from davem

Because there is no backstory that we see on screen I do not see how you can make a statement about the character of Smeagol as a hobbit regardless if it is positive or negative. We simply see him fishing with a cousin for a brief moment and then the Ring is found. This tells us absolutely nothing about what kind of person Smeagol was before the Ring came into his life. Nothing - zip - nada- zilch.

Seems like just another opportunity to take another swipe at Jackson attempting to punish him for his capital crimes and mortal sins.

I have always thought Smeagol had a look of evilness about him in the movies, something in his eyes. The whole 'it's my birthday' speach pretty much gave me the creeps and made me think Smeagol wasn't all that good.

Well, if we define evil as you did:
then there is plenty of evidence that he wanted to become evil.
I don't think that "corrupted" is the most adequate term. There was no compelling force acting upon him. He chose this path consciously and freely.
I disagree; omniscience is not required in order to stay on the moral path:
But these are certainly evil acts, in breach of the mission he received.
Well, that may be true, but self-assessment in such cases is hardly relevant being more than subjective and self-deceiving.
I disagree; evil has all those aspects in Ea. It is physical, in the form of the Marring. It is an ideology, in the sense already defined by davem, which I quoted above. It is also a side - Tolkien had no problem seeing that way, when he talked about Bombadil, for example:

What were the difference between the theatrical and EE versions regarding Smeagol claiming the Ring, if any?

Anyway, I think that PJ tries to show a bit about Smeagol's past/life by the coloration of Andy Serkis' face. Smeagol is not your tan farmboy hobbit, but a creature with paler skin and circles under the eyes, and as we know, 'evil is as evil looks' (unless they smoke pipes, then that negates the whole soothsaying). Here are Smeagol and Deagol, neither of which I would trust as they both appear to be sociopaths at the least. And fishing without beer?!? As just why did Gollum become the anti-spokesman for the Hair Club for Men in a matter of moments, whereas Frodo retains his locks throughout the entire journey? Another indication that Smeagol was more than ready to be consumed by the Ring?

Like a cup of joe, can't start my day otherwise. ;)

But he didn't think it was 'evil. He thought he was doing his job. The problem was he thought Sauron is evil, I'm fighting Sauron, therefore I must be good.

What's wrong with 'corrupted' in this case? One can be corrupted by an idea just as easily as by a 'force' - perhaps more easily.

Which is the point I'm making. Self assessment is irrelevant. Saruman, it could be argued, never thought of himself as 'evil' - & neither would Gandalf if he'd taken the Ring.

I disagree; it may have suited what he (re)designed as good, but he wasn't that far down the road to not be aware that what he did contradicted his initial mission, to not use power, but to help. He sees himself entitled to break light and tarnish white, just as he arrogated the right to renounce his mission.
Well, because this case involves a lot of self-deceiving, convincing himself that what he does is still some type of newly defined good. It is not forced from the outside upon him (which would be the case with Gandalf struggling with the ring), but he "forces" it, to a certain extent, upon himself - as long as he has a remnant of consciousness and morality.

Note that, logically - at least to me - no item can make one become evil without some intent on the part of the actor. Could just touching the Ring make one evil? If that were true, why didn't Sauron mount the One Ring on a pole and swing it around, touching all those that assailed him - like sowing dragon's teeth that'd be.

And if that were possible, then couldn't the converse be possible? Why couldn't the Free folk get together and create an anti-Ring and send it gift-wrapped to Barad-dur? Sauron, after touching it, would be planting daisies.

***

Anyone claiming the One Ring, sooner or later, would become evil - controlling, forcing others to do something that they would not freely choose to do (see Orwell's 1984 for a definition) - even if it were via a thousand slices from a chocolate cake that could have been left alone for one's spouse; eventually, you've eaten the whole thing and then you're there.

It seems to me that this debate about evil breaks in two what Tolkien wrought whole.

He gives evidence for both "schools of thought" on evil because he presents it as it truly is, whole-cloth. It's an example of mythic unity. We can debate as much as we like "what Tolkien really meant", and it's just only half the story, or less. What he evoked is what evil is in its realistic complexity.

Just occurs to me, on the subject of evil - is evil depicted differently in CoH to the way its depicted in LotR - if we take them as stand alone works? In short, the main force/source of evil in LotR is defeated & the tale ends in hope, while in CoH evil has total victory.

I'm thinking here of the CoH review in the Church Times http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=42450
Of course, this perhaps takes the thread off topic, but if we only had CoH from Tolkien would we take a different message from Tolkien about the nature of evil? The most interesting thing to me about CoH is that there is no Ring to either claim or reject.

