Redefining Good & Evil

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

You Form surely know that christianity became a world-power with a few Roman caesars who just forced it to the people (closing all scientific academies and philosophical schools as heretical and thus turning the time backwards for a thousand years) and with it's two millenias of tradition all these different views have been considered. And that was not to the credit of the "going-to-be" mainstream christianity, as fex. the question of theodikea remains, thanks to the decision of one synod in the first centuries of our common era, into which fex. manicheanism has much more believable answers...

While I might question the veracity of the slant you're putting on the historical facts... I'm really not sure at all what your point would be. Whether or not Catholicism as such got where it was today--or, pertinently, in Tolkien's lifetime--by the hand of Divine Providence, as I would say, or by the cut-throat tactics of decadent emperors and backwards barbarians (ignoring, completely, the historical fact of civilisation being SAVED in the West--never mind the East for now--by said cut-throat religion) is hardly to the point. My point had nothing to do with why the Manichees are not more popular today, and everything to with the fact that Tolkien's philosophy, as it comes through in the Silmarillion and the LotR is NOT Manichean, but much more reminiscent of orthodox Catholicism. And no wonder, given which of the two Tolkien belonged to. Regardless of WHY he was Catholic, you're surely not going to tell me that he was not, in fact, actually Catholic?

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Looking back at Babylonian or Scandinavian myths one sees a host of open possibilities. Or looking at the Asian religions / philosophies, one gets a totally different answer where there is no winning or losing at all.

So we're dealing with western philosophy here; the philosophy of the winners of history who can write their own truths as universal ones? Even if there's tension between the orthodox-catholicism and say Lutheran doctrine on the matters... (not to talk of the African churches or the fundamentalist "new-borns" in America).

But how should we settle this kind of argument? People X say "There is evil in itself!" and others say "No, it's just the lack of good", and the third party says "It's just the balance between the forces" while the side Y says "It's just perspectives"...


But what strikes me in this comparison is the role of democracy as a backbone of European (North-American) thinking. And that bygone argument of Adam Smith about the invisible hand which will just settle all things for the common good. (He might have been right in a small industry perspective, in a small marketing area with knowledgeable consumers and no "branding", but... )

Now why the evil would be disarrayed and the good ones united? Wasn't it Martin Luther King's famous speech which approached us normal people saying that the evil is not what some evil people do but the fault of us good ones not doing anything about it? So making just the contrary point: we good are disarrayed and that's the problem.

And this sure raises the question of understanding the bad vs. punishing them...

And should we actually do something about bad things ourselves to make the world better? And how to do it?

Perhaps I'm a touch vindictive here--and insofar as I'm capable of pulling myself back from that, I apologise--REALLY!--but what, exactly, does this have to do with either Tolkien or Eddings? To an extent, you seem to be agreeing with Hakon, who said that "good and evil are perspective"--a statement that, unqualified, I do not incline to agree with--you could perhaps be arguing that Tolkien, in fact, DOES have an Eddingseseque side, if you leave Eru out of the picture as pious legend of the Valinorean Elves (thus meaning that the REAL battle in Middle-earth is only between Melkor's and Manwë's parties, who really are comparable in power)--but you don't actually seem to be coming back to either Tolkien or Eddings at all.

Really... unless you're offering another analysis of Good/Evil that is not offered by either Eddings or, I guess, my admittedly Catholic-centric self, then I'm not entirely sure what you're doing.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Perhaps I'm a touch vindictive here--and insofar as I'm capable of pulling myself back from that, I apologise--REALLY!--but what, exactly, does this have to do with either Tolkien or Eddings? To an extent, you seem to be agreeing with Hakon, who said that "good and evil are perspective"--a statement that, unqualified, I do not incline to agree with--you could perhaps be arguing that Tolkien, in fact, DOES have an Eddingseseque side, if you leave Eru out of the picture as pious legend of the Valinorean Elves (thus meaning that the REAL battle in Middle-earth is only between Melkor's and Manwë's parties, who really are comparable in power)--but you don't actually seem to be coming back to either Tolkien or Eddings at all.

You're right in here. I have nothing to say of Eddings even if any dimming of a spark of life is a great loss in this universe crowded by nothingness.

May he be remembered well, even if I won't be one of those remembering him with real tears as I haven't read his books, looking at them by the covers as just that basic bulk-fantasy. So never a fan of his even if regretting his death - as anyones.

But I do not agree with Hakon that good and evil are "just" perspectives. Not at all. I think good is good and bad is bad nonetheless of your religion or your world-view.

