Were the Valar “demoted” at the end of the Second Age?

[CAB]

Landroval, we will just have to disagree on this one. You haven’t convinced me and it is clear that Gordis and I aren’t convincing you. I have this last little bit to say.

First, a lot of people will disagree with your definition of evil, me included. You might consider looking at the Evil in Middle Earth thread here at Entmoot. It is a very interesting thread, though a bit long. I actually didn’t call the Valar’s mistakes evil (at least thats not what I meant). I meant that their mistakes acted much like Melkor’s evil in that they served Eru’s plan in a way unforseen (yes, even by Manwe in my opinion). Technically though, many of the Valar’s mistakes could be considered evil.

Also, if Manwe truly had the full understanding that you attribute to him then it means that he intended for the kinslayings to happen, he intended for everyone on Numenor to be slaughtered, he intended for Men to follow Morgoth and Sauron for thousands of years, etc., etc. Doesn’t that seem out of character to you? I prefer to think that he made honest mistakes rather than believe that he planned to allow (and even cause) so much evil for the Children of Eru and the rest of the world.

The last thing I would like to say is this. I do think that Manwe and the other Valar had faith that, if they acted as they thought best, then they would be successfully serving Eru’s will in the end, despite the mistakes made along the way.

[Landroval]

First, a lot of people will disagree with your definition of evil, me included.

I am not aware I defined evil so far ; perhaps my phrasing was inadequate. I meant that evil is purely found on intentional level, regardless of outer conditions or the outcomes.
A surgeon/gardener/(whatever manager) is sometimes forced to remove certain "parts" of an organism, to prevent its complete failure; true enough, even a sadist would do probably the same thing, and, in an _extreme_ case, it would have the same beneficial outcomes for the sick person (not that it intended them anyway). What differentiates one action from the other is the purpose of the doer. For example, according to Atrabeth, Eru shortened Mankind's life span after they started following Melkor - so as to see what is real and what is good; in a much more intense manner, and on a more restricted level, this is done with the numenoreans (if I remember correctly, not even when following Melkor did the Men resort to such evils as the numenoreans did).

I actually didn’t call the Valar’s mistakes evil (at least thats not what I meant). I meant that their mistakes acted much like Melkor’s evil in that they served Eru’s plan in a way unforseen (yes, even by Manwe in my opinion). Technically though, many of the Valar’s mistakes could be considered evil.

I must admit I am a bit confused on whether you consider their mistakes as evil or not.

Also, if Manwe truly had the full understanding that you attribute to him then it means that he intended for the kinslayings to happen, he intended for everyone on Numenor to be slaughtered, he intended for Men to follow Morgoth and Sauron for thousands of years

I don't see the connection between Manwe's understanding of how things are (and the way they are is an expression of Eru's will, since all creation depends in every moment and detail on Eru, according to Atrabeth - I don't have the text handy) and these presumed intentions. What one could say is that the way things are is only understood by Eru and it's His intention that actually makes them so.

[CAB]

I guess I have a little more to say after all.

Originally Posted by Landroval

I am not aware I defined evil so far ; perhaps my phrasing was inadequate. I meant that evil is purely found on intentional level, regardless of outer conditions or the outcomes.

That is what I was disagreeing with. By the strict definition of the word, evil intent isn’t necessary to make an action evil. Don’t get me wrong though. In general, I use the word just as you said, and so do most other people.

Originally Posted by Landroval

I must admit I am a bit confused on whether you consider their mistakes as evil or not.

Evil intent: no. Evil results: yes, in many cases.

Originally Posted by Landroval

I don't see the connection between Manwe's understanding of how things are (and the way they are is an expression of Eru's will, since all creation depends in every moment and detail on Eru, according to Atrabeth - I don't have the text handy) and these presumed intentions.

I think that the connection stems from the fact that Manwe is in charge. He is the decision maker. This connection only applies if Manwe knew the full consequences of his decisions. This seems to be your opinion of him. I could be misunderstanding you I suppose.

I’ll try to explain my thinking this way. I am not Wayfarer, so there may be some flaws here, but this is basically how I see things:

1. If Manwe had a true understanding of Eru’s will and knew the full consequences of his actions then he made the Ban (and did many other things) in order to draw the Numenoreans to attack Valinor so that they could be destroyed. These events were part of Eru’s plan since it is impossible to go against it (as you correctly pointed out Landroval). Manwe would have purposely taken thousands of lives in the name of the grand design.

