What would happen after the second music?

[Helcaraxë]

The concept of a "Second music of the Ainur" was very old in Tolkien's conception (indeed, it was present even in the Book of LT #1). Apparently, all the children of Iluvatar and the Ainur (dwarves also, perhaps?) would create a second, greater music. It says in the Silmarillion that all the flaws in the first music would be repaired, and all the themes played correctly. But this would mean that the new world created by the music would have no evil. But there is always some evil if there is free will. So how would this work? And, in Dagor Dagorath, it says that Turin slays Melkor. But if only the Ainur's physical bodies could be destroyed, how could Turin actually kill Melkor?

MB

[Finduilas]

It says in the Silmarillion that all the flaws in the first music would be repaired, and all the themes played correctly. But this would mean that the new world created by the music would have no evil. But there is always some evil if there is free will.

I have to disagree. There are some certain questions which make me do so:

Does this "played correctly" necessarily mean that Evil should be extracted?
If the Second Song is said to be the perfect one, the one to "found" the "right" world, then it definetely has to include Evil. Evil is something natural, it's something which allows us to appreciate Good, and to actually be able to clarify what Good is. For if there was no Evil, would you know is right to do when everything will be right and will there be any point in saying what Good is? Evil is part of us, it was part of every peoples' personality in Arda and it would be even after the Second Song, for Evil is something which leads it's rooths from Iluvatar himself.

Was Evil really unwelcome in Tolkien's works?
No, Tolkien's works are ALL on the basis of Evil, its interaction with Good and the consequences of these interactions. Tolkien needed Evil, as It is needed in every book. Even the Fairy Tales are on the basis of Evil and what it causes. What's more, Tolkien had gone through a war, he knew what Evil is more than everybody. He might have wanted to create something beautiful, unreal, without Evil, but he would know that It won't give any rest to anybody. When we read about Evil, we feel the work more close to us, not only because we too are evil in a way, but because we are familiar to Evil, we are aware of the damages it causes.Tolkien had to write about Evil and he knew it.

Did Eru really want to banish Evil from his World?
No. IMO Eru had a grain of Evil in himself, He was the initial Evil and He put it into Melkor, for Iluvatar wanted him to spread it all over Arda. It was a test, a test for Eru's own world, for eru's own abilities as a creator. He tested his children and whether they failed or not, we can only say.

[Helcaraxë]

Originally posted by Finduilas



Did Eru really want to banish Evil from his World?
No. IMO Eru had a grain of Evil in himself, He was the initial Evil and He put it into Melkor, for Iluvatar wanted him to spread it all over Arda. It was a test, a test for Eru's own world, for eru's own abilities as a creator. He tested his children and whether they failed or not, we can only say.

Here I have to disagree. Eru was not the origin of evil. He was the origin of Free Will (the Flame Imperishable). Evil is an effect created by free will. But Melkor had the choice to use his gift of free will for good or ill. He chose to use free will to do evil. Eru gave him the choice, and he chose; Eru did not FORCE Melkor to do evil. But as Eru created free will, he inevitably gave his creations the capacity to do evil. Eru created the MEANS by which evil could be done, but he did not create evil. That Melkor chose to use the means given to him by Eru to do evil is not of Eru's doing.

[Finduilas]

Originally posted by MorgothsBane:

Eru created the MEANS by which evil could be done, but he did not create evil. That Melkor chose to use the means given to him by Eru to do evil is not of Eru's doing.

Now you hear not my worlds.


Originally posted by Finduilas:

Eru had a grain of Evil in himself, He was the initial Evil

I do not say He created it but that it was in his personality, his soul, call it, all the time; from the just beginning, from His own creation.
Ok, he was the Free Will, you say, and Free Will leads to Evil (if we allow this, of course), then even approached from this point of view, tell me isn't it logical to assume that Eru had Evil in himself? If he had the inevitable cause of Evil then shouldn't he be familiar to It and to its consequences as well as its advantages?
Evil is a task, at least for the ones that believe in God, now I don't only mean Iluvatar, and God knows that not less than we. God is familiar to Evil. But let cut down religious topics and go back to Eru.
Wishing to create a perfect world, Eru realizes he needs Evil, he needs something which will help people appreciate what they have because they will have the chance to compare it (to Evil in this case).
So Eru makes Melkor (or at least helps him) to turn to his Dark side, for He sees the strenght of Melkor, his ambition. And so does Melkor.
And from now on Evil is no longer unknown to ME people. They have two options, they have a chance; Eru had given them a chance.
Take Faust for example. He has to face and take a decision - whether to union with the Devil himself or remain truthful to his religion. We know what he chooses, we know what happens, we can only draw conclusions.

