Sauron vs. Your Mama - A Discussion of Power in Middle-earth

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

But deaths inflicted by Morgoth are always & unambiguously seen as 'evil'. So when Eru kills its good, but when anyone else kills its bad - hence we're back to the 'whatever Eru does is good because Eru does it' argument.

But Melkor had no right to interfere with Men, to begin with, let alone deal death to them. Their introduction belongs strictly to Eru, their role is known only to him and He has supreme, and exclusive, authority over them. Melkor is a finite creature and his precedents leave no shadow of doubt about his motives when killing, while everything we know or can surmise of Eru depict Him as the source of good. And to reiterate my argument, how can we judge if we have less information than he has? What basis would our argument have?

Any reading which does not contradict the text is valid.

I disagree; Tolkien's reading of the text was conducive to moral and religious truth, but you imply that others do not see this, which nullifies your above statement, since it warrants two contradictory conclusions. And as far as some readers understanding LotR without the Silmarillion, I can accept that, due to the fact that each individual defines for himself what he considers understandable or not; but this does not, or cannot, nullify the religious element that he put in the work.

[Boromir88]

Then you're arguing that there is no objective standard of right & wrong in M-e & we simply have to judge whatever Eru does as being right (& therefore 'Good') simply because he does it.~davem

In the 'world of Middle-earth' I would say so.

Tolkien wrote one creator in his story, that is the one universally accepted creator. Therefor what that one creator does/declared (Eru) I think we do have to accept as 'good.' And anything that is against Eru as 'evil.'

In the 'real world' there is not one universally accepted creator, therefor there is an objective look of what is actually good and what is actually evil. And whether the actions of one of the creator's is good or not.

Tolkien wrote us a little different story where there is one creator and only one creator. So the actions of that one creator I think we have to say that creator knows what's best for his world. Just my opinion though.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

But Melkor had no right to interfere with Men, to begin with, let alone deal death to them. Their introduction belongs strictly to Eru, their role is known only to him and He has supreme, and exclusive, authority over them. Melkor is a finite creature and his precedents leave no shadow of doubt about his motives when killing, while everything we know or can surmise of Eru depict Him as the source of good. And to reiterate my argument, how can we judge if we have less information than he has? What basis would our argument have?

Well, my oft-stated position is that Eru is a character as much as Frodo, Gollum or Morgoth, & we can judge any character according to the standards of the created world.
Even within a religion like Christianity Jesus instructs his followers to 'be like your Father in Heaven', implying that in the primary world a religious person should emulate God as far as they can. Eru slays his children. Eru is not beyond analysis as a character. To say we cannot judge Eru because we cannot know his nature in full is no different to saying we cannot judge Morgoth or Gollum or Frodo. Tolkien lays down a standard of morality & we surely have a right to ask whether Eru lives up to that standard or not.

I disagree; Tolkien's reading of the text was conducive to moral and religious truth, but you imply that others do not see this, which nullifies your above statement, since it warrants two contradictory conclusions.

I'm merely asking questions. I could argue that Eru is beyond the limits & rules which he sets, or that he sets different rules for himself. I could also argue that merely because Tolkien read the text in one way doesn't mean I or anyone else has to. I could argue that Wyrd is a 'religious' (or at least 'spiritual') concept & reading Wyrd into the story as a driving force is as valid as reading Eru into it - one doesn't need Eru to make the story 'spiritual', moral or 'religious'.

And as far as some readers understanding LotR without the Silmarillion, I can accept that, due to the fact that each individual defines for himself what he considers understandable or not; but this does not, or cannot, nullify the religious element that he put in the work.

One only has to accept a 'supernatural' dimension. LotR was published, & is usually read, as a stand-alone work & an author has no right to attempt to dictate how the work is read or interpreted - as long as the interpretation doesn't directly contradict what the text says. A reader cannot deny that there is a 'force' driving events in LotR, but a reader of LotR only cannot bring Eru into their interpretation. A reading of LotR alone which places the onus on Wyrd is equally valid, & may be the only one the reader can come up with. That doesn't invalidate their reading, or make it meaningless.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, my oft-stated position is that Eru is a character as much as Frodo, Gollum or Morgoth, & we can judge any character according to the standards of the created world.

