# Did Illuvatar create evil?



## BalrogRingDestroyer (Sep 1, 2018)

I recall him making some comment that even everything Melkor did in that song had its source in him. If so, does that mean that actually Eru is responsible for all of the bad as well as the good in Middle Earth?

Or did he merely let Melkor have his own way but override him in such a way that evil would never conquer? In short, letting everyone, from Melkor on down, have their own free will? Or was everyone, including Melkor, predestined by Eru to salvation or damnation from the beginning?


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Sep 1, 2018)

There are a number of old threads about this. One has recently been revived:

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/inde...-a-feanor-or-finrod-person.11497/#post-517864


----------



## Gilgaearel (Oct 1, 2018)

Eru was a god. So he created everything including evil for countervailing -obviously- reasons!


----------



## Alcuin (Oct 2, 2018)

This is the old philosophers’ chestnut known as The Problem of Evil set forth 23 centuries ago by the Greek philosopher Epicurus, who used it to declare that pleasure in earthly life is the only purpose of earthly life, a philosophy known as _hedonism_ which has been popular with a great many people ever since until it has at last become the most widely-accepted philosophy on earth. 

Epicurus put his argument this way:
If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god exists, then evil does not.
There is evil in the world.
Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god does not exist.
The argument is sound and irrefutable _*if and only if*_ the _premise_, the first statement, is completely true. 

My philosophy professor forty years ago used the Problem of Evil as a hammer to beat all his students into atheists, and quite successfully: his anvil was his grading system, and if you did not agree, he hammered you on that anvil, for he accepted no arguments to the contrary. 

The premise is faulty, of course: Epicurus constructed his argument with the outcome he desired embedded into his premise by cleverly disguising a false conjunction as a material conditional. His Problem of Evil is not an argument, but a tautology. Epicurus conjoined his outcome to his basis, so that if you accept his wobbly start, you can only arrive at his wobbly end. 

The Problem of Evil is one of the primary, over-arching themes in all of Tolkien’s work. Eru did not create evil. The Ainur, the creatures Eru creates before all others in Ainulindalë, have free will: they can choose to reject Eru’s designs: Melkor, the greatest of His creatures, makes precisely this choice. That leads to all the problems, difficulties, tragedies, misery, and unhappiness in Tolkien’s mythos, and those effects, in Tolkien’s world, are described as “evil”. Whether there is a parallel to our own world is something you must decide – you must choose to believe or reject – for yourself.

Unless, of course, Free Will is an illusion. Depending upon the philosopher’s approach, he will address first the Problem of Evil and then attack Free Will, or vice versa. You cannot be a proper Materialist without rejecting both the idea that you possess Free Will and the idea that there is a First Cause; and if you do not graduate a Materialist, your Education is a failure. And your grades will reflect it.


----------



## Miguel (Oct 2, 2018)

Yes.


----------



## Gilgaearel (Oct 2, 2018)

Alcuin said:


> This is the old philosophers’ chestnut known as The Problem of Evil set forth 23 centuries ago by the Greek philosopher Epicurus, who used it to declare that pleasure in earthly life is the only purpose of earthly life, a philosophy known as _hedonism_ which has been popular with a great many people ever since until it has at last become the most widely-accepted philosophy on earth.
> 
> Epicurus put his argument this way:
> 
> ...



Way to many "ifs". Epicurus and your teacher were both wrong. 
Evil is the opposite of good and not the opposite of god.
God now is the synonym of "olon" ( in Greek). The "whole"; that which includes everything, including evil too.

God in fact is not the creator as it is supposed to be. It is the creation as a whole itself.


----------



## Kinofnerdanel (Oct 3, 2018)

If I understand you correctly, Girgaearel, you argue that God equals everything, good and evil included, thus Melkor is just an aspect of his evil side. It couldn't be him that is to blame for Arda Marred. The corruption of the world stems from Eru himself. And how exactly do I have free will if either I accept the designs of Eru or I have the choice to reject them, but that eventually makes me evil? That translates like "you are free to do the bad thing". The loophole might be that it isn't God who decides what good or evil is, since these two terms translate easily to harmony and disharmony. It is even more picturesque in the Valaquenta, where the entire world sprang from the harmony of the choir! And as Tolstoy wrote it: *„*All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.*” *Harmony exists in one perfect form, whereas the forms of disharmony are infinite.

