How Do You Explain and Understand Good, Evil and Suffering?

[JackDaydream]

It is interesting that you have found a way of thinking about the concepts of good and evil while some on forums seem to dismiss any meaning to them beyond the relative ones ascribed to them. That tendency seems to be a result of the stretching of cultural and moral relativism. The idea of finding balance was emphasised by Jung in the concept of wholeness. He argued that in the Judaeo- Christian tradition there had been an unfortunate emphasis on perfection, which had resulted in a lack of balance. However, finding balance or wholeness may be a difficult one because it requires so much integration of aspects of the personality.

It's just how I word it. My substantive points are the same.

The point is the good and evil are simply a matter of the dance between order/growth and destruction/entropy. The sweet spot - where complexity can exist - is not at the extremes but in balance. What is perfection? A crystal - beautiful, fixed, inert. What is chaos? Messy, unstable, overly dynamic. The sweet spot will contain flawed beauty that is stable, but not fixed.

Note that it's not so easy for an individual to be balanced when the world around is out of balance. Ultimately, balance and stability come with maturity. I do not believe that humanity is mature (duh!). Just as a toddler will rage over BS, so does humanity en masse. Individuals are more mature than entire societies, because the kinds of institutions we have created are in their infancy. And they behave like infants too - voracious in appetite and entirely self-focused.

Meanwhile, the Earth itself is approaching its dotage. It's 4.5 billion years old, and its biology is about 3.7 billion years old. Yet the oceans are due to be evaporated away in less a billion years - and presumably the oceans at 60C - long before they boil away - will already be mostly abiotic.

The point I am labouring over here is that Earthly biology is already over eighty percent into its lifespan. So we have and old, mature Earth and biosphere that contain somewhat mature individual humans who have formed large institutions that are in their infancy.

I am certainly not of the view that good and evil are concrete absolutes and I do appreciate your point of view, because so much is about human understanding and how ideas of finding balance in between the opposite of 'good' and 'evil' is an intricate dance, with so much interpretation involved. It may be that the major incongruities, where there are violations of others' rights, freedom and abuse of power that 'evil' stands out like an angry, sore thumb, especially in relation to expectations and ethical ideals.

In thinking about the fate of the earth, the point you make about the earth having reached an advanced progression in its lifespan may be important. Sometimes, discussion about planet earth's ecology seems to attribute 'evil' to humans beings. It may be that the role of humanity is significant but it may be that certain aspects of ecological problems cannot be attributed to human beings as the ultimate source of 'evil' entirely. Humans are part of nature and have a significant role as part of this, but, independently of this, the present earth is probably not an immortal life form, and will wither and die. This may not be acknowledged in some perspectives which may see nature as intrinsically good, casting all the blame on humanity as the force of 'evil' itself.

Humans are the only way that Earth life will be able to spread to other worlds. Metaphorically, I think humans are more "cracking eggs to make an omelette" than evil, as such. The child must die so that the adult may live, so to speak.

An interesting metaphor: human beings are 'more cracking eggs to make an omelette' than evil. The issue may be that many don't realise that they are cracking. I am not sure that I am particularly mature because I get into stressed whirlpool states and not very practical or not but I realise my own weaknesses and dysfunctions. I have just moved and left the state in a mess but that was because the owner didn't give me enough time to clear it. Also, it was unsafe because the kitchen ceiling collapsed a few days before I left and, fortunately, no one was in there when it fell. I just went into a whirlpool.when the owner phoned me complaining about and I wouldn't say he is evil but lacks awareness of being a cracked egg rather than a beautiful omelette.

As far as humans spreading to other worlds, I am surprised that it has not happened given the state of technology and science. As human beings we do spread our trail of mental clutter and debris everywhere we go and it may be hard to take responsibility and acknowledge the messes which we create. The use of terms like good and evil may be about labelling rather than acknowledging the effects of weaknesses.

[Sy Borg]

It's just how I word it. My substantive points are the same.

The point is the good and evil are simply a matter of the dance between order/growth and destruction/entropy. The sweet spot - where complexity can exist - is not at the extremes but in balance. What is perfection? A crystal - beautiful, fixed, inert. What is chaos? Messy, unstable, overly dynamic. The sweet spot will contain flawed beauty that is stable, but not fixed.

Note that it's not so easy for an individual to be balanced when the world around is out of balance. Ultimately, balance and stability come with maturity. I do not believe that humanity is mature (duh!). Just as a toddler will rage over BS, so does humanity en masse. Individuals are more mature than entire societies, because the kinds of institutions we have created are in their infancy. And they behave like infants too - voracious in appetite and entirely self-focused.

Meanwhile, the Earth itself is approaching its dotage. It's 4.5 billion years old, and its biology is about 3.7 billion years old. Yet the oceans are due to be evaporated away in less a billion years - and presumably the oceans at 60C - long before they boil away - will already be mostly abiotic.

The point I am labouring over here is that Earthly biology is already over eighty percent into its lifespan. So we have and old, mature Earth and biosphere that contain somewhat mature individual humans who have formed large institutions that are in their infancy.

I am certainly not of the view that good and evil are concrete absolutes and I do appreciate your point of view, because so much is about human understanding and how ideas of finding balance in between the opposite of 'good' and 'evil' is an intricate dance, with so much interpretation involved. It may be that the major incongruities, where there are violations of others' rights, freedom and abuse of power that 'evil' stands out like an angry, sore thumb, especially in relation to expectations and ethical ideals.

In thinking about the fate of the earth, the point you make about the earth having reached an advanced progression in its lifespan may be important. Sometimes, discussion about planet earth's ecology seems to attribute 'evil' to humans beings. It may be that the role of humanity is significant but it may be that certain aspects of ecological problems cannot be attributed to human beings as the ultimate source of 'evil' entirely. Humans are part of nature and have a significant role as part of this, but, independently of this, the present earth is probably not an immortal life form, and will wither and die. This may not be acknowledged in some perspectives which may see nature as intrinsically good, casting all the blame on humanity as the force of 'evil' itself.