2. If Manwe had a true understanding of Eru’s will but didn’t know the full consequences of his actions then he made the Ban (and did many other things) because Eru told him to, either directly or in another way. In this case Manwe’s knowledge of anything other than Eru’s plan was worthless because all his actions would have to follow that plan to the letter regardless of Manwe's personal judgement. He would essentially be Eru’s puppet, a complete slave to fate (fate being Eru’s will).

3. If Manwe didn’t have a true understanding of Eru’s will but did know the full consequences of his actions then he made the Ban (yada, yada) in order to draw the Numenoreans to attack Valinor knowing that they would be destroyed but not necessarily knowing that this was part of the grand design. Manwe doesn’t seem like the bloodthirsty type.

4. If Manwe didn’t have a true understanding of Eru’s will or know the full consequences of his actions then he made the Ban (etc.) because he believed it was the proper thing to do given his limited knowledge. I don’t mean limited when compared to anyone other than Eru (and maybe Mandos in regards to consequences of actions), but still less than complete knowledge. He probably wouldn’t be planning for the Numenoreans to be destroyed (unlike scenarios 1 and 3) while still maintaining some free will (unlike scenario 2 and probably 1 also). Personally, I think this is the true scenario.

[Edit: I guess I should say what I mean by “true”, especially since I am assigning it my own meaning. In this case true understanding means that Manwe had 100% accurate knowledge of Eru’s will in regard to any decision he (Manwe) personally had to make as the King of Arda. He may not have known “why” but did know “yes or no”.]

The main problem with this view (specifically scenarios 3 and 4), I think, is that Manwe must have known that everything done is true to Eru’s will. Perhaps if the Valar faced some sort of judgement from Eru in combination with an acknowledgment of free will (which doesn’t seem unlikely) this problem with situations 3 and 4 would be removed.

Originally Posted by Landroval

What one could say is that the way things are is only understood by Eru and it's His intention that actually makes them so.

Agreed. I think this fits with scenario 4.

There is at least one more option. Since everything that happens must be part of Eru’s design, then Manwe might have acted as he did knowing that he couldn’t do wrong (wrong in the sense that he opposed Eru’s will). Looking at things this way, Manwe, and everyone else, could simply do as they please without giving their decisions any thought at all. If Manwe and the other Valar faced Eru’s judgement (and I think they did), then this would probably be the most unlikely option of all.

[Gordis]

Excellent post, CAB.

I fully agree with you that evil intent isn’t necessary to make an action/inaction evil.

Landroval was speaking of a surgeon killing a patient by mistake. It is evil, though unintentional. He could have asked a more skilled surgeon to do the operation, he had overestimated his own knowledge and skills, he should have practiced and learned more and so on.

The same applies to a person negligent in his duties, or the one who decided not to act when he should have acted: they have no evil intent, but their inaction leads to a catastrophe. And so on

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

I disagree. I would say that the outcome would be one of evil, but the action itself wouldn't be if there was no evil intent.

[Gordis]

Tell this to employees of a nuclear plant who were innocently chatting while the reactor was overheating.

[Landroval]

By the strict definition of the word, evil intent isn’t necessary to make an action evil.

"Evil" is, I believe, a purely human term; if an animal kills another animal or climate kills weak animals, as far as nature is concerned, this isn't evil, just life. So, what would you define as evil? Otherwise we are going in circles.

This connection only applies if Manwe knew the full consequences of his decisions.

Which is impossible, since "in every age there come forth things that are new and have no foretelling, for they do not proceed from the past"; this makes prediction almost impossible.

This seems to be your opinion of him.

No, just that he is the wisest being in Ea, save Eru.

In this case true understanding means that Manwe had 100% accurate knowledge of Eru’s will in regard to any decision he (Manwe) personally had to make as the King of Arda. He may not have known “why” but did know “yes or no”.

Well, as I quoted the Atrabeth previously, "the designs of Eru governed all the operations of the faithful Valar" - so I guess that Manwe did know what Eru would like or not from what Manwe was aware was his options.

The main problem with this view (specifically scenarios 3 and 4), I think, is that Manwe must have known that everything done is true to Eru’s will.

I am not sure I follow..

Landroval was speaking of a surgeon killing a patient by mistake.

When?

The same applies to a person negligent in his duties, or the one who decided not to act when he should have acted: they have no evil intent, but their inaction leads to a catastrophe.

Does anything in Tolkien's work hint that Manwe should have acted sooner concerning the numenoreans, or in a different manner? What makes you think this wasn't the best course of action? In Myths T., Tolkien refuted those who would criticise Manwe (presumedly) delayed action against Melkor - and gave credit to his wisdom (I do too).

