Evil Elves...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Landroval

If anything, corrupted beings act like automatons. Corruption means that all the options are bent, biased - the 'automaton' you were talking about.

I agree - evil is the damaging of something good, and is a loss - evil makes someone smaller than they were.

[Peter_20]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I agree - evil is the damaging of something good, and is a loss - evil makes someone smaller than they were.

Yeah, of course evil is the damaging of something good, but this evil usually is the very reason other good stuff will happen.

When Doriath and Gondolin were destroyed, this proved the solution, because Eärendil and Elwing were permitted to journey to Aman and ask the help of the Valar, which saved Middle-earth from Morgoth's dominion.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Peter_20

Yeah, of course evil is the damaging of something good, but this evil usually is the very reason other good stuff will happen.

Brilliant! Absolutely, such a great point, Peter. And plus, good is not good without evil to give it its meaning. There must be a yin and a yang. If only "good" existed, it wouldn't be "good," would it? There'd be nothing to define it as not-evil, if there were no such thing as evil. Think black/white, male/female, hot/cold. The one concept exists only because of the existence of the other.

[Landroval]

Originally Posted by Peter_20

Yeah, of course evil is the damaging of something good, but this evil usually is the very reason other good stuff will happen.

When Doriath and Gondolin were destroyed, this proved the solution, because Eärendil and Elwing were permitted to journey to Aman and ask the help of the Valar, which saved Middle-earth from Morgoth's dominion.

Although Tolkien admitted that Eru can turn all the evils of the Marrer into good, this is no reason to praise evil deeds; they remain evil in and of themselves. Commenting on Gollum's evil, he said it may work for good 'macrocosmically', but Gollum, as an individual, personifies persistence in wickedness, and is "damnable".

I believe it is also pertinent to our discussion to quote Tolkien's statement that he considers the "quick satiety with good" as the "most regrettable feature of the human nature" (letter #256).

[Peter_20]

Yeah, but turning evil into preparation for good things to happen is a very fascinating view of life.

Anyway, I just can't stop being fascinated by evil Elves.
I mean, think about it: Elves are often portraited as the beautiful, merry people that always laugh and sing and so on, like Gildor and his people from FOTR.
And then consider fell dudes like Fëanor and his sons - it's pretty hard to realize that these people are Elves - they just don't fit into how I picture the race.
Crazy people that murder and threaten their kin, commit rape etc - and they STILL keep those Elven characteristics, like beauty and immortality.

[Landroval]

but turning evil into preparation for good things to happen is a very fascinating view of life.

Yeah, but even the Divine doesn't do evil and then turns into evil; nor does He consider evil acceptable. He may allow it, but it is still 'hateful' to him.

commit rape etc - and they STILL keep those Elven characteristics, like beauty and immortality

What elf committed that?

[Peter_20]

Originally Posted by Landroval

What elf committed that?

Damn it, I used the wrong term. XD

I guess kidnapping is a better word.
Anyway, I'm talking about Curufin when he lifted Lúthien into his saddle.

I really can't explain my feelings towards such characters, but it's such a cool combination.
Curufin belongs to the beautiful Elven race, because he is an Elf, the race that so many people find wonderous fair.
But Curufin, along with Fëanor, Eöl, Maeglin and company, is a dangerous dude that you definitely won't like to meet in a forest at night.

[The Telcontarion]

Actually Peter_20, I don't think it is accurate for u to compare celegorm and curufin to feanor. I would be scared to meet the former in the woods yes, but not feanor.

Feanor was not a blood thirsty murderer, those 2 were. All that he did was for grief and desperation not for self. Even the kin slaying to take the teleri ships was not so. The only truly vindictive thing he did was to burn said ships so that the followers of fingolfin could not come with him to middle earth; he did not expect that fingolfin voronwe would steadfastly hold to course and cross the "grinding ice."

[Peter_20]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Actually Peter_20, I don't think it is accurate for u to compare celegorm and curufin to feanor. I would be scared to meet the former in the woods yes, but not feanor.

Feanor was not a blood thirsty murderer, those 2 were. All that he did was for grief and desperation not for self. Even the kin slaying to take the teleri ships was not so. The only truly vindictive thing he did was to burn said ships so that the followers of fingolfin could not come with him to middle earth; he did not expect that fingolfin voronwe would steadfastly hold to course and cross the "grinding ice."

Anyhow, Celegorm and Curufin are great examples on Elves that I find fascinating.

I mean, think about it:
those crazy bastards BELONG to the beautiful Elven race, the race that everyone finds adorable and so on.
But those brothers don't give a damn about that - "we're Elves, sure, but who cares? Let's behave violently anyway!"

Personally I always associated Elves with characters like Gildor and his people from The Lord of the Rings: the merry, sympatethic people that act nicely towards everyone.
Celegorm and Curufin are the complete opposite, but they inevitably belong to the Elven race anyway.
It's kinda cool.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Peter_20

Yeah, of course evil is the damaging of something good, but this evil usually is the very reason other good stuff will happen.

When Doriath and Gondolin were destroyed, this proved the solution, because Eärendil and Elwing were permitted to journey to Aman and ask the help of the Valar, which saved Middle-earth from Morgoth's dominion.

Kinda cold comfort for the family and friends of those killed in Doriath and Gondolin ... And Middle-earth wouldn't have had to be saved from Morgoth's dominion if Morgoth didn't do evil things.