Humans are the only way that Earth life will be able to spread to other worlds. Metaphorically, I think humans are more "cracking eggs to make an omelette" than evil, as such. The child must die so that the adult may live, so to speak.

An interesting metaphor: human beings are 'more cracking eggs to make an omelette' than evil. The issue may be that many don't realise that they are cracking. I am not sure that I am particularly mature because I get into stressed whirlpool states and not very practical or not but I realise my own weaknesses and dysfunctions. I have just moved and left the state in a mess but that was because the owner didn't give me enough time to clear it. Also, it was unsafe because the kitchen ceiling collapsed a few days before I left and, fortunately, no one was in there when it fell. I just went into a whirlpool.when the owner phoned me complaining about and I wouldn't say he is evil but lacks awareness of being a cracked egg rather than a beautiful omelette.

As far as humans spreading to other worlds, I am surprised that it has not happened given the state of technology and science. As human beings we do spread our trail of mental clutter and debris everywhere we go and it may be hard to take responsibility and acknowledge the messes which we create. The use of terms like good and evil may be about labelling rather than acknowledging the effects of weaknesses.

I am quite sure that most of us don't know what they are cracking. Then again, neither did the blue-green algae that transformed the biosphere in the Great Oxygenation Catastrophe. We are not in control, the Earth's equilibria and imbalances are driving our activities.

I would describe the owner as just one more great ape playing the game of survival, as are we all. Modernity is extremely recent, and it's not easy for simians shaped by billions of years of natural selection in the wild. Homo sapiens has just a few thousand years of experience with civilisations, and mere decades of experience with modernity.

So humans cannot be expected to simply throw off our ape-ness en masse, at the same rate. The fact that we still must eat, sleep, have sex, excrete etc slows the transition to logic and maturity. People with starving children have no use for reason or logic, just shelter, good food and clean water.

Aside from near-Earth orbits, I have no more concerns about space junk than worries about people sometimes leaving cars out in the desert (probably with their skeletons nearby). There a LOT of space out there.

I think good and evil are valid concepts in terms of subjective affects. If someone tries to molest a child, then those who care about child welfare will find it hard to see such actions as anything but evil. Thing is, those deemed evil don't usually to see themselves in that way. One side sees terrorists and another sees heroes and martyrs. One side sees imperialist domination and the other sees the strong helping to lift the weak out of poverty or liberation from dictators.

Social media these days is rife with angry epithets like "disgusting" and "disgraceful", to the point where pretty ordinary people are being described in extreme terms which, of course, undermines the meaning of the word. To me, "disgusting" is reserved for the truly awful, and there are many other more nuanced terms that can be used to express disagreement.

I see the anger as stemming from overpopulation. People are ever more getting in each others' way and competing more fiercely in all areas, where gentle souls are pushed aside. If there were fewer people, everyone would be calmer, but now we have these huge numbers, stress is guaranteed. There's either growing tension and competition or trauma caused by population reductions.

The eggs are cracking ... don't forget to bring the salt and pepper. It's going to be a feast. Or maybe a dog's breakfast. Or both, depending on who and where you are.

[Tom Butler]

... Modernity is extremely recent, and it's not easy for simians shaped by billions of years of natural selection in the wild. Homo sapiens has just a few thousand years of experience with civilisations, and mere decades of experience with modernity.

NPR just had an All Things Considered article titled "COVID's impact on classrooms will linger and must be addressed, according to teachers" https://www.npr.org/2023/02/02/11539365 ... g-to-teach In it, teachers explained how their very young students have had trouble adjusting to school since the Covid lockdown. They say the children have a lot of anger and confusion requiring teachers to spend a lot of time teaching social skills.

We are first human animals. Without some form of self-realization turning us toward more discernment, our behavior is almost entirely guided by our survival instincts. Situations may have a profound influence on our lives, such as war, politics, environment, but ultimately, how we react is our choice.

The question for me has always been about how we decide. How do we chose one reaction over another. Socializing children seems all about teaching social norms. The question of good and evil seems to be directed toward a more universal standard. That is why I make a distinction between local morals and universal ethics. Perhaps there is a better way of saying it.

Spiritual leaders have known the difference between choice guided by human instincts and choice guided by discerning intellect. Since that understanding appears full-blown 6,000 years ago, it seems reasonable to speculate that it may have existed much earlier...; pre-writing.

As I have stated elsewhere, I think such awareness is a constant message communicated between we who are in the flesh and our friends who are not, but the truth of that is a different discussion. My point is that we people have always had amongst us those who understand the difference between choice blindly guided by instincts and choice purposefully guided by reason.

The idea of the struggle between "modernity" and "natural selection" is rather limited.

[Sy Borg]

... Modernity is extremely recent, and it's not easy for simians shaped by billions of years of natural selection in the wild. Homo sapiens has just a few thousand years of experience with civilisations, and mere decades of experience with modernity.

NPR just had an All Things Considered article titled "COVID's impact on classrooms will linger and must be addressed, according to teachers" https://www.npr.org/2023/02/02/11539365 ... g-to-teach In it, teachers explained how their very young students have had trouble adjusting to school since the Covid lockdown. They say the children have a lot of anger and confusion requiring teachers to spend a lot of time teaching social skills.

We are first human animals. Without some form of self-realization turning us toward more discernment, our behavior is almost entirely guided by our survival instincts. Situations may have a profound influence on our lives, such as war, politics, environment, but ultimately, how we react is our choice.

The question for me has always been about how we decide. How do we chose one reaction over another. Socializing children seems all about teaching social norms. The question of good and evil seems to be directed toward a more universal standard. That is why I make a distinction between local morals and universal ethics. Perhaps there is a better way of saying it.

Spiritual leaders have known the difference between choice guided by human instincts and choice guided by discerning intellect. Since that understanding appears full-blown 6,000 years ago, it seems reasonable to speculate that it may have existed much earlier...; pre-writing.

As I have stated elsewhere, I think such awareness is a constant message communicated between we who are in the flesh and our friends who are not, but the truth of that is a different discussion. My point is that we people have always had amongst us those who understand the difference between choice blindly guided by instincts and choice purposefully guided by reason.