[Radagast The Brown]

I agree with Landroval... and I think there's no point accusing them of evil as we don't know the possible consequences of any other action that could've been taken. Perhaps the outcome was the least-evil possible... and really the end wasn't that bad, and rather positive even.

[CAB]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

I disagree. I would say that the outcome would be one of evil, but the action itself wouldn't be if there was no evil intent.

Originally Posted by Landroval

"Evil" is, I believe, a purely human term; if an animal kills another animal or climate kills weak animals, as far as nature is concerned, this isn't evil, just life. So, what would you define as evil? Otherwise we are going in circles.

You aren’t arguing with me here, but the dictionary. Read the definition of evil, or for a more in depth answer, look at Wayfarer’s posts on the Evil in Middle Earth thread (if you don’t want to read the whole thing). You can argue the meaning of evil with him if you like, but I wouldn’t recommend it. I would think you would remember those posts TD. You started that thread after all.

Originally Posted by Landroval

Which is impossible, since "in every age there come forth things that are new and have no foretelling, for they do not proceed from the past"; this makes prediction almost impossible.

No, just that he is the wisest being in Ea, save Eru..

Right. Manwe didn’t know everything, he was less than Eru, so he was capable of making mistakes.

Originally Posted by Landroval

Well, as I quoted the Atrabeth previously, "the designs of Eru governed all the operations of the faithful Valar" - so I guess that Manwe did know what Eru would like or not from what Manwe was aware was his options. .

I see a problem with this point of view if you think that mistakes weren’t part of Eru’s design. To me it is clear that they were. You could say that the Valar were flawed by definition (only Eru is flawless, they were less than Eru, therefore the Valar were flawed) Wasn’t Aule a faithful Vala? Wasn’t the creation of the Dwarves a mistake? Eru immediately corrected him as if it were. If Aule could make a mistake, why not Manwe?

Let’s leave the destruction of Numenor alone for a moment and look at an even more obvious mistake, the release of Melkor. I don’t see how this could be considered anything other than a screw up. The creator of evil is released and allowed to wander freely in Valinor, with all kinds of dire consequences. If it looks like a mistake, and smells like a mistake, and is made by someone who is known to be fallible (and Manwe was, because he wasn’t Eru) then it is probably a mistake. If we accept that the creation of the Dwarves was a mistake then I think the release of Melkor has to be considered one too. The results were much, much worse. I think the only other options were that the Valar were evil or had no free will (and I can’t agree with either of those).

Originally Posted by Landroval

Does anything in Tolkien's work hint that Manwe should have acted sooner concerning the numenoreans, or in a different manner? What makes you think this wasn't the best course of action? In Myths T., Tolkien refuted those who would criticise Manwe (presumedly) delayed action against Melkor - and gave credit to his wisdom (I do too).

The results (loudly) suggest that Manwe should have acted differently. Really, how much worse could they get?

Why did the Valar lay down their government if they were acting so wisely? Because they were in real peril? Let’s consider that for a moment.

Landroval, I won’t argue the point that the Numenoreans could cause ruin in Valinor (as odd as that seems to me) because, as you point out, Tolkien said so himself in letter 131. (By the way, just after this statement, he wrote that the Valar appealed to Eru and received the “power and permission to deal with the situation”. This directly contradicts your opinion on these matters.)

But they had to get there first didn’t they? Do you think that Ulmo and Osse were powerless to stop the Numenorean fleet. I don’t think so. There are many cases of the Valar and their servants sinking ships. They also succeeded in making Valinor all but unreachable after the Noldor returned to Middle Earth in the First Age. If your opinions are correct they had plenty of time to do this again, because they had determined that the Numenoreans were irredeemable a thousand years before. With all their wisdom, wouldn’t the Valar have assumed that an attack could come from Numenor?

If the Valar decided that the Numenoreans were a lost cause, then you can’t argue that they allowed the fleet to reach Valinor in the hope that they would turn back. And what would they turn back to anyway? Causing problems for the people of Middle Earth instead, what else? This also brings up the question of why the Valar didn’t destroy Numenor long ago if it inhabitants were beyond all hope. They were allowed plenty of time to cause evil for the other people of Arda. Why, if their destruction was simply a matter of time?

If the Valar were doing such a wonderful job, then why did they give up their government (or have it taken from them)? It isn’t because they were around only to combat Melkor, he had been gone for over three thousand years.

To me all this just doesn’t add up. I respect your opinion Landroval, and your defense of Manwe, but I can’t agree with these ideas.

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

I agree with Landroval... and I think there's no point accusing them of evil as we don't know the possible consequences of any other action that could've been taken. Perhaps the outcome was the least-evil possible... and really the end wasn't that bad, and rather positive even.

