Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[JackDaydream]

The understanding of good, evil and suffering in human life varies so much depending on whether good and evil is seen from a religious, spiritual perspective or from the standpoint of secular philosophies. It depends whether good and evil are seen as cosmic forces or human constructs. The way this is seen will have likely consequences for how the experience of suffering and of how human nature is seen. The theologian, Victor White, and the psychoanalyst, Carl Jung, engaged in a lengthy dialogue about this, in which Jung argued that the theological idea of evil as the mere absence of good, was inadequate because it denied the real power of evil in it's own right.

Jung discussed suffering and the problem of evil in his, 'Answer to Job'. He saw the dark, repressed side of human nature, the shadow, especially in the emphasis on goodness and perfection, as posing a distinct threat. He saw this as being represented by the threat of mass nuclear destruction. He was writing in the last century and the ecological crisis and many global issues in the twentieth first century would be relevant. The shadow is an important aspect for thinking about destruction in personal life.

Some have seen evil as the lower self and, in, 'Living With the Devil: A Meditation on Good and Evil', Stephen Batchelor says,
'The devil is a way of talking about that which blocks one's path in life, frustrates one's aspirations, makes one feel stuck, hemmed in, obstructed. While the Hebrew Satan means "adversary," the Greek diabolos means "one who throws something across the path. " In India, Buddha called the devil Mara, which in Pali and Sanskrit means "the killer".

The dialogue between East and West on good, evil and suffering are important as between those who come
from a spiritual or secular starting point. The experience and attempts to understand these are framed in the basic philosophy approaches. In addition, the understanding of the experience of suffering may influence the wider philosophies which a person develops. It was such experiences as witnessing sickness and death which was the starting point for the spiritual journey of Gautama Buddha.

There is also the question as to what extent can suffering have a long reaching negative or positive effect on a person's life? I am asking you how do you understand the nature of suffering, good and evil, and how does this influence your philosophy?

[LuckyR]

The understanding of good, evil and suffering in human life varies so much depending on whether good and evil is seen from a religious, spiritual perspective or from the standpoint of secular philosophies. It depends whether good and evil are seen as cosmic forces or human constructs. The way this is seen will have likely consequences for how the experience of suffering and of how human nature is seen. The theologian, Victor White, and the psychoanalyst, Carl Jung, engaged in a lengthy dialogue about this, in which Jung argued that the theological idea of evil as the mere absence of good, was inadequate because it denied the real power of evil in it's own right.

Jung discussed suffering and the problem of evil in his, 'Answer to Job'. He saw the dark, repressed side of human nature, the shadow, especially in the emphasis on goodness and perfection, as posing a distinct threat. He saw this as being represented by the threat of mass nuclear destruction. He was writing in the last century and the ecological crisis and many global issues in the twentieth first century would be relevant. The shadow is an important aspect for thinking about destruction in personal life.

Some have seen evil as the lower self and, in, 'Living With the Devil: A Meditation on Good and Evil', Stephen Batchelor says,
'The devil is a way of talking about that which blocks one's path in life, frustrates one's aspirations, makes one feel stuck, hemmed in, obstructed. While the Hebrew Satan means "adversary," the Greek diabolos means "one who throws something across the path. " In India, Buddha called the devil Mara, which in Pali and Sanskrit means "the killer".

The dialogue between East and West on good, evil and suffering are important as between those who come
from a spiritual or secular starting point. The experience and attempts to understand these are framed in the basic philosophy approaches. In addition, the understanding of the experience of suffering may influence the wider philosophies which a person develops. It was such experiences as witnessing sickness and death which was the starting point for the spiritual journey of Gautama Buddha.

There is also the question as to what extent can suffering have a long reaching negative or positive effect on a person's life? I am asking you how do you understand the nature of suffering, good and evil, and how does this influence your philosophy?

Good, evil and suffering are all subjective terms and thus only exist in the minds of humans. That is they are retrospective descriptors that carry no practical value in the moment.

[Tom Butler]

In the now idle ATransC, an organization focused on communication across the veil, a continuing debate was whether there was evil. That is, are some of the transcommunicators evil spirits. The consensus amongst the members was that they were not evil, just people behaving badly.