The idea of the struggle between "modernity" and "natural selection" is rather limited.

Limited it may be, but that's the point. We are limited. Some of us have our special moments, yes, but humanity en masse is still pretty basic on many levels, hence all the senseless squabbling and lack of focus on the most profound issues, encouraged by profit-seeking communications outlets.

Where you see non-fleshy friends I see a humongous body of knowledge, built around the observations of geniuses. Everything from physics and biology to people's subjective needs and existential concepts.

[JackDaydream]

I am certainly not of the view that good and evil are concrete absolutes and I do appreciate your point of view, because so much is about human understanding and how ideas of finding balance in between the opposite of 'good' and 'evil' is an intricate dance, with so much interpretation involved. It may be that the major incongruities, where there are violations of others' rights, freedom and abuse of power that 'evil' stands out like an angry, sore thumb, especially in relation to expectations and ethical ideals.

In thinking about the fate of the earth, the point you make about the earth having reached an advanced progression in its lifespan may be important. Sometimes, discussion about planet earth's ecology seems to attribute 'evil' to humans beings. It may be that the role of humanity is significant but it may be that certain aspects of ecological problems cannot be attributed to human beings as the ultimate source of 'evil' entirely. Humans are part of nature and have a significant role as part of this, but, independently of this, the present earth is probably not an immortal life form, and will wither and die. This may not be acknowledged in some perspectives which may see nature as intrinsically good, casting all the blame on humanity as the force of 'evil' itself.

Humans are the only way that Earth life will be able to spread to other worlds. Metaphorically, I think humans are more "cracking eggs to make an omelette" than evil, as such. The child must die so that the adult may live, so to speak.

An interesting metaphor: human beings are 'more cracking eggs to make an omelette' than evil. The issue may be that many don't realise that they are cracking. I am not sure that I am particularly mature because I get into stressed whirlpool states and not very practical or not but I realise my own weaknesses and dysfunctions. I have just moved and left the state in a mess but that was because the owner didn't give me enough time to clear it. Also, it was unsafe because the kitchen ceiling collapsed a few days before I left and, fortunately, no one was in there when it fell. I just went into a whirlpool.when the owner phoned me complaining about and I wouldn't say he is evil but lacks awareness of being a cracked egg rather than a beautiful omelette.

As far as humans spreading to other worlds, I am surprised that it has not happened given the state of technology and science. As human beings we do spread our trail of mental clutter and debris everywhere we go and it may be hard to take responsibility and acknowledge the messes which we create. The use of terms like good and evil may be about labelling rather than acknowledging the effects of weaknesses.

I am quite sure that most of us don't know what they are cracking. Then again, neither did the blue-green algae that transformed the biosphere in the Great Oxygenation Catastrophe. We are not in control, the Earth's equilibria and imbalances are driving our activities.

I would describe the owner as just one more great ape playing the game of survival, as are we all. Modernity is extremely recent, and it's not easy for simians shaped by billions of years of natural selection in the wild. Homo sapiens has just a few thousand years of experience with civilisations, and mere decades of experience with modernity.

So humans cannot be expected to simply throw off our ape-ness en masse, at the same rate. The fact that we still must eat, sleep, have sex, excrete etc slows the transition to logic and maturity. People with starving children have no use for reason or logic, just shelter, good food and clean water.

Aside from near-Earth orbits, I have no more concerns about space junk than worries about people sometimes leaving cars out in the desert (probably with their skeletons nearby). There a LOT of space out there.

I think good and evil are valid concepts in terms of subjective affects. If someone tries to molest a child, then those who care about child welfare will find it hard to see such actions as anything but evil. Thing is, those deemed evil don't usually to see themselves in that way. One side sees terrorists and another sees heroes and martyrs. One side sees imperialist domination and the other sees the strong helping to lift the weak out of poverty or liberation from dictators.

Social media these days is rife with angry epithets like "disgusting" and "disgraceful", to the point where pretty ordinary people are being described in extreme terms which, of course, undermines the meaning of the word. To me, "disgusting" is reserved for the truly awful, and there are many other more nuanced terms that can be used to express disagreement.

I see the anger as stemming from overpopulation. People are ever more getting in each others' way and competing more fiercely in all areas, where gentle souls are pushed aside. If there were fewer people, everyone would be calmer, but now we have these huge numbers, stress is guaranteed. There's either growing tension and competition or trauma caused by population reductions.

The eggs are cracking ... don't forget to bring the salt and pepper. It's going to be a feast. Or maybe a dog's breakfast. Or both, depending on who and where you are.

It does seem that people don't know what they are cracking. While I know that I have cracks and flaws I am not sure what I am cracking or trying to put together. At one point, I adopted the shamanic principle of being broken and trying to heal this, with a view to having a healing effect on others. This was the philosophy which I adopted when I began mental health nursing and it seemed to work for some time in working with patients. However, gradually it seemed that healthcare was all about policies and it was so hierarchical and competitive.

I do agree that overpopulation is one of the biggest issues, leading people to be so competitive and loss of human values. It may vary so much in different parts of the world. Living in London, I would say that it is particularly hard, especially in competition finding work and accommodation. It took me 6 months to find a room and there are just so many cowboy landlords. The real problem in the old place was that the original landlord, who was subletting, went missing and he is believed to be in prison in Pakistan. But so much is about agencies and sublets and, most accommodation is found on websites. There are so many atrocious ads, such as ones which expect the tenant to do work for no money. There are even many male live-in landlords advertising specifying female tenants only, which seems rather dodgy. In the context of overpopulation people are just able to get away with so much.

As far as the bigger picture, the ecological crisis is such a fear and, if anything, it may simply make people demoralised and care less. I do worry about the future of humanity but haven't brought any children into the world. If I had, I would be wondering about their future in 50 or 60 years time. I am rather surprised that people who have children and grandchildren aren't panicking completely. Or, maybe, it is simply too overwhelming. Perhaps, some of the shallow chit chat in social media is a result of people being overwhelmed and, even ideas and news being more of a source of entertainment and distraction from the real problems facing humanity.

