Of The Beginning Of Days

[Snaga]

In the Sil it says (of Iluvatar)

Therefore he willed that the hearts of Men should seek beyond the world and should find no rest therein; but they should have a virtue to shape their life, amid the powers and chances of the world, beyond the music of the Ainur, which is as fate to all things else; and of their operation everything should be, in form and deed, completed, and the world fulfilled unto the last and smallest.

But Iluvatar knew that Men, being set amidst the turmoils of the powers of the world, would stray often, and would not use their gifts in harmony; and he said: 'These too shall find in their time that all that they do redounds at the end only to the glory of my work.' Yet the elves believe that Men are often a grief to Manwe,who knows most of the mind of Iluvatar; for it seems to the Elves that Men most closely resemble Melkor of all the Ainur, although he has ever feared and hated them, even those that served him..

I think this is an incredibly interesting passage. I'll come back and post my views on what is being said, but I'd rather not lead the witness. Loremasters and sages of our wonderful forum, what canst thou sayeth on this matter?

[Grond]

With the exception of the rebellion of Feanor, the Eldar and most other Elves have behaved in a manner consistent with the "will of Iluvator". They understand the process and I have never seen a reference to an Elf being in the employ of Melkor or Sauron or anyone of Evil. There may be some exceptions with the dark elves and Maeglin in particular. But, other than these two examples, I find that the Elves in general act in a way consistent with the master plan.

As for man, he is his own enigma. He acts for the cause of good one day and the cause of evil another and yet on another day thinks he's acting for good and yet acts for evil albeit unwillingly. In other words, Man is a "pain in the heavenly butt."

[Moonbeams]

When he said that Men and Elves most resemble Melkor, I don't think he was thinking only of evil that the can do, but also of their rebelius nature. Both Elves and Men try to change things to their benefit, as Melkor tried, they will not settle for things they don't like, they have an adventurous spirit, they will go to any lenght to get what's their hearts desire, and those are not bad traits on their own. Only when they think of doing evil are they bad. Although Melkor was always the evil one, he was the one who had the courage to stand up against all others, had the strenght to oppose Iluvatar himself, had the strainght to stand alone and fight for what he thought. The fact that he always thought only evil, well... but you have to admire his spirit. And that's something Men and Elves have incomon with Melkor.

[Grond]

Originally posted by V of K
"... for it seems to the Elves that Men most closely resemble Melkor of all the Ainur, although he has ever feared and hated them, even those that served him..."

You need to reread the post Moonbeams, I think you misunderstood it. The quote states that the Elves thought man most resembled Melkor. The reason for this is that they were so easily turned to evil.

[Snaga]

I read this as...

Elves are locked into the music aka Fate, but Men are not... they have free will

Because they have free will, they resemble Melkor, because Melkor equally played his own tune, not the own that Iluvatar wanted. But also because they do bad as well as good

But is it saying, but in the end its all Iluvatars will anyway? If so what's Manwe grieving about?

But then what is Fate anyway, once Melkor's messed up the music?

[Curufinwe]

Did Eru know all? from beginning to end? If so he would of expected Feanor and all those people to do the stuff that they did and in that manner it would have meant that Eru had the master plan made. Do the people on Middle earth have free will or are they destined by Eru? This does apply to the Valar aswell no doubt. Eru is all controlling.

[Gwaihir]

I believe it wouold be more correct to say "Eru is all creating". The Ainur, elves and Men are all givine the gift of the "Flame Imperishable", which confers some measure of free will. Eru may well be all knowing and seeing, but not really so "controlling".

This is not my original idea, of course, I'm interpretting Tolkien's words. I'll need some time this evening to find the relevant quotes from the Letters. There is a quote in there that not even Eru would seek to dominate one of the "children" by force.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Variag of Khand
...If so what's Manwe grieving about?

But then what is Fate anyway, once Melkor's messed up the music? The Sil clearly states that everytime Melkor began a discord, Eru would start a new theme. I'm going to go back to see if each theme had a specific purpose, but I think the indication is that ERU would not be swayed in creating HIS musical theme of Middle-earth. That is why I so firmly believe that He knew Melkor's mind from the beginning and knew the grief that would be necessary to prove the patience of the Elves and to test the spirit of Man.