During my classes on the mythology of Tolkien, our teacher stressed that in the beginning there was Eru _and_ the Void, chaos if you wish, and Illúvatar brought order by creating the possibility of existence (Eä!) within the Void. Then he let the different aspects of his self shape, order the newborn world. Those aspects, the Ainur originated from him, but he had given them the Flame Imperishable - free will. In this regard Melkor was only evil because he imbalanced the harmony of the choir by overusing his own themes.

The question still remains: where did his self-important, hubristic tendencies originate from?



> He had gone often alone into the void places seeking the Imperishable Flame; for desire grew hot within him to bring into Being things of his own, and it seemed to him that Ilúvatar took no thought for the Void, and he was impatient of its emptiness. Yet he found not the Fire, for it is with Ilúvatar. But being alone he had begun to conceive thoughts of his own unlike those of his brethren.



He desired the Flame Imperishable which might seem blasphemous, but Aulë also sought to create sentient and sapient beings on his own, save he was humble enough to be ready to destroy them upon realizing his mistake. So the desire for the Flame in itself might not be an evil, blasphemous trait at all. Maybe it was the Void, the proximity of chaos which befouled Melkor. We know that the main purpose of the Ainur was to participate in the Music for the delight of Eru - to create for the seek and beauty of creation! It seems natural to me that Melkor, mightiest among them had the greatest and most vehement desire to bring order to chaos (he was impatient of the emptiness of the Void)! But that brought him far too close to chaos - by his own free will.

And as Nietzsche said, *„*Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.*”* And why didn't Eru the omnipotent destroy it, purified this marred world? But we can almost exclusively see beauty, meaning, value unfolding from suffering, hubris and sadness in the works of Tolkien! And I am pretty sure we can all attribute the corrupted side of Melkor to all the wonderful parts of humanity - our empathy and kindness towards others emerging from our own pain, marvellous works of art created by tormented minds, or fantastical inventions, discoveries and technological development arisen from selfish curiosity.
Eru is omnipotent because he can weave corruption into the harmony of the choir and create new, althought costlier, but ultimately greater beauty.


----------



## Gilgaearel (Oct 3, 2018)

Tolkien personified his god for story telling purposes and according to his faith ( he was a Catholic). What the/any author writes is related to his cultural background after all. 
But in a broader philosophical sense, god can't by default be a personified entity because that would make him part of the creation, where creation is everything that ever existed. 

Now "good" and "evil" and everything in between, are parameters, options, variables on how someone can use the concepts of that creation.

I put though good and evil in quotes because good and evil are also subjective concepts. 
Whatever is evil for Eru, is good by default for Melkor! It is a matter of POV.
Both have a vast number of followers and audience after all! ha ha 

Did Eru created evil? No.. Eru just created Melkor who could make use of all the available variables -as anyone else- according to his always subjective POV.

So free will does exist, but this also as a concept, it is not something that can be given to someone. It is the action of deciding which of the unlimited actually options ( the creation includes everything as we said previously) someone will decide to embrace and use. 

Each and every choice is neutral, neither good nor evil because what is good or what is evil has to do with each individuals point of view.


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Oct 3, 2018)

One of my favorite quotes in the Silmarillion is the one in my signature. I always thought it dealt with the concept of evil pretty well. Basically, "no matter what you do, you're my instrument and it will lead to better things."



> Then Ilúvatar spoke, and he said: ‘Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Ilúvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, that ye may see what ye have done. And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.’
> 
> - AINULINDALË


----------



## Elthir (Oct 3, 2018)

to bring my opinion to a thread with a more relevant title

For myself, I believe in free will within Tolkien's world, even for the Quendi.

This discussion often enough turns into opinions regarding the problem of evil _in general_, or how Iluvatar (God) can know the world's history without determining it. CS Lewis attempts his explanation of the latter in his book _Mere Christianity_, and probably elsewhere. Of course I'm not saying Lewis "solved" either question (!), but Tolkien does appear to stamp that Iluvatar is "outside time" (compare to Lewis' chapter about knowing the history of the world), and a section of Tolkien's poem, _Mythopoeia, _reads_:_


 "(…)
In Paradise perchance the eye may stray
from gazing upon everlasting Day
to see the day illumined, and renew
from mirrored truth the likeness of the True.
Then looking on the Blessed Land 'twill see
that all is as it is, and yet made free:
Salvation changes not, nor yet destroys,
garden nor gardener, children nor their toys.
 Evil it will not see, for evil lies
not in God's picture but in crooked eyes,
not in the source but in malicious choice,
and not in sound but in the tuneless voice.
In Paradise they look no more awry;
and though they make anew, they make no lie.
Be sure they still will make, not being dead,
and poets shall have flames upon their head,
and harps whereon their faultless fingers fall:
there each shall choose for ever from the All."

