Evil in Middle-Earth

[Wayfarer]

Allow me to venture that, according to Tolkien, our world was supposed to be Middle Earth. And since the Bible originates in our world (Middle Earth!), and the discussion is mostly still about good and evil... the answer is Yes! Both!

Okay. Back on topic. *fights of the Pnume with a stick*

I maintain nonetheless that ying-yang dualism can... Eek. Sorry about that. I maintain my statement that evil is qualitative, rather than quantitative. While evil may or may not be measurable on the scale, something is evil regardless of how evil you think it is. A 'little evil' is qualitatively the same as a great evil.

[Rían]

Yes, but people were talking about calling a person evil. I think we can judge whether a particular act is evil or not, but can a person be called evil if they do some evil and some good? I was trying to describe how/when I would call a person evil.

Or if you want to get into Boolean logic - should evil be 0 (which is what is is acc'd to Tolkien) and good be 1, and should the equation be written with an "AND" or an "OR" operator? Or is there not an equation at all for this?

type-of-person = evil-act-1 AND evil-act-2 ... AND evil-act-n AND good-act-1 AND good-act-2 ... AND good-act-n.

In this equation, if there are any evil deeds, then type-of-person would equal "0", so the person would be evil, even if they had predominately good acts But if we used an "OR" operator, then if there were any good deeds, the person would be good, even if they had predominately evil acts.

I think I'll let God make the final call and just worry about myself and getting my number of evil acts down!

So what do you guys think of my trend-leading-to-loss-of-freewill idea?

[inked]

Trend becomes fact in this instance of will to self or other than God(cf. Gollum, Saruman, Sauron, the late Kings of Numenor, Melkor, Lotho, etc. in ME; see also, Weston and Devine in the Space Trilogy by Lewis, all the non-remaining ghosts in THE GREAT DIVORCE;Tom Riddle aka Lord Voldemort, Bartimaeus Crouch, JR, Death Eaters in Harry Potter series 1-5th books).

Trend becomes fact when willing the good or God (cf. Bilbo. Sam, Frodo, Boromir, Galadriel, etc. in ME; Ransom, Perelandrian Eve and Adam, Mark Stoddard in the Space Trilogy, the remaining ghosts in TGD; Snape, Sirius Black, Mundungus, etc. in HP).

This great truth is summed up well by Albus Dumbledore (paraphrasing) telling Harry it is not our abilities but our choices that make us what we are.

[Rían]

I like the picture CSL gives in TGDivorce - the Tragedian, and the little teensy guy by his side who is the actual person ... who gets smaller and smaller and finally disappears ...

*sees SGH looking this way*

... which of course REMINDS me of Middle Earth and, um, evil things!

[inked]

Hey, Rian,
Why should SGH look at this post suspiciously? I did a FABULOUS job of getting us back into a ME mileu so realistic that the wind wafting through Fanghorn would near take your hat off - if you had one! And then there was Wayfarer's superb connective post (notice how nice it is to have and insufferable one around from time to time?) showing the equivalence of ME and our prior discussions in real time (both qualitative and quantitative aspects, rest assured). So a small, teensy digression into the lands of TGD connecting as they do with all that has gone before (get it?) shouldn't really get SGH's attention.

Or are you just rabbity?

The implosion of the self which is the inherent nature of evil is actually shown in the same mode in ME and TGD. In TGD all the grey town is nearly subatomic in size though it seems vast to the even more miniscule inhabitants concerned only with themselves. In ME all evil becomes focused in a ring which is incomparably smaller than the Crack of Doom where it is vanquished. The spiritual reality conveyed in ME and TGD is that self will leads to the black hole phenomena - not existence in any meaningful sense!
OUCH!

SEE !

[Wayfarer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Or if you want to get into Boolean logic - should evil be 0 (which is what is is acc'd to Tolkien) and good be 1, and should the equation be written with an "AND" or an "OR" operator? Or is there not an equation at all for this?

In boolean logic, Good would be zero, and evil would be Nonzero. A boolean logic switch (at least those I've worked with) translates 0 into 'no' and anything else into 'yes'. 1 is generally used for simplification, but bool(3) and bool(-5) will give the same answer.

Ultimately, as far as my mind can understand, evil in its simplest form must be 'non-good'... or a lack of good. Which means that as long as there is a possibility for things to become more good, evil is present.

And in that sense... if we are going to treat an act as qualitatively good or evil, then any act that does not have the best motive and fails to bring about the best possible motive in the best possible manner.

...

Okay. No pressure.


On the other hand... utilizing a strict definition such as that above, then we can't always say someone is good because they have good intentions - they might still be doing an act of evil (and, as can be said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions).


