What would happen after the second 🎶music?

[Gandalf The Grey]

There is no Absolute good or evil, all are in shades.
MB

As Aragorn puts it:

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.

The only shades of grey I see here being the color of my robes, hair, and beard!

 

[Úlairi]

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

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.

 

[Helcaraxë]

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.

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]

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

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.

 

[Helcaraxë]

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.

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]

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

*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!

 

[Helcaraxë]

*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!

Yes, I believe we're agreeing. I've re-read your posts, and I think I have reasoned out why you say that a deterministic being is either completely good or evil. Because the being sees the end to which its actions are going, each act either contributes to good or evil. But I think you are also saying that if it so happens that an act contributes to both ends, both good and evil, it must be judged by which end it contibutes the most to; which one outweighs which. And if it contributes equally to both, than the act is neutral and has no effect on whether the being is ultimately good or evil. If that is what you are saying, than I see your point and agree.

MB

 

[Úlairi]

Yes, that's sort of what I was getting at.

 

[Helcaraxë]

Alrigthy then, we got a little sidetracked. Not that that's a bad thing, but can we have no more religious discussion please? Let's get back to the topic: how could Turin "slay" Melkor?

MB

 

[Úlairi]

Alrigthy then, we got a little sidetracked. Not that that's a bad thing, but can we have no more religious discussion please? Let's get back to the topic: how could Turin "slay" Melkor?

MB

Obvious, it isn't the same Túrin. I would deem this "Túrin" to be a more 'Christ-figure'.

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."

I think Túrin got a raw deal in life, and a sentient (couldn't help myself there Greenwood ) sword that slayed its bearer was certainly of no help, so, perhaps Túrin was an instrument of greater purpose than we first perceive. I mean, the entire doom of that family certainly does make one wonder, they of all people deserve revenge upon Morgoth.

 

[Helcaraxë]

Yes, but how is it possible to slay an immortal spirit that can shed its physical form? I mean, it says in BoLT 1 that the Ainur cannot be slain.


MB

 

[Úlairi]

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.

 

[Helcaraxë]

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.

I thought Eru, being heavily influenced by the Christian God, was omnipotent.

MB

 

[HelplessModAddi]

Turin DEFINITELY had a powerful effect on the entire history of the world, though it is hard to see from within the story. Think about it: Brethil was the last real Edain-populated area in all of Middle-Earth at that time, wasn't it? I mean, the rest were slaves. Glaurung would have destroyed Brethil and killed all of the mortals there had Turin not slain him. Without Turin, there would be no Dunedain!

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?

 

[Úlairi]

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?

I doubt that, his fëa will live on. As did Sauron's. My point is that he could not be completely obliterated from existence. He will be defeated, not destroyed. As for your proposition on the destruction of Morgoth's Ring, it wouldn't fit in too well with Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth. Men are 'supposedly' the creators of 'Arda Re-made', in which it would therefore mean either the purification of the hröa of Men, and then using their purity and dissolve that into the 'Marred' constituents of Arda. I will indeed use an analogy here. Take the One Ring for instance, let's say that Túrin is Gandalf, and Gandalf has the One Ring, which belongs to Sauron. Now, we're saying that Túrin has Morgoth's Ring ('Arda Marred'), but in this case, being incarnate, he is a part of Morgoth's Ring, so in a sense, he is wielding it. The weapon which he destroys him with will also be an original constituent of 'Aþâraphelûn Dušamanûðân'. However, what Morgoth has done wrong to begin with, is that he doesn't realize that his Ring is indeed a sentient entity, and if the entire 'Arda Marred' rises against him in the end, then he will be defeated by his own Ring, just as Gandalf would've defeated Sauron with his. Then, all Gandalf had to do would be to destroy the One Ring. However, the help of Ilúvatar would indeed be needed here. And hence we have something that may happen in the end. There would be no need for Túrin if we could just 'blow up' the world.