[Lantarion]

Originally posted by Finduilas
Wishing to create a perfect world, Eru realizes he needs Evil, he needs something which will help people appreciate what they have because they will have the chance to compare it (to Evil in this case).

Yes I agree with this; the notion is actually very alike to that of Taoism, that everything has an opposite, or neither would exist.
(e.g., "When the notion of beauty is given, the notion of ugliness arises", etc.).

[Helcaraxë]

It isn't logical;). Eru was the inevitable cause of Free Will, not of Evil. It was Melkor who used his free will in an evil way. Eru did not create it in his personality, he created the POSSIBILITY for it to bein his personality, but it was Melkor who actually made his personality evil. But Eru definately did NOT even help Melkor to become evil. Then he would be impinging of free will. If he had helped Melkor become evil, then he would be rescining his gift of the Flame Imperishable. And he never does that. But still I disagree about the "good only exist insofar as it can be compared evil" thing. If the Sun shines forever with no night, does it shine the less because there is no darkness? It is not necessary to have contrasts to percieve something. The lack of evil would cause everthing to be good, but that does not mean that good would not exist because evil did not. All it would mean is that the Good would be so pure as to be unsullied by Evil. If something only has itself in it and nothing else, it does not mean that it itelf soes not exist, only that it exist in its most heightened state.

MB

[Finduilas]

So what we have here...:

Eru, helping Melkor become evil => Eru losing the value of the Flame Imperishable.

Good, existing in its heightened state => Evil not necessary for the lasting of an eternity.

Imperishable=Eternal ; but tell me is boreness eternal? Can YOU live a life, a boring life, an all-day-doing-one-and-the-same-including-all-life-believing-and-acting-the-same-way life? Imagine a world, a "perfect" world full of innocence, purity and undarkened thoughts, actions...Imagine YOU living in this world. Will you be happy not to have a choice; literally to be "forced" by Nature to choose always to do good? This life leads to boreness, tireness. Which on its own leads to unwillingness to live, desire for Death-the Salvation.
Tell me then is this life, leading to Death, the heightened stated one? The one Eru wanted to create? I don't think so, you decide.
But let's return to the subject: Will Eru loose the value of the Flame Imperishable if he helps Melkor becoming evil?
Well, why should he? On the contrary, He will save this boring life from self-destruction by inputting some challange, some choice...after all, choice is what we call free will, isn't it?

[Helcaraxë]

No, I couldn't live that way. However, that is not what I am talking about. To live in a world without any evil is not the same thing as living in a world without ANY contrasts whatsoever. For all things to be good does not presuppose any necessity that all things be the same. If Ghandhi and Arbraham Lincoln were completely good (instead of just mostly good), would Ghandi BE Lincoln? No, Ghandhi would still be himself even though they were both completly good.

MB

[Finduilas]

Yes, they would remain the same people. It's not about completely changing your personality, for it wasn't evil that strived them to fight against slave-holding society. Neither was Evil making our dearest king Boris conventing the Bulgarian people. However, hadn't evil been in him, he wouldn't actually have convented us. Let me tell you this story:

King Boris, the one that we actually have pronounced for a Saint now, has slayed 52 boyar families, who didn't want to accept the Christian religion. So what did Boris do - slayed them... Simple. But these was only the 'blue-blooded' part of our people, imagine how many people he had slayed, or killed in any other way, for their devotion to their religion. For their Free Will. He killed them for that. And now he's treated as a Saint. Correct. Why shouldn't we? But imagine that Evil did not existed, evil in Boris wouldn't exist too, would it? He wouldn't have probably killed so many people, they wouldn't have probably accepted the Chriastian religion, not so soon at least, and...we might not be what we are now... Who knows...
Evil is very important in history and in life itself. Behind almost every good deed lay a couple of 'evil deeds'. So what do we call a world without Evil? Unknown...

If life consisted of only good, it certainly would be much much different and I am not sure whether we would like it that way... People are selfish, it's in their nature, they simply have to come across evil from time to time, it's the way it is. It's the way we have done it for us.

[Helcaraxë]

What you said in that last post is true. However, that does not invalidate my point. Of couse things would be different without Evil. All I'm saying is that Good and Evil are not the only things that define the shape of the world, that allow us to see it. We could still live in a world without evil because there are OTHER things that define the world, that give it shape.

Also, I'm slightly confused. Are you saying that slaughtering fifty Boyar families to make them convert to Christianity is a good thing??