And really, when we get right down to it, when we think 'a person is evil', what we mean is 'they do evil things, and we know about it'. Now, if we accept that evil is an absence of good, then every person who is not perfect is qualitatively evil.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

In boolean logic, Good would be zero, and evil would be Nonzero.

I disagree. I was going by JRRT's definition of absolute evil as a non-entity, which I think would translate into zero. Why do you think "good would be zero"?

A boolean logic switch (at least those I've worked with) translates 0 into 'no' and anything else into 'yes'.

So why would good correlate to "no"? I would think it would correlate to "yes".

Anyway, I was just havin' some fun Not that any of this boolean stuff matters! (at least in this discussion) I just thought it would be fun to try to translate into mathie-type-stuff and speculate away...

And really, when we get right down to it, when we think 'a person is evil', what we mean is 'they do evil things, and we know about it'. Now, if we accept that evil is an absence of good, then every person who is not perfect is qualitatively evil.

But I don't accept that definition

[Rían]

Originally Posted by inked

Hey, Rian,
Why should SGH look at this post suspiciously?

(I'm just pullin' her queenly leg!)

I did a FABULOUS job of getting us back into a ME mileu so realistic that the wind wafting through Fanghorn would near take your hat off - if you had one! And then there was Wayfarer's superb connective post (notice how nice it is to have and insufferable one around from time to time?) showing the equivalence of ME and our prior discussions in real time (both qualitative and quantitative aspects, rest assured).

Aren't we all just fab-u-lous?!!! *pats on backs all around*

We got her fooled, guys!!

So a small, teensy digression into the lands of TGD connecting as they do with all that has gone before (get it?) shouldn't really get SGH's attention.

I agree - it was TOTALLY connected to Middle Earth - Totally, dude!

Or are you just rabbity?

*looks down a tempting rabbit trail .... *
No! No! Come BACK, self! *smack*

The implosion of the self which is the inherent nature of evil is actually shown in the same mode in ME and TGD. In TGD all the grey town is nearly subatomic in size though it seems vast to the even more miniscule inhabitants concerned only with themselves. In ME all evil becomes focused in a ring which is incomparably smaller than the Crack of Doom where it is vanquished. The spiritual reality conveyed in ME and TGD is that self will leads to the black hole phenomena - not existence in any meaningful sense!

On the serious side - I like this summary

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

And in that sense... if we are going to treat an act as qualitatively good or evil, then any act that does not have the best motive and fails to bring about the best possible motive in the best possible manner.

I'm being very broad in my use of the word "act" - I'm including things that only God can see, such as thoughts ...

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Wayfarer

Okay. Back on topic. *fights of the Pnume with a stick*

Originally posted by Rian
*sees SGH looking this way*

(I'm just pullin' her queenly leg!)

Aren't we all just fab-u-lous?!!! *pats on backs all around*

We got her fooled, guys!!

I agree - it was TOTALLY connected to Middle Earth - Totally, dude!

Rian, Wayfarer, WHAP WHAP WHAP!!!!

Inked, you're pretty new here so I'll let you slide, this time.

[inked]

Thank you, your Golden Haired Sisterness. Most honored am I to be nonWHAPPED!

[Attalus]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

And really, when we get right down to it, when we think 'a person is evil', what we mean is 'they do evil things, and we know about it'. Now, if we accept that evil is an absence of good, then every person who is not perfect is qualitatively evil.

Actually, according to orthodox theology, this is true. That is why the Incarnation was necessary for the salvation of fallen mankind. To quote CSL, "When the saints say that they are vile, they are not performing an amusing act of self-deprecation, but giving an expert's opinion." (The Business of Heaven)

[Rían]

Great quote, Attalus!


*applies bandaids liberally*
I'll be good now, SGH!

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

And really, when we get right down to it, when we think 'a person is evil', what we mean is 'they do evil things, and we know about it'. Now, if we accept that evil is an absence of good, then every person who is not perfect is qualitatively evil.

THat's one model, and it leads to a strict dualism. Augustine introduced another that I think probably takes better account of what we really find in the world. That is, Evil is twisted Good. Good exists without evil, and good was made by God at creation. Evil, however, can not exist apart from good and needs good to exist. On this model there is no such thing as absolute evil, and all evil is redeemable unless it chooses not to be. I think it is this model that lies behind much of Tolkien's work, though there is a problem--the nature of the Ring seems to suggest another model for evil.

[Attalus]

Originally Posted by Forkbeard

THat's one model, and it leads to a strict dualism. Augustine introduced another that I think probably takes better account of what we really find in the world. That is, Evil is twisted Good. Good exists without evil, and good was made by God at creation. Evil, however, can not exist apart from good and needs good to exist. On this model there is no such thing as absolute evil, and all evil is redeemable unless it chooses not to be. I think it is this model that lies behind much of Tolkien's work, though there is a problem--the nature of the Ring seems to suggest another model for evil.

