LotR -- Book 1 - Chapter 02 - The Shadow of the Past

[davem]

Originally Posted by SPM

But, if Man is “fallen”, doesn’t this in itself imply the existence of evil as a separate power in its own right, since the “fall” of Man could only have been brought about by the intervention of evil (as an element of the external conflict between good and evil)?

Well, define 'evil'!

Tolkien states (via Elrond) that nothing was evil in the beginning* . My understanding is that the conflict in Middle Earth is not one of 'Good' vs 'Evil' - ie two equal but opposite forces in conflict, but rather of 'Good vs corrupted/marred 'Good'. Which is why I would disagree that:

the inevitability of (as explained by Gandalf in the passage quoted above) is brought about by the interference of an external evil power.

& say that 'Man’s ultimate submission to the Ring' is a choice made by the individual - often under extreme pressure - & not something which happens to them as a result of their will being overwhelmed by an unstoppable force.

This means there is no need to bring in an objectively existing 'Evil' force or power in opposition to Eru (of course there are individuals who do 'evil' things, bwhat they serve is twisted 'Good').

( * - of course, one could get into a deep discussion as to whether the 'nothing' which Elrond refers to here is the Void, in which Melkor went into in search of the Secret Fire, in which case we would have a kind of Manichaeanism - Eru=Good & the Void=Evil. But I don't think Tolkien intended that, & also, it would deny Evil any form of 'existence', & 'Evil' would then simply be an absence of 'Good'.)

[The Saucepan Man]

Well, define 'evil'!

Twisted/corrupted Good works for me (as a definition, rather than a way of life, I might add).

[HerenIstarion]

Would we than agree on the following:

the inevitability of (as explained by Gandalf in the passage quoted above) is brought about by the interference of an external orignally good, but currently corrupted power.

Sounds a bit silly, even if technically true

For further operations on this thread, however, let us agree to have a nomenclature as follows:

Good = original state of everything
Evil = thing originally good, but corrupted

However, to have an external Evil Force, we do not need to deny the aforementioned state of affairs. The manichaean dualism has to be merely moved one step down. So it will be not a battle of equal forces of Good and Evil, but equal creatures of Good and Evil (or formerly good, but corrupted), and Ultimately Good Eru stays above the battle (but interferes, what with the previously mentioned 'Bilbo was meant to be', and 'foresight is on me' stanzas)

There is ultimate interference to happen too, but for the third age it is still in the far future.

[The Saucepan Man]

For further operations on this thread, however, let us agree to have a nomenclature as follows:

Good = original state of everything
Evil = thing originally good, but corrupted

Well, that works for me. But I think that we must bear in mind that many who read LotR do not go on and read the Silmarillion or Tolkien's other works, and have no in-depth knowledge of his beliefs. For many, therefore, there is no definitive explanation of what is meant by Gandalf's oblique references to Bilbo being meant to find the Ring etc. This is harking back to the Canonicity discussion, I know, but these readers will be free to interpret these references as they see fit. They might take this unknown force which meant Bilbo to find the Ring to be fate, or the spirit of Middle-earth, or a good God who is opposed by a co-equal evil God in a duotheistic system, or a monotheistic and omnipotent force of Good, or even one or more of a pantheon of Gods. Or, more likely, they (like me when I first read the book) may simply not think about it too much.

So, while I think that your definition works in the context of our knowledge of Tolkien's works, it will not necessarily be applicable to all readers.

[mark12_30]

davem:

In Osanwe Kenta Tolkien states that the future is known only to Eru, & so can only be revealed by him. Are we seeing Eru's presence running throughout the story, surfacing in these dreams & visions?

While on a case by case basis this could perhaps be argued against for a few of the dreams, taking the set of them as a logical whole, I quite agree.

H-I-- what's the quote from Letters again? "...that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named..."



And-- nah... welll..... oh, I can't resist.
*cough*

Good is good.