Or what about this one http://www.sfreviews.net/tolkien_children_of_hurin.html

Is Turin 'evil' or is he really a 'frightened child' trying to do his best & failing because of some inner fault - or is it simply a 'fault' - is it some inner 'darkness'/evil'? How different is Boromir to Turin - is it the Ring which corrupts him, or is the Ring equivalent to Morgoth's curse?

Sorry - a lot of rambling musings there....

How about starting a new thread in Books on this so that anybody who's interested in this particular aspect can find it without having to dig 6 pages into a movie thread on Split Personality? ;)

I certainly doubt it. Given Gandalf's words, it would take a rather long time, especially if one's nature is good and moral.
In the event that this is not a joke (I usually fail to make such distinctions, so have mercy :p ), the Free folk didn't have the ability to match Sauron's power in making a great ring, let alone one that could affect his nature.
I agree.I am not sure, what part of evil has my argument left out? On occasion, I rather enlarged its sphere in this discussion, compared to other positions presented.

I don't think I could tell you what you've left out, because that would be getting into specifics, which would again be teasing apart what Tolkien wrought whole. I guess it comes down to this: Tolkien was a master at holding in tension such things as evil, as well as many other things that modern minds tend to pick apart and take sides on. It's part of what he's doing to build myth in LotR. .... and to keep this on the movie topic, it's something that Jackson just seems to have had no inkling of, because the movie consistently interprets the book by splitting up these unities.

I certainly doubt that Tolkien conceived evil in Ea as something unexplainable and unapproachable. While it may have numerous ramifications, it surely has defining elements. I don't see the same reluctance in his approach to this matter.

However, we define those elements at the risk of losing the unity.

That would be because I recognize his genious and my lack.

I never joke, knowing that every word that I write may tip the balance of the world, if not the universe, into chaos. ;)

My point is that if it is possible to construct an item that can 'turn one evil' regardless of one's will, then it should be equally possible to create a similar device that turns one good. If Sauron could make the Ring, then someone could make the anti-Ring - Gandalf, Saurman, Feanor, etc.

Regardless, the Free Folk are good because they do not wish to create a device, letting Sauron and others like him stew in their own foolishness.

As far as I can tell, this relates more to your personal interpretation and approach, which I respect, than to the possibility to identify such elements in his writing. Therefore, I believe this is a case where we should agree to disagree.
Wise words from a wise man :D. With power comes responsibility :p.
In my opinion, it takes someone far stronger than the "target" to be able to make such a device. I believe that Saruman and Gandalf were such susceptible to the Ring because they were weakened by their condition. In regards to Sauron, I would say it takes a vala to make such an anti-ring.
Hm, I would say their goodness comes also from their relative lack of power. Otherwise, one of the strongest "morals" of LotR - and Tolkien's work in general, is that power corrupts.

That makes sense, yet I would say that such a device, whether pro- or anti-evil, is impossible. One cannot, I suppose, negate the free will that is the gift of Eru.

Lack of power? Not likely. I would say the responsible use of power. Eru's very powerful; is he corrupt?

However, Tolkien did allow for situations in which one is overwhelmed by an evil far greater than one's power to resist. And he made the case that no blame is to be laid in such situations. As for the anti-ring, the presumed coming of Eru would eradicate evil from Creation - although it would likely not touch upon the free will to further choose between good and evil.
Hm, I must admit I don't follow :o.
Then again, the comparison is likely false, since Eru is infinite and we have zero clues about Him, other than Him being the "one wholly free Will and Agent" (letter #156). Moreover, Tolkien stated in Myths Transformed that any finite being has weaknesses - being implied that this does not apply to an infinite being.

It's different if you are overwhelmed against your will, but a device that makes you evil? If Melkor did make orcs from elves, seeing the behaviour of the elves, he may have had some that were somewhat amenable to the process, though by a thousand slices.

Th 'good' did not lack for power. Gandalf could have used much more power than he did. Saruman could have been made to bow before him. But Gandalf showed restraint and so simply made Saruman mostly impotent.

My point is that if power corrupts, then absolute power corrupts absolutely (hmm, I should coin that phrase ;)). Where not Melkor and Manwe brothers? Why then was Melkor corrupted and Manwe not? Would that not indicate that it's not the power, but the application thereof?

However, this device isn't any object, seeing the amount of power it has, its special relation to Sauron and even some presumed "intelligence"/activity of its own. I would also expect a great concentration of Melkor's marring throughout Arda to have a somewhat similar effect.
Well... maybe :).
I see. By Free Folk I didn't previously included our istari friend(s). We should bear in mind that the elves came rather close to this, through their Rings of power that counter the marring and the decay.
You should, it sounds catchy :D.
True, but Melkor had greater power and Manwe had a more special relation with Eru.

