Good and evil

[Beanamir of Gondor]

The only reason Gandalf didn't come to my mind at first, I think, is because of that Steward-like quality or position. Morgoth was second to none in his quest for Evil; in the Third Age, Sauron was the same. Both wanted to rule all. Gandalf, however, was more than happy to serve the King, as long as that King is on the side of Good. So we don't immediately think of Gandalf in terms of Eru, God, the Omnipotent.

Probably that's why Gandalf might be the greatest example of Good in Tolkien's works: because the Good does not wish for power, only the ability to use it properly, if it is offered. (I hate to draw too many Christian parallelisms, buuuuuut now that Sir Kohran brings it up...)

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

If I can meddle in, with the Gandalf-thing, that's exactly the "ultimate good" in its, well, real basis, or how should I call it. You can define Ultimate Good (like a, let's say, concept) as something that does not harm anyone. That can be Radagast, who in fact, did not harm anyone: he stood out of the other's way, did not desire for anything, did not hunger for power... even (as far as we know, but let's presume that it is like that, at least in my mind that's my image of him) whatever he did just for himself, did not harm the others. You see: you can have a person who does not hunger for power or anything else, but indirectly harms someone: let's say a rich man sitting in his palace, who does not wilfully harm anyone, but does not care that people out there starve. I think Radagast was not that far to just "not care" of anyone, but still he could have been a lot more active - he surely spent quite a lot of his time just by being idle. Had he not been given his mission, it won't be considered as "failure". The trouble is that he could also do something somewhere else. So just "meaning no harm" is not close enough to the "Ultimate Good", no way.
The closest to Ultimate Good is, therefore, shown for me in Gandalf. He gave his hand wherever he could, but he was not aggressive. He had these moments of "righteous anger", but I don't recall a moment when this anger would be wilful and evil-doing. It was always perfectly in place, helping in the circumstances. And, again, it was not meant to harm anyone. Gandalf heeded his own words about taking life (FotR II). Gandalf did not have a permanent home, so that he was not bound by anything - unlike Saruman (or even Radagast). Wherever was need, he could go. That's one part of the "ultimate devotion", not as easy as it seems when you just skim-read it. I also don't recall that he would ever do anything just for himself. Except for smoking a pipe, and that, as well as rare and short "regenerating" visits of the Shire, I think was the most comfort he ever gave to himself, and as he himself said, he only did it to relax and refresh because, as any living being, he needed it. In other words, he did this to prevent himself becoming a workoholic. (And not to speak of that even his visits of the Shire turned to be important for his mission - what do I say - even the most important of all! Isn't that wonderful? And now who says there was no power behind the events in LotR, look at this!)

And, to somewhat "step out" and answer (or react) to the very first post. I think, as it was said here, that Middle-Earth is influenced by "outer good power". Eru is not mentioned as giving the Elves or the Númenoreans any divine direction or law, however, it just may be that something like this is just manifested differently here - like many other things. Speaking of the divine guidance in general: The fact that it is not seen does not mean it is not there. And I'm convinced that sometimes you can indeed see it working behind. As for the counter-Morgoth figure that you say we are lacking, do we need it? Maybe it will make sense in some sort of dualistic universe which (and also for this reason) Middle-Earth surely is not. Even in Christianity, as you brought it up, the power of God does not show in having one Ultimately Good figure representing it and fighting all the battle for Good. Before you interpretate it wrong, see what I mean: Even Jesus, from the "wordly" point of view, does very little in his life on Earth. He does not go and persuade the Roman Emperor to lower taxes, free slaves or whatever, or claim his throne (and based on what we know, something like that is what many of the Israelites expected the Messiah to do!). Although, from some point of view, yes, God directs everything - but as in Tolkien's works, most of it cannot be seen (cf. f.ex. Luke 17,20n). And even what is seen, is often hidden from the eyes of those who do not believe (Matthew 13,11 and parallel). The Kingdom of Jesus Christ "is not of this world" (John 18,36), it is more like the "kingdom" of - yes - Gandalf. Jesus rejects Satan's offer of rulership of the world (Matthew 4 and parallel), which is from my point of view the exact image of what Saruman did not do - speaking metaphorically, he accepted this offer! But the humble characters are the ones who make the real difference. Big kingdoms rise and fall - Maedhros' Union, Gondolin, Doriath, even Númenor - but the true - yes, if I can use that name, "Kingdom of Eru" remains and builts its way through Bilbos and Frodos and Gandalfs and little changes that cannot be seen, but are.

