Lord Melkor Rightful Master of the Fates of Arda

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Neithan Tol Turambar

wench.

A typo? Did you mean wrench, as in torque?

but Hurin said: "at least none shall pity [her] for this, that [she] had a craven for father."

Thanks for the quote, but mine eyes have not seen the glory nor the point. Is Melkor riding the 'Children of Hurin" bandwagon as well? Book signings at Wal-Mart soon to come?

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

And what's more, because Everything stems from Eru, even if he who reveres Darkness thinks he is doing something different, he is not because Eru planted that there too, along with the fluffy stuff. And the Darkness only serves to make the Light that much brighter.

Initially, your post sparked thoughts of wavelengths, radiation and dark matter, but thankfully I've moved back from physics to literature and philosophy. It's been always hard for me to accept an omniscient creator god that somehow is not responsible for even the 'bad,' as others have argued here. At least in Tolkien's word, we (or at least I) see that the bad was to be part of the piece from the first note. That, to me, is different that the Christian Genesis account (and other books that refer to the Fall), where it seems that all wasn't to go sour but did.

And thanks to other posters for more good thoughts.

[davem]

Legate I still can't see how you could classify the meal as 'good' if you had nothing with which to compare it. If you only ever had 'good' meals you would not think of the meal as good - you would simply think of it as a meal. 'good' implies the existence of 'bad'. If only 'good' existed you wouldn't need the word 'good'. But this is not merely a linguistic debate. What of morality? Specifically how can anyone develop the capacity to make moral judgements if they are never faced with a choice between good & evil, right & wrong?

Of course, some people will think that in an 'ideal' world 'evil' would not exist - indeed their 'ideal' world would not even contain manifestations of 'evil (guns, violent pornography, violent movies/games - even 'bad' language would be banned). Of course, this would not produce a 'morally good' world - it would produce a world where no-one had the opportunity (or the need) to make moral choices. It would be at best an amoral world. One could argue that a truly morally good world would be one in which guns, violent pornography & the like was freely available, but everyone had made a free choice not to have anything to do with it.

Hence the necessity for evil to exist - if the human race is to become fully adult. One has to have the freedom to choose evil if ones choice of the good is to count for anything. If you only have various 'goods' to choose from then choosing the good is valueless - because you can't choose anything else. Of course 'good' can exist without evil - but good cannot be freely chosen, in full knowledge, without evil existing as a possibility. Remove evil & you remove freedom to choose good.

Which is why Morgoth's rebellion is necessary, why he could be said to be the 'liberator' of the Children - his rebellion not only enables, but actually forces them to choose between good & evil & to make a stand. He makes the choice of good matter, by making it a costly choice. If the only choice the Children faced was between various 'good's then what would choosing the good actually count for? Of course, Morgoth's intention was to enslave the Children, but (as Eru stated would be the case) his actions actually serve to liberate them by forcing them to grow up & choose the good over its opposite.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

One could argue that a truly morally good world would be one in which guns, violent pornography & the like was freely available, but everyone had made a free choice not to have anything to do with it.
...
Which is why Morgoth's rebellion is necessary, why he could be said to be the 'liberator' of the Children - his rebellion not only enables, but actually forces them to choose between good & evil & to make a stand.

It is one thing to argue that evil is necessary as a moral choice, so that rational beings can manifest free will and morality, and totally another to argue that we must have Melkor - the most powerful ainu falling to the most powerful agent of evil. In fact, it can be argued that the fall of Melkor makes it harder for Men (being the weakest) to exercise their free will, since they are more susceptible to marring through their hroa. Thus, Melkor's marring doesn't help (in this sense), quite the contrary. Melkor didn't create evil as a moral choice, he merely became its first victim and most powerful agent.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

It is one thing to argue that evil is necessary as a moral choice, so that rational beings can manifest free will and morality, and totally another to argue that we must have Melkor - the most powerful ainu falling to the most powerful agent of evil. In fact, it can be argued that the fall of Melkor makes it harder for Men (being the weakest) to exercise their free will, since they are more susceptible to marring through their hroa. Thus, Melkor's marring doesn't help (in this sense), quite the contrary. Tolkien didn't create evil as a moral choice, he merely became its first victim and most powerful agent.

But in a mythological setting evil must have a manifest form, & that form must be the ultimate archetypal form that evil can possibly take. It must, in other words, show evil in its most extreme form. Melkor is the ultimate extreme & rarely enters into the story directly after the destruction of the Trees & the theft of the Silmarils. What we see more usually are, if you will, lesser 'harmonics' of the evil Melkor symbolises - Balrogs, dragons & Orcs. Hence, it is evil in more 'manageable' form that Men & Elves actually confront, rather than 'pure' evil in most cases.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

But in a mythological setting evil must have a manifest form, & that form must be the ultimate archetypal form that evil can possibly take. It must, in other words, show evil in its most extreme form.

