The Yin and the Yang of it

[Kaiserin]

Yin/Yang is an eastern principle which posits that:

- Everything good has within itself a grain of evil; likewise, everything evil has a grain of good.
- For every amount of good, there is an equal amount of evil.
- Good and evil are coexistent, and even codependent (one cannot exist without the other).

I was thinking... how true or how applicable can this be in M-E?

For example:
- Eru-Iluvatar: He is considered entirely good, yet he permits evil (?). Could he perhaps have a margin of error, or probably a need for evil to make himself appear good against?
- Orcs: They are considered definitely, undoubtedly evil. But perhaps they have some capacity to do good?
- The Valar: Eru intended them to be wholly good, but we all know what happened to Melkor.

Can one be considered evil if he possesses in fact that grain of good within himself(think of Smeagol / Gollum...)?

Why is a "good" man still considered "good" even if he has a little grain of evil within him?

Would there be such a thing as "good" and "evil", if both of these are within the permissible will of Eru in the macrocosmic level of things?

Ideas, ideas, ideas...

[Elentári]

Ok, I didn't understand that last bit you said...but if all good things have a grain of evil then you are not going to be able to find someone who is 100% good, are you. Therefore that man is called 'good' because he's not going to get any better, is he? And this man would be called good presumably because he can master this grain of evil within him.

[Aredhel Idril Telcontar]

Well, looking at it in the Ying-Yang way is certainly intriguing, but you must remember Tolkien was a Catholic, a religion where 'good' is more necessary and potent than 'evil' or should be.

Eru Iluvatar was good and more stronger than Melkor, who was evil. Melkor, the Lucifer of Arda is but Iluvatar's creation and so weaker.

Orcs are a corrupted race, corrupted Elves (yes, I believe that theory [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]), turned evil against their will, fear of their master driving them.

There was a nice thread, 'Inherrent Evil', I believe by the great Lord of Angmar, no? Maybe you should check it out.

Eru is Tolkien's God, all-good, all-powerful, everything stemming from him.

-Aredhel

[Yavanna228]

Interesting concept, Kaiserin.
Since, regrettably, I'm not completely informed about Eastern philosophies, the comments I'm going to make may be somewhat in error, and forgive me if they are.

- Eru-Iluvatar: He is considered entirely good, yet he permits evil (?). Could he perhaps have a margin of error, or probably a need for evil to make himself appear good against?

I know that Tolkien's Iluvatar is not the Christian God, so one cannot say for sure whether Iluvatar is completely good, or meant to be. One does not necessarily need to have an amount of evil in them to permit evil. In a paraphrase of St Francis of Assisi, true sovereignty is not the ability to prevent all evil, but to turn what evil happens into ultimate good. I know that deals with sovereignty, and is talking about the Christian God, but hopefully I can make it applicable to Iluvatar. In the Silmarillion, it says expressly that Iluvatar will make good the evils that happen, so Iluvatar probably does not need evil in order to make himself appear good. But perhaps my logic is off this morning. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Good and evil are coexistent, and even codependent (one cannot exist without the other).

I personally believe that good is independent of evil. One does not need the other to exist. I do agree, however, with the concept that everything 'good', outside of God, does have a measure of evil in it, thereby tainting any good that we do. And I believe that an action that is considered 'good', but is performed by someone who has evil in them, is only something which brings something/someone closer to the ultimate good than before.
This is quite a complicated issue, but hopefully will generate far better discussion than what my awful post does. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Peace

[Neferchoirwen]

Fascinating...the idea of the yin and yang is seen clearly (as I see it) in Gollum; although I notice that both elements of the yin and yang are both in him. I'm basing this on the dualities that other characters share with each other (such as Faramir and Boromir, Aragorn and Boromir, and the like).

Will post more on this: way past bedtime

[Arothir]

I think a good example of someone with a "grain of evil" is Galadriel, who nearly took the ring. I think almost any good character could be evil if they were "tempted."

[Kaiserin]

Ok, I didn't understand that last bit you said...

I got an idea from someone else's post in another thread, that all things, whether considered "good" or "evil" all contrubute to a larger good in the end, because that is what Eru wills. If that is true, why should anything be considered "good" or "evil"? - ...That is just a thought. Anyway, I think Elentari had an acceptable answer to that:

Therefore that man is called 'good' because he's not going to get any better, is he? And this man would be called good presumably because he can master this grain of evil within him.

Good point. Mastery of oneself...

There was a nice thread, 'Inherrent Evil', I believe by the great Lord of Angmar, no? Maybe you should check it out.

Yes, it was an amazing thread indeed; I read it almost entirely. There were quite a few viewpoints in it, though it wasn't quite resolved on whether orcs are inherently evil or not. Anyway, this thread here isn't specifically about orcs. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

I know that Tolkien's Iluvatar is not the Christian God, so one cannot say for sure whether Iluvatar is completely good, or meant to be.