Right. But my point is that 'power corrupts' is either always true or only sometimes true. Manwe and Eru would indicate that power, in and of itself, does not always corrupt.

Well, I would say that a more proper phrasing would be "greater power increases the likelihood of corruption - unless balanced".

Graphing power versus corruption would not show any correlation. One who is corrupted may seek power, but at every level, from Melkor to Sandyman, we have contemporaries that, having the same or similar levels of power, are not corrupted.

It's what you do with it - as you referenced previously via Spiderman.

True, because what is left out is the balancing part - be it consciousness or grace manifested in inner or exterior fortunate conditions. The subsequent deeds and their moral quality are a result of this balancing.

No, this is not a subjective issue. The (modern) human mind tends to analyze (break apart) that with which it is confronted. Whereas there are benefits to such activity, as can be seen from the development of modern technology, there is a price paid. The price that is paid is the part of a thing that seems of less value to the analyzer. Example: the Greek distinction between soul and body - western history shows us that there have been (at least) two schools of thought, one valuing soul higher, the other valuing body higher, with results ranging from aesceticism to naturalism. In the same way, distinguising between two aspects of evil will lead to the devaluing of one of those aspects. Evil doesn't change, but the way we deal with it does, and that could be devastating if we have lost something in our analysis that is too costly.

When choosing between two schools of thought, go with the one with the better football team. ;)

There's something intriguing here, but I can't quite see it. "Evil doesn't change" strikes me as wrong, but that's subjective, obviously. If, in Arda, evil = against the will of Eru, then maybe.

I believe it is. You refused a priori my approach, without pointing to any actual flaw when I requested it.
In what sense? Is it precluded that any new forms/types of evil appear?

It is not power itself that corrupts, or else every king that ever lived would have gotten worse over time until he was unbearable. It is the will to dominate other wills that corrupts; to have one's own way regardless of the effect upon others.

This was an unfortunate expression of my thought. What I should have said was, "Evil remains what it is regardless of what we decide based on our analysis, and if our analysis fails to take into account the entirety of what Evil is, we pay a costly price." But I was in a rush when I wrote what I did in the first place, and it shows. :rolleyes:

Actually, the paragraph following my "no" was an attempt at an explanation of my reasons for the "no". The reason I didn't point to any actual flaw is because I believe that the schools of thought on evil are valid, though limited, expressions of the part of Evil that they emphasize.

Both schools of thought point to something true about Evil. When "logicked" out, they exclude each other. The exclusion is the problem. I personally lean toward the Boethian school and against the Manichaean, but there's something about the Manichaean point that just doesn't die --- because there's reality there. Tolkien captures the unity in LotR

21st Century Socialism
 

I would be grateful if Mr William Hickli could post the link to this quote. I have done a google search, and I can find no record of this phrase having ever appeared on the 21st Century Socialism website. If this quote does in fact exist (google may have missed it), I can assure readers of this forum that Mr Hickli is using it out of context. It does not represent the editorial viewpoint of 21st Century Socialism, and it is wrong for Mr Hickli to imply that it does.

21st Century Socialism is an independent British web magazine which promotes fact-based journalism. It receives no funding from any foreign government or political party.

I will not be commenting here again, but if anyone wishes to contact me they may do so via the website.

Calvin Tucker
Co-editor http://21stcenturysocialism.com/

While I cannot vouch for Chavez saying

"democratic gains may have to be preserved by nondemocratic means...."

I did teach both US History and Government for three decades and can tell you without a doubt that such people as Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt all would have endorsed such a statement. In point of fact, they did with their deeds and actions. One of the most undemocratic things you can do in a free society is to force someone to join the military and partiicpate in war and the killing of other persons. You do so with the authority of the state behind you and the threat of prison looming over the head of the draftee. That is about as undemocratic as you can get. In none of those cases did the people participate in any type of referendum to approve of that tactic.

But all three US presidents, and others also, endorsed and utilized conscription to swell the ranks of the armed forces for the sole purpose of winning the war to save democracy. So this is not an unusual concept or one restricted to the likes of Mr. Chavez and his compatriots.

There I would disagree. Since when is a referendum required to qualify as 'democratic?' The draft bills were passed by the people's elected representatives in Congress, as are all other laws of the United States. When FDR's draft act was passed by a single vote in 1940 everybody knew exactly what lay over the horizon.

I'm very much opposed to military conscription, but to call the American instances thereof 'undemocratic' when instituted in Constitutional manner is simply incorrect.

