Is Melkor's evilness a reflection of Iluvatar's true nature?

Looking back on the Silmarillion, it says that, while most of the Valar were only a single part of Iluvatar's thought, Melkor had a bit of all of him. Since Melkor became evil, does this mean that Illuvatar himself was also evil, or did Melkor just become corrupted all by himself?

"Great might was given to him by Iluvatar, and he was coeval with Manwe. In the powers of all the other Valar he had part...."
--The Silmarillion, Valaquenta, Chapter four

Click to expand...

As a supreme god Iluvatar had all these charecteristics. Maybe "evil" too. But of cousre maybe Malkor was corrupted, but the problem is by what. By himself?

BTW Iluvatar is written with one "l"

Oops! How do you change your username?

Well, I don't know about the question as phrased, but the Ainulindale obviously contemplates a role for Melkor's evil (and not just Melkor's evil, but his disruption of what would otherwise be a more static system) as part of the master plan.

I don't know who do you change the username but even if I did it wouldn't help. There is already another Iluvatar.

"This is your minstrelsy, and each of you shall find contained herein ... all those things which it may seem that he himself devised or added. And thou Melkor, wilt percieve that they are but part of the whole and tributary to its glory."

Click to expand...

This, and the passage about Melkor's war on Ulmo, which only resulted in the creation of a new beauty, ice and snow, proves that Melkor only thought that he was free to do evil. In the end he was the servant of Iluvatar, who aided him, maybe even more than any of the other Valar, in making the song beautiful and fascinating.

I'm only waiting for people to bash me about Iluvatar not being evil, and utterly defeating me with the quote about Iluvatar despicing Melkor's work.

Illuvatar said:

...Since Melkor became evil, does this mean that Illuvatar himself was also evil, or did Melkor just become corrupted all by himself?

Click to expand...

This question of course is applicable to all Western religion: "Did God purposely create evil, or did something slip?" (In which case of course, one cannot argue that "God" is perfect.)

There are some underlying assumptions in this question that bear legitimate scrutiny. It is assumed:

•That "God" actually exists.
•That "God" exists as described in Western holy books.
•That "God" is separate from Creation.

As a person who stands outside all religion, the question has no meaning for me, and is of importance only for believers in the Judeo/Christian/Muslim viewpoint. Most believers in Western religions forget the fact that there are ways to look at this which are, for westerners, "totally out of the box," as it were.

For instance: Hinduism posits that

•Everything that exists and does not exist is in fact "God." Matter and energy are congealed forms of Spirit, as well as Nothing; as well as everything that human beings will never know about.
•Each individual therefore, is also a part of "God," and that each individual soul is a drop in the ocean of "God."
•Since "God" is perfect and makes no mistakes, evil (also a part of "God's" plan) is a perfect part of a perfect Reality.
•Karma/Reincarnation exists: each soul slowly (in most cases) moves through a succession of lives toward the realization that it is in fact "God," and once this realization is attained, it will dissolve into God as a drop of water becomes one with the ocean.

Buddhism posits much the same thing, except that, for them, there is no "God." Things are simply as one finds them, including the rest of the above.

For myself: I totally believe that good and evil are the opposite ends of the spectrum of human behavior. Rather than take responsibility for his actions, man gives "God" the credit for what's good, and gives "Satan" the credit for what's bad. Good and evil are the consequences of our actions, and we are responsible for our actions — not "God," not "Satan."

I could go on, but this is enough for now.

Barley

However, despite the "applicability" to 'Real World' questions, in this case the existance of "God" here is a fact as we are discussing Tolkien's legendarium.

Húrin Thalion
I'm only waiting for people to bash me about Iluvatar not being evil, and utterly defeating me with the quote about Iluvatar despicing Melkor's work.

Click to expand...

Of course Iluvatar is not evil, no more so than Iluvatar is good.

Barliman Butterbur
For myself: I totally believe that good and evil are the opposite ends of the spectrum of human behavior. Rather than take responsibility for his actions, man gives "God" the credit for what's good, and gives "Satan" the credit for what's bad. Good and evil are the consequences of our actions, and we are responsible for our actions — not "God," not "Satan."

Click to expand...

This view is very much applicable to the question of the thread. Good and Evil are limited to Arda. Iluvatar did not call Melkor "Evil" and it was not until the Ainur came to Arda that the term Evil even existed. It was created by the Valar and used by them and by the Maiar and Children of Iluvatar. Since Iluvatar was the creator of the Valar and Arda, could the definitons of any lesser being be appicable to him? As Manwë says

Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been.

Click to expand...

The views of those limited to Arda will be much different from those of Iluvatar. So our limited perspective of "Good" and "Evil" do not apply to Iluvatar.

Iluvatar, like his children, would have the capacity for both good and evil since all that exists within Arda came from him. Evil did not create itself. Iluvatar does not embrace evil nor does he directly prohibit it, for more greatness is achieved in the struggle against it than would be done if there was nothing to strive against.