Well, evil has a manifest form in all Ea, since it was corrupted. Melkor himself was not wholly evil, since Tolkien argued this would be a zero. Also, for every exponent of evil in any mythology, I believe that he could be conceived as more evil/powerful than he actually is depicted; even in this fantasy Universe, it seems that Sauron is the closest representation of evil, not Melkor:

Originally Posted by Letter #183

In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think there is such a thing, since that is Zero. I do not think that at any rate any 'rational being' is wholly evil. Satan fell. In my myth Morgoth fell before Creation of the physical world. In my story Sauron represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible.

I hope I am coherent, a cup of wine seems to take its toll

Acolyte Hookbill The Goomba refered to C.S. Lewis earlier, I thought that when I had a chance I would say something more about it, but one thing drives out another as they say, and well, maybe it was better so because the course of the thread seems to have evolved into an even more appropriate setting for what I was to suggest, which is:
C.S. Lewis wrote a fantastic book called "The Screwtape Letters".
I think it was his best.

"Insult the devil, that proud spirit, and he will flee from you, for he cannot bear to be mocked." (paraphrase) [too lazy and not vain enough and not good enough at computers to get it right.

[Thenamir]

It was, any way, part of my Grand Design from the begining to switch characters and then tear my own arguments apart .

How many guises do you wear, Neithan? An intellectual, a philosopher, a buffoon, a drunkard, and an insufferable snob...have I missed any?

If you wish to announce who and what you are finally, and then point out what you were trying (unsuccessfully) to do, and the deficiencies in our responses, please do so under your own nick. The admins here take a very dim view of people who register multiple nicks here to get "under our radar".

On the other hand, I would be most pleased to hear an explanation of exactly what you hoped to accomplish, and the way in which you would tear down your own arguments. There is something to be said for learning to properly debate against a "devil's advocate", or perhaps in this case, "Morgoth's advocate."

If only it hadn't been done so often here before...

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by Neithan Tol Turambar

C.S. Lewis wrote a fantastic book called "The Screwtape Letters".
I think it was his best.

"Insult the devil, that proud spirit, and he will flee from you, for he cannot bear to be mocked." (paraphrase) [too lazy and not vain enough and not good enough at computers to get it right.

He begins his introduction to STL with two quotations

'The best way to drive out the devil, if he will not yield to text of scripture, is the jeer and flout him, for he cannot bear scorn. - Luther.'

and

'The Devil, the proud spirit, cannot endure to be mocked. - Thomas Moor.'

It is also interesting to note that STL was addressed to Tolkien.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

It is also interesting to note that STL was addressed to Tolkien.

And that he didn't like the book apparently - because he didn't think true evil should be treated that lightly.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by davem

Legate I still can't see how you could classify the meal as 'good' if you had nothing with which to compare it. If you only ever had 'good' meals you would not think of the meal as good - you would simply think of it as a meal. 'good' implies the existence of 'bad'. If only 'good' existed you wouldn't need the word 'good'. But this is not merely a linguistic debate.

Only to this: this is what I said in my post, that if you use "good" as description of something which is "better than something else" , then you must have evil with it, of course. I emphasised the "linguistic debate" thing - this is actually also what I said in my post above, it depends on what you imagine under the word "good" (you say "good" but if you wanted to describe what you imagine under it, you imagine actually something "better", "qualitatively higher than standard". Cf. above). Otherwise, in a world where no evil exists, the "good"=simply "normal", the inhabitant does not feel the "good" things as something "better than normal" because "good" is norm - as you said. But this does not mean that the "normal" thing is not "good" for you - qualitatively, it helps you somehow, it is, well, good for you. This is the meaning of good I'm using here. And this is the point of my post above. This is what I wanted to say.

Aside from that, with the rest of your points - as well as Lal's - I more or less agree. Good point about the light looking brighter next to darkness, yes, and the moral choices impossible without choice of evil - quite. Nothing to add to that (or at least I don't want to start on it now).

EDIT: Okay, I decided to add something. Well, the main thing I'd point to your two posts would be that the main thing we have to take in mind, and this is what the point was, that Eru/God does not invent (in a metaphysical, not physical sense = by physical I mean things like that "if he didn't want Men to kill each other, he should not have invented pointy things" - this is another dimension and totally out of what the main meaning is) or support evil, if you want to say it like that, he "sided" with the good things. There is the option to do evil, though he does not approve this. So there is no way of saying "but he made the evil..." Nope. So to make matters clear, for those who could think different, because this I think wasn't mentioned. So applying this on Melkor, he was on the "wrong side" - yes, evil.

That would be all.

