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

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

But no such thing is possible, regardless which human would write the story, or which person attempts to prove.

But i don't see that attaining such proof is logically impossible.

If I were to venture a speculation, then even if Eru was supposed somehow to make an error and deviate from what would be the best application of infinite compassion (which I thoroughly disagree with), then, at least insofar as effects are concerned, he would have all that it takes to transform that and to make it more than worth it and thus any "mistake" would be at best temporary, achieving greater good in fact. Or, to try to better approximate the perfection we attribute to him, through all his actions he can achieve a greater good on a scale that may elude us, as limited beings.

If Eru is perfect he cannot make errors. Making errors is due to imperfection. All the actions of a perfect being must, of necessity, be perfect. To make an error which he then has to put right implies he is learning from his mistakes. But an Omniscient being cannot 'learn' anything because they would always have absolute knowledge of everything. Eru knows everything that was, is & will be because he exists outside time, in 'Eternity'. Learning implies 'evolution' from a 'lower' to a 'higher' state. Eru cannot 'evolve' to a higher or 'better' state from a lower or 'worse' one. Eru is always Eru. You can't posit an original, 'imperfect' Eru evolving into a final, 'perfect' Eru.

And, again, attributing 'perfection' to Eru is judging him according to a standard of perfect-imperfect & requiring perfection of him - If he is Eru he must be perfect ('perfect' here being used in a moral sense)..

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

But i don't see that attaining such proof is logically impossible.

Well, I still hold that a finite cannot comprehend the infinite, let alone judge it. How could we recognise inherently human emotions/motivations at an infinite level? It would be flawed from the start.

If Eru is perfect he cannot make errors.

I know. I believe I made it clear in my post that this was somewhat of a (unnecessary, sidetracking) reductio ad absurdum, exploring that even if Eru was imperfect, he would still be able to achieve overall good results. And as far as Eru being morally perfect, again, only someone with his attributes could judge the optimality of any of his actions, in accordance with the greater good.

[davem]

So is it possible that Eru could be imperfect, even evil, according to human standards of Good & Evil? If not, then Eru corresponds to what we would consider The Good (in M-e terms). Eru is Good - according to the M-e definition of Good (infinite Compassion, absolute love - not to mention omniscience, omnipotence). Therefore we have Eru, & we have a moral value system which defines Good as 'X' & according to that moral value system Eru ticks all the boxes for 'X' & is therefore Good.

How would we be able to say 'Eru is Good' if we didn't measure him against our criteria for Good & Evil? If Eru were to do something which we consider 'evil' - ie, if he was to commit an (on the face of it) 'Morgothian' act & torture & corrupt an innocent being would we be justified in calling him 'Evil' because he behaved like the living manifestation of Evil in M-e? And if we, because of our creaturely limitations must not judge Eru to be 'evil' simply because he committed what seemed to us an evil act, how can we justify judging Morgoth evil for committing exactly the same act?

We as readers don't judge Morgoth evil simply because Tolkien says he is. We adjudge him evil because of his acts. The idea that both Eru & Morgoth could commit the same 'evil' act & one (Morgoth) be judged 'evil' for committing it, but the other (Eru) be beyond judgement is, to me, not logical.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

The idea that both Eru & Morgoth could commit the same 'evil' act & one (Morgoth) be judged 'evil' for committing it, but the other (Eru) be beyond judgement is, to me, not logical.

But your logic is flawed even in human terms, as the same act of harming someone can have different moral connotations, depending on the circumstances and the intentions. As to the difference between Eru and Morgoth, any resemblance in the intention to perpetuate evil is considered a priori wrong, in Tolkien's universe too.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

But your logic is flawed even in human terms, as the same act of harming someone can have different moral connotations, depending on the circumstances and the intentions. As to the difference between Eru and Morgoth, any resemblance in the intention to perpetuate evil is considered a priori wrong, in Tolkien's universe too.

But if I can only know Eru & Morgoth by their actions (ie by their direct effect on myself & the world around me ) how can I know one is 'good' & one is 'evil' - unless I use some kind of objective standard?

Your theory is fine, but for practical purposes I (as an inhabitant of M-e) have to decide which one is right & which one is wrong, & whose side I will be on. And to do that I have to have a set of standards by which I make a judgement - unless I resort to tossing a coin. I can only decide 'X' is good & 'Y' is evil according to a strict, pre-existing set of standards.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

Your theory is fine, but for practical purposes I (as an inhabitant of M-e) have to decide which one is right & which one is wrong, & whose side I will be on. And to do that I have to have a set of standards by which I make a judgement - unless I resort to tossing a coin. I can only decide 'X' is good & 'Y' is evil according to a strict, pre-existing set of standards.

Well, it doesn't look like a M-e inhabitant would have it going any easier than us. They too are required Estel in Eru's works. I don't see any objective standard to be usable by a limited being, seeing that its "perfection" cannot be translated into results if we only have, limited as we are, inadequate information. In the end, it all comes down to making the best attempt, with the best of intentions, whether in thought or in action, no matter the magnitude of deceit and doubt facing us.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Well, it doesn't look like a M-e inhabitant would have it going any easier than us. They too are required Estel in Eru's works. I don't see any objective standard to be usable by a limited being, seeing that its "perfection" cannot be translated into results if we only have, limited as we are, inadequate information. In the end, it all comes down to making the best attempt, with the best of intentions, whether in thought or in action, no matter the magnitude of deceit and doubt facing us.

Yet when Eomer asks: 'How shall a man judge what to do in such times?'
Aragorn:'As he ever has judged. Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves : and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them.'

So discerning between good & ill is a requirement, based on some kind of 'eternal', or at least pre-existing standard. In fact it is a man's part - an obligation if you will. But what then is the source of this pre-existing standard? A)Men's (& by extension, Elves' & Dwarves') ancestors - ie a creaturely 'invention'? B)The Valar? Or C) Eru himself?

If A) is this creaturely invention consonant with some kind of divine standard? Does it just happen to correspond to a divine standard, or is it at odds with such a divine standard?

If B) Is this 'demi-urgic' invention consonant with a divine standard set down by Eru, or is it at odds with it?

If C) Is this divinely authorised standard a reflection of Eru's own personal moral value system, or at odds with it?

Whatever, Aragorn clearly states that there is an objectively existing Moral value system by which Men & other self-conscious incarnates should judge between right & wrong. Aragorn clearly trusts Eru to be 'good' & not 'evil' & he must base this trust on a value judgement.