I agree. JRRT said in the Letters that there is no absolutely evil creature in his stories, "for that would be Zero." No intelligence, at the very least, and Gandalf says that Sauron is very wise. The Ring, however, is "altogether evil," its (supposed) beauty it's only Good quality.

[Wayfarer]

Yes, there are no bannas. And no wholly evil (that is, lacking any good characteristic) creatures.

But I wasn't trying to quantify good and evil, but qualify them. And for a creature to be truly good they must be free from any evil - otherwise the evil that is present will mar everything that they do.

While I agree that a completely evil creature would be a null-entity (because existance itself is a good thing), in abstract terms I find it most applicable to reverse it - good is Zero, because true good is the absence of evil, or perfection. Human experience is almost asymptotic.

[inked]

Wayfarer,

Is the absence of evil perfection? Are there degrees of perfection?

If Melkor had chosen obedience once the thought of disobedience ocurred to him, would Arda have been more perfect?

[Michael Martinez]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But there can be more than one purpose to what God did, and I think since God is omniscient, one can conclude (while still being a literalist) that whatever change happened in Job was also intended by God; don't you? If so, what change do you see that took place in Job?

(ps - I don't know you well and don't know if you like these types of discussions or not - feel free to say you're not interested! )

Sorry for the long absence. I have been on the road and finally moved back to Texas recently.

The Book of Job is (according to Protestant points of view) a teaching story. I don't know how the Catholics view it. The story is supposed to provide a lesson in faith. We don't know why God allows evil to happen to us, but we do know that he loves us and wants us to love him in return. Job knew he had done nothing wrong, but he was wrongly accused of having sinned by men he had called his friends. That is an all too common occurrence. Rather than accept Job as a man of faith who was being tested by God, his friends assumed he had done something wrong and called upon him to confess his sin.

On another level, in English Literature (the KJV being the subject of study), the Book of Job has been called by some critics a study in human busibodiness. That is, it examines how people go about minding other people's business without really knowing what is wrong. In the end, the self-appointed judges get their comeuppance.

Job is also noted for introducing some aspects of Satan not previously seen (in Biblical literature).

[Michael Martinez]

Originally Posted by inked

Evil in Middle Earth and everywhere else we know of in the Universe (Terra) is composed of two parts in its effects. There is the situation into which we are born consisting of the cumulative effects prior to us and in which we are enmeshed involuntarily, but to which we must respond. Then there are the purely personal components we face (which may partake of and contribute to the historic reality).[/b]

That is not correct. Tolkien portrays all evil in Middle-earth as being the result of personal choice. Even the corruption of the Orcs (and Trolls) is a result or effect of Melkor's choices. The evil which Melkor's followers commit is the result of THEIR personal choices.

When Tolkien was struggling with the nature of Orcs (in those notes and essays published in "Myths Transformed" in Morgoth's Ring), he indicated that it required a great deal of Melkor's power and concentration to totally or nearly totally suppress their independent will -- and they by nature rebelled against his domination.

Hence, the Orcs were struggling to be free of Melkor's corrupting influence, even if they in the long run committed their own evil acts.


That is, Tolkien gave even the Orcs the freedom to choose between complying totally with their master's will or defying it, and many of them (perhaps all) -- when allowed to make their own choices -- chose to defy that will. They sought to express themselves freely.

Tolkien clearly tried to strip "sin" of all its literary accretions and take it back to the basics. After all, these Middle-earth stories are supposedly set in a simpler time, and are pre-Biblically disposed. That is, what theology they provide is rudimentary, not sophisticated.

In a footnote to Letter 211, Tolkien wrote:

*Almost the only vestige of 'religion' is seen on II pp. 284-5 in the 'Grace before Meat'. This is indeed mainly as it were a commemoration of the Departed, and theology is reduced to 'that which is beyond Elvenhome and ever will be,' sc. is beyond the mortal lands, beyond the memory of unfallen Bliss, beyond the physical world.

In Letter 156, he wrote:

"The Numenoreans thus began a great new good, and as monotheists; but like the Jews (only more so)( with only one physical centre of 'worship': the summit of the mountain Meneltarma 'Pillar of Heaven' -- literally, for they did not conceive of the sky as a divine residence -- in the centre of Numenor; but it had no building and no temple, as all such things had evil associations....