I fail to see how a happy, peace loving people becoming oppressors, Melkor-worshipers, and eventually being exterminated is positive. To me the only way this is possible is to have complete faith in Eru. I can’t really argue with this point of view, however this kind of faith means that everything has to be seen in a positive light.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Originally Posted by CAB

Let’s leave the destruction of Numenor alone for a moment and look at an even more obvious mistake, the release of Melkor. I don’t see how this could be considered anything other than a screw up. The creator of evil is released and allowed to wander freely in Valinor, with all kinds of dire consequences. If it looks like a mistake, and smells like a mistake, and is made by someone who is known to be fallible (and Manwe was, because he wasn’t Eru) then it is probably a mistake. If we accept that the creation of the Dwarves was a mistake then I think the release of Melkor has to be considered one too. The results were much, much worse. I think the only other options were that the Valar were evil or had no free will (and I can’t agree with either of those).

I agree that the release of Melkor was a mistake but it wasn't an evil one. It was because there was no evil in Manwe that he got released.

Originally Posted by The Sil

For Manwe was free from evil and could not comprehend it, and he knew that in the beginning, in the thought of Ilúvatar.

[Landroval]

Read the definition of evil, or for a more in depth answer, look at Wayfarer’s posts on the Evil in Middle Earth thread (if you don’t want to read the whole thing).

Evil as dischord? When were Manwe's actions in dischord with Eru (and particulary in the case of the numenoreans)?

Originally Posted by Osanwe kenta

Manwe was bound by the commands and injunctions of Eru, and would do this or abstain from that in accordance with them, always, even knowing that Melkor would break them as it suited his purpose.

Manwe didn’t know everything, he was less than Eru, so he was capable of making mistakes.

He is the wisest and closest to Eru, so, to clear one thing, I ask: could anyone (but Eru) have made better decisions? Furthermore, to reffer to a previous point of our discussion:

I see a problem with this point of view if you think that mistakes weren’t part of Eru’s design. To me it is clear that they were.

I believe are in agreement; I doubt there are mistakes (at least on the part of the valar), since "no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in Him, nor can any alter the music in His despite".

I don’t see how this could be considered anything other than a screw up.

There are at least two more people who think otherwise, the Professor and me (swells chest ):

The weakest and most imprudent of all the actions of Manwe, as it seems to many, was the release of Melkor from captivity. From this came the greatest loss and harm: the death of the Trees, and the exile and the anguish of the Noldor. Yet through this suffering there came also, as maybe in no other way could it have come, the victory of the Elder Days: the downfall of Angband and the last overthrow of Melkor.
Who then can say with assurance that if Melkor had been held in bond less evil would have followed? Even in his diminishment the power of Melkor is beyond our calculation. Yet some ruinous outburst of his despair is not the worst that might have befallen. The release was according to the promise of Manwe. If Manwe had broken this promise for his own purposes, even though still intending "good", he would have taken a step upon the paths of Melkor...Of this we may be sure, we children of small strength: any one of the Valar might have taken the paths of Melkor and become like him: one was enough.

With all their wisdom, wouldn’t the Valar have assumed that an attack could come from Numenor?

That was a matter of debate until the very end: "and still all was silent, and doom hung by a thread. For Ar-Pharazon wavered at the end, and almost he turned back". And as far as deterring elements, I think there were plenty:
"Now the lightnings increased and slew men upon the hills, and in the fields, and in the streets of the city; and a fiery bolt smote the dome of the Temple and shore it asunder, and it was wreathed in flame... When therefore the last portent came they heeded it little. For the land shook under them, and a groaning as of thunder underground was mingled with the roaring of the sea, and smoke issued from the peak of the Meneltarma. But all the more did Ar-Pharazon press on with his armament."
They weren't even afraid of the host of eagles lead by Thorondor; the eagles are one of the most formidable hosts in all Arda, having defeated the dragons, while the Eagle King marred Melkor single-handedly.

[Butterbeer]

isn't all this talk of "evil", or "mistakes" or "better" or so forth and so on, rather disjointed?

I mean are you all ... when you make these various points and arguments,

... are you talking specifically and clearly from a human persepective?

because many of these are really subjective - from a human being perspective, one might view the mass genocide of an entire Island as "evil" or the release of " i'm alright Jack" Melkor as a bit of a oopsy-daisy etc ...

but is not the view of Eru or of the Valar an entirely different view, or standpoint, would they even consider such notions as "good" and "evil" in any recognisable framework or way as we do?

In terms of our morality or thoughts, would these not be rather alien to them?

