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

Yes... and the Noldor were Aule's favourites among the Eldar. Interesting connections.

So... no insights other than "theme"?

What about this part?

If so, was it not Eru who created him with this nature?
And if Eru did create him this way, did he not doom Melkor to be evil?

Click to expand...

This would go back to debating about the nature of God, I'm guessing...

*sigh*

@Elemmire

It perhaps possible to argue the very opposite, that it is the Valar who are governed by pre-destination rather than Melkor. Perhaps, in making Melkor more powerful and knowledgable than the the rest of the Ainar, Iluvatar endowed him with the ability to think for himself outside of Iluvatar's plan. The Valar on the other hand can be said to be pillars, supporting Illuvatar's plan and seeking nothing other than to preserve it, neither to alter or destroy it.

Elemmire said:

How about 1+1 doesn't always equal two?

If you put 1 female of an animal species with 1 male, then you don't know what number you're going to end up with.

Likewise, 1 male Siamese fighting fish + 1 male Siamese fighting fish=
well, usually 0.

Click to expand...

I'm talking about integers.

Oh! Someone else!

I know you are, but do simple integers exist outside of the realm of the mind? Prove it to me one way or the other, I haven't quite decided yet.

Elemmire said:

Oh! Someone else!

I know you are, but do simple integers exist outside of the realm of the mind? Prove it to me one way or the other, I haven't quite decided yet.

Click to expand...

That doesn't matter for my point to be valid. Prove a side for yourself if you want to know.

As a matter of interest 1 + 1 does not always equal 2. If this was a universal constant then we would not be having this conversation in this manner

JPMaximilian. I have sent you a PM in response to your question about this thread. I hope it helps

Gothmog said:

As a matter of interest 1 + 1 does not always equal 2. If this was a universal constant then we would not be having this conversation in this manner

Click to expand...

Can you give me an example of this? In terms of math how can 1+1 not =2? I think people are arguing against a universal constant because they don't want one. But if they believe that there are no univeral constants then my question has still gone unanswered.

If 1 + 1 always equalled 2 then computers could not work. As far as a computer is concerned 1 + 1 = 10.

Please consider

Please keep any discussions on religion related to Tolkien.

This is not directed at any post in this thread so far, it is only a notice not to stray into discussing religion alone, completely unrelated to Tolkien, since at the moment a ban is placed upon discussing politics and religion, unless these have to do with Tolkien and his creation in some way.

Thank you

Re: Please consider

Ithrynluin said:

Please keep any discussions on religion related to Tolkien.

This is not directed at any post in this thread so far, it is only a notice not to stray into discussing religion alone, completely unrelated to Tolkien, since at the moment a ban is placed upon discussing politics and religion, unless these have to do with Tolkien and his creation in some way.

Thank you

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should ban discussion of mathematics too...
This is getting somewhat tangential...

JPMaximilian said:

That doesn't matter for my point to be valid. Prove a side for yourself if you want to know.

Click to expand...

Ouch.

But you're right. Obscure mathematical theory really doesn't pertain to the topic one way or the other, so I'm sorry I brought it back up...

scotsboyuk said:

It perhaps possible to argue the very opposite, that it is the Valar who are governed by pre-destination rather than Melkor. Perhaps, in making Melkor more powerful and knowledgable than the the rest of the Ainar, Iluvatar endowed him with the ability to think for himself outside of Iluvatar's plan. The Valar on the other hand can be said to be pillars, supporting Illuvatar's plan and seeking nothing other than to preserve it, neither to alter or destroy it.

Click to expand...

An interesting argument, but where would Aule, who wanted to create his own Children, fit into this?

I don't quite support the idea that Melkor was given any special treatment as sctosboyuk suggested.
Each and everyone of the Valar came from the thoughts of Ilúvatar. Therefore, none of the Valar can have any part that comes from outside of his/her thoughts. That just doesn't make sense.

When it comes to Evil, I think that it is best described in The Music of the Ainur, as written in the Book of Lost Tales:

Thou Melko shalt see that no theme can be played save it come in the end of Ilúvatar's self, nor can any alter the music in Ilúvatar's despite. He that attempts this finds himself in the endbut aiding me in devising a thing of still greater grandeur and more complex wonder: - for lo! through Melkohave terror as fire, and sorrow like dark waters, wrath like thunder, and evil as far from my light as the depths of the uttermost of the dark places, come into the design that I laid before you. Through him has pain and misery been made in the clash of overwhelming musics; and with confusion of sound have cruelty, and ravening, and darkness, loathly mire and all putresence of thought or thing, foul mists and violent flame, cold without mercy, been borne, and death without hope.

