Arda Healed vs. Arda Unmarred (or Good vs. Evil)

[Curufin]

This is a concept that has fascinated me since I first read 'The Lost Tales' years and years ago.

In The Music of the Ainur in The Lost Tales (1), this quote has always fascinated me:

Thou Melko shalt see that no theme can be played save it come in the end of Iluvatar's self, nor can any alter the music in Iluvatar's despite. He that attempts this finds himself in the end but aiding me in devising a thing of still greater grandeur and more complex wonder: -- for lo! through Melko have terror as fire, and sorrow like dark waters, wrath like thunder, and evil as far from my light as the depths of the uttermost of the dark places, come into the design that I laid before you. Through him has pain and misery been made in the clash of overwhelming musics; and with confusion of sound have cruelty, and ravening, and darkness, loathly mire and all putrescence of thought or thing, foul mists and violent flame, cold without mercy, been born, and death without hope. Yet is this through him and not by him; and he shall see, and ye all likewise, and even shall those beings, who must now dwell among his evil and endure through Melko misery and sorrow, terror and wickedness, declare in the end that it redoundeth only to my great glory, and doth but make the theme more worth the hearing, Life more worth the living, and the World so much the more wonderful and marvellous, that of all the deeds of Iluvatar it shall be called his mightiest and his loveliest.

This seems to me to be saying that life will be better because of the marring. This is supported in later texts:

Further quote, from HoME X, Annals of Aman:

But at that last word of Fëanor: that at least the Noldor should do deeds to live in song for ever: he raised his head, as one that hears a voice afar off, and he said: ‘So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus, even as Eru spoke to us, shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Ëa, and evil yet be good to have been.’

And from Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth:

'This, then, I propound, was the errand of Men, not the followers, but the heirs and fulfillers of all: to heal the Marring of Arda, already foreshadowed before their devising; and to do more, as agents of the magnificence of Eru: to enlarge the Music and surpass the Vision of the World! For that Arda Healed shall not be Arda Unmarred, but a third thing and greater, and yet the same.'

And from the footnote to that part of the Athrabeth:

'For Arda Unmarred hath two aspects or sense. The first is the Unmarred that they [the Eldar] discern in the Marred. . .: this is the ground upon which Hope is built. The second is the Unmarred that shall be: that is, to speak according to Time in which they have their being, the Arda Healed, which shall be greater and more fair than the first, because of the Marring: this is the Hope that sustaineth.'

So, this seems to me to be saying that the beauty of Arda Healed (a greater beauty than Arda Unmarred would have been) is because of the Marring of Arda. An idea that having seen evil and misery, good and joy are that much more dear, perhaps?

So, my question is, re: good and evil - if Evil is good to have been, and creates greater beauty than good could have on its own (as these quotes seem to be saying) is Evil really, well...evil? Despite what Mandos replies in to Manwë's comments on my second quote ['And yet still be evil'], it seems to me that looking at it this way, Evil is not the opposite of good, but the complement of it.

Just ideas. I'd love to have comments.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

I think it is a matter of perspective. To Eru, all good is probably equally good and evil merely another theme to adapt in creating further good. To His children, however, drawing comparisons is natural and valid, and by comparison Arda Healed will indeed be "greater, and yet the same."

I don't think this makes 'evil' any less evil. I'm fully behind Mandos on that point. Evil merely provides us a point of comparison by which healing brings greater good.

[Jon S.]

This is a generalization for all religions but it seems to me to be a priori that if you accept that

-1- there is a single Creator (i.e., one God, as opposed to a pantheon) and

-2-deem the Creator to be the source of everything - i.e., all good and evil *and

-3- wish to preserve a conception of this Creator as being Itself "good" then

you really only have two choices: either

-a- evil is necessary (which is different from calling it good), or

-b- the Creator cannot be omnipetent (e.g., you could view the Creator as: having had no choice in Its decision to create evil; having had a choice in the creating decision but being thereafter powerless to Personally address the consequences of its creation; etc.).

This is a very thorny theological issue, perhaps The Most Difficult Issue of All. Some religions deal with the difficulties by setting up either a co-equal second diety (e.g., Zoroasterism) or a fallen angel/devil (e.g., Satan; Melkor) to assume the responsible for the evil in the world. I can understand how this approach could be comforting to and supportive of folks struggling with continuing to view God as good even in the face of the reality of how much evil exists in the the world. (Personally, though, I come from a tradition that views it preferable, all things considered, to continue to always treat God as the single direct source of all evil as well as good and deal with the consequences that position entails.)