Who thinks they would think of themselves that they were "above" such mortal minds and morailities as we view them from?

*only has a few momments here - hopes this point hasn't already been made??*

Gor:

Tell this to employees of a nuclear plant who were innocently chatting while the reactor was overheating.

apart from the fact that would probably be rather hard to actually do ...

since when was incompetence or innocence and chatting definitions of Evil???

really Gor !!!

Again we come down to this central question: are we defining evil from a human perspective or from the perspectives of Valinoreans or Eru (is Eru even technically capable - at least in his mind, of being/ doing evil - as the ultimate Law????)


.

[CAB]

Originally Posted by Landroval

Evil as dischord?

No, “causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful”

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Again we come down to this central question: are we defining evil from a human perspective or from the perspectives of Valinoreans or Eru

According to the definition of evil, perspective is irrelevant.

Landroval and TD (and now Butterbeer too, sheesh), I am not going to get anymore into the meaning (or really definition) of evil. Why should I when Wayfarer already did this much better than I could? All I would be doing is repeating what he already said. Not that I consider him the ultimate authority, but these posts are right here on Entmoot, are very convincing, and are written under a Middle Earth framework.

Originally Posted by Landroval

He is the wisest and closest to Eru, so, to clear one thing, I ask: could anyone (but Eru) have made better decisions?

Maybe, maybe not. It really doesn’t matter. Just because he was the best choice doesn’t mean he was incapable of making mistakes.

Originally Posted by Landroval

I doubt there are mistakes (at least on the part of the valar), since "no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in Him, nor can any alter the music in His despite".

If mistakes aren’t part of the theme then no one can make mistakes. Not Valar, Elves, Men, etc. No one. I don’t think so.

Originally Posted by Landroval

That was a matter of debate until the very end: "and still all was silent, and doom hung by a thread. For Ar-Pharazon wavered at the end, and almost he turned back".

So, what was the other option? You have said that the Valar considered the Numenoreans irredeemable. So they wouldn’t leave Valinor, return to Numenor and start acting nice, would they? They would eventually go back to bringing evil to the people of Middle Earth. You said so yourself.

Originally Posted by Landroval

those numenoreans would have resorted to opressing Middle-Earth sooner or later, and when I say oppressing I mean not just enslaving, but torturing and sacrificing people to Melkor (heck, they even killed each other in madness).

Is this a desirable result?

Originally Posted by Landroval

And as far as deterring elements, I think there were plenty:
"Now the lightnings increased and slew men upon the hills, and in the fields, and in the streets of the city; and a fiery bolt smote the dome of the Temple and shore it asunder, and it was wreathed in flame... When therefore the last portent came they heeded it little. For the land shook under them, and a groaning as of thunder underground was mingled with the roaring of the sea, and smoke issued from the peak of the Meneltarma. But all the more did Ar-Pharazon press on with his armament."

It wasn’t enough. I guess you would say that wasn’t a mistake either, even though it plainly failed? Also, wasn’t this intimidation by awe? I thought the Valar weren’t supposed to do that.

Originally Posted by Landroval

They weren't even afraid of the host of eagles lead by Thorondor; the eagles are one of the most formidable hosts in all Arda, having defeated the dragons, while the Eagle King marred Melkor single-handedly.

Umm...I think the eagles in this case were clouds, Landroval. Read back a couple of paragraphs (in the Silmarillion, not here) from the quote you gave above about the lightning and “fiery bolt”.

Originally Posted by Osanwe kenta

Manwe was bound by the commands and injunctions of Eru, and would do this or abstain from that in accordance with them, always, even knowing that Melkor would break them as it suited his purpose.

Sure. I don’t think Manwe would disobey Eru’s direct orders. But how often did he receive these orders? I don’t remember Eru being involved in the release of Melkor in the Silmarillion scene. Also, if every time there was an important decision to be made, Manwe called on Eru, then he wasn’t a great leader, he was Eru’s mouthpiece. What would he need all that great wisdom for?

The weakest and most imprudent of all the actions of Manwe, as it seems to many, was the release of Melkor from captivity. From this came the greatest loss and harm: the death of the Trees, and the exile and the anguish of the Noldor. Yet through this suffering there came also, as maybe in no other way could it have come, the victory of the Elder Days: the downfall of Angband and the last overthrow of Melkor.
Who then can say with assurance that if Melkor had been held in bond less evil would have followed? Even in his diminishment the power of Melkor is beyond our calculation. Yet some ruinous outburst of his despair is not the worst that might have befallen. The release was according to the promise of Manwe. If Manwe had broken this promise for his own purposes, even though still intending "good", he would have taken a step upon the paths of Melkor...Of this we may be sure, we children of small strength: any one of the Valar might have taken the paths of Melkor and become like him: one was enough.