We learned that we could not trust our examples because the original messages were "translated" by the practitioner's or an interested observer's worldview. For instance, a communicator might signal "Do not bother me" and we might record "I hate you." While the initial signal may have been benign, the experimenter tended to produce the actual trans-etheric influence according to his or her expectation. Fearful practitioners tended to record fearful EVP. A very religious person tended to record religion-flavored EVP.

Then we had the comedians. In one example, a member recorded "Tell her its Satan." https://atransc.org/copeland-evp/. In another, we recorded "Prepare to die." https://atransc.org/evp-tom-lisa-butler/. Were the communicators evil, or just acting out?

I my opinion, our etheric personality is pragmatic. Any appearance of good or evil represents an effort to teach.

[Mazi_thinker]

What is meant by good, evil and suffering?
Good
The word good means different things to different people. Everyone interprets the word differently, and what people consider to be good can also depend on their values, beliefs and culture. Generally, the word good is used for things which are not evil or bad, eg:

caring for others
helping others
showing compassion to others
Evil
Evil is a cause of human suffering. There are two types of evil:

moral evil - the acts of humans which are considered to be morally wrong
natural evil - natural disasters, such as earthquakes or tsunamis
These two types of evil can work together, eg human evil can make natural evil worse. If natural evil, eg a drought brought on by lack of rainfall, causes crops to fail, the policies of a government can make the food shortages for the poorest people worse (moral evil).

Religions differ in what they teach about the origins of evil.

Some consider it to have been present in the world from the beginning as the work of evil forces.
Some believe it is part of God's creation which may have a purpose that humans cannot understand.
Some consider it to be the outcome of ignorance and to have no beginning.
Most religions teach that moral evil should be opposed. Attempts should be made to minimise the impact of natural evil.
Suffering
Suffering is the bearing or undergoing of pain or distress.

Most people experience suffering at some time in their life. Religions attempt to explain suffering, help people to cope with it and learn from it. For some religious people, the fact that people suffer can raise difficult questions about why God allows this to happen.

Some people say that God allows humans to make decisions for themselves and that suffering is caused by the choices that people make.

Questions raised by the existence of evil and suffering in the world
What does the presence of evil and suffering say about God's love, power and purpose?
Is there a purpose to suffering?
Is suffering the price humans pay for free will?
How do different religions respond to evil and suffering?
How do individuals respond to evil and suffering?

[JackDaydream]

The understanding of good, evil and suffering in human life varies so much depending on whether good and evil is seen from a religious, spiritual perspective or from the standpoint of secular philosophies. It depends whether good and evil are seen as cosmic forces or human constructs. The way this is seen will have likely consequences for how the experience of suffering and of how human nature is seen. The theologian, Victor White, and the psychoanalyst, Carl Jung, engaged in a lengthy dialogue about this, in which Jung argued that the theological idea of evil as the mere absence of good, was inadequate because it denied the real power of evil in it's own right.

Jung discussed suffering and the problem of evil in his, 'Answer to Job'. He saw the dark, repressed side of human nature, the shadow, especially in the emphasis on goodness and perfection, as posing a distinct threat. He saw this as being represented by the threat of mass nuclear destruction. He was writing in the last century and the ecological crisis and many global issues in the twentieth first century would be relevant. The shadow is an important aspect for thinking about destruction in personal life.

Some have seen evil as the lower self and, in, 'Living With the Devil: A Meditation on Good and Evil', Stephen Batchelor says,
'The devil is a way of talking about that which blocks one's path in life, frustrates one's aspirations, makes one feel stuck, hemmed in, obstructed. While the Hebrew Satan means "adversary," the Greek diabolos means "one who throws something across the path. " In India, Buddha called the devil Mara, which in Pali and Sanskrit means "the killer".

The dialogue between East and West on good, evil and suffering are important as between those who come
from a spiritual or secular starting point. The experience and attempts to understand these are framed in the basic philosophy approaches. In addition, the understanding of the experience of suffering may influence the wider philosophies which a person develops. It was such experiences as witnessing sickness and death which was the starting point for the spiritual journey of Gautama Buddha.