Thinking one should be good because of one's own self interest (a place in heaven) - or being good to obey a higher call anyway because some authority wants it - is bad. One should be good for it's own sake. To be a human is to be good (and bye-bye the primordial sin). That's what I try to say on the subject of good and evil between Tolkien and Eddings... or on it anyway.

The world I believe is immoral or a-moral. The religions bring the good in with the God but I think we must be braver than that. There's no God to judge you. You should be good without a God; make it a hypothesis for a while and think how it would affect your thought! Then you're good if you choose right without orders or rewards. It's not easy to grow up from childhood's "please and be rewarded" attitude but we have hope. That's what we need to count on,

Originally Posted by FOrm

While I might question the veracity of the slant you're putting on the historical facts... I'm really not sure at all what your point would be. Whether or not Catholicism as such got where it was today--or, pertinently, in Tolkien's lifetime--by the hand of , as I would say, or by the cut-throat tactics of decadent emperors and backwards barbarians (ignoring, completely, the historical fact of civilisation being SAVED in the West--never mind the East for now--by said cut-throat religion) is hardly to the point. My point had nothing to do with why the Manichees are not more popular today, and everything to with the fact that Tolkien's philosophy, as it comes through in the Silmarillion and the LotR is NOT Manichean, but much more reminiscent of orthodox Catholicism. And no wonder, given which of the two Tolkien belonged to.

I never said Tolkien was not a catholic. Vice versa (and sorry if that interptetation was plausible). Surely Tolkien is a catholic par exellance here - that was my point indeed.

And it's a telling choice of words when you speak of "Divine Providence", which is how the catholics and the orthodox speak while treating history. Comfortable.

I'm not going into the Albigenses here... or other "non-desirables" who thought the theodikea needed a solving...

But to my eyes the main-story seemed to be a question of an independent evil vs, the good. A question so problematic for christianity because of the clausules of the early church fathers and the political climate they made their decisions in (which are ignored). And not being so holy anyway...

The LotR is not Manichean. Here we should agree and I think I never claimed it was. Not at all.

I agree with you that Tolkien has the catholic view about it with providence... (Gandalf's resurrection, the fate that guides the Ring to Frodo etc..) although I think there are bitter schisms between the protestants and the catholics (not to talk of the Orthodox) on the subject of mercy vs. deeds vs. intentions.

But that's another topic alltogether I think - and nothing that could be argued...

[Hakon]

But I do not agree with Hakon that good and evil are "just" perspectives. Not at all. I think good is good and bad is bad nonetheless of your religion or your world-view.

The way one views good and evil is the way they are taught to. If one is raised in a society that views murder and rape as a good thing than they view good as that and they view not doing that as bad. In our society we view it as murder and rape are evil. It is simply perspective. In LotR look at Saruman. He thinks he is doing the right thing by betraying Gandalf yet we view him as evil.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Hakon

The way one views good and evil is the way they are taught to. If one is raised in a society that views murder and rape as a good thing than they view good as that and they view not doing that as bad. In our society we view it as murder and rape are evil. It is simply perspective. In LotR look at Saruman. He thinks he is doing the right thing by betraying Gandalf yet we view him as evil.

Tolkien clearly portrays Saruman as a character who knew better, but fell into foolishness and evil. Unless you're willing to deny the importance of authorial intent, you can't really make a case that Saruman was other than a villain. I mean, would you try to argue that he was raised in a society where betrayal was considered the norm for social interaction? Of course not. Society had nothing to do with it. Saruman alone deceived himself and told himself that he was doing right when he was doing wrong - at least to begin with. The Saruman of "The Scouring of the Shire" hardly appears to consider himself a righteous martyr for a good cause, which he ought to if your assertion regarding the circumstantial nature of good and evil were correct. Right from the beginning of "The Silmarillion," Tolkien clearly delineates between what is the will of Eru and what is not. One is good. One is bad. Saruman, of all people, as a Maia spirit who had been about since the beginning of time, would have been thoroughly, thoroughly acquainted with this.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Hakon

The way one views good and evil is the way they are taught to. If one is raised in a society that views murder and rape as a good thing than they view good as that and they view not doing that as bad. In our society we view it as murder and rape are evil. It is simply perspective. In LotR look at Saruman. He thinks he is doing the right thing by betraying Gandalf yet we view him as evil.

