Quote:
Originally Posted by Raynor
I don't see what alternative there could be. A standard doesn't come into existence by itself, it comes within a system, and that system is created by someone. There could be no higher authority than Eru to set forth a moral system. At most, one can argue that what he does is contrary to his own system, but this would require complete knowledge - which only Eru has. Whatever judgment one would make of Eru would be based on incomplete knowledge.
|
But the standard has to be logical if it is to be understandable (& therefore followable). If 'Good' & 'Evil' are simply what Eru states they are then how could one judge one's own, & other's actions? 'Thou shalt not steal', 'Thou shalt do no murder', etc, are clear statements that theft & murder are wrong (& they do not require 'divine' authority to make sense to us - any society that tolerates theft & murder won't survive very long). To declare the destruction of Numenor a 'Good' act (& as I stated it must be 'Good' according to your criteria, not simply the 'least worst option' or the lesser of two evils - a Good god cannot commit 'lesser evils', & an omnipotent deity cannot be 'forced by circumstance' into acting. Hence, the destruction of Numenor must be a Good act indeed, a Perfect act, which Eru freely chose to commit, otherwise Eru is not a Good, omnipotent, deity, but a victim of circumstance for whom the end justifies the means) requires us to show that it conforms with some objective standard of right. Yet, can one argue that it is either?
Quote:
|
Well, it already contained references to Elrond and the Necromancer. And later he did change TH to make it fit better (initially, Gollum actually intended to give Bilbo the ring, was apologetic for not having it, offered to catch some fish and was persuaded to lead Bilbo out). You are also correct that the mention of being meant to find the ring is found in LotR. However, this is the work now, and Tolkien specifically stated that LotR required the Silm. for proper understanding, and that it was a continuation of it (more so than of TH).
|
Well, that was Tolkien's view, but the reader does not have to share it - & up till 1977 most readers of LotR felt they understood it perfectly well.I think its clear (despite Rateliff's arguments) that TH was never intended to be part of the Legendarium, & there was never any thought on Tolkien's part that it should (or could) be. The real point is that most readers of TH over the last 70 years have not even considered Eru, & most fans of TH & LotR don't get even part way through The Sil, or even the Letters, so however Tolkien understood his work, & to whatever extent he felt a knowledge of The Sil to be necessary, for most readers it simply isn't - one can't take into account what one doesn't know & one won't take into account what doesn't interest one.