Ok. Lets go ahead and get to what I consider to be the root of our disagreement. You seem to look at a quote like this and take it as the absolute truth. I don’t. You can rip me on this if you like. (Hey, my first smiley face!) To me there are too many inconsistences in Tolkien’s work to simply accept one quote or another. I think we have to look at the whole package. I look at the history of Middle Earth as being filled with things that Manwe and the Valar could/should have done differently, the whole story really depends on this. Personally, I think Tolkien wrote passages like the one above after he realized the light that the Valar would have to be seen in considering how they acted in Arda and the consequences of their decisions. This quote was probably meant entirely as justification. I prefer to consider the whole story rather than give this too much weight. I’m not saying that I simply disregard this kind of quote, but there has to be a balance (at least for me).

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

but is not the view of Eru or of the Valar an entirely different view, or standpoint, would they even consider such notions as "good" and "evil" in any recognisable framework or way as we do?

In terms of our morality or thoughts, would these not be rather alien to them?

This may be true for Eru, but I don’t see the Valar this way. There are many cases of them showing emotions that we are familiar with (especially Melkor). I think that the Valar were much more similar to us than to Eru.

Originally Posted by Gordis

Excellent post, CAB.

I didn’t thank you for this before, Gordis. I do so now. I was hoping that the post you were referring to wouldn’t be considered “so much hot air”.

[Landroval]

No, “causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful”

Weren't you the one to ask us to read Wayfarer's definition of evil: Dischord.Put simply, Evil is Dischord . Would you say that everything that causes ruin/injury or pain is evil? I can find countless counter-examples (I already reffered to a doctor who 'hurts' a patient in order to cure him).

Why should I when Wayfarer already did this much better than I could? All I would be doing is repeating what he already said. Not that I consider him the ultimate authority, but these posts are right here on Entmoot, are very convincing, and are written under a Middle Earth framework.

Incidentaly, your and his definition are not the same.

So, what was the other option?

Frankly, only the professor could answer that.

Just because he was the best choice doesn’t mean he was incapable of making mistakes.

If no one can make better decisions than he can, I don't see the point in bitching about him

If mistakes aren’t part of the theme then no one can make mistakes.

This is over-generalisation; we know that all the thoughts of the valar (at least those concerning the music) stem from Eru, and therefore cannot be mistakes. Men, on the other hand, are free from the fate told in the music.

It wasn’t enough. I guess you would say that wasn’t a mistake either, even though it plainly failed? Also, wasn’t this intimidation by awe? I thought the Valar weren’t supposed to do that.

It wasn't enough? Would you recommend a full assault of the host of the valar on numenor? Concerning the awe part, in my opinion it doesn't reffer to a situation of war, and the valar have been part of wars from the start of Ea; on the good side .

I think the eagles in this case were clouds, Landroval. Read back a couple of paragraphs (in the Silmarillion, not here) from the quote you gave above about the lightning and “fiery bolt”.

I can give you the same advice :

Originally Posted by Akallabeth

Then the Eagles of the Lords of the West came up out of the dayfall, and they were arrayed as for battle, advancing in a line the end of which diminished beyond sight; and as they came their wings spread ever wider, grasping the sky.

Also, if every time there was an important decision to be made, Manwe called on Eru, then he wasn’t a great leader, he was Eru’s mouthpiece.

I don't see any problem with that.

What would he need all that great wisdom for?

For less important decisions maybe?

You seem to look at a quote like this and take it as the absolute truth. I don’t. You can rip me on this if you like.

I see; do you know any quote that contradicts this one? Or do you dismiss it simply because you don't like it? Isn't this quote about Manwe consistent with the one I gave from Atrabeth about the valar, or the one from Myths T. about his timing of the war of wrath?

[CAB]

Originally Posted by Landroval

Weren't you the one to ask us to read Wayfarer's definition of evil: Dischord.Put simply, Evil is Dischord . Would you say that everything that causes ruin/injury or pain is evil? I can find countless counter-examples (I already reffered to a doctor who 'hurts' a patient in order to cure him).

Incidentaly, your and his definition are not the same.

Oh, really?

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Evil

1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

Notice that Sense 1, 2, and 5 apply to the discussion. 2 and 4 are meanings unrelated to the concept of real evil. Notice that three possible meanings are: Morally wrong, caising injury, and characterized by anger.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Okay, here I think we're getting somewhere... Aulë is not consciously doing evil, even if there are evil results to his actions.