As far as Manwe grieving? Manwe is not Eru. He doesn't know the master plan. All he sees of the future is what Erui chooses to reveal to him. He watches the wanton destruction of things he and the other Vala hold dear. He sees the corruption of Man and the division of Middle-earth into separate camps. He doesn't necessarily know the why, how, when or what, so he grieves for the damages being done, which all ultimately lead back to Melkor.

I keep coming back to my argument that if Eru had wanted a perfect world, he would simply have created Aman and destroyed Melkor as soon as he showed his true colors. Nothing else makes sense to me. And for those who disagree, I respect your opinion, which is why I said "makes sense to me." I do see how one could easily take the "Free Will Scenario" but my own belief in the All-knowing, Master-planning Eru, precludes free will from being a valid premise.:)

[Snaga]

I think it is hard to avoid applying concepts from real world religions in order to interpret what is said in the Sil, because it is easier to grapple with existing concepts and apply those, than it is to seek to elucidate meaning from words on a page. Everyone is prone to fall into that trap, the more so if you hold beliefs strongly yourself, perhaps.

I want to post here a summary of what I think is in the Sil, because it may help to clarify what is in the text and what readers may be bringing to it themselves.

Ainulindae

Eru/Iluvatar creates Melkor, and creates him with the greatest gifts of power and knowledge. Other Valar have a particular province, but he knows a bit about everything. Melkor travels around and sees the Void becomes impatient because its empty. He imagines what could be created, but only Eru has the Imperishable Flame. So he weaves these ideas in the Music, and the music becomes discordant.

Eru smiles and starts a new theme. But Melkor's discord contests it and wins.

Eru is stern, and starts another theme. This is quiet and unquenchable. It does not stop Melkors discord, but takes its most triumphant notes for its own.

Eru is terrible to behold and stops the music, and says - now you'll see what you've created. And Melkor you will find that everything you've created comes from me, and only serves to bring into being things more wonderful than you could imagine. And these things that you thought were seperate are just part of a whole. And they see that they have created a world that the Children of Iluvatar (Elves and Men) will live in.

The third theme, which the Valar don't have any part is where Elves and Men are created.

**********

I think this is quite mysterious in lots of ways. Eru and Melkor are in contest, but Eru says everything you do comes from me anyway. With some justification because he created Melkor, and so knows his nature. So why is he angry? And why does he smile first and then get angry? This reminded me of a parent with a child - first time a child does something wrong the parent smiles, teaches and puts right. The second time the parent may well be angry and punish.

And the description of the third theme in which Elves and Men. If Melkors' discord = evil, then evil doesn't win absolutely, but if it gets close good comes out of it. And good does not seek to dominate over evil - rather it is unquenchable. Much of Silmarillion is how pride and strength fail to avail the Noldor...

[Walter]

Sorry to be not on topic - once again - but I felt I had to mention it anyway: Ain't it funny how we so often end up discussing the "underlying philosophy" or the "core religion" or "the myth in Tolkien's myth" here? The "Melkor, evil by will.." or the "Finding god ..." thread as well as quite a few other threads which I cannot remember the names of - they all circle basically round the same issue...

Maybe we could collect these threads and publish them - in analogy to B.Russels "A History of Western Philosophy" - as something like "A History of the Philosophy in Tolkien's Middle-Earth"? ;)

[Gwaihir]

There really are two parallel but separate lines of thought that could be covered. One relates strickly to uncovering Tolkien's intent, and his own personal pholisophy on these matters. There are a variety of sources available and many clues, some subtle and many others less so.

The other, equally interesting line questioning concerns the "underlying philosophy" of this mythology as percieved by readers. No matter how much we might respect the author and admire his work, we are not he and cannot see these tales entirely in his eyes. Each reader has to explore the meaning of the work for him or herself, and some elements might resonate better than others or open different doors. Some of these impacts are certainly unintentional on the authors part, but cannot be avoided. I also think there are meanings in the work that Tolkien put there, but he never fully grasped or recognized himself.

It is this sort of inquiry that keeps me personally involved with books I read thoroughly many years ago. I hope to be able to comment more fully on the excellent posts above but time is short today (the primary world has this way of intruding...) so that will have to wait for the weekend.

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by Grond
I keep coming back to my argument that if Eru had wanted a perfect world, he would simply have created Aman and destroyed Melkor as soon as he showed his true colors. Nothing else makes sense to me. And for those who disagree, I respect your opinion, which is why I said "makes sense to me." I do see how one could easily take the "Free Will Scenario" but my own belief in the All-knowing, Master-planning Eru, precludes free will from being a valid premise.:)

Most definitely, senor! And I think that Eru understood that great beauty may lose it's context without ugliness; that without the bitter tears of sorrow, joy is less sweet.