Precisely! Not all "gods" are entirely good.

I personally believe that good is independent of evil. One does not need the other to exist.

I agree that good is independent of evil. But I don't agree that evil is independent of good. Consider this: assuming that Eru intended everything in his creation to be good, the things that turned evil are but a corruption of the original good. So, evil is just corrupted good. Evil then cannot exist without good, but good can exist independently from evil because it was this "good" which was the original intention.

Of course, we are all entitled to our own opinions...

[Yavanna228]

assuming that Eru intended everything in his creation to be good, the things that turned evil are but a corruption of the original good. So, evil is just corrupted good. Evil then cannot exist without good, but good can exist independently from evil because it was this "good" which was the original intention

Good point. Can you tell it was a little too early when I composed that poor excuse of a post? So, evil cannot exist without prevenient good. Going off on a wild tangent, if evil did exist without good, would it be classified as evil, since we wouldn't be comparing it to the good it was corrupted from? Hopefully that doesn't get too off topic. Anyways, thanks for your insight, Kaiserin, your respect of opinion, and for the thread! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Peace

[lindil]

As I fancy myself a little 'learned ' in taois cosmology and lore, I would like to add what i consider to be a necessary correction to a post that otherwise has excellent merit.

namely Yin and Yang as 'good' and 'evil'.

literally i have read ina few places that yin and yang translate as the sunny side and shady side of a hill respectively.

So light and dark, day and night, male and female, Sun and Moon, high and low, Earth and Air, Fire and Water are considered 'classical' pairings.

The Tao teh Ching [ usually considered the core text of Taoist thought along with the I Ching - a virtual yin/yang computer-not to be recommended for divination however] tells us that

all can know good as good, but then arises the recognition of evil

but this means at the same time [as the many varrying translations attest

If everyone understands good as good, then this is evil.

In the light of this understanding Yin and Yang can I think be profitably used to discern complementary as well as antagonistic forces.

But keeping in mind there is almost never pure Yin or Pure Yang.

Melkor endeavors to become the extremes of both yin and Yand, ice and fire were his favorite tools of destruction in the begining of his war agais the Valar.

Eru can of course be seen as Pure Light, but he creates first amidst the backdrop of the empty void.

Other than the above, Manwe and Elbereth [the male and female aspects pure created Yang/Light] and Eru Himself are to my mind virtually the only cases of pure yin and yang.

Even Ulmo [water/Yin] is a male [yang].

But their are many pairs to be found and pondered in the Legendarium and from them one can learn much about Yin and Yang, the Four Elements and if one is particularly shrewd, about oneself.

Elf and Dwarf
Firstborn ['immortal'] and Second Comers [mortals]
Ent and Dwarf
Arien and Tilion
the Two Trees
Dol Guldor and Caras Galadhon
Arnor and Gondor [especially interesting study of yin and yang as Gondor stayed strong <yang on the 'outside'> in terms of might of arms in cmparison with Arnor but Yin within, growing less wise and decaying. While Arnor declined in wordly power but maintained a Dunedain purity - due to their continued contact with High-Elven culture which the Gondorians lacked.

[Firnantoonion]

- Eru-Iluvatar: He is considered entirely good, yet he permits evil (?). Could he perhaps have a margin of error, or probably a need for evil to make himself appear good against?

Eru is above good and Evil, he is the thing on which good and evil are measured, and because he created middle-Earth, the people of ME think he's Good.

the reason why he permits evil is because the evil is on ME. Eru wouldn't normally involve himself in the things of ME, he has sent some of the Ainur to do that for him, (he has only once interfered with ME on the explicit request of the Valar) as did the Valar later when they sent maiar to middle-earth instead of interfering themselves.

[ August 29, 2003: Message edited by: Firnantoonion ]

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

You should check out the thread All Those Good Guys. We went off the original topic, but there are a lot of people on there who threw in their own two cents about good versus evil and how without either one, it would be impossible to detect the other. An interesting thread- I highly recommend it.

Fea

[aragornreborn]

I'll post more thoughts later, but I was reminded of a thread a while back that would be useful here, I think. And, yes, Inherrent Evil was a good one, too. Anyway, here's the other one. It becomes more applicable in the latter half of the thread.

Illuvatar's Opponents

[aragornreborn]

Alrighty then. I’ve been eyeing this thread for a while but haven’t had a chance to post until now. So, here we go…

Well, the Yin Yang principle does change things a bit. In fact, in my opinion, it can not be applicable to ME in its entirety. The fight between good and evil is one of the main premises in ME. Another main premise in ME is that of a completely good God. Both those principles go against Yin Yang as you have defined it, Kaiserin.