Click to expand...

This gives a much fuller picture on how Evil came to Arda. From this it is my opinion that Ilúvatar was prepared for what Melko might cause, as he almost immediately could give this "feedback."
Too bad this was edited into the rather tame version in The Silmarillion...

Arvedui said:

I don't quite support the idea that Melkor was given any special treatment as sctosboyuk suggested.
Each and everyone of the Valar came from the thoughts of Ilúvatar. Therefore, none of the Valar can have any part that comes from outside of his/her thoughts. That just doesn't make sense.

Click to expand...

I was merely postulating one possible explanation, I do recognise the inherent weaknesses in such an argument though.

I suppose that to understand evil in relation to Tolkien's works, one must also ask the question, why? If Iluvatur intended for there to be both good and bad as part of an overall 'plan', then one has to ask why? It might be an unfair question as ask why a supreme being such as Iluvatar should do anything, but of course, as much as Melkor and the Valar come from Iluvatar, Iluvatar comes from Tolkien, a human being.

What strikes me about the passage that you quoted is that Iluvatar says that in trying to sing against against Iluvatar's music, Melkor is in fact aiding him to create something even better. Could this be the reason for Melkor's evil? Could it be that it is a case of opposites and balance, that to have harmony, one must also have disharmony? Perhaps Iluvatar's plan needs struggle and something to oppose it, after all aren't the best things created through a hard won struggle? Perhaps this is an overly simplictic view, but one wonders what the point of it all would be without the struggle, without something to work for.

It doesn't seem simplistic to me. It seems quite plausible. I'd say more, but I've got to go to class in less than a minute...

I think that you are touching bringing up a couple of good points. Very good, actually.
Last things first:
I think that what you are saying is basically that "action" causes "reaction," right? And what Ilúvatar probably hints at is that the reaction will bring forth things that were not originally intended in The Music of the Ainur. And isn't that, as you say, just as it is in life today? Someone brings forth an idea, others counter it, and the final solution ends up as a mix between those?

Concerning if Ilúvatar had a plan for the existance of both good and evil, then I would have to say taht I don't think that he had a plan per se, but that he understood that as he brought forth the Ainur from his own thoughts, then some of them were more or less inclined to evil. If Ilúvatar represents "all," then it would have been impossible for everything to be good. Without the presence of evil, free will would have been restricted from the start, wouldn't it? And I believe that Tolkien in order to make his legendarium/mythology plausible, would have to base The Silmarillion on the world as it is today. And we all know that both good and evil are represented.

@Arvedui

Essentially your surmisation of my last post is correct, but then there is the question of how Melkor could react to the song in his own way. If Melkor comes from Iluvatar then there is nothing he can do that is not in keeping with Iluvatar, hence he cannot make any change to the song that wasn't intended. However, what if Iluvatar imparted Melkor with a quality, which allowed him to do just that, to oppose, that which Iluvatar had created and/or intended? Could this quality be described as 'evil'? Certainly if one considers working against the natural order wrong, then such a quality could be defined as 'evil'.

I believe that the quality in itself is not 'evil,' but the actions that his qualities bring about are surely 'evil' in my opinion.

And I think that it is quite possible that Melko was created as an 'opposer.' It would actually make sense for Ilúvatar to have someone around that wouldn't necessarrily agree with everything that was done.

Threads like this simply prove how useless and annoying a ban on religious subjects is. Tolkien is too deep a work not to eventually carry over what we are discussing into the real world. It conjures up too many real-world paralels in discussion, and the forum is poorer because we constantly are now being interupted in our debates by people reminding us that we are "Near breaking the rule." GASP! Brother. ..

Anyway, I could never understand the logic that says just because we are incapable of knowing truth, it may not exist. Whenever the idea of objective good and objective evil come up, someone brings up that not everyone agrees. Melkor wouldn't have seen himself as evil. It depends on your view point. . .etc.

There are plenty of things people are incapable of knowing that exist. A blind man is incapable of sight, yet light exists. A deaf man cannot hear, yet sound exists. I am incapable of figuring out most higher math (quadratic equations mean nothing to me) yet they have answers.