[Sculptor1]

The entire thrust of this thread is bizarre.
Why on earth would there be an explanation of suffering, good and evil.
For such a thing to exist would imply some sort of universal plan in which these things are designed for a set of reasons.
It is the pathetic moanings of mankind to shout with his fist at the sky shouting "why me?"
The world of evol, good and suffering is completely understandable the very moment you reject such a mind-bendingly childish delusion.
So rather than be a child who thrashes around to find someone to blame for their broken toy; grow up in the universe and understand that good and evil are subjective, and suffering is just part of life, sometimes avoidable others not.
Good is the stuff we live, evil is the stuff we do not. One man's good is another woman's evil. Evil and good are not forces of nature they are reflections upon it; selfish opinions.
Suffering is not part of a plan; it is not there for any reason whatever. It is too generalised to be able to say anything more; but suffering is when you feel the pain of stuff you do not like.

[Hellen Muriithi]

I think that suffering, good and evil is inherent within all people and the nature of it affects the way in which we live our lives. I feel that everyone has the potential to be evil, but most people choose to be good. Too often people are led to believe that there are moral absolutes when actually there is no such thing as a "good" or "bad" person, just humans choosing both good and bad things at times. It influences my philosophy by helping me understand that suffering itself is not an individual tragedy or bad thing. Instead, suffering is part of life from birth, which every human being has to experience as part of a bigger picture. Thus, it shows us that all humans have to struggle and overcome hardships in order to gain knowledge about ourselves, other people’s struggles, and morality. The hope in ultimately reaching “the end game” where we will all be at peace with our experiences.

[JackDaydream]

The entire thrust of this thread is bizarre.
Why on earth would there be an explanation of suffering, good and evil.
For such a thing to exist would imply some sort of universal plan in which these things are designed for a set of reasons.
It is the pathetic moanings of mankind to shout with his fist at the sky shouting "why me?"
The world of evol, good and suffering is completely understandable the very moment you reject such a mind-bendingly childish delusion.
So rather than be a child who thrashes around to find someone to blame for their broken toy; grow up in the universe and understand that good and evil are subjective, and suffering is just part of life, sometimes avoidable others not.
Good is the stuff we live, evil is the stuff we do not. One man's good is another woman's evil. Evil and good are not forces of nature they are reflections upon it; selfish opinions.
Suffering is not part of a plan; it is not there for any reason whatever. It is too generalised to be able to say anything more; but suffering is when you feel the pain of stuff you do not like.

When I speak of an explanation for suffering I am not suggesting that there is an ultimate one, as in one written as a plan. However, it is possible that pain and suffering have an initiating role in evolution in bringing about innovation and change. Pain in itself is a signal to the body of danger, such as heat or a message that something is wrong. There are people who can't feel pain and they are likely to injure themselves seriously. Even emotional pain can be important for making changes and if there was no negatively felt emotions,

There are some aspects of suffering which are universal while a lot are variable. Just about anyone would find burning in fire to be suffering. In contrast, some may find reading philosophy to be an excruciating experience while for others it may be extremely pleasurable.

Historically, people saw good and evil in a far more mystified way. I still know people who see evil as 'an out there' reality, especially in a traditional religious sense. For example, I know someone who carries a Bible around with her and believes that protects her. On a few occasions, she has suggested that I need to carry one and that is why I seem to be disaster prone. Some people currently, but more so in the past, believed in curses. This is bound up by belief in the supernatural, with aspects like earthquakes being an expression of divine wrath. Even Lovelock's idea of the 'revenge of Gaia' is a soft version of this.

You may think that the issue of good and evil has been solved and is beyond need for any philosophy discussion but the problem may have been intrinsic to thinkers from the Stoics to the Buddhists. It is not exclusive to Christianity, even though it led to so much theological debate. Science and humanism may have brought the focus from the supernatural to the natural. However, my own encounter with people who are suffering, including terminal illness and extreme misfortunes is that they so often are puzzled and perplexed, asking, 'Why?'

[Pattern-chaser]

Evil and suffering reflect the chaotic aspects of immaturity or unbalanced maturity. Good reflects a healthy balance of order and chaos.

It is interesting that you have found a way of thinking about the concepts of good and evil while some on forums seem to dismiss any meaning to them beyond the relative ones ascribed to them. That tendency seems to be a result of the stretching of cultural and moral relativism. The idea of finding balance was emphasised by Jung in the concept of wholeness. He argued that in the Judaeo- Christian tradition there had been an unfortunate emphasis on perfection, which had resulted in a lack of balance. However, finding balance or wholeness may be a difficult one because it requires so much integration of aspects of the personality.

It's just how I word it. My substantive points are the same.

The point is the good and evil are simply a matter of the dance between order/growth and destruction/entropy. The sweet spot - where complexity can exist - is not at the extremes but in balance. What is perfection? A crystal - beautiful, fixed, inert. What is chaos? Messy, unstable, overly dynamic. The sweet spot will contain flawed beauty that is stable, but not fixed.

...and yet good and evil remain a judgement on that dance. Good and evil are the result of human value judgements. The judgmental aspect remains, perhaps, the core of the matter, not the dance. I think...

Otherwise, we might comment directly on the path that life takes, and not simply render judgement with our arrogant and meaningless verdicts.

You mention maturity in the text I didn't quote: isn't judging (parts of) the universe itself a great example of the immaturity you (rightly, IMO) assign to humanity?

[Sculptor1]

The entire thrust of this thread is bizarre.
Why on earth would there be an explanation of suffering, good and evil.
For such a thing to exist would imply some sort of universal plan in which these things are designed for a set of reasons.
It is the pathetic moanings of mankind to shout with his fist at the sky shouting "why me?"
The world of evol, good and suffering is completely understandable the very moment you reject such a mind-bendingly childish delusion.
So rather than be a child who thrashes around to find someone to blame for their broken toy; grow up in the universe and understand that good and evil are subjective, and suffering is just part of life, sometimes avoidable others not.
Good is the stuff we live, evil is the stuff we do not. One man's good is another woman's evil. Evil and good are not forces of nature they are reflections upon it; selfish opinions.
Suffering is not part of a plan; it is not there for any reason whatever. It is too generalised to be able to say anything more; but suffering is when you feel the pain of stuff you do not like.