First let me explain why Illuvatar is a completely good God. And perhaps someone who knows more of Tolkien’s letters could find where he speaks on the subject and what he has to say. But until then, let me offer up a few things. First, Illuvatar does only good things. We are never told that Illuvatar has committed evil. Also, Melkor rebelled from Eru. If Eru was also evil, or even a little bit evil, it couldn’t be said that Melkor rebelled but just that he was extra passionate within certain aspects (i.e. evil ones) of the will of Eru. And if evil existed within Eru, than it would not be evil. Good is defined as the character of God, and evil is defined as rebellion from the character of God. I doubt all of you believe in God and thus would disagree with that definition, but for this discussion’s sake, we are discussing ME which irrefutably has a God. The existence of a God automatically defines that the character of that God is what is considered good because that God is omnipotent and the creator. He is the ultimate standard to all other things. His character is good. Rebellion from his character is evil. Finally, as I mentioned before, the struggle between good and evil is one of the main themes throughout ME. Good and evil aren’t just competing forces independent of God. And God can not be struggling against himself. That is ridiculous and a contradiction. Evil could not be bad if it were part of Eru. And Eru would not be God if he experienced inner turmoil and struggles for supremacy within Himself. But since there is such a struggle between good and evil, we must conclude that the struggle is between Eru and those who seek to follow him (good) and those who have rebelled from Eru (evil).

One more thing, which is more speculation than reason, is that Tolkien, as a Christian, would model Eru after the Christian God. Yes, we all know LOTR isn’t allegory. But as a Christian, Tolkien would find the idea of creating a God who was not in tune with the God he believed in repugnant and even heresy. Also, Tolkien even stated in one of his letters that Christianity crept into his original work unintentionally (authors write what they believe to be true) and that he consciously added Christianity in his revision of his works. Again, this is not allegory. He did not intend everyone to read the book and automatically realize and accept that Eru was the Christian God. But he modeled Eru and Middle Earth on what he believed to be true (which would be Christianity).

Just as a sidenote, I’d have to disagree here.

Therefore that man is called 'good' because he's not going to get any better, is he? And this man would be called good presumably because he can master this grain of evil within him.

Since good is defined as the character of God, a person can not “dumb down” God’s character and lower the standard for himself. He will never be completely good because he is not God nor is he perfect. So he can not call himself good just because he can not attain complete goodness. And if he was able to master than “one grain,” then he would be good because there would be no evil in him. But he would not be able to master it since he is imperfect.

Anyway, good topic.

[Kaiserin]

Thanks, lindil for your corrrective and additional info on Yin/Yang. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] I have neglected the sunny/shady, male/female, fire/water facets. Thanks, also for the excelent examples.

Eru can of course be seen as Pure Light, but he creates first amidst the backdrop of the empty void.

- Good example where the yin/yang is present in Eru. It is seen here as light/darkness. It doesn't necessarily have to be good/evil.

aragornreborn: I'm not questioning whether Eru is entirely good, but I am suggesting that "good" may not necessarily mean "perfect". If Eru truly was patterned (intentionally or unintentionally) after the Christian God, I would agree that Eru is completely good. True, a god with inner conflict is no god at all. Eru's being entirey good, however, doesn't necesarily disagree with yin/yang. His being light in darkness, as well as his creation of all things from nothingness(as in lindil's example) - these things do not suggest any evil in Eru, but present two complimentary and antagonistic forces.

[A person] will never be completely good because he is not God nor is he perfect. So he can not call himself good just because he can not attain complete goodness. And if he was able to master that “one grain,” then he would be good because there would be no evil in him. But he would not be able to master it since he is imperfect.

...Therefore nothing can be considered good? [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

The statement about mastering the grain of evil here, I believe, does not refer to eradicating the evil within oneself, but rather choosing to act against that evil. A person's will to do good may overcome his desire to do evil, may it not? Think: Boromir. He may have had an evil desire for the Ring and for power, but he later chose to act against this. Still, one evil intention does not make anyone label him as "evil". His being a "good" person with an "evil" intention isn't unrealistic, it and creates interest in his character as well as the story.

I do not believe that Morgoth is the opposite of Eru. They are not equal - Eru created Morgoth, which places Eru as definitely greater. Still, they represent opposing (though not equal) forces. The deities themselves are unequal, but those forces of good and evil may have equal effects on Ea and its inhabitants.

[aragornreborn]

Kaiserin, I was just wondering what you meant when you said that "a god with inner conflict is no god at all." But then later you said, "His being light in darkness, as well as his creation of all things from nothingness - these things do not suggest any evil in Eru, but present two complimentary and antagonistic forces."

