Login | Register
 
Message Board | Latest Posts | Your Recent Posts | Rules

Thread: Melkor,Illuvatar

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Silmarillion > Melkor,Illuvatar   [1] [2] >>
Raptor began this post with the following thread.

Quote:
Here's a piece of 'raptorish' philosophy.
If all the Ainur were part of Illuvatar,beings made of his nature-that means that evil was also in his nature,cause Melkor is one of the Ainur;and one of the mightiest,too.So that means that a seed of evil,maybe even a large one,was in Eru,too,wasn't there?

What's your opinion?


Peredhil replied

Wow, what a great thought! Cool Smilie Let me check my trusty Sil...

OK, in The Beginning of Days, it states that 'They were the offspring of his thought,' which supports your theory. However, just after that, it says, 'Melkor went often alone into the void... bring alone he developed thoughts differing from those of his brethren. (I've forgotten the exact wording, over the last minute. D*mn my short memory.) This suggests that Melkor's evil developed from solitude, when he had the time to form his own ideas. There was always going to be disagreement between the Valar and Illuvatar, and within the Valar themslves. This difference of opinion was amplified within Melkor by his sojourns in the void, and gradually began to manifest itself as evil, as with his share of power, Melkor also naturally got a larger share of personal desire than the other Valar.

That is not to say, however, that your theory is wrong.

lol....something I often wondered myself...here we see that the idle mind is the devil's workshop...I believe something else though, raptor and that is every mind has the ability to achieve evil, it is just the thoughts that perverts it. Take a sheet for example, it is white, signifying pure. If nothing perverts it, it remains clean and pure, and thus without evil. Therefore, when Eru created the Ainur their minds are like sheets of paper, pure and clean. And he taught them, keeping their minds and hearts pure. Also, as it is known knowledge without guidance is dangerous. And that is exactly what happened to Melkor. He learn without guidance and therefore perceived wrong things from his experiences, and therefore his soul started becoming contaminated. Therefore Eru is pure, but Melkor is not. Hope you understand.
Nice explaination Madwannabe, although I think Raptor was on the right lines too. All the Ainur were aspects of Eru's mind, including Melkor. Most of us have dark thoughts from time to time, and the likes of Melkor, Sauron etc, would have been manifestations of those sort of thoughts within Eru.

Both Melkor and Sauron (and Saruman too) lusted to be worshipped, to be the King of Men etc. In them this aspect is seen as terrifying, but it is just an aspect taken from their creator who really was the King of Men, Eru.

The reason Melkor wandered alone in the Void was because he was searching for the Flame Imperishable with which he could create life. Only Eru could create sentient life (forget birds and beasts etc), but this urge within Melkor was obviously an aspect he had inherited from Eru.

Eru was greatly upset with many of the deeds committed by Melkor. These acts were not things he had intended to happen, but I sometimes wonder if his sadness was similar to the guilt some people have after they have committed an impulsive, nasty act they would rather not have committed. Eru is seen as being holy, but maybe he did have a small dark side (like most people), which manifested itself in some of his creations.
I had a great theory in this subject....damn my memory! I should“ve started this topic so that I got that great theory out in public but now it is lost......Well I can give you a lousy theory instead......The Ainur were given parts from Eru“s personality and thoughts right? Melkor and Sauron were gifted with a piece of all the personalities, thus making them more powerful than the rest.....If you have great power and realise this then you often get thoughts of tyranni and domination. And as we all know, Melkor seeked the Flame Imperishable(which only excisted in Eru himself alone) and wanted to create things himself....He realised that he wasn“t gonna get it his way, so he turned to the path of immaturity:P and seeked to destroy the other Valars creations.....well I have to go now but I will go deeper into this later!


P.S. Genma Onimusha is a great japanese samuraj game on X-box and PS2.... I suggest y“all check it out!
I get your points,but here's something based on all your theories:
Peredhil:
Quote:
This suggests that Melkor's evil developed from solitude, when he had the time to form his own ideas.
But his evil grew during the music of the Ainur,before he would leave his bretheren to seek the solitude of the Void.
MadWannabe:
Quote:
Take a sheet for example, it is white, signifying pure. If nothing perverts it, it remains clean and pure, and thus without evil.
What was the thing that perverted Melkor,then;cause nothing impure was at the beggining but himself?
Val and Aule
Quote:
The reason Melkor wandered alone in the Void was because he was searching for the Flame Imperishable with which he could create life. Only Eru could create sentient life (forget birds and beasts etc), but this urge within Melkor was obviously an aspect he had inherited from Eru.

