Split Personality?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

Could just touching the Ring make one evil?

I certainly doubt it. Given Gandalf's words, it would take a rather long time, especially if one's nature is good and moral.

Why couldn't the Free folk get together and create an anti-Ring and send it gift-wrapped to Barad-dur?

In the event that this is not a joke (I usually fail to make such distinctions, so have mercy ), the Free folk didn't have the ability to match Sauron's power in making a great ring, let alone one that could affect his nature.

Anyone claiming the One Ring, sooner or later, would become evil - controlling, forcing others to do something that they would not freely choose to do (see Orwell's 1984 for a definition) - even if it were via a thousand slices from a chocolate cake that could have been left alone for one's spouse; eventually, you've eaten the whole thing and then you're there.

I agree.

Originally Posted by lmp

It seems to me that this debate about evil breaks in two what Tolkien wrought whole.

He gives evidence for both "schools of thought" on evil because he presents it as it truly is, whole-cloth. It's an example of mythic unity. We can debate as much as we like "what Tolkien really meant", and it's just only half the story, or less. What he evoked is what evil is in its realistic complexity.

I am not sure, what part of evil has my argument left out? On occasion, I rather enlarged its sphere in this discussion, compared to other positions presented.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I am not sure, what part of evil has my argument left out? On occasion, I rather enlarged its sphere in this discussion, compared to other positions presented.

I don't think I could tell you what you've left out, because that would be getting into specifics, which would again be teasing apart what Tolkien wrought whole. I guess it comes down to this: Tolkien was a master at holding in tension such things as evil, as well as many other things that modern minds tend to pick apart and take sides on. It's part of what he's doing to build myth in LotR. .... and to keep this on the movie topic, it's something that Jackson just seems to have had no inkling of, because the movie consistently interprets the book by splitting up these unities.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by lmp

I don't think I could tell you what you've left out, because that would be getting into specifics, which would again be teasing apart what Tolkien wrought whole.

I certainly doubt that Tolkien conceived evil in Ea as something unexplainable and unapproachable. While it may have numerous ramifications, it surely has defining elements. I don't see the same reluctance in his approach to this matter.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I certainly doubt that Tolkien conceived evil in Ea as something unexplainable and unapproachable. While it may have numerous ramifications, it surely has defining elements.

However, we define those elements at the risk of losing the unity.

I don't see the same reluctance in his approach to this matter.

That would be because I recognize his genious and my lack.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Raynor

In the event that this is not a joke (I usually fail to make such distinctions, so have mercy ), the Free folk didn't have the ability to match Sauron's power in making a great ring, let alone one that could affect his nature.

I never joke, knowing that every word that I write may tip the balance of the world, if not the universe, into chaos.

My point is that if it is possible to construct an item that can 'turn one evil' regardless of one's will, then it should be equally possible to create a similar device that turns one good. If Sauron could make the Ring, then someone could make the anti-Ring - Gandalf, Saurman, Feanor, etc.

Regardless, the Free Folk are good because they do not wish to create a device, letting Sauron and others like him stew in their own foolishness.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by lmp

However, we define those elements at the risk of losing the unity.

As far as I can tell, this relates more to your personal interpretation and approach, which I respect, than to the possibility to identify such elements in his writing. Therefore, I believe this is a case where we should agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by alatar

I never joke, knowing that every word that I write may tip the balance of the world, if not the universe, into chaos.

Wise words from a wise man . With power comes responsibility .

My point is that if it is possible to construct an item that can 'turn one evil' regardless of one's will, then it should be equally possible to create a similar device that turns one good. If Sauron could make the Ring, then someone could make the anti-Ring - Gandalf, Saurman, Feanor, etc.

In my opinion, it takes someone far stronger than the "target" to be able to make such a device. I believe that Saruman and Gandalf were such susceptible to the Ring because they were weakened by their condition. In regards to Sauron, I would say it takes a vala to make such an anti-ring.

Regardless, the Free Folk are good because they do not wish to create a device, letting Sauron and others like him stew in their own foolishness.

Hm, I would say their goodness comes also from their relative lack of power. Otherwise, one of the strongest "morals" of LotR - and Tolkien's work in general, is that power corrupts.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Raynor

In my opinion, it takes someone far stronger than the "target" to be able to make such a device. I believe that Saruman and Gandalf were such susceptible to the Ring because they were weakened by their condition. In regards to Sauron, I would say it takes a vala to make such an anti-ring.

That makes sense, yet I would say that such a device, whether pro- or anti-evil, is impossible. One cannot, I suppose, negate the free will that is the gift of Eru.

Hm, I would say their goodness comes also from their relative lack of power. Otherwise, one of the strongest "morals" of LotR - and Tolkien's work in general, is that power corrupts.

Lack of power? Not likely. I would say the responsible use of power. Eru's very powerful; is he corrupt?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by alatar

That makes sense, yet I would say that such a device, whether pro- or anti-evil, is impossible. One cannot, I suppose, negate the free will that is the gift of Eru.

However, Tolkien did allow for situations in which one is overwhelmed by an evil far greater than one's power to resist. And he made the case that no blame is to be laid in such situations. As for the anti-ring, the presumed coming of Eru would eradicate evil from Creation - although it would likely not touch upon the free will to further choose between good and evil.

Lack of power? Not likely. I would say the responsible use of power.

Hm, I must admit I don't follow .

Eru's very powerful; is he corrupt?

Then again, the comparison is likely false, since Eru is infinite and we have zero clues about Him, other than Him being the "one wholly free Will and Agent" (letter #156). Moreover, Tolkien stated in Myths Transformed that any finite being has weaknesses - being implied that this does not apply to an infinite being.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Raynor

However, Tolkien did allow for situations in which one is overwhelmed by an evil far greater than one's power to resist. And he made the case that no blame is to be laid in such situations. As for the anti-ring, the presumed coming of Eru would eradicate evil from Creation - although it would likely not touch upon the free will to further choose between good and evil.