If, on the other hand, you find the position that evil exists because God is less than omnipetent and therefore lacks the power to singlehandedly eliminate it from the universe, the popular best-seller, "When Bad Things Happen to Good People" by Harold S. Kushner is an example of a description/defense of it.

There is a famous Star Trek episode where Kirk is split into two different selves, one totally good, the other totally evil. The result is he can no longer function effectively in either capacity.

This parallels an interesting Talmudic discussion of the very same issue where it is concluded that the person with the capacity to do the greatest good is not he or she who is perfectly good to begin with, but rather the man or woman with a significant capacity to do evil but who is able to control the impulse and redirect it to doing good.

Myself, I really do find this quote fascinating:

"'This, then, I propound, was the errand of Men, not the followers, but the heirs and fulfillers of all: to heal the Marring of Arda, already foreshadowed before their devising; and to do more, as agents of the magnificence of Eru: to enlarge the Music and surpass the Vision of the World! For that Arda Healed shall not be Arda Unmarred, but a third thing and greater, and yet the same.' "

In Hebrew, healing the marring of Arda (or earth)" is called tikkun olam and that phrase is recognized to be exactly as Tolkien describes it: humanity's #1 primary mission in the world. Sans evil, this mission would not exist nor would free will, so I would say that while evil remains evil to be opposed and its consequences ones to be healed, without it, we simply would not be human.

Great post, Curufin (you have used ME here as your stepping stone to elucidate the deepest issues a person can face in this world).

[Curufin]

Glad you like my thread, Jon S..

-1- there is a single Creator (i.e., one God, as opposed to a pantheon) and

-2-deem the Creator to be the source of everything - i.e., all good and evil *and

-3- wish to preserve a conception of this Creator as being Itself "good" then

you really only have two choices: either

-a- evil is necessary (which is different from calling it good), or

-b- the Creator cannot be omnipetent (e.g., you could view the Creator as: having had no choice in Its decision to create evil; having had a choice in the creating decision but being thereafter powerless to Personally address the consequences of its creation; etc.).

Yes.

We discussed this very concept in my philosophy class - how a 'creator' cannot logically be both omnipotent AND benevlolent at the same time. If a creator is omnipotent, then he has created evil and hardship and suffering - which isn't benevolent. And if he hasn't created evil and hardship and suffering, well, he isn't omnipotent.

Now I'm not a Christian, but I do spend a good deal of time on philosophical and moral ideas, and I greatly enjoy discussions of morality (yes, you can be moral without being Christian, or even religious, for that matter ). I think that there is a third possiblility, beyond Evil being necessary or having a less-than-omnipotent creator. I think that it is possible that Evil isn't 'evil.' That word has always bothered me - I think it's rather meaningless, and used to tack on to things for emotional emphasis. What is Evil? What does it mean? What are examples of it?

–adjective
1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2. harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.
–noun
6. that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct: to choose the lesser of two evils.
7. the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.
8. the wicked or immoral part of someone or something: The evil in his nature has destroyed the good.
9. harm; mischief; misfortune: to wish one evil.
10. anything causing injury or harm: Tobacco is considered by some to be an evil.
11. a harmful aspect, effect, or consequence: the evils of alcohol.
12. a disease, as king's evil.
–adverb
13. in an evil manner; badly; ill: It went evil with him.
—Idiom
14. the evil one, the devil; Satan.

Now, that's a lot of definitions, but one thing I notice is that they're all subjective. What is 'immoral'? I'm sure it's different (at least in nuance) to everyone. What is 'wicked'? I'm sure it's the same.

Now, if evil is subjective, then it's possible that to Eru, what the Valar and the EruhÃ*ni see as 'evil' or 'wicked' is not evil to Eru, who sees everything and knows everything.

Like giving a child a vaccination to save them from a horrible disease, sometimes a little pain is necessary for a greater good...

Just throwing out more ideas.

[Jon S.]

If evil is truly subjective, then there's no more difference between uplifting the downtrodden and gassing children in concentration camps than between vanilla and chocolate. Here's a quote from a recent ynet opinion piece that speaks to this point:

The god of the bible is a god of moral distinctions and judgment. It was in this regard that Dostoyevsky wrote, "without God all is permitted". He means to say that if there is only the finite, the natural and physical; if there is no sense of the infinite, the supernatural and the metaphysical; that is to say if there is no God, then right and wrong are in the end simply a matter of personal preference.

It was in light of this understanding that the great philosopher George Bertrand Russel said, “the only problem with my atheism is that I cannot believe that the only thing wrong with mass murder is that I do not like it".

In the case of Eru, though he didn't provide a formal, written moral code or set of commandments that we know of, he did say essentially to be good and heal rather than destroy. And he did criticize Melkor and set him in his place when Melkor acted evily (which you can call a mere label but we have to call what he did something). So in that sense, I do see an objective sense of good emanating from Eru that is more than just semantics.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Originally Posted by Jon S.

