even remember the word until I looked it up. Am I sure I really want to take a math class next semester...?

I'm basically saying, "Haha! I've had a change of heart! Maybe you're right...!"

Actually, I've played with (but cannot really stand behind) the idea that both good and evil are asymptotic, at least from the perspective of human experience. A fallen creature is incapable, at least through its own efforts, of abolishing evil within itself and becoming pure good, but is likewise not ever able to annihilate themself and in doing so attain pure evil.

That is of course, not to say that pure good does not exist - just that it cannot be distilled out of a marred existance.

I prefer the idea that both are asymptotic.

Interesting to note that Sauron, ultimately, never became 'pure evil'. Tolkien himself wrote that, with the destruction of the ring, Sauron would be
Tragically enough, even in his ultimate fallen state, Sauron retained a last shred of goodness that allowed him to continue existing.

Oh dear... this is an Off Topic rant, actually... in the movie, didn't they make it seem that to destroy Sauron would be to destroy evil forever...?

Anyway, that certainly bears looking at... though I wonder... considering that with the destruction of the Ring, Sauron still exists, would anyone argue that redemption is still a possibility for him?

Originally Posted by ItalianLegolas

i think evil could be most simply put as the failure to do good

So... if you didn't do your homework one night (doing homework arguably being good ), is that evil?

I think that the concept of evil is a good deal more complicated than that...
I'm out of time...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Forkbeard

It seems though that you are equating fallibility with not being "perfectly good"-- ...

Your comment reminds me of the fascinating verse in the Bible : "Because he himself [Jesus] suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted." (Hebrews 2:18, bolding added)

I think this illustrates the concept of the potential for evil existing, yet evil not actually existing. Jesus Himself was said to be without sin, yet He was tempted, and apparently not just lightly, either, since He "suffered".

[Wayfarer]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

I think that the concept of evil is a good deal more complicated than that...

Yeah. I think so too.

[Attalus]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Yeah. I think so too.

*Looks at the length of this thread* Concur

[me9996]

In middle earth evil and good are clearly distingwishalbe (Oh boy... try figureing that word out! )

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

I would agree and disagree with that. In the beginning there is a fine line between doing something for good or bad reasons, but as these deeds progrees the gap seems to largen and something can be seen easily as one or the other. Take Saruman for example. When he started studying Ring lore there must have been a fine line between getting in to depp (ass he did) and merely studying the enemy's weapon, yet after he got in to depp it became plain that the deeds he was comitting were evil. Also with Melkor, he wanted a domain of his own which might not be evil but could be considered wrongs as he was one of the Valar and he was trusted in guidance of those who would be awoken by Eru, yet he to became evil.

A quote that I like concerning evil in LotR is:

As you have always done. For good and evil have not changed since yestreyear

I'm not sure if that is the exact wording as I don't have the books with me, but it is basically saying that however evil time get good and bad does not change, it's just the evil emphasis is more pronominent.

[Beregond]

I believe that a peson is evil if they can only do wrong and know that they are doing it, for instance (I can't remember his name) but the orc that tries to steel frodos mithril vest.

[Small No-name]

You have a point thare and i totaly agree with you

[Small No-name]

You are one smart person.