Quote:
And as we all know, Melkor seeked the Flame Imperishable(which only excisted in Eru himself alone) and wanted to create things himself....

So what you say is that desire of creation is a sin,in this case?Melkor was the only one of the Ainur who had thoughts of something of his own,of CREATION-the others just followed Eru's plan.And if Melkor was part of Eru,and being the only one to conceive something of his own,what does that make him?Is he not the CREATOR part of Illuvatar then?
Quote:
So what you say is that desire of creation is a sin,in this case?Melkor was the only one of the Ainur who had thoughts of something of his own,of CREATION-the others just followed Eru's plan.And if Melkor was part of Eru,and being the only one to conceive something of his own,what does that make him?Is he not the CREATOR part of Illuvatar then?
I'm not suggesting that creation is a sin, except that as only Eru was capable of it, any other attempts would be flawed (as with Aule's Dwarves before Eru gave them true life). I was using the fact the Melkor had an urge to create as an argument in the case that he was an aspect of Eru's thought. And yes, Raptor, I would say that Eru's CREATOR side was trying to manifest itself in Melkor (and Aule).
I have enjoyed reading the posts here, Mad your comparison of the sheet was very interesting. Aule, I'm not sure I understand what you mean, could you tell us more? And Raptor your questions on all these theories are very observant, can't wait to see what the answers are.
I think that if Eru, being God, is represented as something higher and above faults and virtues. The Ainur, I think, were created to exemplify different aspects of the world and of humans, though not nessacarily Eru. I do not think Creation is a sin, but I think that Melkor (and Saruman too and Aule, though on a lesser degree) serves to show that if you let creation become dominion and seek to know things above you, you will be punished.
I like what you said Uruk Slayer and Val. I do not think however that evil and good just play off eachother, that would be to say: evil is the absence of good, and good is the absence of evil. That is too simplistic I think. Evil is something more than that because I think you can be evil and good at the same time, you can have evil feelings in you and still be good or vice versa. And Aule, you're absolutly right, everyone has different morals so it's going to be hard to tell what it is 'morally right'.
I don't like the whole idea of the Fall, the Fall of Satan or the fall of anyone. I do not think that Melkor fell, I think rather that he was different in his desire for power and power soon led to evil. It was a cyclical transformation, not a climatical fall.
Well I have actually no freaking idea of what my point was going to be.....DARNED ENGLISH CLASS!!!


Quote:
I'm not suggesting that creation is a sin, except that as only Eru was capable of it, any other attempts would be flawed (as with Aule's Dwarves before Eru gave them true life).


Hey Val I didn“t see anything wrong with my Khazads!!!
:P hahahhahahaha no just a joke Val I get your point but Sam I do not think that I should deserve any punishment as Melkor and Saruman.....They created to dominate and rule over.....I created to share my knowledge....I had NO BAD INTENTIONS WHATSOEVER!!!

[Edited on 24/4/2003 by Grondmaster]
Quote:
I do not think that I should deserve any punishment as Melkor and Saruman.....They created to dominate and rule over.....I created to share my knowledge....I had NO BAD INTENTIONS WHATSOEVER!!!
That is why Eru forgave you and breathed life into your creations, that until then could only move when you willed them to do so because they did not contain the Flame Imperishable.

Aule tried to creat life out of love and the wish to teach. Good motives. In trying to do this, however, he was also showing a degree of naivety which I believe he also inherited from Eru. Naivety is an aspect you would not expect to find in something as powerful and knowledgable as Eru, but personally I think he was. It was said that Manwe was the Valar who most closely resembled the nature of Eru, but he was so naive, he could not even comprehend evil.
That is so true Val......on everything you said....it sounded so good....Orc With Thumbs Up Smilie
I am not suggesting that you should be punished Aule. I just think that a small piece of creative nature was put into Aule. This caused him to create dwarves against the will of Eru. But he did not have bad motives, so Eru did not punish him.
I agree with you about naivety Val. Very well put.
In my opinion, Melkor should be compared to Lucifer : in the beginning Lucifer was a noble, good archangel but because he wanted power for himself he revolted against God and 'fell' / got excluded from heaven == and so he became Satan / evil.