When I speak of an explanation for suffering I am not suggesting that there is an ultimate one, as in one written as a plan. However, it is possible that pain and suffering have an initiating role in evolution in bringing about innovation and change.

Right there. That is the moment you inadvertently invoke a teleology. Evolution is not a cause of change it is the result of change. Suffering is not for anything. Like all traits it is a persistent genetic effect which is maintained because the absence of it is less advantageous. Whilst a pain response has helped in the avoidance of harm, real suffering is the useless chronic pain which serves no use whatever. Suffering is deprivation loss, a million other things which teach nothing at all. As I speak I have neck pain from osteoporosis. It serves no purpose. There is nothing I can do about it, except take drugs which have their own problems. All over the world people suffer from fire flood eruptions war famine. None of this has any evolutionary meaning, and such things are repeated again and again by man and nature.

Historically, people saw good and evil in a far more mystified way. I still know people who see evil as 'an out there' reality, especially in a traditional religious sense. For example, I know someone who carries a Bible around with her and believes that protects her. On a few occasions, she has suggested that I need to carry one and that is why I seem to be disaster prone. Some people currently, but more so in the past, believed in curses. This is bound up by belief in the supernatural, with aspects like earthquakes being an expression of divine wrath. Even Lovelock's idea of the 'revenge of Gaia' is a soft version of this.

WHat's your point?

You may think that the issue of good and evil has been solved and is beyond need for any philosophy discussion but the problem may have been intrinsic to thinkers from the Stoics to the Buddhists. It is not exclusive to Christianity, even though it led to so much theological debate. Science and humanism may have brought the focus from the supernatural to the natural. However, my own encounter with people who are suffering, including terminal illness and extreme misfortunes is that they so often are puzzled and perplexed, asking, 'Why?'

No I do not think the "issue of good and evil" is solved. There is no issue, since there is no good and evil. And "Why" can only be an answer made from an intentional agent.
You can ask why did Putin attack Ukraine; or why the West allows the war to continue to its advantage. Only Putin and the arms makers making **** loads of cash can answer that question. But you cannot so easily attribute actions in the war as good or evil, since what is good for one is evil for another.
Why is a dead word. We may ask "how" and answer more effectively. The world is mute to the whys.

[JackDaydream]

The entire thrust of this thread is bizarre.
Why on earth would there be an explanation of suffering, good and evil.
For such a thing to exist would imply some sort of universal plan in which these things are designed for a set of reasons.
It is the pathetic moanings of mankind to shout with his fist at the sky shouting "why me?"
The world of evol, good and suffering is completely understandable the very moment you reject such a mind-bendingly childish delusion.
So rather than be a child who thrashes around to find someone to blame for their broken toy; grow up in the universe and understand that good and evil are subjective, and suffering is just part of life, sometimes avoidable others not.
Good is the stuff we live, evil is the stuff we do not. One man's good is another woman's evil. Evil and good are not forces of nature they are reflections upon it; selfish opinions.
Suffering is not part of a plan; it is not there for any reason whatever. It is too generalised to be able to say anything more; but suffering is when you feel the pain of stuff you do not like.

When I speak of an explanation for suffering I am not suggesting that there is an ultimate one, as in one written as a plan. However, it is possible that pain and suffering have an initiating role in evolution in bringing about innovation and change.

Right there. That is the moment you inadvertently invoke a teleology. Evolution is not a cause of change it is the result of change. Suffering is not for anything. Like all traits it is a persistent genetic effect which is maintained because the absence of it is less advantageous. Whilst a pain response has helped in the avoidance of harm, real suffering is the useless chronic pain which serves no use whatever. Suffering is deprivation loss, a million other things which teach nothing at all. As I speak I have neck pain from osteoporosis. It serves no purpose. There is nothing I can do about it, except take drugs which have their own problems. All over the world people suffer from fire flood eruptions war famine. None of this has any evolutionary meaning, and such things are repeated again and again by man and nature.

Historically, people saw good and evil in a far more mystified way. I still know people who see evil as 'an out there' reality, especially in a traditional religious sense. For example, I know someone who carries a Bible around with her and believes that protects her. On a few occasions, she has suggested that I need to carry one and that is why I seem to be disaster prone. Some people currently, but more so in the past, believed in curses. This is bound up by belief in the supernatural, with aspects like earthquakes being an expression of divine wrath. Even Lovelock's idea of the 'revenge of Gaia' is a soft version of this.

WHat's your point?

You may think that the issue of good and evil has been solved and is beyond need for any philosophy discussion but the problem may have been intrinsic to thinkers from the Stoics to the Buddhists. It is not exclusive to Christianity, even though it led to so much theological debate. Science and humanism may have brought the focus from the supernatural to the natural. However, my own encounter with people who are suffering, including terminal illness and extreme misfortunes is that they so often are puzzled and perplexed, asking, 'Why?'

No I do not think the "issue of good and evil" is solved. There is no issue, since there is no good and evil. And "Why" can only be an answer made from an intentional agent.
You can ask why did Putin attack Ukraine; or why the West allows the war to continue to its advantage. Only Putin and the arms makers making **** loads of cash can answer that question. But you cannot so easily attribute actions in the war as good or evil, since what is good for one is evil for another.
Why is a dead word. We may ask "how" and answer more effectively. The world is mute to the whys.

I am certainly not trying to argue that suffering is beneficial. That was often the viewpoint advocated in the Christian idea of the 'imitation of Christ', involving picking up one's cross of burdens on a daily basis. In creating the thread I was not intending to present any one specific view of suffering but look at the idea critically, alongside good and evil, as recurrent concepts and themes in philosophy.