Well, that you may do on a personal level; but you cannot claim general validity of your conclusion, since your judgment is based on a self-contradictory premise, that Eru can be a finite being. As far as I know, any system that posits a God, "describes" him as infinite, unknowable. Also, such analysis is bound to reach only one conclusion in order to be coherent with Tolkien's larger work, where it is stated that Eru is to be seen as good, and thinking otherwise is the root of evil - thus rather excluding your right to question whether Eru is good or not. Even Aragorn's words from the Appendices imply, at least to me, a benevolent God. I don't need to play a fictitious hide-and-seek with the quotes outside LotR, where Tolkien clarifies what is implicit in the text; and if others choose to ignore the in-text implicit part, and the out-of-text clarification, then fine by me also.

As far as the quote from the Bible, it refers to emulating love for everyone; God in the Bible also provokes a similar events, but it can hardly be construed that those who try to emulate God, by the words of Jesus, should try to deal divine-like punishments too, since that is not a person's prerogative.

I could argue that Wyrd is a 'religious' (or at least 'spiritual') concept & reading Wyrd into the story as a driving force is as valid as reading Eru into it - one doesn't need Eru to make the story 'spiritual', moral or 'religious'.

I don't see how "Wyrd" can be "the One" or any other less explicit reference to Eru. As I said, different persons have different standards of understandability; I could even some as reading the first chapter and putting the book down, saying "I can completely see where this story is going, I need no more of it". Or at the other end, some would still hunger for more, even after reading everything possible. So I don't see the value of arguing over an interpretation that is lacking in information - one which neither you nor I share. We both have read the work in its entirety, LotR and Silmarillion, and I believe it is safe to say that Eru as part of the entire picture, and the same can be expected of the average reader who has access to the books.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

. Also, such analysis is bound to reach only one conclusion in order to be coherent with Tolkien's larger work, where it is stated that Eru is to be seen as good, and thinking otherwise is the root of evil - thus rather excluding your right to question whether Eru is good or not.

So you're still arguing that whatever Eru does is 'Good' simply because Eru does it, & therefore 'Good' means 'Whatever Eru does'. There's no actual objective standard of Good which can be defined & which beings, from Eru down, can be judged by?

Even Aragorn's words from the Appendices imply, at least to me, a benevolent God. I don't need to play a fictitious hide-and-seek with the quotes outside LotR, where Tolkien clarifies what is implicit in the text; and if others choose to ignore the in-text implicit part, and the out-of-text clarification, then fine by me also.

All they 'imply' to me is that Aragorn believes in a benevolent God. LotR as a stand alone work speaks to 20th/21st century world. The M-e of LotR is full of folk who believe in 'something else', something beyond themselves, as 'ordering principle' or driving force behind events. Yet the reader is never told what that is - or even whether that 'perception' is correct. The reader of TH & LotR is in the same position as a 20th/21st century person - they can choose to believe in something 'else' ir they can believe that there is nothing 'beyond' the world & put references to it down to the characters' faith. Its only the Silmarillion that changes that. The Silmarillion 'forces' the reader to accept Eru - and, significantly to my mind, changes our perception of the characters & our understanding of their nature - Aragorn, Galadriel, et al go from being characters with 'faith' in something else to characters who know something other characters don't. In other words we move from a world where some folk have faith & others don't to a world where some characters are right & some are wrong.

So I don't see the value of arguing over an interpretation that is lacking in information - one which neither you nor I share. We both have read the work in its entirety, LotR and Silmarillion, and I believe it is safe to say that Eru as part of the entire picture, and the same can be expected of the average reader who has access to the books.

Again, I'm not 'arguing over an interpretation'. All I've been arguing is that Tolkien was wrong when he claimed LotR can't be understood without a knowledge of The Sil. Maybe it can't be understood in the way he wanted it to be understood, but its simply nonsense to say LotR can't be understood (ie is nonsensical or meaningless) by a reader unfamiliar with The Sil.