Simply because Melkor may argue that something isn't evil when Illuvatar says it is doesn't mean that evil doesn't exist in this state. It simply means that either Melkor or Illuvatar is wrong.

My own personal theory (in real life, GASP!) is that truth exists and humans are meant to try and find it, but we will often fail. I don't see why it would be any different within Tolkien, which is, if anything, a starker reality where good and evil are more clear cut in most cases.

Just because you fail to find something doesn't always mean it doesn't exist. If we limit truth to what we humans can observe, we are selfishly denying I'd say 99% of the universe.

Now, I do not know if Tolkien ever states that Illuvatar is perfect. It states all powerful somewhere, I believe, but I couldn't give you the chapter. It does, however, state that there is good and there is evil. I don't think these are objective within Tolkien. Can anyone prove me wrong?

If they were objective, I don't think we would see so many moral quandries in the book. Do you remember that bit lamenting war where a man is trying to decide whether it is better to be held responsible when called before Eru for "Killing his fellow men" or allowing "innocents to be slaughtered" because he wouldn't fight? Why, if there is no objective right or wrong, would he be debating whether Eru would look down upon his decision? Moral decisions are everywhere in Tolkien, often hard ones where there seems to be no right answer.

Obviously there is some right and wrong and Eru is obviously seen as a judge of it. Now, we might logically derive that Tolkien would want a perfect judge, but it is a leap of logic that goes more on what is likely than what is logical.

HLGStrider said:

There are plenty of things people are incapable of knowing that exist. A blind man is incapable of sight, yet light exists. A deaf man cannot hear, yet sound exists. I am incapable of figuring out most higher math (quadratic equations mean nothing to me) yet they have answers.

Click to expand...

Having already made my point, on the subjects you raise, previously, I will not go over them again, except to comment upon the above quotation.

If human beings didn't have a sense of sight, would light exist? One may argue that it would because it is a physical component of the universe, but if no human being had ever been able to perceive light, then how would we know what light was? We wouldn't even be able to have this conversation, because light, as far as human beings are concerned, would not exist. One may argue that a race of blind humans could use technology to detect light, but how and why would we do that? Having lived for millenia without light, how would we recognise it and how would we understand it without vision? Why would would we even bother trying to detect it? With no ability to perceive light and no use for it, why bother?

We only know, that which we percieve, and perception is a subjective matter. Existence comes in many forms, perception is the key to existence. Just because one set of rules tells us something, does not necessarily make that set of rules correct. Then again, it doesn't necessarily make it wrong either.

Originally Posted by HLGStrider

Threads like this simply prove how useless and annoying a ban on religious subjects is. Tolkien is too deep a work not to eventually carry over what we are discussing into the real world. It conjures up too many real-world paralels in discussion, and the forum is poorer because we constantly are now being interupted in our debates by people reminding us that we are "Near breaking the rule." GASP! Brother. ..

Click to expand...

Threads like this prove nothing of the sort. If it is not related to Tolkien then it does not belong here (especially as we are in "The Halls of Tolkienology" fora) If it is related to Tolkien then carry on.

Anyway, I could never understand the logic that says just because we are incapable of knowing truth, it may not exist. Whenever the idea of objective good and objective evil come up, someone brings up that not everyone agrees. Melkor wouldn't have seen himself as evil. It depends on your view point. . .etc.

There are plenty of things people are incapable of knowing that exist. A blind man is incapable of sight, yet light exists. A deaf man cannot hear, yet sound exists. I am incapable of figuring out most higher math (quadratic equations mean nothing to me) yet they have answers.

Simply because Melkor may argue that something isn't evil when Illuvatar says it is doesn't mean that evil doesn't exist in this state. It simply means that either Melkor or Illuvatar is wrong.

Click to expand...

The logic is very simple. If we cannot Prove that something exists then there is the possibility that it does not. If we are incapable of knowing this truth then we also are incapable of proving it. As for Objective Good or Evil, to be objective it would need to be seen by all people in the same way. Much like when water boils it can be observed by all people to turn to steam. Now the observation that boiling water becomes steam is objective (so far as I am aware it happens every time water boils), a statement that water boils at 100º C is however, subjective.