To my mind, the question isn't, what do I (or any philosopher or whohaveyou) think best "answers" the problem of evil, it's what did Tolkien adopt for his tale and his character Eru.



"St. Augustine explained that God is the source of everything that exists, and everything God created is good. Evil is the absence of good, so therefore it must not have real existence. It is instead a lack, the absence of good. God created humanity, Lucifer, and the rebellious angels as beings of goodness, but also endowed them with the freedom to choose their paths. They chose to turn away from the good, and in doing so their capacity for goodness was diminished. It is this lack, this diminishment, that is evil. Augustine's formulation has proven to be the most influential understanding of evil in the western Christian tradition."

from Roman Catholicism, Patheos. com​
So, does _everyone_ find this (admittedly brief summation) satisfying? No.

Of course not. But to me it seems to line up well enough with evil not being in "God's picture" (Tolkien's poem), the "source", and about choice. That said, I'm not simply painting with a broad brush here -- meaning I don't think everything Tolkien wrote about necessarily does, or needs to, line up with Catholic thought.


Anyway, if one answer or philosophy or point of view "works" (as in "is all agreed upon by everyone") for the problem of evil _in general_ . . .​

. . . I'd like to hear it


----------



## Miguel (Oct 3, 2018)

I sometimes think of the void as a waste disposal of Eru's thoughts/nightmares.


----------



## Kinofnerdanel (Oct 4, 2018)

Galin said:


> This discussion often enough turns into opinions regarding the problem of evil _in general_, or how Iluvatar (God) can know the world's history without determining it.



Very true! And I whole-heartedly agree with your explanation, I suppose it was I painting with a broad brush trying to concieve something similar to your views. The quote on catholicism was a lucky catch, thanks for sharing! Seem to fit perfectly well with the spirit of Eä. Tolkien's _Mythopoeia _must be the ars poetica to his works.

Still it is an amusing and captivating pastime to read differing (or correlating) individual thoughts on good and evil.



Gilgaearel said:


> Tolkien personified his god for story telling purposes and according to his faith ( he was a Catholic). What the/any author writes is related to his cultural background after all.
> But in a broader philosophical sense, god can't by default be a personified entity because that would make him part of the creation, where creation is everything that ever existed.
> 
> Now "good" and "evil" and everything in between, are parameters, options, variables on how someone can use the concepts of that creation.



Eru doesn't have to be the source of evil. I see that you say "evil exists" (even as a mere point of view), therefore it must originate from Eru. I believe the confusion emerges from the very wording of the statement - that it _exists_. Eru can be the source of all creation and can be creation and existence and everything himself, nonetheless evil can be present within creation while not necesserily emerging from it/him. That "something" that "exists" outside of him and can be called evil is actually nothing, utter nothing itself, the void, non-existence, his absence. In the beginning there was only Eru. Everything else_ wasn't_. The complete nothing preceding existence as the absolute lack of anything is a concept that is hard, probably impossible to grasp for us, but at the very moment it is even aligned with the theories of modern physics. If evil is that nothing, the void, the lack of god, the lack of order, the lack of harmony, the lack of existence, the diminution of these all, than it doesn't stem from him. Still it can be labeled as "evil" within creation, although it might be more precise to refer to it as being present, rathen than existing in it.


----------



## Gothmog (Oct 4, 2018)

Kinofnerdanel said:


> Eru doesn't have to be the source of evil. I see that you say "evil exists" (even as a mere point of view), therefore it must originate from Eru. I believe the confusion emerges from the very wording of the statement - that it _exists_. Eru can be the source of all creation and can be creation and existence and everything himself, nonetheless evil can be present within creation while not necesserily emerging from it/him. That "something" that "exists" outside of him and can be called evil is actually nothing, utter nothing itself, the void, non-existence, his absence. In the beginning there was only Eru. Everything else_ wasn't_. The complete nothing preceding existence as the absolute lack of anything is a concept that is hard, probably impossible to grasp for us, but at the very moment it is even aligned with the theories of modern physics. If evil is that nothing, the void, the lack of god, the lack of order, the lack of harmony, the lack of existence, the diminution of these all, than it doesn't stem from him. Still it can be labeled as "evil" within creation, although it might be more precise to refer to it as being present, rathen than existing in it.