Good AND Evil are neither perfect nor imperfect. They are references to each other. One can not exist without the other. All beings are capable of both Good and Evil... it is how we govern ourselves which determines where we are on the scale of Good and Evil.

In the creation story, everything is created by Eru. It can be presumed, in this story, that nothing existed before Eru made it.

Melkor was given a bit of all parts of Eru, a combination of several attributes and abilities that other Valar had been given. I think this also gave him ambition that the others didn't have (except Aule) as well as pride, which none of them had. The combination of all of this, without the full capabilities of Eru to self govern his feelings, made him feel entited to more than the other Valar, souring him and turning him from his Maker and his colleagues, seeking the recognition and worship which he felt he was entitled to.

Was this necessarily Evil? Well, Evil is relative. He created beings, even though he was forbidden to do so. (But then, so did Aule.) He turned Men against Eru to worship himself, to feed his pride. He corrupted Middle Earth, destroying much of the beauty which the other Valar were charged with. He destroyed the Two Trees. He brought war and pain to the creation of Eru.

And what came of these deeds? Men and Elves learned from each other, they formed aliances, and they worked together against a common enemy. That's not such a bad thing, now is it? Besides, the story would have sucked had there not been a Melkor.

Gildor said:

Iluvatar, like his children, would have the capacity for both good and evil since all that exists within Arda came from him. Evil did not create itself. Iluvatar does not embrace evil nor does he directly prohibit it, for more greatness is achieved in the struggle against it than would be done if there was nothing to strive against.

Click to expand...

I happen to agree with this point.

Iluvatar did not create evil. He created the possibility of evil by giving Melkor free will. It was Melkor's choice, and he chose evil.

I don't think that Eru could be classed as being either. Eru IS, he is not one thing or another. He IS. This applies to Barley's point to the RL God as well, according to the texts.

I also don't believe that Eru created any of the Valar a certain way, and they certainly didn't have free will (remember that the Valar envied the Eldar and Atani because they had free will, and the Valar did not). Eru brought the Valar into being not through some gesture of the hand or wink of the eye. He simply willed it, and so it Was.

The Valar, including Melkor, were not the way they were because they chose to be, that is simply the way it had to be, and nothing any of them did would change that. Melkor had to be "evil", just as Manwe had to be "good"...it is a sort of self-balancing.

*thinks* At least that's how I see it.

Very interesting.

I agree that Eru was both good and evil, or more likely, neither.

Since I'm not sure yet if I agree with the idea that Melkor had no choice but to be evil, I'd like to go back to the question of how he became corrupted. And considering how similar Melkor and Aule seem, I wonder why it was Melkor instead of Aule who turned evil...

BTW...

Ruinel said:

Besides, the story would have sucked had there not been a Melkor.

Click to expand...

Yes, but Finrod would have lived...

And that would most certainly not have sucked.

I think the idea that evil needs to be created is at fault. In Tolkien, we could futily argue whether it happens in the real world, I would argue that it doesn't and can't be. Evil in Tolkien is a force that cannot create, only corrupt. It's like saying that death needs to be created. Death does not, technically, exist as a being. It is, I would argue, only the end to life. Dark does not, I would also argue, exist. It holds no real value or form. Light does. Dark is the abscence of light.

In Tolkien's world all great villians start out good.



Melkor is a Valar created with possibly the most potential of them all.

Sauron is a Maia.

The Orcs were (debateably) Elves.

Sarumen was the leader of the White Council.



Almost all evil sources come from a good source. Evil's creations have no creativity but are mere mockeries of good, generally derived from other creations of good.



If Iluvatar made a tree and a man made it into a chair, would we say Iluvatar created a chair?



Iluvatar created a Melkor.



I think he wanted Melkor to do what he did and created Melkor so he would, but I think he did not create the darkness, for one cannot create darkness.



It could be argued that, before Iluvatar created light, there was only darkness so evil procedes good as a material form, but this is only true in that emptiness procedes fullness. Emptiness has no form. Even a jar we see as empty truly has air within.

HLGStrider said:

If Iluvatar made a tree and a man made it into a chair, would we say Iluvatar created a chair?

Click to expand...

Good point.

HLGStrider said:

Almost all evil sources come from a good source. Evil's creations have no creativity but are mere mockeries of good, generally derived from other creations of good.

Click to expand...

I think your earlier comments really explain well why this is true.

It could be argued that, before Iluvatar created light, there was only darkness so evil procedes good as a material form, but this is only true in that emptiness procedes fullness. Emptiness has no form. Even a jar we see as empty truly has air within.

Click to expand...

A nice argument. I like it, it seems almost Taoist... it feels true but is hard to grasp completely...