First, I don't know Yin/Yang so well, so I can't comment on that much more. But I do think that Eru did not have any evil in Him whatsoever - for reasons I mentioned in my first post. And if by "two complimentary and antagonistic forces" you mean that He created opposites such as light and darkness, fire and ice, or whatever, I agree with you completely. I only disagree if you say evil is a part of Eru or was created by Him.

...Therefore nothing can be considered good?

It all depends on how you define good. I have chosen to define good as the attributes of God/Eru. The valar who remained faithful to Eru would be good in the sense that they obeyed His commands completely, but they would not be good as in perfect, omnipotent, etc. Humans (Elves, Dwarves, and the rest) could certainly never be perfect or omnipotent and often strayed from the will of Eru, so they could never be completely good. However, there were certainly some people who were more closely aligned to Eru's attributes. Those people weren't completely good, but they often did good things. So, for the sake of language and discussion, they could be called good or "good guys," so long as we all realize that they are neither perfect nor God (thus not completely good).

The statement about mastering the grain of evil here, I believe, does not refer to eradicating the evil within oneself, but rather choosing to act against that evil. A person's will to do good may overcome his desire to do evil, may it not? Think: Boromir. He may have had an evil desire for the Ring and for power, but he later chose to act against this. Still, one evil intention does not make anyone label him as "evil". His being a "good" person with an "evil" intention isn't unrealistic, it and creates interest in his character as well as the story.

Yes, at times a person's will to do good may overcome his desire to do evil. But let it never be said that at one point in time, a person is completely good. Like I said earlier, one may call someone a good character because he generally does the right thing, but he still isn't completely good and I don't think Tolkien would have wished to express otherwise.

I do not believe that Morgoth is the opposite of Eru. They are not equal - Eru created Morgoth, which places Eru as definitely greater. Still, they represent opposing (though not equal) forces. The deities themselves are unequal, but those forces of good and evil may have equal effects on Ea and its inhabitants.

I agree completely that Morgoth is not as powerful as Eru. I hope I didn't insinuate otherwise. And I would also agree that evil may even have a greater effect (or perhaps "hold" would be a better word) on Ea and its inhabitants than good (not necessairly forever, however). From what I read in the Silmarillion, Melkor "poisoned" the world (and its inhabitants) when he defied Eru and did his own thing. After he meddled with Eru's creation, evil was introduced to all and its mark was imprinted on everyone directly or indirectly. People had to work to do good. Their natural desire was to do evil and they were constantly exposed to it.

[Yavanna228]

This might be a bit redundant, but concerning Eru/Iluvatar's will/ability to be both good and bad, here's a quote from a letter of C.S. Lewis. It refers to creatures, but it may have some relevance to the subject.

...A really good creature would be incapable of moral choice- which is almost saying "A good creature means a creature incapable of real goodness." For surely power to be good and to be bad go together, and when you remove one you remove the other? E.g. take away a creature's sexuality and you have made not only chastity but unchastity impossible for it.

Again, I'm not sure of it's particular relevance to Iluvatar, but it is an interesting thought concerning creatures.
Just another something thrown into the mix. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Sapphire_Flame]

- Good and evil are coexistent, and even codependent (one cannot exist without the other).

Definitely. Without the existance of evil, there can be no good, and without good, no evil. If there was nothing to tempt you otherwise, then you couldn't be good; you would just be, and therefore have no progression and not be able to improve yourself. Thinking of the applicability of this in Middle-earth, I came round to the issue of Eru and Melkor. Eru was probably fully aware that Melkor was going to be a prat and try to screw everything up; he created him after all, and would know more about him than Melkor knew about himself. Eru is the God of Middle-earth, and so would have no margin of error. He would know all that would occur and would be prepared for it, beating Melkor at every turn. (It would be my opinion that Melkor would get pretty irritated about this after a while as well...)

Therefore nothing can be considered good?

No, nothing can be considered perfect. People can be considered good if they are trying their best to do what's right.

Just on the note of good vs. evil, I think that it is very difficult to define these terms anyway. Those on each side believe that what they are doing is right, i.e. what is good, and that their opponent is wrong/evil. If I may draw something from a story I'm writing: my character, Emily, starts out the story on the "good" side, trying to prevent evil from overtaking the world. Approximately halfway through the story, she is kidnapped by the opposing side and brainwashed (that word isn't quite right for the situation, but the only one close enough to what I want). For the next few chapters, her point of view is completely reversed: she sees good as evil and evil as good, as far as her previous standards went. When she is rescued and healed, it takes some time for her to return to her former way of thinking about things, and still her perceptions are radically altered because of her experience.

I use this example only to show that the classification of right and wrong, good and evil can be a very touchy subject in some cases. Depending on which side you are watching from, the standard can be radically different.

Abedithon le,

~*~Aranel~*~