This is just some verbal gymnastics to avoid the issue that Everything in Arda and every action of the Ainur has its source in Eru. All that we, all that the Valar/Maiar and all that the peoples of Arda consider to be Evil does indeed come from Eru himself and by his own admission. The problem is that in labeling something "Evil" we are making a judgment that Eru does not. He does not see Melkor's rebellion in the music as evil but as something that while it needed to be fought, hence the extra themes, it was also something necessary to the final product and tributary to the glory.
Good and Evil are things that only exist within the circles of the world and are labeled so by those who only know the limited view from within Arda. This goes for the Valar also though Mandos remembers the Music best of all the Valar and has a broader view of the actions of all the inhabitants of the world.


----------



## Kinofnerdanel (Oct 4, 2018)

Then to cut back on all the fancy rhetorics - my reasoning is that disharmony emerges from the lack of harmony, the lack of Eru. It is not something prompted by himself, it is an individual choice made possible by free will. Although I genuinely agree with your argument, Gothmog, that Eru has a different understanding of Melkor's rebellion and the corruption of the world! The manifestation of the lack of order and harmony within creation is labeled by the indwellers of creation as "evil".

It only originates from Eru in regards that he gave many of his creations free will to turn away from harmony proposed by himself.


----------



## Gothmog (Oct 4, 2018)

It is ONLY labeled Evil by the indwellers of the creation. Outside of this there is no evil only creation. The disharmony is not in Eru's view Evil. To him it is simply a way that the creation is improved over and above what any of the Ainur can conceive and necessary to that improvement. As Mandos would have, "Evil was good to have been". As for disharmony emerges from the lack of harmony, Disharmony in the Music of the Ainur is due to the opposing of one harmony by another. Melkor did not sing alone for long.
That which we perceive to be evil originates from Eru through the Ainur by necessity for the creation. It is simply the shading of the picture to bring forth the details and the beauty of that which was created by the Music.


----------



## Gilgaearel (Oct 4, 2018)

Kinofnerdanel said:


> Eru doesn't have to be the source of evil. I see that you say "evil exists" (even as a mere point of view), therefore it must originate from Eru. I believe the confusion emerges from the very wording of the statement - that it _exists_. Eru can be the source of all creation and can be creation and existence and everything himself, nonetheless evil can be present within creation while not necesserily emerging from it/him. That "something" that "exists" outside of him and can be called evil is actually nothing, utter nothing itself, the void, non-existence, his absence. In the beginning there was only Eru. Everything else_ wasn't_. The complete nothing preceding existence as the absolute lack of anything is a concept that is hard, probably impossible to grasp for us, but at the very moment it is even aligned with the theories of modern physics. If evil is that nothing, the void, the lack of god, the lack of order, the lack of harmony, the lack of existence, the diminution of these all, than it doesn't stem from him. Still it can be labeled as "evil" within creation, although it might be more precise to refer to it as being present, rathen than existing in it.



No I'm not saying that Eru is the source of evil because what is considered as evil is subjective. Eru created Melkor didn't create evil.
And Melkor has his own will and does his own things.
From Melkor's point of view, his own actions are good.

What if The Silmarillion was told from Melkor's point of view?

We would have descriptions of the style: Eru created two trees that light polluted the whole Arda. Ungoliant was a very brave activist who brought down these tress and let the light of the stars shine again!!

Feanor made the Silmarils with the intention to keep them for himself. Melkor took them in an attempt to redistribute wealth! ha ha ha...

Joking aside everything is subjective. What is considered as good for you might be considered evil by someone else. And that someone else might bring forward his own logical arguments that might support his own views.


----------



## Alcuin (Oct 4, 2018)

Surely the question here is some version of, “What did Tolkien think?” or “What did Tolkien convey?” or “What did Tolkien intend to convey?” or “What tales do Tolkien’s stories tell?” Otherwise, we join the endless debate on the nature of God and the differences between Good and Evil, an argument that has occupied men’s minds since the beginning of recorded time. 