It's different if you are overwhelmed against your will, but a device that makes you evil? If Melkor did make orcs from elves, seeing the behaviour of the elves, he may have had some that were somewhat amenable to the process, though by a thousand slices.

Hm, I must admit I don't follow .

Th 'good' did not lack for power. Gandalf could have used much more power than he did. Saruman could have been made to bow before him. But Gandalf showed restraint and so simply made Saruman mostly impotent.

Then again, the comparison is likely false, since Eru is infinite and we have zero clues about Him, other than Him being the "one wholly free Will and Agent" (letter #156). Moreover, Tolkien stated in Myths Transformed that any finite being has weaknesses - being implied that this does not apply to an infinite being.

My point is that if power corrupts, then absolute power corrupts absolutely (hmm, I should coin that phrase ). Where not Melkor and Manwe brothers? Why then was Melkor corrupted and Manwe not? Would that not indicate that it's not the power, but the application thereof?

[Raynor]

It's different if you are overwhelmed against your will, but a device that makes you evil?

However, this device isn't any object, seeing the amount of power it has, its special relation to Sauron and even some presumed "intelligence"/activity of its own. I would also expect a great concentration of Melkor's marring throughout Arda to have a somewhat similar effect.

If Melkor did make orcs from elves, seeing the behaviour of the elves, he may have had some that were somewhat amenable to the process, though by a thousand slices.

Well... maybe .

The 'good' did not lack for power. Gandalf could have used much more power than he did. Saruman could have been made to bow before him. But Gandalf showed restraint and so simply made Saruman mostly impotent.

I see. By Free Folk I didn't previously included our istari friend(s). We should bear in mind that the elves came rather close to this, through their Rings of power that counter the marring and the decay.

hmm, I should coin that phrase

You should, it sounds catchy .

Were not Melkor and Manwe brothers?Why then was Melkor corrupted and Manwe not?

True, but Melkor had greater power and Manwe had a more special relation with Eru.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Raynor

As far as I can tell, this relates more to your personal interpretation and approach, which I respect, than to the possibility to identify such elements in his writing. Therefore, I believe this is a case where we should agree to disagree.

No, this is not a subjective issue. The (modern) human mind tends to analyze (break apart) that with which it is confronted. Whereas there are benefits to such activity, as can be seen from the development of modern technology, there is a price paid. The price that is paid is the part of a thing that seems of less value to the analyzer. Example: the Greek distinction between soul and body - western history shows us that there have been (at least) two schools of thought, one valuing soul higher, the other valuing body higher, with results ranging from aesceticism to naturalism. In the same way, distinguising between two aspects of evil will lead to the devaluing of one of those aspects. Evil doesn't change, but the way we deal with it does, and that could be devastating if we have lost something in our analysis that is too costly.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Example: the Greek distinction between soul and body - western history shows us that there have been (at least) two schools of thought

When choosing between two schools of thought, go with the one with the better football team.

Evil doesn't change, but the way we deal with it does, and that could be devastating if we have lost something in our analysis that is too costly.

There's something intriguing here, but I can't quite see it. "Evil doesn't change" strikes me as wrong, but that's subjective, obviously. If, in Arda, evil = against the will of Eru, then maybe.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by lmp

No, this is not a subjective issue.

I believe it is. You refused a priori my approach, without pointing to any actual flaw when I requested it.

Evil doesn't change

In what sense? Is it precluded that any new forms/types of evil appear?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I would say their goodness comes also from their relative lack of power. Otherwise, one of the strongest "morals" of LotR - and Tolkien's work in general, is that power corrupts.

It is not power itself that corrupts, or else every king that ever lived would have gotten worse over time until he was unbearable. It is the will to dominate other wills that corrupts; to have one's own way regardless of the effect upon others.

Originally Posted by me

Evil doesn't change, but the way we deal with it does, and that could be devastating if we have lost something in our analysis that is too costly

This was an unfortunate expression of my thought. What I should have said was, "Evil remains what it is regardless of what we decide based on our analysis, and if our analysis fails to take into account the entirety of what Evil is, we pay a costly price." But I was in a rush when I wrote what I did in the first place, and it shows.

Originally Posted by Raynor

You refused a priori my approach, without pointing to any actual flaw when I requested it.

Actually, the paragraph following my "no" was an attempt at an explanation of my reasons for the "no". The reason I didn't point to any actual flaw is because I believe that the schools of thought on evil are valid, though limited, expressions of the part of Evil that they emphasize.

Originally Posted by davem

we're back to the Boethian/Manichaean dichotomy here

Both schools of thought point to something true about Evil. When "logicked" out, they exclude each other. The exclusion is the problem. I personally lean toward the Boethian school and against the Manichaean, but there's something about the Manichaean point that just doesn't die --- because there's reality there. Tolkien captures the unity in LotR

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by lmp

It is the will to dominate other wills that corrupts; to have one's own way regardless of the effect upon others.

I believe that this is already a manifestation of corruption and that power is a powerful catalyst of it. And such power can be either "external" (such as hierarchy) or "internal" (such as the ability itself to convince).

Both schools of thought point to something true about Evil. When "logicked" out, they exclude each other. The exclusion is the problem.

I agree; however, they don't apply to Tolkien's world, for the very reasons you mentioned. Therefore, I believe that the attempt itself to use either or both here is faulty and that the main traits of this subject can be safely discerned in Ea.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I believe that the attempt itself to use either or both here is faulty and that the main traits of this subject can be safely discerned in Ea.

Then have at it.