[Boromir88]

Legate, I'm glad you brought up Radagast. It reminds me of what well-respected politician once said (and I'll keep it an unnamed politician to avoid any sort of political discussion ). Anyway he said:

'When good people sit back and watch evil happen; that is the greatest evil of all.'

It reminds me of Radagast, because as Tolkien remarks Radagast had always stayed 'good-willed'...and it is because of Radagast's good will that he is able to help at Gandalf:

But since he remained of good will (though he had not much courage) , his work in fact helped Gandalf at crucial moments.~Hammond and Scull's LOTR Companion (taken from Tolkien's Papers; Bodleian Library - Radagast the Fool)

Radagast always remained good and I think it's echoed in Gandalf's words that it would have been useless for Saruman to try and 'win over the honest Radagast to treachery' (The Council of Elrond).

The failure of Radagast must therefor be that he isn't 'evil,' he still fails, but it's a different failure from Saruman's. Radagast fails precisely because of his 'idleness.' He becomes fond of the birds, beasts, and plants of Middle-earth and starts neglecting the very reason he was sent to Middle-earth:

"Indeed, of all the Istari, one only remained faithful, and he was the last-comer. For Radagast, the fourth, became enamoured of the many beasts and birds that dwelt in Middle-earth, and forsook Elves and Men, and spent his days among the wild creatures."~UT; The Istari

Radagast gave up and pretty much said 'forget you Elves and Men.' When as I think Gandalf points out not only for himself, but the task for all the Istari (note Gandalf says he is 'a steward' not 'the steward.') was to care for everything that 'lies in peril.' And to especially guide the resistance of Elves and Men against Sauron. Radagast does not do this and that is where he fails. That is also where I agree he is not a good figure of 'ultimate good,' eventhough Radagast always remained good.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

You precisely elaborated on what I had in mind about old Radagast.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

The failure of Radagast must therefor be that he isn't 'evil,' he still fails, but it's a different failure from Saruman's. Radagast fails precisely because of his 'idleness.' He becomes fond of the birds, beasts, and plants of Middle-earth and starts neglecting the very reason he was sent to Middle-earth

I would only note one thing. Someone may take it like that Radagast was actually doing something good: that he was caring of the animals instead, someone could say "Hey, and so what? Everyone cared of the people, but Radagast cared of the nature, he was a 'Good Greenpeace Guy'." But the point lies in that a) he was not actually much active (from what we know), he was just fond of beasts and plants, and mainly, it was more like being idle - a hobby, nothing more. He would of course care of those he liked, if for example Orcs attacked them, he will probably protect them - but nothing widespread, he did not wander the Middle-Earth and make animal reservations or something like that. It was not even his job to do so. Even if he did that, it will be - well, yes - procrastinating And that's b) he was just idle, collecting bugs or with similar hobbies, but doing nothing really constructive. Though, it is said (UT) Yavanna probably talked Saruman to take him so that even the animals and plants are cared about, but it was not the main reason... it would sort of crystalize itself if all the Istari did all what they were sent for; they would make a harmonic whole.
Imagine it: the White Council, and (good) Saruman comes with an idea of defeating Sauron with the use of force by making all these forges at Isengard and everything... and Radagast is there, as is his job, and warns him that he can't just do it, that he will disturb the Ents. Bingo! And the Wise sit and think of something else...

[Boromir88]

a) he was not actually much active (from what we know), he was just fond of beasts and plants~Legate

Interesting you say this, as I think you have a point. Also from Hammond and Scull's LOTR Companion Tolkien writes:

'it is clear that Gandalf (with greater insight and compassion) had in fact more knowledge of birds and beasts than Radagast, and was regarded by them with more respect and affection'

I was wondering about this because afterall 'birds and beasts' are supposed to be Radagast's specialty here. Yet, Gandalf knew more about them and got more respect from them then did Radagast. Why's that? As you point out all it really was, is Radagast was 'fond' of the birds and beasts and Gandalf tells Radagast to warn his 'friends.' But, I think when we see the interaction between Gandalf and Gwaihir we see the great respect Gwaihir has for Gandalf.

