Quote:
Originally Posted by Boromir88
.However, for Eddings' "evil" to win it must be able to work together, but this is the essential failure of evil. Evil, according to Eddings, can not work together and it seems like "working together" is against evil's very nature, so can it truly win in the end?
|
Doesn't it depend on numbers - if enough individuals choose the path of 'evil' (ie the pursuit of individual 'perfection' then 'evil' would simply overwhelm 'good' by sheer force of numbers. 'Good' requires a coming together to win but evil simply requires a narcissitic individualism. Good = active, evil= passivity, because Good must always be 'doing' in order to be 'good - ie, it has to be 'active', changing, mutating, even ceasing to be through acts of self-sacrifice. Evil seeks only to perfect itself & then remain in that state, as, I repeat, is the desire of Tolkien's Elves - but not his men & Hobbits. Hence mortality in Tolkien also = good, whereas denial of death & its replacement with a frozen 'perfection' =evil. Its no coincidence that the passing of Sauron occurs at the same time as the passing of the Elves & effectively as a result of the same act.
Actually in Eddings 'good' & 'evil' are not 'moral' categories, & therefore the choice of one over the other is not a moral choice incurring reward or punishment, because the choice is simply between individualism & community, perfection & imperfection, & whatever the majority chooses wins out. Remove Eru from Middle-earth, & you have the same kind of morality-free choice. Sauron & Saruman are EVIL -
'spiritually wrong' because they have acted against the will of Eru, not because they have done 'bad' things. Remove Eru &
Hakon is absolutely right - good & evil become mere perspectives.