Compare with Melkor : he was good in the beginning but because he sought power for himself he played tricks on the Song of Ainur; because of his will for total domination of everything he became 'evil', he became Morgoth although he was first called like that by Feanor a bit later on.
Well Sam I believe(I hope I am not wrong again) that it says in the Sil that Aulė was blessed with the creative part of Eru....yeah that“s right....He got the creative part of Eru“s personality....Aulė=Invention.....but I am very curious about what substance Fėanor used to create the sils!
Umm,we're getting off the subject here...So we've settled that the wish for creation was in Melkor,but you haven't answered the other questions!Was EVIL part of Eru or was it not?
I believe that it is not.....I mean....I do not think that Eru is evil because he is all powerful but he isn“t like dominating these creatures he created.....Like Melkor wanted to!
I think I have a small piece of the root of what should be an explanation....Without evil,there can be no good,and viceversa.Without knowing evil you cannot feel happiness.
Plus,I think good and evil were equivalent in Eru's nature,but they were lesser entities compared to CREATION.CREATION was the nature of Eru(and part of Melkor,too,yet not his full nature),while good and evil were the seeds that gave life.The Ainur were the many thoughts and plans of CREATION,the different ways it would come alive-and among them there came Melkor.Why was he so strong?Because he alone had to be equal to the rest of the Valar;through his deeds he united them between themselves and with the children of Illuvatar(for,beyond treason and wars and kinslaying the elves and men on one side and the Valar on the other never fully gave up on each others).
I think that as the Ainur are together a sum of Eru's thoughts, then yes, evil is a part of Eru. By this I am not suggesting for one moment that Eru is evil, because he most certainly isn't, but a small part of his personality does contain what we term evil.

I think to better understand this, we should actually ask what evil is? In my view it is the intention to do something wicked or harmful, or morally bad. Most people from time to time have urges to be such, but we have consciences to counter these urges. Often hardened criminals are described as having no conscience or remorse. Without these, they commit what we see as being evil acts.

Now Eru has a great conscience, Nienna being a manifestation of such, with which he can easily shrug off whatever other urges are compelling him to do, but should he create beings from aspects of his personality, there are going to be some that contain no conscience or honour or joy. These individuals are going to have no morals to control their other emotions.

So to answer the question... The building bricks of evil were within Eru, but perhaps not as something we would immediately recognise as evil. Take away all of somebody's good qualities, however, and you will be left with only bad ones.
First of....Val you said about doing something morally wrong....but what is morally right anyway! I mean people may have different morals and thus making it hard to recognize evil....if the term evil can be used! And Melkor did get a piece of Eru“s every personality! so I do not really see what your point is!
Maybe it's just me, but i think there's more to it than a straight comparison to the Judeo-Christian view of a fallen angel. Lucifer wanted dominion and went directly against God in his efforts. Melkor played within the rules of the Music and thus gave birth to the ideas that were within his mind. Think of it as Satan being a cause and effect senario whereas Melkor was more like a development into evil. But again, that's just me. Cool Smilie
Melkor also went directly against Eru while the Music of the Ainur was played : he totally disrupted the Music and as such he showed Eru he wanted total dominion.
After Eru showed Melkor his place, Melkor felt ashamed and it was in fact this shame that turned into hate later on.
Well he didn't 'fall' in the way that God/Eru kicked him out of heaven or excluded him but he indeed did fall because he couldn't change forms anymore after the Ungoliant-business - he had to remain in his 'evil King' /Satan look. That's what i meant.
I see Virumor. So his fall was like he was changed and could not change back again? In that case, I much agree.
But Virumor you got to be honest now! You do think it is cool his horrifying body which is illustrated on Morgoths Ring!Big Smile Smilie
I don't know what you are talking about Aule. Explanation needed !
I meant that I think that he looks extremely cool in that black armour and holding the black sword like that.... you can easily see that he is pure evil!Tongue Smilie
Yeah, but that is the John Howe-interpretation. He looks cooler in the Ted Nasmith-paintings.
Don“t think I have seen Ted Nasmith“s interpretation....but John Howe is a great artist....no doubt about that....that goes for Alan Lee too!
But Ted Nasmith“s has not been seen by my eyes!Tongue Smilie
Quote:
But Ted Nasmith“s has not been seen by my eyes!
There are eleven of his pictures in our *Art Gallery*. Click on Artists and then Ted Nasmith and then on one of the eleven thumbnail sketches found on the two album pages, for an enlarged view. You can click on the resulting picture for an even more enlarged view. (This function is also especially handy when viewing our many maps because each click usually brings out more detail.) Cool Elf Smilie
Thanks Grondy but it“s ok! Virumor showed me yesterday! A very good artist indeed!
Also Aule, the paintings i showed you aren't included in the list here on the site.
Ok!
Well you have to check out John Howe“s version of Melkor and Ungoliant when he“s about to give her her reward....SHE IS HUGE!!!
Elen sila lumenn omentielvo!