EDIT: In other words: "I will not say: do not weep! For not all tears are an evil."

:)

[Snaga]

Would Gandalf counter that by saying: "he who breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom" (words to Saruman when captured at Orthanc - not exact). Do you need to mar beauty to understand how beautiful something is?

Grond posts:

I do see how one could easily take the "Free Will Scenario" but my own belief in the All-knowing, Master-planning Eru, precludes free will from being a valid premise.

I am glad you say this is your own belief. I don't know where you get that Eru is either All-knowing, or Master-planning. Although Master-plans can be many things, and not necessarily an account of every twist of every story. My interpretation is that Eru gives the themes, but the Valar create the Music according to those themes. Does that not sound as though he is actually not quite the control-freak you are describing?

[Snaga]

Walter says:

Ain't it funny how we so often end up discussing the "underlying philosophy" or the "core religion" or "the myth in Tolkien's myth" here? The "Melkor, evil by will.." or the "Finding god ..." thread as well as quite a few other threads which I cannot remember the names of - they all circle basically round the same issue...

We do discuss lots of other things too you know!:) Some of these debates keep going round and round because there is no clear right answer (though you wouldn't know it from some of the posts!).

In this thread I'd like to discuss 'what do the works of Tolkien actually say about God/divinity/mortality/free will/fate/blah blah blah in Tolkien's world' rather than 'what do you believe about said topics in the real world'. I.E. Its off the point of this thread to go into the applicability of Tolkien's ideas to the real world, because it doesn't tell you what is in his fiction.

I'd much prefer it that way since this is a Tolkien forum, and a love of JRRT and his works is what unites us. Once we stray away from that we don't seem half as nice to each other! So far we're doing fine!!!:D But every thread has a life of its own, and just because that's what interests me, it doesn't necessarily mean the thread will pan out that way!;)

PS Best of luck editting all those threads. Rather you than me!

[Grond]

Originally posted by Variag of Khand
...I am glad you say this is your own belief. I don't know where you get that Eru is either All-knowing, or Master-planning. Although Master-plans can be many things, and not necessarily an account of every twist of every story. My interpretation is that Eru gives the themes, but the Valar create the Music according to those themes. Does that not sound as though he is actually not quite the control-freak you are describing? The Music of the Ainur is nothing more than the Master Plan you seem to deny exists. It is apparent that no matter what Melkor did, Eru had already prepared the apporpriate counter-action to Melkor's discord. What Eru planned could not be undone or changed by Melkor. The very quote you cited is further evidence of the "Master Plan" you deny.originally posted by V of K
And Melkor you will find that everything you've created comes from me, and only serves to bring into being things more wonderful than you could imagine. And these things that you thought were seperate are just part of a whole. And they see that they have created a world that the Children of Iluvatar (Elves and Men) will live in.What is more clear than this?:confused:

[Snaga]

But if the Music is the master plan, then it is not created by Eru, its created by the Ainur. He gives them the theme, but not every last note.

Hence he can be glad at first when their Music is pleasing. Then he smiles (tolerantly? - that's my suggestion though) at Melkor's first attempt to inject his own thoughts into it, but creates another theme to counteract it.

Now if he was expecting Melkor's discord, why does Melkor's discord defeat his attempt to counteract it? And why does Eru get angry? If its all part of his plan, I don't see why he is so upset by it!

When they've finished the music Eru shows them the vision and says 'you see, its still my creation Melkor, you can't spoil the groove DJ' but then the Valar have to go and labour to create the vision on Ea. But whilst most of them are good boys and girls, Melkor tries to destroy their work. IE even if the music is a masterplan (I'd prefer game-plan), Melkor tries to wreck it.

BTW I'm not saying I think this is totally straightforward I don't. I think it is quite contradictory, probably in a classically mythological way.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Variag of Khand
...BTW I'm not saying I think this is totally straightforward I don't. I think it is quite contradictory, probably in a classically mythological way. I agree with you!

[Flame of Utumno]

Variag, I also think this is a very important quote because it is one of the few passages in the Silmarillion that comes closest to explaining the purpose and destiny of men.