I don't have a problem with this. As I said, a person is not nescessarily evil because they do evil acts.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

On the other hand... utilizing a strict definition such as that above, then we can't always say someone is good because they have good intentions - they might still be doing an act of evil (and, as can be said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions).

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Whether or not you call something Evil has no bearing on whether or not it is Evil. It doesn't matter if you consider murder to be wrong - either it is or it isn't, and that doesn't change regardless of what the majority thinks.

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

It's true by definition. People decide what the word means - in this case, Evil is defined as 'Morally wrong' 'causing harm'. Then we can look at things like Murder, Rape, and so forth, and say 'This is an Evil act, because it fits the definition of Evil'.

Originally Posted by Landroval

Frankly, only the professor could answer that.

I see. Well it doesn’t get much easier than that.

Originally Posted by Landroval

If no one can make better decisions than he can, I don't see the point in bitching about him

True, but I haven’t been complaining. I have been stating my opinion.

Originally Posted by Landroval

This is over-generalisation; we know that all the thoughts of the valar (at least those concerning the music) stem from Eru, and therefore cannot be mistakes. Men, on the other hand, are free from the fate told in the music.

Aren’t we talking about what happened after the Music? Wasn’t Melkor a Vala? Aren’t the Maiar simply lesser Valar? Were they incapable of making mistakes also? What about Melian’s descendants? They had angelic heritage. Could they make mistakes? Where do you draw the line? I draw it immediately under Eru.

Originally Posted by Landroval

It wasn't enough? Would you recommend a full assault of the host of the valar on numenor? Concerning the awe part, in my opinion it doesn't reffer to a situation of war, and the valar have been part of wars from the start of Ea; on the good side .

Were there no other options? Shouldn’t they have tried something else? Also, the time of the great armament wasn’t open war any more than many time periods in Middle Earth, such as late in the Third Age, when the Istari weren’t supposed to use intimidation.

Originally Posted by Landroval

I can give you the same advice :

And out of the west there would come at times a great cloud in the evening, shaped as it were an eagle, with pinions spread to the north and the south; and slowly it would loom up, blotting out the sunset, and then uttermost night would fall upon Numenor. And some of the eagles bore lightning beneath their wings, and thunder echoed between sea and cloud.

Then men grew afraid. ‘Behold the Eagles of the Lords of the West! they cried. ‘The Eagles of Manwe are come upon Numenor! And they fell upon their faces.

This comes just before the quote you gave. So, according to you, Tolkien went straight from eagle shaped clouds to actual eagles without any explanation. I thought he was a better writer than that. And apparently these supposed real eagles didn’t attack anyone, they just flew overhead. I can see why the Numenoreans weren’t afraid of them. On the other hand they must have been awfully big since their wings were “grasping the sky” and apparently they also had glowing feathers underneath. I have certainly seen many birds flying at sunset, but (unlike clouds) none of them glowed underneath. Odd.

Originally Posted by Landroval

I don't see any problem with that.

I do. I also wonder why the Valar would hold any cousels if the decision would be made by Eru anyway.

Originally Posted by Landroval

For less important decisions maybe?

Sure, could be. Seems like a waste of wisdom though.

Originally Posted by Landroval

I see; do you know any quote that contradicts this one?

I don’t consider only quotes, but the entire story, as I just explained. But if you want quotes pointing out Manwe’s fallibility:

For Manwe was free from evil and could not comprehend it

Manwë must be shown to have his own inherent fault (though not sin): he has become engrossed (partly out of sheer fear of Melkor, partly out of desire to control him) in amendment, healing, re-ordering — even 'keeping the status quo' — to the loss of all creative power and even to weakness in dealing with difficult and perilous situations. -Myths transformed

Both of these were posted earlier on this thread.

There are also some logical problems with the quote you gave earlier. Why couldn’t the Valar destroy Angband (without Melkor) after they destroyed Utumno (with Melkor)? If releasing Melkor was a good idea, then wasn’t capturing him in the first place a bad idea? How would Manwe be breaking his word if he heard Melkor’s plea and rejected it?

Originally Posted by Landroval

Or do you dismiss it simply because you don't like it?

Please don’t put words in my mouth, Landroval.

Originally Posted by CAB

To me there are too many inconsistences in Tolkien’s work to simply accept one quote or another. I think we have to look at the whole package.
I’m not saying that I simply disregard this kind of quote, but there has to be a balance (at least for me).

[Gordis]

I stay aside in this battle of giants. I was never smart enough to discuss the Nature of Evil. I know instinctively what is, and what isn't, but I hardly can define it.

But in almost all cases I agree with you, CAB!