Hey, I'm new! Extremely interesting topic, but I'm afraid the matter is not that simple to fully be understand by us! Eru-Iluvatar (much closer to the God I imagined than all the religions could ever get) is not on the same level with the Ainur; remember, they are the offspring of his thoughts! So, I'm saying that Iluvatar cannot be part of the discussion as long as, in my opinion, the concept of good and evil appears only from the Ainur level down to smallest and most insignificant creature of Middle-earth. You see, Eru is out of question!
As for Melkor, I have an interesting theory about him (a theory that, by the way, ca be applied also to Feanor): the theory of genius. Melkor is, from the beginning, the greatest of the Ainur; he has, beside his own gifts, a part of the others'. He is superior to them. He can't fit in, cause it would mean giving up the thing that makes him special, setting him aside from the other Valar. Then, the Themes proposed by Iluvatar ask him to do just that: live and work in harmony with them. Let me ask you this: if you know you're above the rest, how eager would you be to give up your superiority?

P.S.: In the end, tell me, please: is good just an interpretation of evil or is it the other way around?

Namarie!
I think that Melkor and co all were different aspects of eru. Don't forget it wasn't until 2000 years ago that the idea that gods were infalible appeared. Before that the were much more realistic with real personalities. The Eru was a neutral deity and as such melkor and co were developed to balance the valar and co. You also find completely neutral creatures like Tom Bombadil. The Eru wanted the music to play out with variances otherwise it would be the same and boring. The negative fights with the positive for mastery and one the whole they balance each other, as in nature. Tolkien using celtic and norse mythology used the concepts in these religions that are very simular to this. Melkor wasn't evil just as Manwe wasn't good they just were being them selves!
Hear ye! Hear ye! That“s was a good argument RossWink Smilie But what IS good and evil? Think about thatWink Smilie
Good and evil are relative. To the good guys or the guys who are considered good, like dwarves, Orcs are evil.

But to Orcs, their own kind is good and the dwarves are evil. So in the end, only the ones who will win the wars which started when Arda was created and will write their own version of history are the good ones, their beaten adversaries will be the evil ones.

Looks like only PJ and not JRRT uses a light side and a dark side of the farce.

vae victis
This is what I meant by
Quote:
Melkor wasn't evil just as Manwe wasn't good they just were being them selves!
Quote:
This is what I meant by
Quote:
Melkor wasn't evil just as Manwe wasn't good they just were being them selves!
That may jolly well be; however, Melkor and his lot, lost the war so we good guys got to write the history books as well as provide examples of what is morally right and morally repulsive.

Quote:
He who wins the war, edits history!
and
Quote:
He who has the gold, rules!
True true.....that is true Virumor......

And Ross now I understood what you were going for.....Wink Smilie
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He who wins the war, edits history!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He who has the gold, rules!
True but, he who rruns away, lives to stab you from behind Wink Smilie

As I said on a thread yesterday there are always three sides to an arguement, your side, their side and reality.
Quote:
As I said on a thread yesterday there are always three sides to an arguement, your side, their side and reality.


