Tolkien and purposive evil

[Tar-Palantir]

It seems certain to me that Tolkien believed in the reality of purposive evil - not just in his Legendarium but in reality.

By purposive evil I mean a person-like entity (such as Sauron, Morgoth or the Christian Devil) which deliberately pursues evil.

In the Notion Club Papers Tolkien (via Ramer, whom I regard as his 'mouthpiece') states that dream experiences have informed him that there is purposive evil in the universe, with a specific purpose of harming humans (among other things, presumably), and that this evil may have widespread influence on humanity via dream experiences.

The reality of purposive evil is a view of life which is mainstream among humans throughout most of the modern world, and has been universal (so far as we know) throughout most of history and until recently - yet of course it is not now part of the moral system of secular modern societies, where 'evil' is regarded as only the 'privation', or lack, of good (as Ralph Waldo Emerson termed it).

The modern secular elite ruling class on the whole does not believe in evil as either positive or pervasive. To talk of evil in everyday elite life in the way that Tolkien does is to elicit sniggering condescension at best, or more likely to be regarded as a deranged and dangerous reactionary.

So, presumably we all accept purposive evil for the sake of the story when reading Lord of the Rings - but how about in 'real life'?

Does the fact that someone we admire such as Tolkien clearly believed in purposive evil, and thought about it a lot, count as evidence against the modern mainstream view that evil is merely accidental, or a negative failure to pursue good?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Very interesting subject, T-P. I'm not really 100% sure where I come down on this, so I'm going to hold off on commenting for now. I will remind people up front, however, to keep this discussion on a theoretical level, and not to turn it into a discussion of current events or politics.

[Lalaith]

As a rather traditional Christian, I would answer this with a "yes." I do believe in purposive evil--i.e., Satan. I realize it's a view that is looked down upon by many, but there you go. <shrug>

How that evil trickles down from that person of evil is an interesting topic--one I don't have time for right now, though I'll be thinking about it.

(I'm supposed to be cleaning and planning the grocery trip for Thanksgiving.)

[axordil]

Does the fact that someone we admire such as Tolkien clearly believed in purposive evil, and thought about it a lot, count as evidence against the modern mainstream view that evil is merely accidental, or a negative failure to pursue good?

I admire Tolkien's work, which is something entirely separate from admiring all of his specific beliefs.

[Padme]

Yes I believe there is a force of some type that turns people evil.

[narya]

"Evil" is a completely subjective term, depending on who is describing it, and I don't believe that there could possibly be some supernatural force out there that can please everyone.

For example, would this personification of Evil have been on the side of the Jews or the Nazis? the Hutus or the Tutsis? the Americans or the Iraqis?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Narya, I must be reading you wrong. It seems to me that you are suggesting that a reasonable argument could be made that between the Jews and the Nazis it was the Jews that were the evil ones. But I can't imagine that that is really what you are saying. Can you clarify?

[MithLuin]

I don't see why the demons would take sides in such conflicts, but rather just delight in the wholesale slaughter and mayhem that was going on, regardless of who was inducing it. In other words, on the side of the machete, whether it was in the hand of a Hutu or Tutsi, if that makes sense.

Spiritual warfare is something that creeps me out a bit, but yeah, I think demons (and unfallen angels) are real. I do not think they are required to explain the actions of evil people. Meaning, no, I don't think Jack the Ripper (or Himmler, or Judas, or [insert evil historical personage here]) was by necessity possessed by demons when they did what they did. But that doesn't mean that demons aren't real, either. I bless myself with holy water and have worn a St. Benedict medal, so...yeah. *

But even when one believes in the existence of demons, one can define evil as the absence of good. Traditionally, Christianity has done both. Evil was a negation in the Middle Ages (just check out St. Anselm's writings on the topic in the 11th century), and the devil was very much a real character in salvation history.

I always thought it interesting (amusing? not quite the right word) that Lewis dedicated the Screwtape Letters to Tolkien. I wonder what drew him to do that? Lewis' conception is of course a bit Manichean, with 'Our Father Below' being almost a negative counterpart to God, not quite on equal footing, but still...not the traditional Christian view, either. I don't know how much Tolkien approved of Lewis' conception.


*The St. Benedict medal, of course, commemorates St. Benedict, the father of western monasticism, and especially his devotion to the cross. But it also contains the initials of this prayer:

Vade retro Satana! Nunquam suade mihi Vána! Sunt mala quae libas. Ipse venena bibas!

(Begone Satan! Never tempt me with your vanities! What you offer me is evil. Drink the poison yourself!)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Apparently, Tolkien was "embarrassed" that Lewis dedicated The Screwtape Letters to him. Diana Glyer cites in The Company They Keep a statement by one Lyle Dorsett in his book Seeking the Secret Place: The Spiritual Formation of C.S. Lewis to the effect that Owen Barfield told him that Tolkien said he was embarrassed by it because he and others felt that Lewis, not being a theologian nor an ordained clergyman, had no business communicating these subjects to the public. (See The Company They Keep, p. 83.)