What I find most interesting is the comparison with Melkor, and the fact that men most resemble him of the valar. If you read closely, it is really only the opinion of the Elves and Manwe that men are more similar to Melkor.
I think that its the total lack of conformity to the overall fate of the world that probably irritates Manwe and the other beings that are bound to the world.

The final destiny of the souls of men is an enigma that the geat powers cannot reconcile.

[Snaga]

Yes neither the Valar or the Elves seem to understand humans very well. Silmarillion is deliberately not humano-centric (is that a word:confused: ) and so it really doesn't have much about their purpose/fate whatever. And they appear to be an enigma.

It strikes me that one of the strange things about the actions of the Valar is that they are so eager to meet the Eldar and rush into ME to find them and guide them across the West, but by contrast they show no such appetite with the Atani. Even when it appears that Morgoth is doing his best to corrupt them, the Valar make no attempt to make themselves known. They seem to let Morgoth have it his own way.

Strange:confused:

[Brent]

Originally posted by Variag of Khand
In the Sil it says (of Iluvatar)

.

I think this is an incredibly interesting passage. I'll come back and post my views on what is being said, but I'd rather not lead the witness. Loremasters and sages of our wonderful forum, what canst thou sayeth on this matter?

Men are very much the creatures of Eru. The Ainur are of his mind but stem only from a particular paradigm. They are limited by the paradigm from which they spring - even Manwe AND Melkor, though Melkor flows from a particularly powerful paradigm within Eru and Eru oviously knows this (I agree with Grond here). He knows Melkor but Melkor can NEVER know him.

Now also consider that the Ainur who went into the world are imprisoned there, bound to it, so are the Elves, so is Melkor for all his power.
Men are not, they come, make whatever path they will and leave. A Gift that even the Powers will envy.
They are the microcosm of Eru, theirs is the ultimate freedom, weakened considerably because they do not know themselves as Eru knows himself. Doesn't it say elsewhere in Tolkiens writings that its the Fire Imperishable - that Melkor sought but found not - that ages men so quickly. The flame that Olorin is a servant of.

Its a theme found in almost all religions and myth systems
Macrocosm Microcosm, as above so below
that man is capable of a state of union with his maker - Nirvana, enlightenment, finding god, becoming one with the cosmos etc etc etc etc.
Impossible for an Elf bound to the destiny and fate of the world, or a an Ainur who is but a paradigm of thought.

[Grond]

Brent, thank you. You have found the eloquent and learned words I failed to find in my meager brain. Your opinions are very close to my own and I bow to your Eru-like communication skills.

[Brent]

thank you oh Grond this is high priase indeed.

Also I found this which is of interest (its about the fall of Numenor)

Tolkien: "That Sauron was not himself destroyed in the anger of the One is not my fault: the problem of evil, and its apparent toleration, is a permanent one for all who concern themselves with our world. The indestructibility of spirits with free wills, even by the Creator of them, is also an inevitable feature, if one either believes in their existence, or feigns it in a story." [Letters, p. 280].

So there you have the profs view on the "problem of Evil" we will all be here for a long time.

Though this IS one of the more interesting threads

[Snaga]

Brent two very interesting and thoughtful posts. Thank you. I will ponder on them for awhile!

Its ironic though that there are so many discussions about Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, Orcs, Balrogs etc. but the inclination is to forget Men!

[Walter]

Originally posted by Variag of Khand Its ironic though that there are so many discussions about Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, Orcs, Balrogs etc. but the inclination is to forget Men! Isn't it very common that those creatures/spirits that are mysterious to us, are the most fascinating ones?

We know all about our own kindred (well I should rather say "we think we know all about menkind"), and we learn some about Trolls and Orcs here these days, but we still know little about Hobbits, Elves, Dwarves, etc.

[Brent]

Originally posted by Walter
Isn't it very common that those creatures/spirits that are mysterious to us, are the most fascinating ones?

We know all about our own kindred (well I should rather say "we think we know all about menkind"), and we learn some about Trolls and Orcs here these days, but we still know little about Hobbits, Elves, Dwarves, etc.

I like this post and the previous by Variag. It says much, men are not understood by other men. Who other than Eru understands men - I submit to my peers, no-one, as the Elves are to the Valar, so are men to Eru.
I kinda picked this up on the second reading of the Sill. and seem to detect this in the prof letters, such that I know of. But always it is wise to seek the opinion of ones peers.