[CAB]

Originally Posted by Gordis

I stay aside in this battle of giants. I was never smart enough to discuss the Nature of Evil. I know instinctively what is, and what isn't, but I hardly can define it.

Wow Gordis, that almost sounded like sarcasm. I know you didn’t mean it that way though. (2nd smiley)

I don’t feel qualified to get into a deep discussion of evil either. That is why I have (almost entirely) leaned on Wayfarer’s explanation.

For me, this isn’t the real issue though. The problem I have is with giving absolute credence to a few quotes while (apparently) disregarding (or at least undervaluing) all the opposing evidence found in Tolkien’s works. I think we have to use Tolkien quotes + story + logic to come to any real (or if real is impossible, then “reasonable”) answers.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Originally Posted by CAB

There are also some logical problems with the quote you gave earlier. Why couldn’t the Valar destroy Angband (without Melkor) after they destroyed Utumno (with Melkor)? If releasing Melkor was a good idea, then wasn’t capturing him in the first place a bad idea? How would Manwe be breaking his word if he heard Melkor’s plea and rejected it?

He wouldn't be breaking his plea, but would you want a leader or a King who made his mind up before a case had been made. Melkor may well have changed, but they could not know. They had to hear his case first and when they did they (well most) believed he had changed.

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by CAB

I fail to see how a happy, peace loving people becoming oppressors, Melkor-worshipers, and eventually being exterminated is positive. To me the only way this is possible is to have complete faith in Eru. I can’t really argue with this point of view, however this kind of faith means that everything has to be seen in a positive light.

I meant that the end of the third age was positive, the end of the story as we know it, not of Numenor.

I just don't think we're in position to claim "the Valar were wrong", as we can't see the whole picture and they probably could.. neither you nor I can truly tell the consequences of any other action that may have been taken by the Valar.

[CAB]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

He wouldn't be breaking his plea, but would you want a leader or a King who made his mind up before a case had been made. Melkor may well have changed, but they could not know. They had to hear his case first and when they did they (well most) believed he had changed.

I wouldn’t want such a leader. But the point is that in the Silmarillion it is said that Melkor’s case would be heard after three ages. In the quote that Landroval gave it is implied that Manwe promised Melkor’s release after three ages. This is just one of many inconsistences in Tolkien’s writings. Which one do we accept as true? Landroval’s quote is (I would have to guess) the more recent, so I would argue that this would be a point in its favor. However, the quote from the Silmarillion is part of a (relatively) complete story and was published as such, unlike the other quote. To me, the tie-breaker is that the Silmarillion quote makes more sense. Why would Manwe agree to release Melkor, as dangerous as he was to all Arda, just after his capture, without any proof that he had changed (or would change)? Like you said, they needed to hear his case first.

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

I meant that the end of the third age was positive, the end of the story as we know it, not of Numenor.

Yes, but do the ends justify the means? Was there no other way to defeat Sauron? Perhaps a way that didn’t involve the slaughter of (nearly) an entire nation? Why not? Sauron ended up being defeated by a couple of Hobbits. Yes, I know it was a little more complicated than that, but was all this bloodshed really necessary? I doubt it.

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

I just don't think we're in position to claim "the Valar were wrong", as we can't see the whole picture and they probably could.. neither you nor I can truly tell the consequences of any other action that may have been taken by the Valar.

I would agree and disagree. No, we can’t tell the full consequences of any action that wasn’t actually taken. But, if the Valar could then that means they willingly allowed (or even caused) great evil for the inhabitants of Arda in the name of the great design. If this fits with your view of the Valar, fine. It doesn’t fit with mine. I don’t think they would willingly cause evil or kill Eru’s children (at least not in very large numbers). If so, why didn’t they destroy the Numenoreans themselves?

I know I am not a member of the Valar, but does being a Vala excuse one from all questioning of one’s actions? There is no real explanation given for why things were allowed to progress until the Numenoreans had to be exterminated. If there was a good reason, maybe the Valar would have given it. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to give some justification for such an action (or, more accurately, inaction)? Wouldn’t it be easier for Men to learn a lesson if they knew what that lesson was?

Anyway, we can’t judge the results of actions that weren’t taken. Again, I agree. But why can’t we judge the results of actions that were taken? Some of the results were: many wars, hatred, suffering, etc. I don’t think the Valar allowed this purposely (but if you argue that they had full comprehension of the big picture, then you must think that they did). I recognize that in most cases things could have been worse than they actually ended up being. However, the destruction of Numenor (for one) is another matter. I don’t think the results could have been much worse than they were, but I don’t see why they couldn’t have been better (much better).