I'm not completely sure what I'm saying yet... but considering this argument, do you think that perhaps Morgoth had to be corrupted because evil precedes good? That basically, because of the nature of the universe, Arda Unmarred would have been essentially impossible no matter what...

Argh...got to go to class; I'm not sure if that makes sense...

I am glad you like my points. I was expecting a bit of objection right off the bat, as I directly countered two or three other posts, but I'm sure they'll get around and we'll have a lively debate.

It could be argued that Morgoth had to be corrupted. Obviously out of his evil came great Good, which is more than could be said for Sauron. I think we would have to search much harder for the good end to Sauron's bad means.

But I do think Iluvatar is a stronger power than Morgoth and a power for good. Morgoth was created by Iluvatar with the ability for both good and evil and I would say Iluvatar knew he would go for bad and create the havoc he did, but he also knew in the end all would be right. . .and this is an end we have yet to see. Tolkien's work ends before the last battle, which will be Morgoth's final attempt to throw off Iluvatar's plan and turn all to corruption. Presumably, he will fail and all will be made right. Perhaps we will even see the trees restored.

HLGStrider said:

I think the idea that evil needs to be created is at fault.

Click to expand...

The idea that "Evil" needs to be created is also not in the question of this thread.
I agree that Evil was not created but this still leaves the question "Was Iluvatar 'Evil?'"

In Tolkien, we could futily argue whether it happens in the real world, I would argue that it doesn't and can't be. Evil in Tolkien is a force that cannot create, only corrupt. It's like saying that death needs to be created. Death does not, technically, exist as a being. It is, I would argue, only the end to life. Dark does not, I would also argue, exist. It holds no real value or form. Light does. Dark is the abscence of light.

Click to expand...

An interesting argument that falls at the first hurdle.

From: The Silmarillion: Chapter one: Of The Beginning of Days
But to the Atani I will give a new gift.' Therefore he willed that the hearts of Men should seek beyond the world and should find no rest therein; but they should have a virtue to shape their life, amid the powers and chances of the world, beyond the Music of the Ainur, which is as fate to all things else; and of their operation everything should be, in form and deed, completed, and the world fulfilled unto the last and smallest.
But Ilúvatar knew that Men, being set amid the turmoils of the powers of the world, would stray often, and would not use their gifts in harmony; and he said. 'These too in their time shall find that all that they do redounds at the end only to the glory of my work.' yet the Elves believe that Men are often a grief to Manwë, who knows most of the mind of Ilúvatar; for it seems to the Elves that Men resemble Melkor most of all the Ainur, although he has ever feared and hated them, even those that served him.
It is one with this gift of freedom that the children of Men dwell only a short space in the world alive, and are not bound to it, and depart soon whither the Elves know not. Whereas the Elves remain until the end of days,

Click to expand...

So in Tolkien's works, not only was Death created (not as a "Being" but as a fact of the nature of the Atani) but we also see where and when it was done.

If Iluvatar made a tree and a man made it into a chair, would we say Iluvatar created a chair?

Click to expand...

No. But we could truthfully say that Iluvatar was the "source" of the chair as it came from that which he created. (The tree and the man )

It could be argued that, before Iluvatar created light, there was only darkness so evil procedes good as a material form, but this is only true in that emptiness procedes fullness. Emptiness has no form. Even a jar we see as empty truly has air within.

Click to expand...

But before there was "Light" how culd there be "Darkness"?

From: The Silmarillion: Ainulindale
But when they were come into the Void, Ilúvatar said to them: 'Behold your Music!' And he showed to them a vision, giving to them sight were before was only hearing;

Click to expand...

With no sight there can be neither light nor dark.

With no sight there can be neither light nor dark.

So in Tolkien's works, not only was Death created (not as a "Being" but as a fact of the nature of the Atani) but we also see where and when it was done.

Click to expand...

Point taken and yeilded. This was actually my fault for using my real world logic in a Tolkien arguement. In the real world death is usually seen as a problem, as opposed to Tolkien's view of it as a gift. As I have perfected my good and evil arguements in "real world" discussions, I wrongly applied this one to Tolkien. I simply got carried away with all my analogies.

The idea that "Evil" needs to be created is also not in the question of this thread.
I agree that Evil was not created but this still leaves the question "Was Iluvatar 'Evil?'"

Click to expand...

You are right. It wasn't the question, but it had come up in several previous posts, and I thought it should be addressed.

But before there was "Light" how culd there be "Darkness"?

Click to expand...

If you define darkness as the lack of light, there can be nothing before light besides darkness. However, I think we need to know light to define darkness. I mean, a man with no conception of clothing would have no conception of naked, would he?

With no sight there can be neither light nor dark.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree, but I would like you to explain how you get this conclusion from the quote above it. I didn't see the connection. . .of course, it is getting late here.

I would say that without sight there could be no perception of light but there still could be light. This passage deals only with visions and not with actuality, does it not?