First off, Gwaihir rescues Gandalf from Orthanc. All Gwaihir was sent for was to act as a messenger, he wasn't expecting to have a passenger, yet because of his respect for Gandalf he gets him off Orthanc:

"How far can you bear me?" I said to Gwaihir.
"Many leages," said he, "but not to the ends of the earth. I was sent to bear tidings not burdens."~The Council of Elrond

Then later when Gwaihir fetches Gandalf off Zirak-Zigil:

"Ever am I fated to be your burden, friend at need," I said.
"A burden you have been," he answered, "but not so now. Light as a swan's feather in my claw you are. The Sun shines through you. Indeed I do not think you need me any more: were I to let you fall, you would float upon the wind."~The White Rider

And finally to rescue Frodo:

'Twice you have borne me, Gwaihir my friend,' said Gandalf. 'Thrice shall pay for all, if you are willing. You will not find me a burden much greater than when you bore me from Zirakzigil, where my old life burned away.'
'I would bear you,' answered Gwaihir, 'whither you will, even were you made of stone.'~Field of Cormallen

Eventhough we never see Radagast interacting with the animals he is 'fond' of. I think we do see what he meant that Gandalf did know more about the 'birds and beasts' than Radagast's did, and he had more respect from them. As we see a long list of one rescuing the other (though Gwaihir's list of rescuing Gandalf is much longer! ).

And we can kind of see that whitty friendly banter going on, with Gwaihir calling Gandalf a 'burden.' However, it all ends with Gwaihir saying 'I would will bear you wherever even were you made of stone.' What a happy ending.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Even though we never see Radagast interacting with the animals he is 'fond' of. I think we do see what he meant that Gandalf did know more about the 'birds and beasts' than Radagast's did, and he had more respect from them. As we see a long list of one rescuing the other (though Gwaihir's list of rescuing Gandalf is much longer! ).

Is it that Gandalf's knowledge comes from a more active research than the suspected more passivity of Radagast? Note that Gandalf somewhat aggressively goes searching for knowledge (i.e. Hobbits); did Radagast observe just those flora and fauna that were outside his window?

And, concerning the failure of Radagast, he erred as in the Three Laws of Robotics:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

It's not that the Brown Bomb actively tried to harm anyone, but that, as stated in #1, his inaction resulted in harm. He failed #2 as in not following the original plan, and we know that he would have (or may have) failed #3 as he was terrified of the coming of the Nine. Gandalf was fearful too, and yet he drew some of the Nine off in an effort to help Frodo, Strider etc.

A bad robot Radagast would have made.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by alatar

Is it that Gandalf's knowledge comes from a more active research than the suspected more passivity of Radagast? Note that Gandalf somewhat aggressively goes searching for knowledge (i.e. Hobbits); did Radagast observe just those flora and fauna that were outside his window?

I wouldn't say so. Gandalf shows the best, the "middle point" between Radagast and Saruman. Where Radagast was passive, Saruman was active to that point that he took charge of other beings rather than just aiding them, helping them understand and letting them choose, as Gandalf did. Also, this is that it's not Gandalf who goes "aggressively searching for knowledge", that one is Saruman: yes, aggressively searching for knowledge. Gandalf searches just out of curiosity, or (more often) what he needs: the Scroll of Isildur, for example, he searches for only when he is in need of it (which could be considered even a little setback). But Saruman...

Originally Posted by Elrond's Council

"(...) The white page can be overwritten; and the white light can be broken."
"In which case it is no longer white," said I. "And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom."

Emphasise mine, of course. I think that's one very important thing to consider. Or the same chapter:

Originally Posted by Elrond's Council

"It is perilous to study too deeply the arts of the Enemy, for good or for ill."

As Saruman did this, hungry for knowledge (and so later, for power).

And finaly, we have the testimony of Treebeard:

Originally Posted by Treebeard

[Saruman was] always eager to listen. I told him many things that he would never have found out by himself; but he never repaid me in like kind. I cannot remember that he ever told me anything. And he got more and more like that; his face, as I remember it – I have not seen it for many a day – became like windows in a stone wall: windows with shutters inside.

So I think where Radagast shows passivity, Saruman shows - as alatar said - aggressivity in seeking knowledge; and Gandalf, therefore, presents the "mild middle point", the best alternative.