Evil in Middle-Earth

[Elemmírë]

It's all a dream, Wayfarer... all a dream...

There is no evil...

There is no world...

*slowly driving herself insane*



And here there's a catch-22. We can get to this point by ourselves - there's a great deal which we can learn through sheer stubbornness if we're willing to slog it out. We can use reason to understand the nature of our existance, as you said, without 'falling back on religion'. But you see, there comes a point where you're not falling back on religion, you're moving forward into it. In morality, and in every other avenue of human experience, there comes a point where, as inked said, naturalism falls flat on its face. Our reasoning eventually leads to a point where the universe demands that there be Something Else behind it all. Either you accept that, or you throw up your hands and go home, because any other explanation flies in the face of everything we know.

I basically didn't want to turn this into a religious debate. If you accept the presence of morality and good and evil as obvious, which you do, then yes, you're going to have to move into religious arguments. And then we'd have to go over to the Beliefs thread... ;)

When this discussion is moved back into the realm of ME, can it even be debated that evil exists? IMO, you would have to follow to at least some extent Catholic ideas of morality.

So... the question of whether evil exists is answered. The question of how still seems unanswerable. The question of why...

Anyone want to tackle it again?

[inked]

How evil exists is derivatively. There must be good to even have a possibility of evil as there must be light to have the possibility of shadows. The shadows are entirely derivative. Nonexistent without light and without the interposition of something between the light and a farther observer.

Evil is a) the taking of a good in an improper mode or degree or inappropriate time, or b) the pursuit of a good without regard to the good of others, c) the theft of a good from another by intent or accident, or d) the deliberate suppression of the good of another for perceived self-interest, e) the deliberate destruction of the good for personal pleasure or aggrandizement, or f) opposition to God (the Ultimate Good) out of pride. The categorization of evil in the Christian Church has been known in short as the Seven Deadly Sins. How many can you think of? :evil:

[Elemmírë]

Off the top of my head?

pride, lust, envy, sloth, greed, um...

gluttony?

is anger?


Oh dear, I seem to be confusing my question words... :o

[edited] Interesting how you used the word "good" to define "evil" in every case. :) But not at all surprising...

I don't think that "pure evil" exists... but how about "pure good"?

In ME or elsewhere... :)

[inked]

Excellent!

Luxuria or Lust
Ira or Wrath
Gula or Gluttony
Avaritia or Covetousness
Invidia or Envy
Acedia or Sloth
Superbia or Pride

Your Greed equals Covetousness (tho' the latin avaritia captures the sense!). For an excellent and brief review of these lovelies, see "The Other Six Deadly Sins" in CREED OR CHAOS by Dorothy L. Sayers (1949). 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. Tolkien makes the point exactly and explicitly in regard to ME - pure evil does not and cannot exist, it is nothing, zero, non-existent.

And, as you noted the description of evil involves necessarily a recollection of the good on which it exists and without which it cannot exist.

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.
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.

But Ultimate Good being unwilling that any should perish took flesh and dwelt among us full of grace and truth and revealed the very nature of the Creator in the humility of enfleshment, and wreaking obedience in a disobedient world, subverted evil and redeemed it. This took place only in the primary world however and is not accomplished in ME. But as the Redeemer was the Word and eternal as well as fully human, His work in time was also in eternity and applicable to the whole of the disordered creation from first sin to last, and efficacious for the redemption of every act of evil, if men would only claim the gift! Hence, humanity may and will call Him LORD and SAVIOUR in the primary world! And He walks in eternal majesty through ME and this world.
For as Aragorn observed, "Good has not changed."

[Attalus]

What inked said. God is perfect Good.

[Wayfarer]

Indeed. :)

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Does that then make Satan "perfect" evil?

[Pytt]

no, it don't TD. not as I can see it. beacuse as it stands, pure evil don't exist. I don't remeber straight what stands, but in the beggining everythng was good, but with free will they have the possiblity to do evil deeds.
I think..
read inked's post once more

[Attalus]

To quote JRRT in the Letters, In my story, I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think that there is such a thing, since that is Zero. I do not think that at any rate any 'rational being' is wholly evil. Satan fell. In my myth Morgoth fell before the Creation of the physical world. In my story Sauron represents as near an approach to the totally evil will as is possible. He had gone the way of all tyrants: beginning well, at least on the level that while desiring to order all things according to his own wisdom he still at first considered the (economic) well-being of other inhabitants of the Earth. But he went further than human tryants in pride and the lust for domination, being in in origin an immortal (angelic) spirit.

[Rían]

But you see, there comes a point where you're not falling back on religion, you're moving forward into it. Well said!

In morality, and in every other avenue of human experience, there comes a point where, as inked said, naturalism falls flat on its face. Our reasoning eventually leads to a point where the universe demands that there be Something Else behind it all. Either you accept that, or you throw up your hands and go home, because any other explanation flies in the face of everything we know.

What you call religion isn't something you go to when you don't want to use reason (though it has been treated that way). It's the logical outcome you arrive at as a result of reasoning - witness all the great minds over the centuries who have come to the same conclusion, and those that have failed or even been driven to madness in their pursuit of an alternative. This is the only answer that makes sense of it all.Well said, again!

[Wayfarer]

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

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! :p

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

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.

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... :o

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?

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"? :evil: ;)

[inked]

*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 :eek: ), 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!
:D

[Elemmírë]

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 :evil: ). So I haven't claimed by that statement that good is dependent upon evil...

... I think. :confused:

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... :evil: ;)

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 :eek: ), 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!
:D

:eek: 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...? :o :)

[Forkbeard]

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]

Why don't you prove to me that God or Eru is "perfect Good"? :evil: ;)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]

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? :confused: 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 :D.

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]

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. :p

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 ( :eek: ). 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?

[inked]

And thus is the case of Saruman solved. :p

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.

It works very well regarding Saruman, I think, but I would still have some questions regarding Morgoth ( :eek: ). 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.

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.

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]

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

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

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? 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...

:eek: 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...! :eek:

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

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? :p

[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]

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]

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 :confused:

[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. :o Am I sure I really want to take a math class next semester...? :eek:

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?


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

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... :o

[Rían]

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]

I think that the concept of evil is a good deal more complicated than that... Yeah. I think so too. ;)

[Attalus]

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! :D :confused: )

[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. :D :D :D