The Elves, at least the wise amongst them (Felagund, Turgon, Elrond, Melian, in the end Thingol - Turin) realised the strength in Men.
I wont go into the hobbits, true Englishmen if ever there were (Bias though I use the term in the Elizabethan sense so the US can count themselves in !!)

I think the prof built in much because of his experiences on the Somme, where he prefered the company of the "common englishman" rather than fellow officers - anyway there is great good OR evil in men
This was why Melkor always hated them

[Snaga]

In my edition of Sil, there is a letter from Tolkien in the preface. It makes an interesting comment about a distinction between creation for art/beauty and creation for power. The first of these is the pre-occupation of the Valar and the elves, whereas Men incline towards the latter. Through this they can turn to domination/evil. But this comes from often a desire to quickly do what appears to be right.

To me Akallabeth tells us the most of the nature of men. They start off blessed with a happy existence but are restless to explore and discover. They wish to go beyond what fate/the Valar have appointed for them. They come as teachers and beneficiaries to Middle Earth. But they more and more seek to control the fate of themselves and those they meet, out of high-minded will they turn from teachers to overlords. And in the end they embrace Sauron.

Now Sauron is lord of magic, lord of the rings. He is the embodiment of creation for power. Originally follower of Aule the craftsman, he turns to Morgoth to create for power.

But redemption for man seems to come most often through union of the two peoples - elves and men. For in the Fourth Age, freed from the shadow of Sauron, the age of men is founded by the union of Arwen and Aragorn.

[Walter]

Brent,

You are making two interesting statements: ...Who other than Eru understands men... and ...I think the prof built in much because of his experiences on the Somme, where he prefered the company of the "common englishman" rather than fellow officers...

I often wondered about that too, it seems Tolkien easily became friends with someone "of lesser rank" than he himself could be counted as (e.g. the postman, a taxidriver, etc.), whereas he often felt alienated and/or misunderstood by people of "the same rank" (e.g. the fellow officers in france, many of the fellow professors at Oxford, etc.). And I also wonder if he ever really understood his wife, Edith. I think he himself had a rather "inhomogeneous" understanding of human nature, ranking from "excellent" to "rather poor"...

---------
VoK,

while I wholeheartily agree with Your paragraph about the Akallabeth, I am not sure to which degree I can agree with the last paragraph. Isn't it interesting that redemption (You chose the word redemption rather than liberation, deliverance or salvation on purpose I assume) should come from the union of two people, both of which are not at all "typical" representatives of "mankind"? I wonder if Tolkien ever intented to deliver such a "message", and if so, are we allowed to ignore e.g. the part of the Hobbits in it? After all the whole quest of the FotR had failed if not for the Hobbits and does not therein lie a "message" too, concerning mankind?

[Brent]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Walter
[B]Brent,

You are making two interesting statements: ...Who other than Eru understands men... and ...I think the prof built in much because of his experiences on the Somme, where he prefered the company of the "common englishman" rather than fellow officers...

I often wondered about that too, it seems Tolkien easily became friends with someone "of lesser rank" than he himself could be counted as (e.g. the postman, a taxidriver, etc.), whereas he often felt alienated and/or misunderstood by people of "the same rank" (e.g. the fellow officers in france, many of the fellow professors at Oxford, etc.). And I also wonder if he ever really understood his wife, Edith. I think he himself had a rather "inhomogeneous" understanding of human nature, ranking from "excellent" to "rather poor"...

---------
Walter I think thats spot on, in Tolkiens day England was much more governed by class than it is today, Tolkien seems to have been deeply effected by his experiences in the trenchs with "the working classes" - I think he wanted a simple existence and he admired this quality in others, he didn't like the "lust for power" and this is the basis of the "evil" characters in ME

[Brent]

But arent the hobbits the Ultimate rejection of Power ?
All they want to do is to be.
And though men turn to Sauron not all - Elendil and his sons reject him - Did Eru create the Elves first because he realised this self destructive weakness in men. Does he see it in Melkor ? To him Melkor is like a small child, a mere part of his "thought".
Is his purpose that the Elves will lead the secondborn towards the "right path" and ultimately accomplish his "plan" ?

[Walter]

Originally posted by Brent
But arent the hobbits the Ultimate rejection of Power ?
All they want to do is to be.I could not agree more...

They have a very highly developed sense of nature, duty, are show courage when they have to, are less power-hungry, greedy, corruptable, a.s.o. Aren't Hobbits, the way Tolkien describes them, the better "Mankind"?