[narya]

Narya, I must be reading you wrong. It seems to me that you are suggesting that a reasonable argument could be made that between the Jews and the Nazis it was the Jews that were the evil ones. But I can't imagine that that is really what you are saying. Can you clarify?

I hesitated to write these words because I was not sure if they would be read in the way I intended. To elaborate, the Nazi propaganda was that the Jews were the problem, the evil, that had to be removed. I certainly don't agree with that assertion. I'm just pointing out that in most conflicts, "the other guy" is painted as the evil one, by both sides.

MithLuin has an interesting idea - that Evil is on the side of the machete. There are numerous examples of this in the Star Trek universe, creatures that feed on strife, but I am not convinced such beings really exist.

[Tar-Palantir]

Very interesting discussions!

I agree that many bad things that people do can be explained without an evil agent, but the fact seems to be that in previous generations they felt that there were also evil beings or purposes.

I think of how Tolkien (in HoME) was musing on how Morgoth had tainted the whole of Arda such that nothing (except water?) was utterly innocent - I imagine this as a black dye with which he almost-literally stained created matter and mind...!

This made all things either corrupt or corruptible, and therefore more open to his further influence. Tolkien (again in HoME) mused that Morgoth's evil was purely destructive - ending with nothing left standing except himself. Whereas Sauron's evil was more like a totalitarian dictator - the ideal being everything efficient, under his control and worshipping him.

Axordil said:

I admire Tolkien's work, which is something entirely separate from admiring all of his specific beliefs.

I think this is a very reasonable attitude, and one that I used to hold; but now I feel that I ought to take Tolkien's other beliefs more seriously, since I have found him to be such an admirable interpreter and guide for so many decades.

I so often find that attitudes of Tolkien's which I used to reject out of hand as a young man, turn out to have a lot more coherence and good in them than I had acknowledged.

The fact that such an intelligent, well educated, thoughtful and creative man had beliefs about evil that - just 40 years later - strike most intellectuals as absurd; now seems more likely to indicate to me that there is something very deeply wrong with modern life, than that there was something deeply wrong with Tolkien!

[Primula Baggins]

I have no certainty on this subject, but I don't think evil beings urging us on to evil are necessary. In fact I'm inclined to believe that they're often used as an excuse, an amelioration—a way to claim that we can't possibly be held responsible for the evil that we do.

I don't think anyone here is arguing for the existence of purposive evil as an excuse for human failings. But some who do evil have argued that, or claimed that, or fallen back on that.

Tolkien of course was not (from anything I have ever seen) evil. But maybe he couldn't, or didn't want to, believe that the things he saw in the war were merely the result of humans following their inclinations. I could understand that. It makes for a frightening and deeply depressing world.

Again, I feel no certainty on this. I don't, thank God, know much about evil from personal experience. I do know that humans fail, sometimes hugely and at huge cost, and that evil results.

[Pearly Di]

Like Lalaith, I voted 'yes'.

Does the fact that someone we admire such as Tolkien clearly believed in purposive evil, and thought about it a lot, count as evidence against the modern mainstream view that evil is merely accidental, or a negative failure to pursue good?

Well, I agree with Tolkien's worldview, personally, but I'm not sure I would use his views as 'evidence'. LotR is not polemic. Besides, I'm not a confrontational sort.

I don't see why the demons would take sides in such conflicts, but rather just delight in the wholesale slaughter and mayhem that was going on, regardless of who was inducing it. In other words, on the side of the machete, whether it was in the hand of a Hutu or Tutsi, if that makes sense.

I agree, Mith. I don't pretend to understand much about 'demons', nor would I wish to, but I can't imagine that such beings would be very interested in humans as individuals ... more in destruction and mayhem for its own sake. Satan, in the story of Job in the Hebrew Bible, sees Job as a means to an end, of getting a dig in at God, or so it seems to me -- rather than having a personal vendetta against Job in particular.

I always thought it interesting (amusing? not quite the right word) that Lewis dedicated the Screwtape Letters to Tolkien. I wonder what drew him to do that? Lewis' conception is of course a bit Manichean, with 'Our Father Below' being almost a negative counterpart to God, not quite on equal footing, but still...not the traditional Christian view, either. I don't know how much Tolkien approved of Lewis' conception.

He didn't approve. He refers to this, and what he saw as Lewis's tendency to Dualism (on occasion) in one of the Letters. (Sorry, can't remember which one, I am at work!)

Unlike Tolkien, I have no problem with Lewis, as a lay person, writing about theological matters. (Although he didn't have any theological training, it is true. )

The fact that such an intelligent, well educated, thoughtful and creative man had beliefs about evil that - just 40 years later - strike most intellectuals as absurd; now seems more likely to indicate to me that there is something very deeply wrong with modern life, than that there was something deeply wrong with Tolkien!