Further on:

So ended Numenor-Atlantis and all its glory. But in a kind of Noachian situation the small party of the Faithful in Numenor, who had refused to take part in the rebellion (though many of them had been sacrificed in the Temple by the Sauronians) escaped in Nine Ships (Vol. I 379, II. 202) under the leadership of *Elendil* (= Aelfwine, Elf-friend) and his sons *Isildur* and *Anarion*, and established a kind of diminished memory of Numenor in Exile on the coasts of Middle-earth -- inheriting the hatred of Sauron, the friendship of the Elves, the knowledge of the True God, and (less happily) the yearning for longevity, and the habit of embalming and the building of splendid tombs -- their only 'hallows': or almost so. But the 'hallow' of God (Eru) and the Mountain had perished, and there was no real substitute. Also when the 'Kings' came to an end there was no equivalent to a 'priesthood': the two being identical in Numenorean ideas. So while God (Eru) was a datum of good* Numenorean philosophy, and a prime fact in their conception of history, He had at the time of the War of the Ring no worship and no hallowed place. And that kind of negative truth was characteristic of the West, and all the area under Numenorean influence: the refusal to worship any 'creature', and above all no 'dark lord' or satanic demon, Sauron, or any other, was almost as far as they got. They had (I imagine) no petitionary prayers to God; but preserved the vestige of thanksgiving. (Those under special Elvish influence might call on the angelic powers for help in immediate peril or fear of evil enemies. +--) It later appears that there had been a 'hallow' on Mindolluin, only approachable by the King, where he had anciently offered thanks and praise on behalf of his people; but it had been forgotten. It was re-entered by Aragorn, and there he found a sapling of the White Tree, and replanted it in the Court of the Fountain. It is presumed that with the re0emergence of the lineal priest-kings (of whom Luthien the Blessed Elf-maiden was a foremother) the worship of God would be renewed, and His Name (or title) be again more often heard. But there would be no temple of the True God while Numenorean influence lasted.

The first note reads:

There were evil Numenoreans: Sauronians, but they do not come into this story except remotely; as the wicked Kings who had become Nazgul or Ringwraiths.

He was careful not to dress up the evils of Middle-earth in the trappings of theology. There is a mythical element of an undying line of descent from Luthien, which leads to the rise of a tradition of monotheistic priest-kings. But even the priest-kings "fall" from grace and rebel against God by choice.

In order to avoid the fallacy of presenting everything in terms of "good guys" and "bad guys", Tolkien allowed evil to emerge as a result of choice, without trying to explain the spiritual ramifications of the choices made (we don't actually know what is to happen to the Balrogs and other Maiar who follow Melkor down into his nihlism -- that fate is to be determined in a later age, or at least revealed).

In Letter 154, Tolkien responded to criticism of The Lord of the Rings which made it out to be simply "Good guys versus Bad guys" by writing:

...But the Elves are NOT wholly good or in the right. Not so much because they had flirted with Sauron; as because with or without his assistance they were 'embalmers'. They wanted to have their cake and eat it: to live in the mortal historical Middle-earth because they had become fond of it (and perhaps because they there had the advantages of a superior caste), and so tried to stop its change and history, stop its growth, keep it as a pleasuance, even largely a desert, where they could be 'artists' -- and they were overburdened with sadness and nostalgic regret....

The Elves chose poorly, but they chose on their own behalf. Sauron didn't corrupt them -- he seized an opportunity in their desire to stay in Middle-earth and retain all the privileges and prestige they had acquired.

Evil is not given a status equal to Iluvatar -- it doesn't even approach Iluvatar's capability. In fact, Melkor never understands (in The Silmarillion) that the Flame Imperishable, which he seeks for in the Void, is with Iluvatar and not something separate (not separate in the way that Melkor is distinct from Iluvatar) from him.

Continued in next message.

[Michael Martinez]

Continued from previous message.

There is, in fact, only a slight foreshadowing of the triple aspects of God in Christian teachings. Ea might be something like The Word (which is Christ), but The Silmarillion and all related works would fail to meet the criteria of the Nicene Creed (Note: I grabbed this translation at random -- there may be better translations available):

We believe in one God, the Father All Governing, creator of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father as only begotten, that is, from the essense of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not created, of the same essence as the Father, through whom all things came into being, both in heaven and in earth; Who for us men and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate, becoming human. He suffered and the third day he rose, and ascended into the heavens. And he will come to judge both the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit. But, those who say, Once he was not, or he was not before his generation, or he came to be out of nothing, or who assert that he, the Son of God, is of a different hypostatis or ousia, or that he is a creature, or changeable, or mutable, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.

There is simply nothing of this teaching in the various Middle-earth mythologies. They presume nothing of Christ or the identification of the Father and Son.

So, evil is neither equal to good nor dispossessed by it (that is, the struggle between good and evil is really between those who adhere to Melkor and those who adhere to Iluvatar, but the Biblical struggle between God and Satan has not yet begun).

Evil is inferior because it is confined to Ea. Iluvatar is always in clear control and he allows history to unfold in accordance with his own desires. Everything Melkor attempts "redounds" (contributes) to Iluvatar's glory.