Of course - such societies have existed - though the murder & rape is only condoned/encouraged if the victims are members of other societies. If one rapes & murders members of ones own society one is always seen as a bad guy (unless one is able to 'prove' they are criminals/heretics or in some other way deserving os such treatment). But 'good' & 'evil' in the context of the essay, & this is something shared by both Tolkien & Eddings in my opinion, is that self sacrifice, service, willingly weakening & giving of oneself in order to help another (forgetting the 'greater good' argument) are 'good' acts, & that seeking individual 'perfection' whether physical, psychological, or material, closes one off & ultimately denies life, creativity & growth. The Ring gives power to become 'perfect' in that sense - to be able to re-make the world in one's own image - make it 'perfec't & keep it that way. Hence it gives one the power to fulfil one's desire not to do 'evil' in the classical sense, of causing pain & suffering, destruction & mayhem, but of making things 'perfect' - getting rid of 'imperfections' - which is all anyone who desires it, from Sauron himself, through Isildur, Gollum, Bilbo, Galadriel, Denethor, Boromir & Frodo all actually want.

'Evil' in Eddings world (as set out in the essay, its too long since I read any of his work to be able to comment directly) is not too far from the desire of Tolkien's Elves - bring about 'prefection' & embalm it at that point so that it can never fall into 'imperfection'. But his concept of 'good', that imperfection, lessening of oneself, humbling oneself in order to help others is interesting, because he is apparently saying that it is not a case of flawed, imperfect human beings doing their best with divine assistance supplying what they lack & they two combined being now 'perfect', achieving the victory over 'evil,' but imperfection itself, by its very nature of being incomplete, broken, weak, but also loving, self-sacrificing, willing if necessary to be destroyed & lost completely in the process, that is the only way for evil to be overcome. 'Perfect' good & 'perfect' evil are static, unmoving, unchanging, & ultimately dead in any & every real sense, because they have nowhere to go. It is the imperfect which is by its nature truly alive, because changeable, in flux, able to make choices, experience things, alter things. So Eddings seems to be setting up the dichotomy 'Perfect' (whether labelled 'good' or 'evil') is evil because, effectively its dead & can go nowhere & achieve nothing, & 'Imperfect' is good, because for all its flaws its alive.

[Boromir88]

Could someone explain it to me, particularly the part about good and evil not both being true? It's either very simple or very stupid, I'm not sure which, but either way I don't understand it. Thanks, sorry for being dense.~Gwath

I hope you can pardon the Star Wars analogy, it's just that last week I had a marathon and watched all 6, and it's still stuck in my head.

The entire storyline of the 1st three movies is about Anakin fulfilling the prophecy that he is the chosen one who will "bring balance to the force." That is you could say a traditional definition of good and evil, and the view that Tolkien held, which can be seen in The Silm and LOTR. (I said 'traditional' simply as a way to distinguish between Eddings' definition vs. the other, Star Wars, Tolkien, Christianity, however you want to classify it). The traditional definition is dependent on balance between good and evil. This balance is probably not going to be "even," but for one to exist, the other has to. Evil must be allowed to exist because it validates good, "good" is promoted as a moral path that is to be followed. However, good must exist for evil, because evil needs something to rebel against. In the traditional view, evil is pretty much rebelling/rejection of good. There is a divine power (in Star Wars it's 'the force,' there is a light and a dark), and that divine power permits evil to exist because for one to exist, the other has to.

As Formendacil has laid out, Eru permitted Melkor to rebel, and despite Melkor's vigorous efforts all of his discord actually ended up strengthening good. So, in the traditional view, good needs evil and vice versa, however evil can never be as powerful as good. Good will always be victorious, because good is what the divine power is, and the divine power has no other superior, or there is no other power that is equal. Melkor and Sauron never come close to achieving Eru's power, because they simply can't.

In Eddings' definition he is saying that good and evil are separate natures all together, and that they are not dependent on one another. You see in the traditional view, that since good and evil are dependent on eachother, this must mean they are both "true." Eddings is arguing they are two independent and different natures. Good doesn't need evil, nor does evil need good. So, taking from Form again, in Eddings' view there doesn't need to be a divine power that distinguishes between good and evil, good and evil are equal natures, and evil actually can defeat good because of it. Eddings' view relies on the individual, evil doesn't exist because a divine power allows it, evil exists because individuals follow it.