By contrast, what Chavez is talking about is, of course, rule by decree and other dictatorial methods should the majority of his people get tired of him. The old "one man, one vote, one time" story.

The form of government in which Congress passes bills for the people is not a democratic one. It is the republic form of government. In a democracy, it is the people who are the government in a direct manner. Think of the 17th century New England town hall meeting. In the republican form of government, the people are represented by elected officials who then are suppose to act on their behalf. Perhaps they sometimes do. Perhaps they sometimes don't.

In the late 19th century and in the early 20th century, efforts were made to take the US from the standard republican form of government more towards a democratic model. The Progressives and Populists led the way in this cause. The expansion of the franchise from adult white, male property holders to a wider demographic base was a step towards that. Because of such 20th century innovations as the referendum, initiative and recall, the US has taken on elements of both the republican from of government tinged with democracy. This is one reason why many political scientists now refer to the US system as a democratic republic.

Any military organization is by definition the opposite of a democratic unit. There is no democracy in the armed forces. To conscript someone into such a unit, is by its very nature, very undemocratic.

I cannot speak for Hugo Chavez or his brand of government. But using non-democratic methods to preserve freedom is nothing new. Chavez did not invent it. Lincoln in fact suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War even though there was no foundatin in the law for that measure. But he did so in the pursuit of a higher and longer term good.

Quote:

On April 27, 1861, habeas corpus was suspended by President Lincoln in Maryland and parts of midwestern states, including southern Indiana during the American Civil War. Lincoln did so in response to riots, local militia actions, and the threat that the border slave state of Maryland would secede from the Union, leaving the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., surrounded by hostile territory. Lincoln was also motivated by requests by generals to set up military courts to rein in "Copperheads" or Peace Democrats, and those in the Union who supported the Confederate cause. His action was challenged in court and overturned by the U.S. Circuit Court in Maryland (led by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney) in Ex Parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861). Lincoln ignored Taney's order. In the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis also suspended habeas corpus and imposed martial law. This was in part to maintain order and spur industrial growth in the South to compensate for the economic loss inflicted by its secession.

I will not defend Hugo Chavez. But to act as if he alone invented the concept of the ends justifying the means is simply to ignore history.

Lincoln unquestionably transgressed the Constitution by unilaterally suspending habeas- a right the Constitution reserves to Congress in time of war, rebellion, or national emergency. *Had* Congress done so at Lincoln's request then it would have been both constitutional and, in the looser sense, democratic.

Technically you are correct as to the republic/democracy distinction- but if you're going to insist on that point than there is no 'democratic' government in the world, unless you can find one which operates entirely by plebiscite without an elected representative body. For practical purposes 'democracy' has come to be in everyday usage a synonym for 'elective republic.' By that standard the Selective Service Act was democratic. If you're going to insist that 'democracy' applies only to plebiscite, well, then, there is not a single democratic act or law in all of the United States government.

I think what you're trying to say is that coercion is inherently undemocratic- but if that were true, than the proudest achievment of the Progressives, the Income Tax, would be undemocratic. There the power of the State, under threat of prison, forces me to cough up a third of my income every year. No plebiscite was ever taken on that one, either- initiative and referendum do not exist at the Federal level. And I assure you the IRS is no more a democracy than the military. Nor is prison- which is where people go who transgress laws passed by Congress.

I should add that there is nothing inherently democratic about habeas corpus. Indeed, the Bill of Rights is profoundly anti-democratic, in that it places constraints on the will of the majority. In a 'pure' democracy, the faction with the largest number of votes would be perfectly free to ban whatever speech or religious practice or minority group is didn't like.

Let's get the thread back onto Tolkien, please.

Thanks.

Absolutely... lets get back on Tolkien topics. I defense of WCH and myself, JRRT did fight in the Great War to Save Democracy.....:D

but the point is taken and accepted.

I believe that this is already a manifestation of corruption and that power is a powerful catalyst of it. And such power can be either "external" (such as hierarchy) or "internal" (such as the ability itself to convince).
I agree; however, they don't apply to Tolkien's world, for the very reasons you mentioned. Therefore, I believe that the attempt itself to use either or both here is faulty and that the main traits of this subject can be safely discerned in Ea.

Then have at it. :)

An update regarding Neanderthals and red hair can be found here. Also, they may have even worn large yellow boots, but that's still conjecture.

And regarding power, can we ask the opposite question: If one were completely powerless (relatively), would that mean that one could not become evil/corrupted? Seems to me that even those lowly on the pole still have that choice.

What about Smeagol, then? Or for that matter Lotho Sackville-Baggins?