[DaughterofVana]

Right-o. Back now.

But if Melkor 'made them' and he made them 'evil', then how could they choose to be something besides what they are? And isn't it true that you can't change who you are?

You're right. A person *can't* change what he or she is. This is pertaining to things of morality, not to habits or the like, so don't try and use that excuse the next time your mother/sister/wife/husband tells you to pick up after yourself. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] That's why in the Christian religion there is so much of an emphasis on "redemption"--that no matter how hard a person tries, he or she is human and destined to "evil tendencies", because he or she is a perverted creature. (I think that was what I was getting at in my previous post.) And not only an emphasis on "redemption," but **outside** redemption--redemption from a Source not available within the person itself, and outside the scope of his or her efforts. It sounds trite and old, I suppose, but man cannot *make* themselves "good" without Help. They can attempt it if they choose, but it is ultimately a foolish enterprise. No matter how hard a person tries, they cannot be completely, utterly, and fully "good." Of course, the first step is for the person to realize that they are not completely and utterly "good," and then to attempt to **become** good under their own efforts. Only after this ultimate failure is the truth realized. So it's okay to be skeptical... that's part of our nature, too. But try it, and see what happens. You'll see that there is something missing. Not just because you miss the mark, but because... you see the mark in the first place. If complete "goodness" wasn't possible, you or I wouldn't really have even a feeling of what it is like and what comprises it. And we wouldn't know (ultimately) that we fall short of it.

Kind of got off on a tangent there. But think about it.

The Elves, who were (to me) the essence of goodness...

But they weren't *entirely* good, right? Read the Silmarillion lately? [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] More killing and carnage in that than almost the whole of LOTR, and the lead characters were all elves. But yes--most of the elves of LOTR (well, maybe all of them... more likely that) were more good than bad. But *more* good than bad. That's why I am so hesitant to say that the orcs were completely bad, because there was really nothing in ME that was completely "good" to counteract it (like the elves). "Can't have the good without the bad" is essencial to a Dualist existance, which is what we would be talking about if there was something in ME which was competely good OR bad. But the more I think about it, I can't see ME as being a society like this, because Melkor (the "spiritual father" of Sauron) was not created as bad; he *became* bad. If ME was Dualist, both he and Eru would exist independently with their respective creations, battling against each other like some bizzare sports event. Eru would have his "good" elves, and Sauron his "bad" orcs. So it makes sense for the orcs to instead be corrupted creations of Eru's goodness, since ME is not a Dualist existance--it instead started with the Song and went bad from there. Orcs included. (Whether they were corrupted elves or men or what have you I leave up to the philosophers and their supporting "Letters." [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] )

I'm getting this strong connection to goodness=light and evil=dark. How on Earth did things as simple and beautiful as light and dark come to have such important meanings as good and bad? Where did this idea come from?

Right. Some might scream that I'm commiting the carnal sin of saying that JRRT's works contain allagory when I say my opinion on this. Perish the thought, good BD'ers! It's explained in Letters, explained in the forwards to (most) editions of the trilogy, and argued extensively in other threads by people a lot better at it than I. But like I said elsewhere, just because allagory wasn't intended by Tolkien doesn't mean that he didn't express truth as he saw it in his books. And having "light = good" and "darkness = bad" is an elemental belief of those of the (gasp!) Christian persuasion. And JRRT *was* a Christian, folks. Light pierces, shines through, illuminates; Darkness masks, confuses, and devours. Light and darkness aren't bad in themselves, but is used as a metaphor (something standing for something else). The knowledge of God (and Christ) is a light, because it gives form and meaning to things. And the absence of God/Christ, like the absence of light, leads to confusion, fear, and hopelessness. The main reasons why people are afraid of the dark is that they can't see what's really there.

Lyra:

After all, this is Frodo's goodness- going to Mordor to save the world. Sam is also self-sacrificing, only in his case it is simply due to loyalty. He doesn't go to Mordor for the greater good but just for Frodo. Does this make him less good? I wouldn't say it would make him "more evil" but is that necessarily the same thing?

"Less evil = more good" would only work in a Dualist viewpoint. Think of it as Taoism; the "ying" and the "yang." Both equal seperate 100 per cents, and so a being can't be entirely each. They are either 50 good and 50 bad, or 60-40, or 75-25, and so on. In the same way, they can't be anything past 99-1 either way. You can't have the bad without the good, right?

Eh. I can't figure into this viewpoint on good and evil in ME, because of what I said before about Eru being good and His creations being good as well, and the corruption of these creations being the "bad" of it all. If that's true, then the "ying and yang" is flawed, because the bad isn't a seperate entity. Frodo and Sam can both be good, then... but they can't both be entirely good. Frodo was good and self-sacrificing, yes, but he wasn't entirely good--after all, he put the Ring on in the end. And, like you said, would've Sam went to Mordor if it wasn't for Frodo?

[ May 18, 2003: Message edited by: DaughterofVana ]