Since, we are now focusing on subjectivity, what is the difference between your side, their side and reality? Reality can be subjective. Reality is based on how and what we percieved in the world and what we simplilfy from it so that we can understand it easily. I mean have it occured to you that what you are eating may be once alive? It is not wrong to us because we eat to live, to the animal it is wrong as they too, wanna live. And what does reality say to you? Whatever side you have taken. Reality are different in everybody's mind and you can't say what one says isn't real as it always will be as it is simply a person interpretation of a situation. And it doesn't matter what the other side is because to you, your side is the reality and only your side is their side, as if their side is not the same as yours, you would not think it is true as he is not appealing to your sense of reality.
Reality is the truth of the matter viewed by nothing other than nature it self. If an apple falls from a true and thre isn't even a fly arround to see it does it still fall to the ground? Of course it does. Reality is nothing more than what has or will happen.
Quote:
Reality is the truth of the matter viewed by nothing other than nature it self. If an apple falls from a true and thre isn't even a fly arround to see it does it still fall to the ground? Of course it does. Reality is nothing more than what has or will happen.
But you have no proof that the apple fell. Knowledge is certainty, and if no one saw it, then no one can be certain that it fell. Therefore it may or may not have fallen.
Quote:
Since, we are now focusing on subjectivity, what is the difference between your side, their side and reality? Reality can be subjective. Reality is based on how and what we percieved in the world and what we simplilfy from it so that we can understand it easily. I mean have it occured to you that what you are eating may be once alive? It is not wrong to us because we eat to live, to the animal it is wrong as they too, wanna live. And what does reality say to you? Whatever side you have taken. Reality are different in everybody's mind and you can't say what one says isn't real as it always will be as it is simply a person interpretation of a situation. And it doesn't matter what the other side is because to you, your side is the reality and only your side is their side, as if their side is not the same as yours, you would not think it is true as he is not appealing to your sense of reality.
If the subjective reality you describe is different for everyone, and is comprised of each individual person's perceptions, then surely it cannot truly be reality.
are we alittle bit of topic now or what?Tongue Smilie
Quote:
are we alittle bit of topic now or what?

Well you could say that.... Wink Smilie

Anyways, Peredhil, your earlier statement:" But you have no proof that the apple fell. Knowledge is certainty, and if no one saw it, then no one can be certain that it fell. Therefore it may or may not have fallen. "
Isn't it in itself a reality that comprised of each individual's perception? I mean, how can you be sure that your knowledge is true? Couldn't you have been decieved? If then, is what you believe in true? I mean lets presume an interaction between a child and a magician. To the child, the magician is really capable of feats of magic whereas, to the magician it may just be another cheap juggler's trick? I mean how real is your reality? Throughout history, we have believed in things that were proven wrong in the future. Who are we to say that our reality is the only true and real one?
Ah but the apple will be on the floor if someone walks past, now it didn't grow on the floor. It didn't magically appear, of course it may have been put there but logic dictates that as it is under the apple tree it fell.
Quote:
Anyways, Peredhil, your earlier statement:" But you have no proof that the apple fell. Knowledge is certainty, and if no one saw it, then no one can be certain that it fell. Therefore it may or may not have fallen. "
Isn't it in itself a reality that comprised of each individual's perception? I mean, how can you be sure that your knowledge is true? Couldn't you have been decieved? If then, is what you believe in true? I mean lets presume an interaction between a child and a magician. To the child, the magician is really capable of feats of magic whereas, to the magician it may just be another cheap juggler's trick? I mean how real is your reality? Throughout history, we have believed in things that were proven wrong in the future. Who are we to say that our reality is the only true and real one?
I never said that the world I perceive is any more real than yours. I do believe that knowledge is true, it all depends upon the definition of knowledge. Knowledge is certainty. The only thing that one can logically be certain of is the existence of one's own mind (cogito ergo sum).
Quote:
Ah but the apple will be on the floor if someone walks past, now it didn't grow on the floor. It didn't magically appear, of course it may have been put there but logic dictates that as it is under the apple tree it fell.
There is, however, no proof that the apple didn't just disappear and the rematerialise on the ground.
yes but there's no proff it did and Occam's razor say's that the most logical is most likely to be the truth!
I agree that the teleporting apple is unlikely. You still cannot be sure though. That is my argument.
reality is relative. what we see, is only a very small part of the electromagnetic spectrum between 350 and 750 nanometres what we call visible light.

and our eyes mess with that too coz everything what we see is turned up side down in our brain. we would have a different reality if we were able to see for instance cosmic radiation or something, whatever.

horses for instance experience a different reality becoz they look different, same with dogs and whatever. maybe only chimpansees are able to percieve as us, humans.

the reality is just that we don't know anything.
  [1] [2] >>