Gandalf The Grey
Visionary Spirit
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2003
- Messages
- 180
MorgothsBane said:There is no Absolute good or evil, all are in shades.
MB
Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.
MorgothsBane said:How would the qualities of being deterministic and infinite make the being either essentially Good or Evil? There is no Absolute good or evil, all are in shades. Pragnatically, good and evil can only have meaning infosfar as the effect it has; thus evil can only be defined as intentionally causing harm; thus, a perfect world would be one without flaws. But as flaws are not really flaws because they are in essence part of the natural order of things which is inherently perfect despite it's flaws, neither good nor evil truly exits. Touche!
MB
Úlairi said:Really? That's perhaps the weakest argument I've seen! Evil only intentionally causing harm? Last time I checked, there were many more forms of evil. An evil mind may not necessarily do anything to others, but merely effects itself, and not intentionally mind you. There is indeed impurity of the mind, but let's not go there.In answer to the rest of the post, from a deterministic viewpoint (which you chose), I would indeed answer: that is why Melkor was allowed to exercise his Free Will in the first place, so Eru could more clearly distinguish between the two.
MorgothsBane said:How else can you appraise an action if not by the effects it has? Otherwise it is meaningless. If a mind did nothing to others and (unintentionally) harmed itself, then it is not evil. If it harms itself because it is evil, then that was a result of it being evil in the first place. If you don't evaluate good and evil by their external effects, moral law becomes an arbitrary group of associations that have no applicability whatsoever. Thus evil works to harm and good works to undo that harm.
And speaking of weak arguments, what basis have you in saying than an omnniscient being is either completely good or evil? This is groundless.
GandalftheGrey: The fact that Aragorn says it doesn't make it right.
MB
Úlairi said:Agreed, however, then what about harming the final outcome? It is impossible for the triumph of evil, so, what is the point of the external aspects to begin with? What would be the point in creating evil for the purpose to undo it?
Also, I never considered my argument as weak, it is a good little syllogism. Ah, whatever. You can choose to agree or not. However, you never really contradicted the argument (if it was indeed so weak), you merely stated your opinion without even regarding it. If evil is to be judged by its external actions, then intentions don't come into the equation I suppose? Also. if Ilúvatar even had a 'grain of evil' within him, how could we possibly expect the outcome of all history to be intrinsically 'good'? For our benefit and for everyone's? You see the dilemma there undoubtedly. To believe in a God like that is to believe in a false one. One capable of committing evil. Although I would then argue this, the 'grain of evil' can therefore only be judged by Ilúvatar's external actions. Melkor's fall may have been 'intended' by Eru, but he had no hand in it, because he never made any 'external actions'. Then, to 'undo' what Melkor had done would be considered 'good'. Then, all his actions throughout the course of time could also be considered 'good' up to the point of the end, which then means that Eru was never evil to begin with! Unless of course you are now willing to agree that intentions are also 'an act of evil'. In which case I would then say that I was right.
MorgothsBane said:Ulairi, I believe you misunderstood my argument. I agree that Iluvatar does not have a grain of evil. That's what I've been arguing with Findy about this entire time!But I never said intentions did not come into the picture. Indeed, it is intentions that ultimately decide whether an act is good or evil (is the rock that is flying towards you that Findy used in the example good or evil? It has no intentions, and therefore is neutral). But Iluvatar did have external actions (the sinking of Numenor for one). But that act, even though it caused harm, was not evil because it was only done to prevent furthur harm. But Iluvatar never "undoes" what Melkor does; only the Valar do that. The foundering of Numenor is the only example to speak of in which Eru takes direct action in Arda.
Second, you still have'nt directly adressed the issue as to why being infinite and deterministic will cause a being to be either completely good or evil. From what I gather from your posts, you say this because any action either attributes to the greater good or the greater evil. But what about actions that contribute to both? An action does not only contibute to one end, but to many.
I'm not sure I interpreted your last post correctly, as I found it somewhat confusing. I believe we are greeing about the origins of evil, but I would appreciate a rephrasing.
MB
Úlairi said:*slaps head* Doh! You were arguing on my side the whole time? Admittedly, I only skim-read the first page, sorry about that. I completely agree with everything you just said, and if you want me to explain the post above I will attempt to.Sorry about that!
MorgothsBane said:
HoME X: Morgoth's Ring: Part V: Myths Tranformed
"Yet it is (as the Eldar hold) its [the fëa of Men] nature and doom under the will of Eru should not endure Arda for long, but should depart and go elsewither, returning maybe direct to Eru for another fate or purpose that is beyond the knowledge or guess of the Eldar."
Úlairi said:My guess is that Melkor will indeed do the same thing as he did in the Quenta Silmarillion, disseminate his power into the physical constituents of Arda until he himself becomes permanently incarnate, and then perhaps he will be cast into the Halls of Mandos (or the Void) for eternity. I do not believe that you can destroy the fëa, I even remember reading that not even Eru can do that.
Yeah, about that.... Melkor already did that. His power is disseminated throughout the physical matter of Arda. So thus it would be possible to do to Melkor what was done to Sauron. Destroy the world, and Melkor will die. Definition of Apocalypse, no?My guess is that Melkor will indeed do the same thing as he did in the Quenta Silmarillion, disseminate his power into the physical constituents of Arda until he himself becomes permanently incarnate, and then perhaps he will be cast into the Halls of Mandos (or the Void) for eternity. I do not believe that you can destroy the fëa, I even remember reading that not even Eru can do that.
HelplessModAddi said:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Are you happy to accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Are you happy to accept cookies and these technologies?