There is also the question as to what extent can suffering have a long reaching negative or positive effect on a person's life? I am asking you how do you understand the nature of suffering, good and evil, and how does this influence your philosophy?

Good, evil and suffering are all subjective terms and thus only exist in the minds of humans. That is they are retrospective descriptors that carry no practical value in the moment.

The terms good and evil, as well as suffering, emotive ones, especially used in the media. Sometimes, people, including rapists and serial killers are described as 'evil' which is an all encompassing label beyond the acts committed by the individual. However, there is the danger of cultural and moral relativism creeping in to the point where significant harm to others and conditions of pain are almost denied. For example, the experiences of war and torture involve so much suffering that it would seem ridiculous to deny that it is suffering. There is a whole spectrum ranging from existential angst and the whole culture of misery. But it is a dubious area because while most people have their blue and black shades of emotions the reality of depression, including suicidal despair is real.

Sometimes, the terms good and evil may be unhelpful because they are too black and white. Also, they conjure up the idea of metaphysical forces. Marilyn Manson, in his autobiography says how he did believe that he was the Antichrist at one stage. However, he went onto read the ideas of Jung and concluded that it was probably his encounter with the shadow. The nature of horror movies and fiction and the whole goth movement may be about living with the shadow psychologically. But, living with the shadow as opposed to being dragged by it may be complicated because the human capacity for destruction, including self destruction is powerful.

[JackDaydream]

In the now idle ATransC, an organization focused on communication across the veil, a continuing debate was whether there was evil. That is, are some of the transcommunicators evil spirits. The consensus amongst the members was that they were not evil, just people behaving badly.

We learned that we could not trust our examples because the original messages were "translated" by the practitioner's or an interested observer's worldview. For instance, a communicator might signal "Do not bother me" and we might record "I hate you." While the initial signal may have been benign, the experimenter tended to produce the actual trans-etheric influence according to his or her expectation. Fearful practitioners tended to record fearful EVP. A very religious person tended to record religion-flavored EVP.

Then we had the comedians. In one example, a member recorded "Tell her its Satan." https://atransc.org/copeland-evp/. In another, we recorded "Prepare to die." https://atransc.org/evp-tom-lisa-butler/. Were the communicators evil, or just acting out?

I my opinion, our etheric personality is pragmatic. Any appearance of good or evil represents an effort to teach.

The idea of evil spirits goes back to magic and it is likely that many people are superstitious in spite of the enlightenment and rationalism. I know many people who are afraid of black magic. Some in spiritual traditions tend to try to see 'the devil' in certain music and ideas. This may be fear based, especially when evil and good are seen as external forces as opposed to being recognized as an interplay of imminent opposites, especially the life and death instincts, Eros and Thanatos, as described by Sigmund Freud.

[JackDaydream]

What is meant by good, evil and suffering?
Good
The word good means different things to different people. Everyone interprets the word differently, and what people consider to be good can also depend on their values, beliefs and culture. Generally, the word good is used for things which are not evil or bad, eg:

caring for others
helping others
showing compassion to others
Evil
Evil is a cause of human suffering. There are two types of evil:

moral evil - the acts of humans which are considered to be morally wrong
natural evil - natural disasters, such as earthquakes or tsunamis
These two types of evil can work together, eg human evil can make natural evil worse. If natural evil, eg a drought brought on by lack of rainfall, causes crops to fail, the policies of a government can make the food shortages for the poorest people worse (moral evil).

Religions differ in what they teach about the origins of evil.

Some consider it to have been present in the world from the beginning as the work of evil forces.
Some believe it is part of God's creation which may have a purpose that humans cannot understand.
Some consider it to be the outcome of ignorance and to have no beginning.
Most religions teach that moral evil should be opposed. Attempts should be made to minimise the impact of natural evil.
Suffering
Suffering is the bearing or undergoing of pain or distress.

Most people experience suffering at some time in their life. Religions attempt to explain suffering, help people to cope with it and learn from it. For some religious people, the fact that people suffer can raise difficult questions about why God allows this to happen.

Some people say that God allows humans to make decisions for themselves and that suffering is caused by the choices that people make.