You may be right to see evolution as a result of change as opposed to the cause. It is complex though because the idea of natural selection is almost seen by some as an invisible guiding force. One of the writers, who was a Jesuit, Teilhard de Chardin, was inclined to see evolution as an intricate process of becoming and even argued that evolution is not necessarily reached ultimately. This is something I wonder about, although seeing it as a linear process with a goal is questionable. I am not sure that there is a plan, although if there is it is probably beyond human knowledge.

Suffering is something which should not be underplayed, whether in the form of pain, poverty or war. The difficulties of suffering can be so great that they can lead to suicide or contemplation of it. Suffering involves the physical, psychological, social and political aspects of life. My own approach is to seek to turn suffering in its various forms into something which can be positive. This is partly based on Nassim Taleb's, 'Black Swan' book on unpredictability and seizing the black swans in a way which makes them advantageous.

Having come from a background in mental health care, part of my own interest in suffering is about coping with the psychological aspects. I am aware that suffering, often as a result of stress and trauma, can lead to breakdown, including psychosis and clinical depression. However, the other side of this is that those who have been through a lot often seem deeper and wiser than those who have had an easier time, if they can manage to come through the rough and tough of hard experiences.

I don't think that what I am saying is what was picking up one's cross was, which was often about simply putting up with and ensuring pain, almost silently, like a martyr, with no protest or political challenge.

[Sy Borg]

Evil and suffering reflect the chaotic aspects of immaturity or unbalanced maturity. Good reflects a healthy balance of order and chaos.

It is interesting that you have found a way of thinking about the concepts of good and evil while some on forums seem to dismiss any meaning to them beyond the relative ones ascribed to them. That tendency seems to be a result of the stretching of cultural and moral relativism. The idea of finding balance was emphasised by Jung in the concept of wholeness. He argued that in the Judaeo- Christian tradition there had been an unfortunate emphasis on perfection, which had resulted in a lack of balance. However, finding balance or wholeness may be a difficult one because it requires so much integration of aspects of the personality.

It's just how I word it. My substantive points are the same.

The point is the good and evil are simply a matter of the dance between order/growth and destruction/entropy. The sweet spot - where complexity can exist - is not at the extremes but in balance. What is perfection? A crystal - beautiful, fixed, inert. What is chaos? Messy, unstable, overly dynamic. The sweet spot will contain flawed beauty that is stable, but not fixed.

...and yet good and evil remain a judgement on that dance. Good and evil are the result of human value judgements. The judgmental aspect remains, perhaps, the core of the matter, not the dance. I think...

Otherwise, we might comment directly on the path that life takes, and not simply render judgement with our arrogant and meaningless verdicts.

You mention maturity in the text I didn't quote: isn't judging (parts of) the universe itself a great example of the immaturity you (rightly, IMO) assign to humanity?

Yep, a subjective judgement. To a herd of elephants, a poacher is evil. To the poacher's wife, rangers who try to save wildlife are evil, standing in the way of their family's welfare.

I like the idea of simply observing what's going on without laying value judgements on everything, although in a social environment that is largely constructed on judgements, it is isolating and challenging to swim against a strong tide.

I'm too lazy to check but will take your word for it that I have at some point erred or contradicted myself. Note that when I say humanity is immature, that includes me. I'm no more mature than the other schleps around me, and probably less mature than plenty of them. So, sure, I will unwisely judge others at times, speaking as if we weren't all fellow travellers on Spaceship Earth, and in that I reflect the still-developing world around me.

We today have no more concept of humanity's future learning and understanding of reality than Neanderthals would have had of today's situation. The maturity I speak of is in the future, not manifest. It can only be won by experience, and modernity is in its infancy.

[Sculptor1]

The entire thrust of this thread is bizarre.
Why on earth would there be an explanation of suffering, good and evil.
For such a thing to exist would imply some sort of universal plan in which these things are designed for a set of reasons.
It is the pathetic moanings of mankind to shout with his fist at the sky shouting "why me?"
The world of evol, good and suffering is completely understandable the very moment you reject such a mind-bendingly childish delusion.
So rather than be a child who thrashes around to find someone to blame for their broken toy; grow up in the universe and understand that good and evil are subjective, and suffering is just part of life, sometimes avoidable others not.
Good is the stuff we live, evil is the stuff we do not. One man's good is another woman's evil. Evil and good are not forces of nature they are reflections upon it; selfish opinions.
Suffering is not part of a plan; it is not there for any reason whatever. It is too generalised to be able to say anything more; but suffering is when you feel the pain of stuff you do not like.

When I speak of an explanation for suffering I am not suggesting that there is an ultimate one, as in one written as a plan. However, it is possible that pain and suffering have an initiating role in evolution in bringing about innovation and change.

Right there. That is the moment you inadvertently invoke a teleology. Evolution is not a cause of change it is the result of change. Suffering is not for anything. Like all traits it is a persistent genetic effect which is maintained because the absence of it is less advantageous. Whilst a pain response has helped in the avoidance of harm, real suffering is the useless chronic pain which serves no use whatever. Suffering is deprivation loss, a million other things which teach nothing at all. As I speak I have neck pain from osteoporosis. It serves no purpose. There is nothing I can do about it, except take drugs which have their own problems. All over the world people suffer from fire flood eruptions war famine. None of this has any evolutionary meaning, and such things are repeated again and again by man and nature.

Historically, people saw good and evil in a far more mystified way. I still know people who see evil as 'an out there' reality, especially in a traditional religious sense. For example, I know someone who carries a Bible around with her and believes that protects her. On a few occasions, she has suggested that I need to carry one and that is why I seem to be disaster prone. Some people currently, but more so in the past, believed in curses. This is bound up by belief in the supernatural, with aspects like earthquakes being an expression of divine wrath. Even Lovelock's idea of the 'revenge of Gaia' is a soft version of this.

WHat's your point?

You may think that the issue of good and evil has been solved and is beyond need for any philosophy discussion but the problem may have been intrinsic to thinkers from the Stoics to the Buddhists. It is not exclusive to Christianity, even though it led to so much theological debate. Science and humanism may have brought the focus from the supernatural to the natural. However, my own encounter with people who are suffering, including terminal illness and extreme misfortunes is that they so often are puzzled and perplexed, asking, 'Why?'