[Feanor]

>Melkor is a cog in the wheel of Iluvatar. He is not even a separate entity from Iluvatar as far as my interpretation is concerned... My interpretation would be that everything is Iluvatar and thus cannot controvert His will.


I guess that throws free will right out the window. Free will, the one explanation and feeble defense you have for the existence of evil.
Look, either you say there's evil bc of the gift of free will and therefore everything is NOT Eru and DOES controvert his will OR

There is no free will, and Eru uses evil in his designs- in which case I'm better off without him.

A third option is that there is some other reason above all this which we cannot fathom- in that case it is useless to discuss since we cannot know the answer.

You can't have your cake, um, you can't have your lembas and eat it too!

[Feanor]

>Most definitely, senor! And I think that Eru understood that great beauty may lose it's context without ugliness; that without the bitter tears of sorrow, joy is less sweet.

So why don't we let Morgoth just rule all Arda? Then there'll be an abundance of ugliness and sorrow and this will yield an infinite source of beauty and joy! Ah, how wonderful!

Horse-poo.

[Walter]

Feanor, are You sure You are posting to the right thread? In Your former post - the first of the two consecutive posts - You must be referring to a post that is not in this thread...

[Feanor]

maybe i was being too hasty.

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by Feanor
>Melkor is a cog in the wheel of Iluvatar. He is not even a separate entity from Iluvatar as far as my interpretation is concerned... My interpretation would be that everything is Iluvatar and thus cannot controvert His will.


I guess that throws free will right out the window. Free will, the one explanation and feeble defense you have for the existence of evil.
Look, either you say there's evil bc of the gift of free will and therefore everything is NOT Eru and DOES controvert his will OR

There is no free will, and Eru uses evil in his designs- in which case I'm better off without him.

A third option is that there is some other reason above all this which we cannot fathom- in that case it is useless to discuss since we cannot know the answer.

You can't have your cake, um, you can't have your lembas and eat it too!

Your third option is the explanation that is true, friend. The idea that men or elves can comprehend everything that exists in the universe when our five senses only behold four or so dimensions at best (when physics has given us a pretty good indication that there are probably somewhere around 11 dimensions necessary to support the mathematical model of the universe currently in use) is absolutely ludicrous in it's best light.

There is no either/or in reality. Reality IS as it is... and while the human framework of logic and reason work quite well within reality, this framework is inadequate for describing the true nature of things as it exists beyond the realm of human observation, evolution, and understanding.

So yes -- it is indeed useless to try too seriously to "understand God" or "comprehend the universe" or "know all there is to know" because of the finite boundaries of the human vehicle.

Peace ;)

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by Feanor
>Most definitely, senor! And I think that Eru understood that great beauty may lose it's context without ugliness; that without the bitter tears of sorrow, joy is less sweet.

So why don't we let Morgoth just rule all Arda? Then there'll be an abundance of ugliness and sorrow and this will yield an infinite source of beauty and joy! Ah, how wonderful!

Horse-poo.

If you read the Silmarillion, you'll know that snow, ice, etc. was not conceived of by the Valar... because Morgoth brought cold, snow, ice, and the beautiful crystalline structures that water can form into, came into being.

This is one small example how the 'evil' of Morgoth came to bring yet more beauty into the world. There would be no skiing in Middle-Earth without Morgoth, etc.

The bottom line is that without the presence of danger, or darkness, etc., people become complacent. That a forest is beautiful, and made more so by the contrast of the desert.

[Gwaihir]

This discussion seems to be falling into a common trap; false dichotomies. (a little acedemic aside to set the stage...)

some quotes from a USC web page on "Argumentation", from a course on writing...

absolute arguments are inherently simplistic: they tend to depict the world in binary yes/no, good/bad terms which are simply too limited to allow a full or convincing analysis of the issue under discussion. Such arguments can do little to advance the understanding of either the writer or the reader

and another...