Now, according to Eddings' evil is an imperfect person's desire for perfection. They are full of pride, and lust to be perfect. In this search for pefection, evil is selfish, and therefor evil can not 'win' because evil looks out for itself. Even if good and evil are equal natures, evil can not work together, and therefor evil will lose. Good is the recognition of an imperfect person, is imperfect and can not achieve perfection. However, what makes a person good, is they are selfless, sacrifice for others, or simply care for others. It is this building of community which makes good stronger than evil (not a divine power)...because through giving you are making the entire community stronger, where evil takes for itself and can not work together.

So, where Eddings was going with the statement that both cannot be "true," (at least I think so), is to say that good and evil are separate natures:

They are each the "soul" of the universe, and this reality isn't big enough for the both of them."

In the traditional view, the universe is big enough for good and evil, because they need the other to exist, therefor they are both true. Simply put, Eddings' disagrees, one does not need eachother, good and evil exist because people decide to be selfless and sacrifice (good) or prideful and strive for perfection (evil).

Hopefully, I didn't confuse anyone further, I think I may have confused myself,but at least that's what I took from what Eddings was saying.

P.S. I will just add that I don't think that LOTR is as simple as Nogrod and Form are proposing. That is I think it is not as simple as "LOTR is not Manichean." But I will have to explain at another time.

[davem]

Hardly any time at all but I am wondering whether it could be argued that Eddings' vision is more 'democratic' than Tolkien's - Eddings' characters have the choice of good or evil & the majority choice wins. Tolkien's characters don't have that choice in that whatever choice the individual makes only affects him/herself, not the world, because in the end Eru wins. And is this because Tolkien was an 'anarchist' - but in the strictly Catholic sense of choosing 'Divine' rule over human, in the sense that God's law will always be superior to man's law. Eddings' seems to be a democrat, in the sense that the people's choice decides the victor. In Eddings world 'evil' has a chance of absolute victory & one is not simply fighting for the fate of ones individual soul, but for the fate of the world. Evil cannot win in Tolkien's world but it can in Eddings', & doesn't that make the battle more worthy of fighting? If all the Children decided to reject Eru & turn to evil (seek 'perfection' in Eddings' sense) would Eru allow that - or would he over-rule their desire - as he did in Numenor. In that sense could it be argued that Eddings' characters have more real freedom than Tolkien's, & thus have a more worthy fight to fight? For Tolkien's characters the internal battle is the only important one - in that the outcome of the 'external' battle has already been determined by Eru, whereas Eddings' characters fight both an internal & an external war, the outcome of both being undetermined by any external 'force'.

[Boromir88]

Great stuff davem, as always.

I just have time for a quick response...Since Eddings does allow for the possibility that evil can become more powerful than good (where this is not possible in Tolkien's story), then theoretically it's possible for evil to be the ultimate victor. However, for Eddings' "evil" to win it must be able to work together, but this is the essential failure of evil. Evil, according to Eddings, can not work together and it seems like "working together" is against evil's very nature, so can it truly win in the end?

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

But I do not agree with Hakon that good and evil are "just" perspectives. Not at all. I think good is good and bad is bad nonetheless of your religion or your world-view.

Thinking one should be good because of one's own self interest (a place in heaven) - or being good to obey a higher call anyway because some authority wants it - is bad. One should be good for it's own sake. To be a human is to be good (and bye-bye the primordial sin). That's what I try to say on the subject of good and evil between Tolkien and Eddings... or on it anyway.

The world I believe is immoral or a-moral. The religions bring the good in with the God but I think we must be braver than that. There's no God to judge you. You should be good without a God; make it a hypothesis for a while and think how it would affect your thought! Then you're good if you choose right without orders or rewards. It's not easy to grow up from childhood's "please and be rewarded" attitude but we have hope. That's what we need to count on,

I'm very glad to hear you disagree with Hakon regarding the existence of good and evil. But I don't understand where good can come from if it does not come from God? How could such a thing exist in an impersonal, arbitrary, random world unless we make it ourselves, in which case it cannot be held as any kind of monolithic measure at all, but is just as subject to whim as Hakon's socialized morality?

[Gwathagor]

I don't understand what's being said in this first paragraph:

"In short, what Eddings describes is a conception of good and evil where there is no "balance", but the lack thereof. Instead of the world being in perfect continuous harmony, where evil is a necessity, in order to validate the existence of good, he paints a portrait where good and evil are really nothing more than alternate natures that cannot both be true. They are each the "soul" of the universe, and this reality isn't big enough for the both of them."

Could someone explain it to me, particularly the part about good and evil not both being true? It's either very simple or very stupid, I'm not sure which, but either way I don't understand it. Thanks, sorry for being dense.