No I do not think the "issue of good and evil" is solved. There is no issue, since there is no good and evil. And "Why" can only be an answer made from an intentional agent.
You can ask why did Putin attack Ukraine; or why the West allows the war to continue to its advantage. Only Putin and the arms makers making **** loads of cash can answer that question. But you cannot so easily attribute actions in the war as good or evil, since what is good for one is evil for another.
Why is a dead word. We may ask "how" and answer more effectively. The world is mute to the whys.

I am certainly not trying to argue that suffering is beneficial. That was often the viewpoint advocated in the Christian idea of the 'imitation of Christ', involving picking up one's cross of burdens on a daily basis. In creating the thread I was not intending to present any one specific view of suffering but look at the idea critically, alongside good and evil, as recurrent concepts and themes in philosophy.

You may be right to see evolution as a result of change as opposed to the cause. It is complex though because the idea of natural selection is almost seen by some as an invisible guiding force.

Yes this is a most pernicious and widespread myth. Even scientists fall into the teleology trap.
It is almost as if we as humans are bound to make this mistake, it is a widespread failing and the basis of many religions.
Then, ironically enough people will tend to find some selective advantage in this delusion. Which is laughable since one could far more easily find a prospective selective advantage for avoiding this tendency or trait. Imagine a world where we were able to unpack this, and we have the enlightenment.

One of the writers, who was a Jesuit, Teilhard de Chardin, was inclined to see evolution as an intricate process of becoming and even argued that evolution is not necessarily reached ultimately. This is something I wonder about, although seeing it as a linear process with a goal is questionable. I am not sure that there is a plan, although if there is it is probably beyond human knowledge.

Yes the delusion is pervasive an attractive too.

Suffering is something which should not be underplayed, whether in the form of pain, poverty or war. The difficulties of suffering can be so great that they can lead to suicide or contemplation of it. Suffering involves the physical, psychological, social and political aspects of life. My own approach is to seek to turn suffering in its various forms into something which can be positive. This is partly based on Nassim Taleb's, 'Black Swan' book on unpredictability and seizing the black swans in a way which makes them advantageous.

Having come from a background in mental health care, part of my own interest in suffering is about coping with the psychological aspects. I am aware that suffering, often as a result of stress and trauma, can lead to breakdown, including psychosis and clinical depression. However, the other side of this is that those who have been through a lot often seem deeper and wiser than those who have had an easier time, if they can manage to come through the rough and tough of hard experiences.

Last year my brother died fairly young after about 40 years of taking schizophrenia medication without which he could not have lived any kind of a life with any independence. There is little positive to say about the devastation of a young energetic and once optimistic mind brought down by this scourge. And faced with what could only be described as a primitive and perfunctory psychiatric science which has the tendency to reduce all ailments to some sort of "chemical imbalance".

I don't think that what I am saying is what was picking up one's cross was, which was often about simply putting up with and ensuring pain, almost silently, like a martyr, with no protest or political challenge.

[Tom Butler]

There is a lot of talk here about a reason for suffering to exist. While a specific instance of suffering my not be explained in the context of which it occurs, there are some pretty interesting arguments for why suffering as a human experience might exist. As JackDaydream pointed our

"... it is possible that pain and suffering have an initiating role in evolution in bringing about innovation and change."

There are many philosophical models supporting the idea that mind precedes physical reality. For instance, metaphysical Idealism is the conjecture that mind creates reality. The Hypothesis of Formative Causation is the argument that biological organisms are organized according to a species-wide "Nature's Habit via morphogenesis. In that, Nature's Habit is evolved based on successful adaptations to environmental challenges. That is in agreement with Metaphysical Idealism. https://www.sheldrake.org/research/morphic-resonance

As an engineer, it is necessary to consider as many factors as possible when modeling a new system. Failure to account for a input can blind the engineer to an unexpected output. Shoddy engineering can kill people.

It seems necessary to bound a cosmological model of reality based on Metaphysical Idealism by stipulating that the initial condition of reality was something like curiosity. From that comes a sort of prime directive to satisfy that curiosity that might be an idealism equivalent of biological survival instincts. Such a model can be expanded in different ways. In my view, JackDaydream has spelled out the most reasonable objective of suffering. That is, it may be impossible to gain understanding in a steady-state environment. If life was perfect, there would be little impetus to learn, and therefore, evolve understanding to answer curiosity.

A companion concept to satisfying curiosity is what I refer to as Perceptual Agreement. Current speculation in consciousness studies is that we develop perception based on prepressing sensed information according to worldview. Following the idea of Metaphysical Idealism, we limit our ability to experience actual reality based on the inaccuracy of our worldview. If this is correct, an evolutionary result of gaining understanding would be more lucid Perceptual Agreement.

People are first guided by human instincts. A person can live all of life and never look beyond the horizon of what he or she has been taught. The reason I find Strict Dualism so useful is that those urges to look beyond the horizon I spontaneously sense make sense if I allow that at least some of my mind is first guided by discerning intellect.

There is a host of reported human experiences that should be factored into a cosmological model of reality. Suffering is just one of them. From suffering might come most important realizations about self.

[JackDaydream]

When I speak of an explanation for suffering I am not suggesting that there is an ultimate one, as in one written as a plan. However, it is possible that pain and suffering have an initiating role in evolution in bringing about innovation and change.

Right there. That is the moment you inadvertently invoke a teleology. Evolution is not a cause of change it is the result of change. Suffering is not for anything. Like all traits it is a persistent genetic effect which is maintained because the absence of it is less advantageous. Whilst a pain response has helped in the avoidance of harm, real suffering is the useless chronic pain which serves no use whatever. Suffering is deprivation loss, a million other things which teach nothing at all. As I speak I have neck pain from osteoporosis. It serves no purpose. There is nothing I can do about it, except take drugs which have their own problems. All over the world people suffer from fire flood eruptions war famine. None of this has any evolutionary meaning, and such things are repeated again and again by man and nature.