False dichotomies: Almost by definition, complex arguments place a range of options and ideas into consideration. Those who make use of the fallacy of false dichotomy try to maintain that there are only two options, the one they favor (presented in glowing terms) and a worst-case representative of the opposing side (usually set up as a straw-person argument). In coercively restricting the range of potential responses, false dichotomies sharply limit our ability to explore and understand problems


(if your interested, I found the above at this address:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/writing/tools/argumentation.html#fallacy%202)

We are told either there is free will in Arda, and Eru is out of the picture, or that there is not, and all the beings in Arda are mere pupputs, and not responsible for their actions. (This is very old question, btw, we're not the first to consider this. ) What this statement ignores is that Eru could well bestow the gift of free will, and yet remain a creator and ultimate authority. That the Ainur, Elves and Man have been given the "flame imperishable" does not mean that they can "do anything" they wish. They have a will of their own, but not complete freedom. Eru has set the ground rules, and has shaped much of the playing field. Eru's plan, which is not entirely known to even the Valar, including Manwe, concerns all of Arda and is therefor external to it. No element of the plan, that is, no part of the creation, can get entirely out of the creation. Eru has given Man a special dispensation to leave Arda, for some pupose that Eru chooses not to share until the end.

It seems important to Eru's plan that the "children" and Ainur exersize their wills. Imposition of will is a great evil in these stories. Manwe may not know all of Eru's plan, but he does understand that he must not impose his will on the children of Illuvatar. We can also surmise that it is important to Eru's plan that all aspects of free will be explored. By dipping into the "dark side" of the gift of will, Melkor and all that emulate him may well be accomplishing Eru's most important objective.

The players get to call their own plays, but its still Eru's game, and he controls the rules and the clock. If everyone plays their part vigorously, Eru is served and is satisfied.

Quickly, the other false dichotomy is the statement that if evil has a role, then the best world would be all evil. This argument contradicts itself. Evil is said to be of value in providing a "context" for good; I would also use the word "contrast". A world where Melkor or Sauron rules and all is evil would be just as lacking in contrast as one where all is good. A story without a hero is just as boring as one without a villian.

[Snaga]

Good post Gwaihir. Its good to see someone who can reason without trying to use reason as a blunt instrument!

[Grond]

Gwaihir, a truly articulate and insightful post that puts into words what I've been trying to put into comprehensible words from the outset.

[Tyaronumen]

Very nice Gwaihir...!

[Feanor]

Once again its the Eagles (Gwaihir) to the resue! I guess the flight of the Eagles symbolises true freedom.

I see the point that's being made here, but isn't there a danger in greying the issues of morality by explaining and even justifying the role of evil? ie: why should one choose to be good vs evil?
or I'll be good most of the time but to accomplish certain goals I'll resort to evil.

[Feanor]

>Quickly, the other false dichotomy is the statement that if evil has a role, then the best world would be all evil. This argument contradicts itself. Evil is said to be of value in providing a "context" for good; I would also use the word "contrast.

You're right, my previous argument was too simplistic. But you say the 'best world' would not be all evil or all good. I agree. What then would the 'best' be? Maybe there isn't even clearly a 'best', but we can all agree there are some that are'better worlds' than others.

When the finality of death strikes one individual, to him the world seems all evil/no good, so it seems useless to him to follow the rules. What value is there in contrast or context of evil if the result of that evil is death?

If I walk thru a desert to make it to the forest, yes the forest will look beautiful, but what if I never make it thru the desert? For me, it wouldn't matter if the forest had ever even existed at all! ie: to me would seem no better than a world of complete evil.

[Tyaronumen]

Many people dwell in 'the forest', and yet their hearts are barren as 'the desert' for one reason or another. Many live in incredibly poor and terrible circumstances, yet for one reason or another, embody the very essence of compassion, love, and grace -- 'the forest'.

To paraphrase the last words of Gautama the Buddha: "Be a [forest] unto yourself."

Maybe if more people help each other and are positive towards each other on the basis of how their heart feels, as opposed to what their head says the relationship/social interaction is supposed to be, the essence of 'the forest' will spread.

Edit: I forgot to mention that to one who carries the forest within, even a desert can have it's beauty and purpose, even though it is harsh and extreme.

Also, that to one who carries the desert within, the appreciation of the external forest in which (s)he may live tends to be extremely limited and incomplete...

This tendency of humans to get caught up in the cob-webs of limited thinking and the desert of limited compassion is what links humans most closely to Morgoth, in my humble opinion...

[Brent]

Great post Gwaihir.
Say isnt this post turning into an episode of Kung Fu
Grasshopper !!

[Tyaronumen]

No. Now take the pebble from my hand -- Grasshopper. ;)

[Brent]

Originally posted by Tyaronumen
No. Now take the pebble from my hand -- Grasshopper. ;)

What is the meaning of one hand claping ?

[Feanor]

That's beautiful Tyar. Does Buddha view the capacity of good to overcome evil or are they equal?