I think Tolkien makes it clear that Melkor and his followers rebelled first against Eru’s designs and finally against Eru Himself. They were able to do this because they possessed Free Will. Their rebellion is Evil, whether in the act of deviating from Eru’s design in the Song of Ainur; in their disrupting the formation of Arda; or in their perverting and murdering the Children of Ilúvatar. 

In Tolkien’s world and from that point of view, Melkor Morgoth is evil. Eru did not create Melkor to be evil: he _chose_ to rebel, and _ persisted_ in his rebellion even when confronted with the immediate consequences, the disruption of the Ainulindalë, and warned of the ultimate consequences: his own final failure and non-being. 

By way of analogy, hammers, knives, and fire are such ancient tools we consider them necessary for living as human beings, and they are: we find hammers and knives that are tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of years old, and evidence of fire then, too. They are good and necessary tools in every sense of the word. If I _by mistake_ whack my thumb or yours with a hammer, or cut my hand or yours with a knife, or burn myself or you with fire, that’s an accident, but not an act of evil. If I _deliberately and intentionally_ whack _you_ with hammer, or cut _you_ with a knife, or burn _you_ with fire, *that’s evil*. 

To commit evil requires intent, and intent requires free will. 

If there’s no free will, then Melkor had no choice but to act as he did: Melkor rebelled against Eru because Eru made him for that purpose, and Melkor is not evil because he did what his Maker intended, and his Maker is responsible. If Melkor has free will, then he’s evil, because he _chose_ to do things that disrupted Eru’s plan of creation and through these actions purposefully caused pain and suffering to others creatures. 

I don’t know that even Melkor considers his actions as good or evil: I don’t think he cared. It was what _he_ wanted, and everyone else be damned, literally. 

Tolkien discusses this at length in an long essay called “Notes on motives in the Silmarillion” in _Morgoth’s Ring_ in the section “Myths Transformed”.


> …[W]hen Melkor was confronted by the existence of other inhabitants of Arda, with other wills and intelligences, he was enraged by the mere fact of their existence, and his … sole ultimate object was their destruction. … Hence his endeavor always to break wills and subordinate them to or absorb them into his own will and being … Melkor’s final impotence and despair lay in this: that whereas the Valar (and in their degree Elves and Men) could still love “Arda Marred”, that is Arda with a Melkor-ingredient, and could still heal this or that hurt, or produce … things beautiful and lovely, Melkor could do nothing with Arda, which was not from his own mind and was interwoven with the work and thoughts of others: even left alone he could only have gone raging on till all was leveled into a formless chaos. And yet even so he would have been defeated, because it would still have “existed” independent of his own mind...
> 
> Sauron had never reached this stage of nihilistic madness. He did not object to the existence of the world, so long as he could do what he liked with it. …
> 
> ...


----------



## Gothmog (Oct 5, 2018)

Very good points Alcuin, as usual , But let us look at exactly what Tolkien conveyed in his writing of the Ainulindale:


> Then Ilúvatar spoke, and he said: 'Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Ilúvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, that ye may see what ye have done. And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.'
> 
> Sillmarillion>Ainulindale



This shows that the evil in Arda does indeed come from Eru and that Eru does not see it as Evil but as Necessary to the whole. If Eru saw it as Evil would he not have removed it at the beginning?

The Discord of Melkor was allowed by Eru because it was necessary to the creation, this does not mean that Eru Caused evil, that is down to the free-will and intent of Melkor. However, the source of all good and all evil in Arda is, by his own words, Eru.


----------



## Kinofnerdanel (Oct 5, 2018)

Now I'm beginning to see clear! So-called evil was made _possible_ by Eru through granting free will to the Ainur. So the source of it really is in him, though it was the individual choice of Melkor to uprise against him. He made the possibility and one of his Ainur seized the opportunity  (As for the _why,_ I'll choose to have the luxury of staying with the previously unfolded explanation.)

He offers them the chance to work with him, and they are allowed to oppose, even to try to outcompete him, yet he won't destroy them or the outcome of their deeds. He'll simply show through his ultimate superiority that in the effort to defy Eru, one still serves him. But now that we've put it that way, isn't it a little bit cruel? I see the analogy of a parent teaching their child here, but at what cost? Does the indescribable pain of thousands and millions have to happen in order to prove one sole point - that Eru is almighty and none can oppose him?

I'm still not sure Gothmog about the part that "it was necessary to the creation". For me the thought that someone had to inevitably live up to the role of the spoiler is contradictory to the idea of free will.