Edit

It seems to me that there has to be an objective standard of Good by which Eru can be judged. If, for example, Eru suddenly released Morgoth at the end of the Third Age to take over from Sauron, or at the other extreme, if he made an extra arm grow out of everyone's head - ie if he did something which supported evil or something irrational - we would have to question his goodness or his sanity. In other words, we can accept an 'unknowable' dimension to Eru, but his behaviour & acts must remain within certain bounds. We wouldn't (if only from an an artistic, if not a 'theological' viewpoint) accept any behaviour on Eru's part (we may accept the idea of Eru incarnating into Arda but we wouldn't accept an account that depicted Eru incarnating as a talking rhinoceros). Therefore its perfectly valid to ask whether Eru's behaviour at any point takes him beyond those bounds.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

There's no actual objective standard of Good which can be defined & which beings, from Eru down, can be judged by?

In short, no, because it is humanly impossible to define such a standard or to apply it. Even if one would have such a desire, to judge God, which I personally don't, regardless the context, how could such a thing be possible? How could the finite devise any sort of system by which to measure morality at transcendental level? I don't see how. In our case too, only Eru could judge Eru; anything else done at human level would satisfy a barren curiosity, which, due to its unwarranted reductionism and severe lack of information, wouldn't meet our own standards of relevancy. If one wants to fallaciously "approximate" Eru as just another character and judge him as such then .... whatever. We are warned against judging even Manwe, (a finite being and thus inherently faulted) since we don't have his wisdom, his knowledge of the Music, and his recourse to Eru. I share Tolkien's opinion that we can't even judge a finite being (such as Gollum), at the absolute level, since this would be to investigate "Goddes privite". Going even beyond these seems ...

Maybe it can't be understood in the way he wanted it to be understood, but its simply nonsense to say LotR can't be understood (ie is nonsensical or meaningless) by a reader unfamiliar with The Sil.

Again, it all comes down to the personal standard of relevancy, doesn't it? But there are many references, spiritual or historical, in the text or the appendices, that require the larger story to be properly understood, even if the epic line in itself is accessible.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

In short, no, because it is humanly impossible to define such a standard or to apply it. Even if one would have such a desire, to judge God, which I personally don't, regardless the context, how could such a thing be possible? How could the finite devise any sort of system by which to measure morality at transcendental level? I don't see how.

So, if Eru tortured innocent people, even children, for no reason that would still be a 'Good' act, simply because Eru did it? Or would you argue that Eru, because he is 'Good' would not torture the innocent?

If the former, then 'Good' as a moral concept is meaningless, because it can be applied to any kind of behaviour at all if Eru commits it. 'Good' & 'Evil' would mean nothing at all in an 'objective' or logical sense, & morality, definitions of 'Good' & 'Evil', would have to be invented by Elves & humans, because it could not be drawn from Eru.

If the latter, then 'Good' is an absolute standard, which restricts (by choice on his part) even Eru. If this is the case then we can judge whether Eru acts outside this standard.Even if you argue that 'Good' is an aspect of Eru's nature & that he cannot act against the Good then you are still arguing that Good is an absolute which binds even Eru & determines his behaviour.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

If this is the case then we can judge whether Eru acts outside this standard.Even if you argue that 'Good' is an aspect of Eru's nature & that he cannot act against the Good then you are still arguing that Good is an absolute which binds even Eru & determines his behaviour.

I don't think that a human could approach this subject, just as we can't know when it is good for a person to die and in what way. We lack the perspective, authority, wisdom, and knowledge usually associated with an absolute being, capable of ensuring that even death can be superseded and more than compensated. We have little if any idea of how God would relate to a human, other than infinite compassion and capability to turn even a (or any) " divine punishment" into a "divine gift", as Tolkien mentioned in the letters. To talk in human terms, even in our system of justice, a minor theft of a rather insignificant object can be more than compensated; I personally hold this to be true all the more on the divine level, regardless the loss or suffering. This divine logic, whether it concerns birth, death or any other circumstance of life, is beyond us, and any approximation of it would be inherently human, limited, faulted.