Light does not exist as an objectively separate thing, it is our subjective name for a very small part of the Electro-magnetic spectrum, there is far more in the infra-red and the ultra-violet than between those very close points. Likewise, sound is what we subjectively call those frequencies of vibration in gas, liquid or solids that our ears react to. There are many more different frequencies of such vibrations that we do not “Hear”.

Please provide a quote where Ilúvatar says it is evil since according to Ilúvatar, all of Melkor’s deeds are to the greater glory of the work.

My own personal theory (in real life, GASP!) is that truth exists and humans are meant to try and find it, but we will often fail. I don't see why it would be any different within Tolkien, which is, if anything, a starker reality where good and evil are more clear cut in most cases.

Just because you fail to find something doesn't always mean it doesn't exist. If we limit truth to what we humans can observe, we are selfishly denying I'd say 99% of the universe.

Click to expand...

Yes this truth may well exist, no one can prove a negative. However, when you fail to find something it opens up the possibility that it does not exist.

You are correct in what you say about limits. However, this also holds true in limiting the “Truth” to what you believe it to be.

Now, I do not know if Tolkien ever states that Illuvatar is perfect. It states all powerful somewhere, I believe, but I couldn't give you the chapter. It does, however, state that there is good and there is evil. I don't think these are objective within Tolkien. Can anyone prove me wrong?

If they were objective, I don't think we would see so many moral quandries in the book. Do you remember that bit lamenting war where a man is trying to decide whether it is better to be held responsible when called before Eru for "Killing his fellow men" or allowing "innocents to be slaughtered" because he wouldn't fight? Why, if there is no objective right or wrong, would he be debating whether Eru would look down upon his decision? Moral decisions are everywhere in Tolkien, often hard ones where there seems to be no right answer.

Obviously there is some right and wrong and Eru is obviously seen as a judge of it. Now, we might logically derive that Tolkien would want a perfect judge, but it is a leap of logic that goes more on what is likely than what is logical.

Click to expand...

Good and Evil are within Arda and seen only by those in Arda. The one thing that is never shown in Tolkien’s work is what Ilúvatar sees as Evil. Even Melkor’s most evil deeds only add to the greater glory of the work. So the views on Good and Evil in Arda (very much like our own views in the real world) are subjective. Any Objective view would be that of Ilúvatar which is not known to any other, only to Ilúvatar himself (even the Valar only have their subjective view).

The one seeming exception to this is Melkor’s possible deed of “nihilistic destruction of Arda” which was (it would seem) prevented by the War of the Jewels and ended with Melkor being removed from Arda.

Thus Spake Zarathustra...

The need for separation - or polarisation - into good and evil is IMO a logical consequence when we consider the creation as "fallen" or "corrupt". As long as we consider creation "as it is" and don't attempt some sort of judgement or valuation, we don't have the need to separate the world into good and evil and - consequently - side with the good and fight against the evil...

Zoroaster (Zarathustra) was probably the first to come up with this ethical dualism and - unfortunately - all major monotheistic religions later borrowed this dualism one way or the other. Mani (Manichaeus) also took up the idea and hitherto such a view of the world as a dualistic system where good and evil are - basically equal - competiting forces is called "manichaean".

The Christian church some centuries later wasn't altogther happy with this view and beginning with Saint Augustine the view of evil being just the "absence of good" began to become dominant within the Christian teachings. Boethius in his De consolatione philosophiae refined this point of view and ever since a worldview which denies the existance of evil (per se), and which nowadays seems quite central to Christian techings, is called Boethian.

A consequence of such a Boethian view of evil is that "evil cannot create", which is also one of the later "corrections" in Tolkien's legendarium.

Though, Tolkien was - IMO - not consequent in his approach because if the very existance of evil as a competiting force is denied, it can also not "mock" either...

Generally we find in western tradition still both, a boethian and a manichaean view of evil and Tolkien's legendarium is no exception to this. Melko, Sauron, even the One Ring still represent the manichaean view, evil is existant, actively corrupting the creation and deceiving and tempting the children of Ilúvatar.

But when Tolkien lets Eru say that "For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined." he is merely re-iterating Boethius point, that evil is more harmful to the malefactor and that in the end the divine plan will prevail and evil will only have contributed to that.

Now, we certainly cannot prove that Eru himself was evil, but when we learn that "no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me[Eru], nor can any alter the music in my[Eru's] despite." what are we supposed to think? Does this not portray Eru as omniscient, and also does it not mean that evil was part of the divine plan?