I think there's a difficult-to-define difference between "evil is good/necessary because it stimulates good things to happen" and "evil is evil, although it's trumped by good actions in response to it". I think the second statement is true, not the first. The first one would be like, "Gee, I'm so happy that my husband and children were cruelly killed because it led to Eärendil's journey and that saved Middle-earth!" The second, which I think is the right one, would be like, "My husband and children were cruelly killed, and that is a terrible tragedy and I wish it didn't happen, yet evil eventually is always overcome by good, and in this case the evil was used to drive Eärendil to his journey, which saved Middle-earth."

It's hard to describe the difference, but do you see what I mean?

Originally Posted by Lotesse

And plus, good is not good without evil to give it its meaning. There must be a yin and a yang. If only "good" existed, it wouldn't be "good," would it? There'd be nothing to define it as not-evil, if there were no such thing as evil. Think black/white, male/female, hot/cold. The one concept exists only because of the existence of the other.

I disagree. I agree with Tolkien that good and evil are not opposites; evil is a diminishing of a good, and absolute evil cannot exist because it is a zero - existence itself is a good.

[Kevin McIntyre]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Whether orcs are Elves or Men is debatable.

Really? Orcs first appeared during the Chaining of Melkor, long before the the awakening of men. The myth is that Melkor corrupted stray elves after their awakening near the shored of Cuivienen. This of course is elvish speculation.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Anyway evil is downright sexy, sexy sexy SEXY, it is interesting, wild, willful and freakin' sexy.

Well duh... of course I am.. I mean.. it is.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I agree - evil is the damaging of something good, and is a loss - evil makes someone smaller than they were.

Evil is the exercise of free will in opposition to "the plan" or "the music". At least in Tolkien's world.

What you refer to as automatons are soulless creatures dominated by a greater evil. And even that didn't apply to orcs in the later ages.. They acquired a good bit of free will.

The Nazgul are a better example of that kind of possession.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Evil is the exercise of free will in opposition to "the plan" or "the music". At least in Tolkien's world.

That's one way to put it. My bit of post that you quoted was trying to describe the effect of that evil on the being that chooses it.

Originally Posted by Blackheart

What you refer to as automatons are soulless creatures dominated by a greater evil. And even that didn't apply to orcs in the later ages.. They acquired a good bit of free will.

I didn't refer to them as automatons - Landroval did.

Tolkien had various ideas about orcs, that's for sure.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I didn't refer to them as automatons - Landroval did.

It's not for you! Tell him that!

Aye but that is the logical conclusion if you follow the idea that evil diminishes an entity's choices.

I don't particularly agree of course. I find it to be the exact opposite. If there is an "ultimate good", then there can be only one "perfect choice", as opposed to many many more "imperfect choices"... Having more choices would tend to lead one to the conclusion that one has more freedom of action... and less like an automaton...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Aye but that is the logical conclusion if you follow the idea that evil diminishes an entity's choices.

That seems to be what Landroval was saying.

Originally Posted by Blackheart

If there is an "ultimate good", then there can be only one "perfect choice", as opposed to many many more "imperfect choices"...

I don't think there's an "ultimate good" existing as some impersonal standard, so I don't agree with your conclusion. I think that Eru (and God) are beings that are perfectly good, though, and that there are many choices that can be considered "perfect".

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't think there's an "ultimate good" existing as some impersonal standard, so I don't agree with your conclusion. I think that Eru (and God) are beings that are perfectly good, though, and that there are many choices that can be considered "perfect".

What would be the difference in an ultimate good, a perfect good, and an absolute good?

Functionally there is little difference. In Order to be perfect, something must be ultimate and absolute. That leaves out the idea of a multitude of "perfect choices".

Or I could just go bother Socrates and get him to ask you "What is good?"

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Or I could just go bother Socrates and get him to ask you "What is good?"

It's a point of view.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

What would be the difference in an ultimate good, a perfect good, and an absolute good?

I'm in a lazy mood today, and since that's totally irrelevant to what I was saying, I won't give my opinion on that, besides saying, "They're all good!" You can give your opinion if you want, though.

What I was saying was that I think there is a huge difference between a perfect standard of something, and a being who is perfect, and with the latter, there's not necessarily one perfect decision that the perfect being has to make on a given topic. Kind of like ice cream flavors - several can be "perfect" for me, and if I choose chocolate chip cookie dough over English toffee today, then that doesn't mean that English toffee is "wrong".

Functionally there is little difference. In Order to be perfect, something must be ultimate and absolute. That leaves out the idea of a multitude of "perfect choices".

Again, I disagree - I'm using "perfect" in the sense of "complete in all respects; without defect or omission; sound; flawless." (Webster's). I think you're using it in a different sense, from what I can tell. Both senses are valid. I don't think perfection in a given area is necessarily a singularity, and it looks like you have a different opinion.

Or I could just go bother Socrates and get him to ask you "What is good?"

Is he around there? I'm always up for a polite conversation, and if he's interested in my opinion, then fine

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

What I was saying was that I think there is a huge difference between a perfect standard of something, and a being who is perfect, and with the latter, there's not necessarily one perfect decision that the perfect being has to make on a given topic. Kind of like ice cream flavors - several can be "perfect" for me, and if I choose chocolate chip cookie dough over English toffee today, then that doesn't mean that English toffee is "wrong".

I think what you're trying to say is there's more than one right answer. True enough.

But I can't stretch that into there's more than one perfect answer... no matter how I try.

As for the concept of a perfect being, in what circumstances would you see this perfect being making a less than perfect answer?

You could say when it doesn't matter.. but if it doesn't matter.. it's not really a decision leading to action with consequence, which makes it difficult to conceive how such an act could be quantified as good, evil, or even of substance.... I don't think it matters to the integrity of the universe what flavor ice cream the Buddha prefers on Wednesdays...

Here's a the question from a slightly different viewpoint:

can you have a perfect evil being?