Historically, people saw good and evil in a far more mystified way. I still know people who see evil as 'an out there' reality, especially in a traditional religious sense. For example, I know someone who carries a Bible around with her and believes that protects her. On a few occasions, she has suggested that I need to carry one and that is why I seem to be disaster prone. Some people currently, but more so in the past, believed in curses. This is bound up by belief in the supernatural, with aspects like earthquakes being an expression of divine wrath. Even Lovelock's idea of the 'revenge of Gaia' is a soft version of this.

WHat's your point?

You may think that the issue of good and evil has been solved and is beyond need for any philosophy discussion but the problem may have been intrinsic to thinkers from the Stoics to the Buddhists. It is not exclusive to Christianity, even though it led to so much theological debate. Science and humanism may have brought the focus from the supernatural to the natural. However, my own encounter with people who are suffering, including terminal illness and extreme misfortunes is that they so often are puzzled and perplexed, asking, 'Why?'

No I do not think the "issue of good and evil" is solved. There is no issue, since there is no good and evil. And "Why" can only be an answer made from an intentional agent.
You can ask why did Putin attack Ukraine; or why the West allows the war to continue to its advantage. Only Putin and the arms makers making **** loads of cash can answer that question. But you cannot so easily attribute actions in the war as good or evil, since what is good for one is evil for another.
Why is a dead word. We may ask "how" and answer more effectively. The world is mute to the whys.

I am certainly not trying to argue that suffering is beneficial. That was often the viewpoint advocated in the Christian idea of the 'imitation of Christ', involving picking up one's cross of burdens on a daily basis. In creating the thread I was not intending to present any one specific view of suffering but look at the idea critically, alongside good and evil, as recurrent concepts and themes in philosophy.

You may be right to see evolution as a result of change as opposed to the cause. It is complex though because the idea of natural selection is almost seen by some as an invisible guiding force.

Yes this is a most pernicious and widespread myth. Even scientists fall into the teleology trap.
It is almost as if we as humans are bound to make this mistake, it is a widespread failing and the basis of many religions.
Then, ironically enough people will tend to find some selective advantage in this delusion. Which is laughable since one could far more easily find a prospective selective advantage for avoiding this tendency or trait. Imagine a world where we were able to unpack this, and we have the enlightenment.

One of the writers, who was a Jesuit, Teilhard de Chardin, was inclined to see evolution as an intricate process of becoming and even argued that evolution is not necessarily reached ultimately. This is something I wonder about, although seeing it as a linear process with a goal is questionable. I am not sure that there is a plan, although if there is it is probably beyond human knowledge.

Yes the delusion is pervasive an attractive too.

Suffering is something which should not be underplayed, whether in the form of pain, poverty or war. The difficulties of suffering can be so great that they can lead to suicide or contemplation of it. Suffering involves the physical, psychological, social and political aspects of life. My own approach is to seek to turn suffering in its various forms into something which can be positive. This is partly based on Nassim Taleb's, 'Black Swan' book on unpredictability and seizing the black swans in a way which makes them advantageous.

Having come from a background in mental health care, part of my own interest in suffering is about coping with the psychological aspects. I am aware that suffering, often as a result of stress and trauma, can lead to breakdown, including psychosis and clinical depression. However, the other side of this is that those who have been through a lot often seem deeper and wiser than those who have had an easier time, if they can manage to come through the rough and tough of hard experiences.

Last year my brother died fairly young after about 40 years of taking schizophrenia medication without which he could not have lived any kind of a life with any independence. There is little positive to say about the devastation of a young energetic and once optimistic mind brought down by this scourge. And faced with what could only be described as a primitive and perfunctory psychiatric science which has the tendency to reduce all ailments to some sort of "chemical imbalance".

I don't think that what I am saying is what was picking up one's cross was, which was often about simply putting up with and ensuring pain, almost silently, like a martyr, with no protest or political challenge.

Sorry to hear about your brother and I am aware of the grim predicament of people who experience the condition diagnosed as schizophrenia. When I spoke of people who 'breakthrough' and emerge as stronger I am speaking of a small minority, such as a few people who I know who have experienced a psychotic breakdown and learned so much, such as someone who I know wel who had a psychotic breakdown and was in an psychiatric intensive care unit and he is now a senior tutor in nursing. But, I have definitely seen the other side and how many suffer so much, through the experience of psychosis and the medication given to treat it.

A few months ago I remember discussion with you about the cardio-metabolic syndrome and there does appear to be a clear link between antipsychotic medication and this. While most of the older antipsychotics had the, extrapyramidal, movement problems, some of the newer ones like Olanzapine and Clozapine lead to tremendous weight gain which seems to trigger so many other potential physical problems, including type 2 diabetes. Many people don't wish to take their medication because they are aware of side-effects, especially the weight gain.

My own interest in the problem of suffering was originally based on knowing a number of people with serious mental health problems, including people who committed suicide. I felt that losing 3 friends to suicide in a short space of about 3-4 years to be my own personal experience of suffering. One of these 3 had missed his antipsychotic medication and was smoking cannabis. So, the problem of medication or not having it are complex.

I definitely don't wish to romanticize suffering, and in a way, some of the existentialist outsiders, like Camus, Nietzsche and Sartre may contribute towards this. I read Colin Wilson's ' The Outsider' and found it so significant but there is a danger of misery and suffering being glamourised, especially by angry young men. The reality of those who are going through the depths of mental pain is far from romantic.

I guess my own wish to see the positive in suffering is partly based on reading, such as the ideas of Victor Frankl. Having been in a Nazi concentration camp he speaks of how people could find meaning amidst suffering. However, it may be extremely difficult to live with physical, emotional or mental suffering.

Finally, I did notice that you mentioned schizophrenia being seen as a chemical disorder. That has been the view of some, who try to reduce it to genetics and neuroscience. But, that is open to question. In some cases, people who experience schizophrenia link it to early life experiences. In addition, it can encompass so many of the existential aspects of life, including issues to do with sexual expression and ideas about religion, and even ideas about good and evil.