Tolkien's views were held to be pretty absurd by the intellectuals of his day, actually. He and Lewis were often perceived to be a sort of Christian 'team', acting in tandem with each other. Both men were aware of this criticism, and they were amused and annoyed by it ... by the time LotR was published, and the first Narnia book, they were already estranged to some degree, so the context of the criticism was rather ironic.

I'm with Tolkien, when it comes to a general worldview, and am resigned to the fact that many people in the world would find that worldview 'contemptible or absurd, or both' (as some, according to Tolkien, found LotR).

P.S. Professor Tolkien would not have agreed with me about women priests though.

[Dave_LF]

Calvin: Do you believe in the devil? You know, a supreme evil being dedicated to the temptation, corruption, and destruction of man?
Hobbes: I'm not sure man needs the help.
Calvin: You just can't talk to animals about these things.

You know what's funny? I couldn't remember the exact wording of this exchange, so I did a Google search. What did it find? A 6-year-old TORC post by yours-truly, using the exact same quote for the exact same purpose (but I had the wording wrong ).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That IS funny.

[narya]

I think of how Tolkien (in HoME) was musing on how Morgoth had tainted the whole of Arda such that nothing (except water?) was utterly innocent - I imagine this as a black dye with which he almost-literally stained created matter and mind...!

This made all things either corrupt or corruptible, and therefore more open to his further influence.

This parallels the biblical creation story. Everything God made was good, but that then someone with free will chose to commit the Original Sin, tainting all resulting generations.

Which is a good allegory for the fact that we are all both selfish and social, and never "perfect". We can be influenced towards the greater good or the greater evil by those people and circumstances around us because we are all, in some ways, weak. I see this "corruption" as a result of natural selection and evolution, innately hardwired, rather than the influence of some evil person. I also see our weaknesses as, paradoxically, our strength. Sometimes we have to protect our own family at the expense of strangers, and that will be seen by our family as (mostly) good and by the strangers as (mostly) evil.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think of how Tolkien (in HoME) was musing on how Morgoth had tainted the whole of Arda such that nothing (except water?) was utterly innocent - I imagine this as a black dye with which he almost-literally stained created matter and mind...!

This made all things either corrupt or corruptible, and therefore more open to his further influence.

This parallels the biblical creation story.

But with one very important difference, which Tolkien himself noted. In the Biblical creation story, the Fall takes place after the creation of the World, and thus is not in the substance of the World. But in Tolkien's story, Melkor's Fall takes place before the creation of the World, and thus is able to seep into the very substance of the World.

[solicitr]

I don't know if there exists an actual sentient being in a red union suit with horns and pitchfork (or a dark Lord, tall and terrible). I think that there is legitimate meaning, however, to words like 'diabolical' and 'satanic:' the dark impulses of the human heart, as the phrase goes the "worser angels of our nature." Are these urges, or temptations, the work or influence of a supernatural malign entity? Dunno. The Church says yes. Atheists (and many believers) say no. They may be products of neurochemical processes alone. Nonetheless, they exist: the traditional categorization of course is Pride, Ire, Sloth, Avarice, Lust, Gluttony and Envy. They can however all be distilled into one metacategory: selfishness, moral or even existential solipsism. "Existential solipsism" pretty well defines the sociopath, doesn't it? It certainly is what Tolkien sketched in his vision of mad Melkor trying vainly to destroy chaos itself in his nihilistic rage.

The flipside was distilled by Christ as the two Great Commandments.

[axordil]

The fact that such an intelligent, well educated, thoughtful and creative man had beliefs about evil that - just 40 years later - strike most intellectuals as absurd; now seems more likely to indicate to me that there is something very deeply wrong with modern life, than that there was something deeply wrong with Tolkien!

There are equally intelligent, well educated, thoughtful and creative people who have come to very different conclusions. That's the problem with the argumentum ad verecundiam.

[MithLuin]

To clarify, I see human failings as the result of concupiscence, not primarily having anything to do with the devil (or demons). I can be pretty rotten on my own without resorting to a 'the devil made me do it' excuse.

I agree that demons are, first and foremost, concerned with their own affairs. They seem to have some interest in humans, though, and this interest is more of the 'misery loves company' variety. If they're going to be miserable and petty and spiteful for all eternity, they'd like humans to be that way, too. As Pearl pointed out, it's like using humans as pawns as an 'in your face' to God.

Temptation can be a complicated thing. We can court it or avoid it, but eventually, if we don't make a point of getting out of the situation...yeah. Because of this, I think it is fair to say that demons can influence people, which is not the same thing as saying that human evil can be blamed on demonic influences. Temptation is a combination of internal and external influences - but actually choosing to do something about it is an entirely internal process.

And evil, as an absence of what is good, can get to the point where it traps people, so that they aren't really free to do the right thing any more. Or, well, not without a huge effort to break bad habits and such...and grace. Which is just to say that not all people who are evil (or do evil things) do so willfully.