MB

[Finduilas]

There are other things, yes indeed. But tell me, don't we always try to classify things into two groups : Good and Evil (or Bad, whatever). It makes life simplier and it's an attitute we have built up, we are used to always searching the Good and Bad in things. Call it a habbit. But it's our habbit.
Had there been no Evil what would we classify? Good and...?
What are the other things that define the world? Let's see:
-Love (for it's kinda neutrual; it can be Good and at the same time Evil; Love is a High Emotion, a God's emotion,Love is TOO flexible to stand any classifications)
-amm...actually, I can't think of other things that cannot be classified...Help?

Not speaking of the material surroung, of course, for it is the 'Love' equivalent, it's simply Nature.

As for King Boris, I don't say it's Good to slay 52 Boyar Families, on the contrary, I said it isn't!
Sorry, I tried to use irony and that's what probably mislead you. Sorry.

[Helcaraxë]

That depends on how you define evil. I define it as intentionally causing harm. I define it this way because any action is meaningful only insofar as the effect it has.

As for other contrasts, there are many. Law and chaos (chaos isn't always evil), slow and fast, strong and weak, loud and soft, black and white......all of these allow us to define and give shape to the world, ignoring good and evil.

MB

[Finduilas]

As for other contrasts, there are many. Law and chaos (chaos isn't always evil), slow and fast, strong and weak, loud and soft, black and white......all of these allow us to define and give shape to the world, ignoring good and evil.

Ok, let's have these 'definitions' without Good and Evil.
Imagine you see a car, speeding towards you. It's fast, really fast. But, guess....there's no Evil, how could you know that when the car crushes you and you die, that is for bad...? Or you see a rock, 'flying' towards you, it is not soft, definetely...and you know it, but how could you know that it is not Good that the rick is flying towards you?
There are different aspects of this Planet that certainly are not Good and Evil, they are simply Neutral, but tell me if there was no Good and Evil, or it is enough that there's no Evil, cause then there would be no Good either...So tell me how would we make the difference between these aspects when we do not have a basis on which to compare their consequences?
I mean if the aspects are not Good or Bad, their consequences for sure are being classified...

But the initial question was: How would a world without Evil work?
Well, it will work...temperary...

[Helcaraxë]

I think that we're agreeing.... :D.

But anyway, I hate to cut our conversation short, but could we please keep to the topic? (Maybe a mod could move our posts to another thread......please?)

But I still have a few questions.

a). Tolkien says that Turin "slays" Mogoth. But how could anyone actually kill an Ainu?

b.) WHAT exactly would happen after the second music? What would the world be like? Would there be an entirely new world, or just a repaired version of the old?

MB

[Finduilas]

Finally!!!:D

Tolkien says that Turin "slays" Mogoth. But how could anyone actually kill an Ainu?

:confused: Where? When? When does he slay Morgoth? I know he slayed Glaurung, but Morgoth? Gosh, I have to reread the books...

[Helcaraxë]

I believe that you'll find it in HoME 4 and 5. I got the quote from another, more learned member.

MB

[Finduilas]

I believe that you'll find it in HoME 4 and 5. I got the quote from another, more learned member.

MB

I don't have the HOME, unfortunately. If someone can provide the quote, will he post it, please.

[jallan]

I don't have the HOME, unfortunately. If someone can provide the quote, will he post it, please.You will find the quotation with discussion in the thread Túrin and The Second Prophecy of Mandos (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?t=10048).

[Úlairi]

An omniscient being has the knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil. However, being omniscient, it is therefore deterministic, as it perceives everything, the entire picture 'at a glance'. Therefore, it knows all the choices it's going to make and their outcomes. It can therefore 'judge' (being omniscient), whether a specific choice that it makes (as it is the only true being with any sense of Free Will) was for good or ill. However, it can also see every single choice and its outcome until is sees an ending, and as it is deterministic, it can therefore judge whether or not its choices have been for the 'greater good', or evil. However, that too, would have to imply that it knows fundamentally whether or not it will choose evil or good, but, being deterministic and infinite, it is either essentially good or evil, but cannot be both at the same time, and being deterministic, cannot therefore change its mind, as it would be anticipated and therefore not a change of mind at all. Comprehende? Capich? ;) Syllogism, gotta love it! ;)

[Helcaraxë]

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! :p :p

MB

[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! :p :p

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.:D:D;)


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.:D:D;)


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? :confused:

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? :confused:

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? :confused: 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. :confused:

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! :eek:

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. ;)