This is a generalization for all religions but it seems to me to be a priori that if you accept that

-1- there is a single Creator (i.e., one God, as opposed to a pantheon) and

-2-deem the Creator to be the source of everything - i.e., all good and evil *and

-3- wish to preserve a conception of this Creator as being Itself "good" then

you really only have two choices: either

-a- evil is necessary (which is different from calling it good), or

-b- the Creator cannot be omnipetent (e.g., you could view the Creator as: having had no choice in Its decision to create evil; having had a choice in the creating decision but being thereafter powerless to Personally address the consequences of its creation; etc.).

I'm not convinced of -b- above. Why, rather than being powerless, could the Creator not just be patient on a scale that we can hardly comprehend? Why not believe that the Creator IS addressing the consequences of evil in His own way and time? I think that's part of what Tolkien is saying.

As for real-world philosophy, I'm interested but quite amateur. I'm looking forward to the unfolding of this thread. You both seem to be well-versed and I've already learned some things in just a few posts. Keep it going.

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts

Why not believe that the Creator IS addressing the consequences of evil in His own way and time?

Is that your best explanation to the woman who is raped, beaten, and left for half dead, or the parents whose child is murdered senselessly, or the family whose home and livelihood are demolished by terrorists why they should chill as God is addressing evil in His own way and time? If yes, sure, we can say that.

EDIT: I don't mean to denigrate your explanation - it is shared by many, wise and otherwise - only to emphasize the remaining moral issue.

[The Gaffer]

I think this is one point at which Tolkien's world diverges, or rather, portrays things in an idealised way. Good and Evil are portrayed as being pretty dichotomous and objective throughout. Though of course the most interesting characters are the ones that straddle the divide (Feanor, Turin, Gildor ), or those who do evil deeds in the name of what is "good".

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Originally Posted by Jon S.

Is that your best explanation to the woman who is raped, beaten, and left for half dead, or the parents whose child is murdered senselessly, or the family whose home and livelihood are demolished by terrorists why they should chill as God is addressing evil in His own way and time? If yes, sure, we can say that.

EDIT: I don't mean to denigrate your explanation - it is shared by many, wise and otherwise - only to emphasize the remaining moral issue.

Can you expand on "the remaining moral issue?" I think I know what you mean but if I answer based on my interpretation and it isn't based on what you actually meant then the typical Internet semantic argument is likely to ensue and we drift off topic and then we're debating what "issue" or "the" means instead of what we're here in this thread for.

Anyway, what is the remaining moral issue you speak of?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Just wanted to point out that this is very much the idea of the felix culpa, dating back to Christian antiquity, and very much a part of the Catholic tradition to which Tolkien belonged.

[Curufin]

Would you mind explaining that idea to those of us who aren't Catholic? Thanks.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

From Wikipedia:

Felix culpa is a Latin phrase that literally translated means a "blessed fault" or "fortunate fall". As a religious term it refers to Adam and Eve's fall and the loss of the Garden of Eden, known theologically as the source of original sin. The phrase is sung annually in the Exsultet of the Easter Vigil: "O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem," "O happy fault that merited such and so great a Redeemer." The medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas [1] cited this line when he explained how the principle that "God allows evils to happen in order to bring a greater good therefrom" underlies the causal relationship between original sin and the Divine Redeemer's Incarnation.

The phrase "Oh happy fault!" is used in colloquial English, especially among intellectuals.

In a literary context, the term "felix culpa" can be used to describe how a series of miserable events will eventually lead to a happier outcome. The theological concept is one of the underlying themes of Raphael Carter's science fiction novel The Fortunate Fall; the novel's title is explicitly derived from the Latin phrase. John Milton also invokes ideas of felix culpa in his epic poem Paradise Lost.

This is pretty much where Tolkien is coming from, too, apparently.

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts

Can you expand on "the remaining moral issue?" I think I know what you mean ...

I agree that you do (no need to rehash).

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

--

[Jon S.]

Oh, OK, I'll rehash!

This is the moral issue:

If instead of telling someone in need that you have the power to help, "Sorry, I'm never helping you," you say instead, "Don't worry, I'll help you eventually but not now, while I could save you now, your continued suffering is necessary for my 'master plan,' " the issue of whether you have turned your back on suffering may be ameliorated somewhat but it remains an issue - and even more so when you yourself are, at a minimum, the creator of the causes of the suffering.

(The only reason I didn't type this in my first reply is I thought, from your response, that you were already aware that this is what I was thinking.)