[davem]

Of course one may live in a world where everything is 'good for' one. But is a thing that is 'good for you' the same a a thing that is 'Good' in a moral sense? Vegetables are 'good for you' but they are not 'Good' in a moral sense - ie it is not immoral not to 'eat your greens'. In the same way smoking may be 'bad for you' but smoking (while it may be anti-social & harmful to others around you) is not an 'immoral' act like rape or murder or theft.

There is the option to do evil, though he does not approve this. So there is no way of saying "but he made the evil..." Nope. So to make matters clear, for those who could think different, because this I think wasn't mentioned. So applying this on Melkor, he was on the "wrong side" - yes, evil.

But Melkor must exist & when he ceases to exist he is replaced by Sauron - because evil must have a name & a 'location'. From this perspective it would matter little whether Melkor/Sauron created the evil that found its way into Men's hearts or whether the evil in Men's hearts created Melkor/Sauron. Evil has to exist as a possiblity so that Men may choose the Good (rather than simply choosing what's 'good for them'.

You see, choosing what's 'good for you' may be the most selfish of acts & in fact be little better than narcisism, if it becomes an obsession. And one would have to ask 'good' in what way? Good for the body, or good for the spirit? One could ask whether Frodo did what was 'good for' him & find oneself arguing with oneself for a very long time. However, if one asks did Frodo do a 'Good' thing one would have to simply say yes. So doing a Good thing may be very bad for you. Hence, I suppose it must follow that some things which are 'good for you may actually be Bad, even Evil, because they demonstrate a self love & a lack of concern for, & interest in, those around you - or even a desire to force others to do as you wish, to control them 'for their own good'.

[narfforc]

If we take one scenario and look at it from a distance and suppose that the powers of Good and Bad are also looking in then we can start with the moment Frodo Baggins stand at the Cracks of Doom, the power of Good is rubbing his/her hands thinking 'I'm going to win', in the background Bad is trembling. Suddenly Frodo the Good becomes Frodo the Naughty, the grin returns to the face of Bad, he's managed to corrupt the blighter, enter stage left the evil Gollum who unbeknown to Bad is going to do the power of Good a favour. 'Oh no! how can this be' thinks Bad, 'he's supposed to be one my side', so evil destroys evil and it's a good thing, for Good has triumphed over Bad by Bads own means. In all this Fate has shown it's hand, did Good win because Gollum fell or was he pushed, was he there because Good wanted him there or Bad?. What I am trying to say is that even very good people can do bad things by accident, there is no intention, fate has dealt an ugly blow, evil can do good without intention also.


It's a Good thing I know what this gibberish means.



.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by alatar

Initially, your post sparked thoughts of wavelengths, radiation and dark matter, but thankfully I've moved back from physics to literature and philosophy. It's been always hard for me to accept an omniscient creator god that somehow is not responsible for even the 'bad,' as others have argued here. At least in Tolkien's word, we (or at least I) see that the bad was to be part of the piece from the first note. That, to me, is different that the Christian Genesis account (and other books that refer to the Fall), where it seems that all wasn't to go sour but did.

Even though I can only really accept a God that's all fluffy niceness - I see that this stems from a Protestant upbringing, where God is good and The Devil or Humans (in a world where the Devil does not exist, which is the plane I exist on) are the sinners and do the bad things. However in a more Catholic mindset, and maybe in other faiths that I don't know about, God works in far more mysterious ways and can do some truly scary things to seeming innocents. In many ways, that is in fact not scary, but comforting, as if something bad does happen to you and you're left wondering "What the ....?" you can shrug and say "God is mysterious". That's what they get in Middle-earth too - and that's why Numenor and the deaths of innocents are explainable within the context of Eru's world.

And going into what davem is saying, an example of why imperfection must exist alongside perfection can be found in the Cybermen! They of course want to 'upgrade' humanity and take away all the imperfections, make everyone utterly equal - in one of the episodes of Doctor Who (The Age of Steel??? Hookbill will know!) the Cybermen tell the humans how great this upgrade will be, how it will bring an end to strife and bring them peace because everyone will be perfect. But the thought of everyone being 'perfect' is horrific - humans will have their freedom of choice taken from them and will have No Option but to be perfect.

Without choices we become machines, Cybermen. We may then have an easy life, with no challenges to face, but without challenges how could we learn and grow?

I really, really like what Tolkien says about Darkness and Light, as it's quite comforting to think that even though there is Darkness, it only serves to make that Light so much brighter. You could draw all kinds of metaphors - from the sublime: seeing stars on a black night, the rising of the sun in the morning, the waxing of the moon, the bright light people see after death, to the ordinary: improving after an illness, fighting off an enemy, finding a tenner when you're skint, finishing work and getting out into the fresh air at long last, etc, all of them depend on both Darkness and Light to make them much sharper and more valuable. If life was all Roses they might not smell quite so sweet.