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

[scotsboyuk]

Re: Thus Spake Zarathustra...

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?

Having 'defended' Boethius, rather succesffully despite Theodoric's best efforts, in a mock trial at university I do feel some sympathy for him! However, I shan't get into Boethius here, rather I would like to comment on the above quotation.

I don't believe the quotation from Tolkien is supportive of Boethius, if one examines the quotation more closely then one would perhaps see that it isn't necessarily indicative of Iluvatar including 'evil' in a 'divine plan'. 'Evil' is a word, which we human beings have invented to describe certain modes of behaviour, which the majority of the population find to be unacceptable. Our view of what constitutes 'evil' changes depending on our political, cultural and religious backgrounds. For example, an ardent Nazi may not think it evil to hate Jews, unlike most non-Nazis. Now if Germany had won WWII then it seems likely that the dominant paradigm would be one, in which anti-Jewish feeling was something to be encouraged and feeling sympathetic towards Jews looked upon as 'evil'.

If we try and think outside our discourse for a moment, we might imagine that a being, such a Iluvatar, would not necessarily operate on the same level as we do. Those events Iluvatar sets in motion may be interpretated by lesser beings as good and evil, but are they? Does Nature interpret a lion killing an antelope as evil or Mother Theresa helping the sick as good? We as human beings label things, those things would still happen if we did not exist; antelope would still die and there would still be disease, they would be no more or less good or evil in objective terms.

The prevalent discourse at the moment is the Western mindset, the majority of humanity seeing the world in terms of duality, good and evil. Why is it ok for Christians to eat meat? The Bible clearly states 'Thou shall not kill', it doesn't draw a distinction between killing humans and any other creature, so why do most Christians not belive it evil to kill a cow for food? Humanity fights against Nature, we try to define Nature and impose values and restrictions upon it.

 

[Walter]

Re: Thus Spake Zarathustra...

I don't believe the quotation from Tolkien is supportive of Boethius, if one examines the quotation more closely then one would perhaps see that it isn't necessarily indicative of Iluvatar including 'evil' in a 'divine plan'.

Regardless whether or not it is "supportive" of Boethius, it is, IMO at any rate, widely congruent with Boethius if one examines and compares the respective passages in the Ainulindalë and in De Consolatione... more closely:

To divine power, and to that alone, are evil things good, when it uses them suitably so as to draw good results therefrom. For a definite order embraces all things, so that even when some subject leaves the true place assigned to it in the order, it returns to an order, though another, it may be, lest aught in the realm of Providence be left to random chance.

Boethius: The Consolation of Philosophy (Trans. W.V. Cooper, 1902)

'Evil' is a word, which we human beings have invented to describe certain modes of behaviour, which the majority of the population find to be unacceptable. Our view of what constitutes 'evil' changes depending on our political, cultural and religious backgrounds. For example, an ardent Nazi may not think it evil to hate Jews, unlike most non-Nazis. Now if Germany had won WWII then it seems likely that the dominant paradigm would be one, in which anti-Jewish feeling was something to be encouraged and feeling sympathetic towards Jews looked upon as 'evil'.

If we try and think outside our discourse for a moment, we might imagine that a being, such a Iluvatar, would not necessarily operate on the same level as we do. Those events Iluvatar sets in motion may be interpretated by lesser beings as good and evil, but are they? Does Nature interpret a lion killing an antelope as evil or Mother Theresa helping the sick as good? We as human beings label things, those things would still happen if we did not exist; antelope would still die and there would still be disease, they would be no more or less good or evil in objective terms.

The prevalent discourse at the moment is the Western mindset, the majority of humanity seeing the world in terms of duality, good and evil. Why is it ok for Christians to eat meat? The Bible clearly states 'That shall not kill', it doesn't draw a distinction between killing humans and any other creature, so why do most Christians not belive it evil to kill a cow for food? Humanity fights against Nature, we try to define Nature and impose values and restrictions upon it.

I agree entirely with you, that the conception of "good" and "evil" are all too human inventions, though I wouldn't necessarily call it a "Western mindset" since it was not only invented in the East - as I mentioned in my previous post - it is also not exclusively present in the western hemisphere nowadays.

But when we are going to examine "evil" in Tolkien's legendarium, we must be careful not to mix it up with "evil" in our real world. While the "real-world-conceptions" of evil may have influenced those in Tolkien's legendarium the conceptions are not necessarily the same.

And thus all your points - no matter how applicable they may be in our real world (and I widely agree with them, I already did when you put them forth for the first time in a previous post) - are not necessarily valid within Tolkien's "Faëry", his secondary creation...

Tolkien's Ilúvatar does - to me - not resemble an impartial and remote creator-deity, and hence one that appears beyond any human conception of good and evil, rather, he seems to be partial and side with the "good" (as can be gathered from some examples) and thus resembles very much the God of the Bible (especially the Old Testament) who re-defines his own laws and meddles with his own creation within time...

 

[Gothmog]

Re: Thus Spake Zarathustra...

Tolkien's Ilúvatar does - to me - not resemble an impartial and remote creator-deity, and hence one that appears beyond any human conception of good and evil, rather, he seems to be partial and side with the "good" (as can be gathered from some examples) and thus resembles very much the God of the Bible (especially the Old Testament) who re-defines his own laws and meddles with his own creation within time...

While I agree that Tolkien's Ilúvatar does not appear to be impartial he is for the most part remote. He allows the Valar the managment of Arda only "meddling" when it is outside their scope or power, much the same as the Valar themselves came to do with Middle-earth. He also, to me, appears to be beyond human (or Elvish and even Valar) conceptions of good and evil. While he does indeed seem to be partial and side with the "good" it is also evident that Ilúvatar has different ideas of what is evil.

 

[scotsboyuk]

Re: Thus Spake Zarathustra...

@Walter

I agree with your comments on the applicability of real world situations to Tolkien's works, but one must remember that the worlds Tolkien created are derived from our own world. Everything within Tolkien's works came from the mind of a man, a man influenced by our world just a smuch as anyone else. Comparisons between the real world and Tolkien's works can prove useful, but I do agree that one must be careful in how far one takes such comparisons.

My comment on the 'Western mindset' does include the entire world. Whilst other discourses do exist, the prevalent one is that of the West, which I take to mean those cultures stemming from the Judeo-Christian tradition, hence, this definition would also include Islam (in this context!). The only cultures where such a discourse would not exist would be where such religions/ways of life, such as Buddhism, Confucism, Toaism, etc exist. However, even in such examples, the spread of Western secular, as well as ecclesiastical, values has spread and reinforced a Western dualist discourse on the nature of good and evil.

While I agree that Tolkien's Ilúvatar does not appear to be impartial he is for the most part remote. He allows the Valar the managment of Arda only "meddling" when it is outside their scope or power, much the same as the Valar themselves came to do with Middle-earth.

The Valar very much remind me of the Greco-Roman pantheon, in so far as they have characteristic mortal traits and care for the world enough to become directly involved at points.

He also, to me, appears to be beyond human (or Elvish and even Valar) conceptions of good and evil. While he does indeed seem to be partial and side with the "good" it is also evident that Ilúvatar has different ideas of what is evil.

Evidently, since the evil in Tolkien's works, ultimately, derives from Iluvatar.