Maybe it's because I'm not a native English speaker or intellectually not adept enough, bur could anyone explain further the quote "Evil was good to have been"?


----------



## Gothmog (Oct 5, 2018)

It was not necessary to have the rebellion of Melkor for the creation of Arda as Eru's first theme would have it, but once the disharmony happened it caused a change and, in some respects, an improvement to the creation. Eru was not "Teaching him" by allowing the disharmony to stay nor was he "Proving a point". He gave the Ainur free will and accepted those changes to the themes that any and all chose to make.

As for the quote it will perhaps be clearer with more of the section it came from.


> Manwë wept and bowed his head. But at that last word of Fëanor: that at the least the Noldor should do deeds to live in song for ever, he raised his head, as one that hears a voice far 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 Eä, and evil yet be good to have been.'
> 
> Silmarillion>Ainulindale


----------



## Elaini (Oct 11, 2018)

I review this question with the same philosophy as I do review the dilemma of suffering and theology in this world.

The Ainur are from Eru's own thoughts, true. But it would appear that he gave everyone a free will, including the Ainur, and that includes choosing the paths that we generally regard as the hurtful ones. He interfered to the events only when asked by the Valar. It also reads that the Ainur failed to understand each other at first, but they learned to do that eventually and work together.

Free will is a two edged blade that way, but eventually it's better to have it than just have us all as puppets or slaves. Should you allow the free will, you allow the chance of both good and evil, whether you like it or not. But as a result, we get many stories to be inspired by, to learn many lessons. It gives a lot more value to everything, knowing that our personal choices really did influence the results. In the end it's wealth.

So what is Melkor about? "One who rises in might", which means an ambition great enough to end up with jealousy when he sees the others thriving together. In other words he really _wants to be the leader_ but _isn't fit to be one_. The reason why Manwë is the greatest in authority but not in power is that he's the one who's fit. He actually listens.

Melkor was the one who refused to work with others the most, and wanted to see himself on top instead, alone. His ambition dictated to challenge the other Valar instead and work with no one – even if he gained a few followers which is Mairon, Valaraukar and Thuringwethil at least. Ungoliant is more independent, and only cares about herself and her offpring (Shelob).

The question is though what Eä would have been like if Melkor chose otherwise or if Varda would have chosen him instead. The challenger would have probably been someone else, I reckon. But in the world of canon there really isn't that much room for "what ifs". There's headcanons and fan fiction for all that.


----------



## Jordan Thomas (Nov 8, 2018)

Each of the Ainur represent certain aspects of eru, so technically yes because he created Melkor


----------



## Valenthir (Dec 18, 2018)

Everything is. One could say evil as we understand it created everything we perceive now. But was it evil then? We exist because of the violence of the cosmos, therefore 'evil' is just a fragment of perception. But was it Ilúvatar's _intention _for _evil_ to exist in his creation? No, I do not believe it so. Compare it to our modern world, like Melkor being the first AI to think for itself. Is that evil, or is it freedom? Freedom is not evil, is it?


----------



## Valandil (Dec 18, 2018)

Valenthir said:


> Everything is. One could say evil as we understand it created everything we perceive now. But was it evil then? We exist because of the violence of the cosmos, therefore 'evil' is just a fragment of perception. But was it Ilúvatar's _intention _for _evil_ to exist in his creation? No, I do not believe it so. Compare it to our modern world, like Melkor being the first AI to think for itself. Is that evil, or is it freedom? Freedom is not evil, is it?



I would say that - no, freedom is NOT evil. But - freedom can turn to evil... freely.


----------



## Elaini (Dec 18, 2018)

Valenthir said:


> We exist because of the violence of the cosmos, therefore 'evil' is just a fragment of perception.



Melkor would probably agree, but I would say that not always. Why else the cultures that never met each other before can hold such similar moral standards? Also, one instance is known where despite creating children with free will Eru interfered in the events.

But we are talking about Eä here, not our universe.


----------



## Valenthir (Dec 18, 2018)

Yes, we are talking about Eä. What then is evil? Did not the discord of Melkor cause the very conditions for life within the material world to exist? That much seems to be made clear when Ilúvatar enlightens Ulmo as to how the rains and clouds came to be. And when the Ainur descended into the World it was unmade, yet in the end it came to be as it was in the Vision, through conflict. Evil in itself seems to be more of a predicament of consciousness than a creation.


----------