Questions raised by the existence of evil and suffering in the world
What does the presence of evil and suffering say about God's love, power and purpose?
Is there a purpose to suffering?
Is suffering the price humans pay for free will?
How do different religions respond to evil and suffering?
How do individuals respond to evil and suffering?

Thanks for your detailed reply which looks at the different concepts. It seems like you believe in God and I am not sure whether it is harder to accept suffering with or without the idea of God. I am neither a theist or an atheist in the conventional religious sense, but definitely not a materialist. I am interested in comparative religion and the perennial philosophy underlying all religion.

At times, some spiritual systems may have glossed over suffering by emphasising how suffering must be endured in this life with the hope of a better life in the hereafter which may be problematic in justifying inequalities and injustice. Also, the idea of karma, and, 'As you sow, so shall you reap', may be a way of justifying the status quo through an emphasis on the idea that people suffer on account of wrongdoing in this life or past lives. Some spiritual ideas may take the edge off suffering, and some practices like meditation. However, it can make people subservient and lacking in challenging social and life conditions. Of course, in contrast awareness of suffering oneself can be a pathway to empathy and compassion if it does not lead to breakdown and bitterness. It may be that in some cases suffering can lead a person to explore deeper, as stressed in the idea of 'the dark night of the soul', which may come in the quest for spiritual enlightenment.

[Tom Butler]

Sometimes, the terms good and evil may be unhelpful because they are too black and white. Also, they conjure up the idea of metaphysical forces.

Therein rests the problem. The cosmological model we have found most useful is Strict Dualism in which the practitioner or an interested observer provide the conduit by which the communicating influence is introduced into the physical. That model includes the idea that the trans-etheric communication channel is moderated by worldview of the practitioner or an interested observer.

The reason it is so important to define concepts such as good and evil in neutral, even analytical terms is that the Judge function, which depends on worldview and produces perception, is dominated by human instincts. Our human has an instinctual predisposition to be fearful.

As a co-director of an organization dedicated to understand trans-etheric phenomena, the last thing I wanted was to be seen as endorsing the existence of evil. It is a short logical progression from thinking of evil in terms of metaphysics and thinking of it in terms of God's punishment or Karma.

An assumption of many some ancient spiritual teachings, some modern religions and modern-day Spiritualists, is that our physical life experiences are to be examined to find their hidden lessons. Some teach that the only evil in any experience is our failure to learn from the opportunity.

It is helpful to understand these points of view from the perspective of immortal Self, rather than short-lived humans.

[JackDaydream]

Sometimes, the terms good and evil may be unhelpful because they are too black and white. Also, they conjure up the idea of metaphysical forces.

Therein rests the problem. The cosmological model we have found most useful is Strict Dualism in which the practitioner or an interested observer provide the conduit by which the communicating influence is introduced into the physical. That model includes the idea that the trans-etheric communication channel is moderated by worldview of the practitioner or an interested observer.

The reason it is so important to define concepts such as good and evil in neutral, even analytical terms is that the Judge function, which depends on worldview and produces perception, is dominated by human instincts. Our human has an instinctual predisposition to be fearful.

As a co-director of an organization dedicated to understand trans-etheric phenomena, the last thing I wanted was to be seen as endorsing the existence of evil. It is a short logical progression from thinking of evil in terms of metaphysics and thinking of it in terms of God's punishment or Karma.

An assumption of many some ancient spiritual teachings, some modern religions and modern-day Spiritualists, is that our physical life experiences are to be examined to find their hidden lessons. Some teach that the only evil in any experience is our failure to learn from the opportunity.

It is helpful to understand these points of view from the perspective of immortal Self, rather than short-lived humans.

The judge aspects of dividing between good and evil is extremely problematic. It leads not only to moral condemnation of the self but judgmental views of others. Nevertheless, I am not sure that there is not an inherent learning process in human life and in nature. It may incorporate morality but not be about that alone but more about learning from mistakes. This may be an evolutionary aspect of nature and the correction of flaws. But the judgments about good and evil are restrictive, especially as they may depend on where one stands. An event or certain set of circumstances may alter according to where one lies. One person's misfortune may lead to another's fortune in the competitive jungle of life. What is attributed to the gods or God may also be seen as God's will, and thereby as good, such as a nation's victory in war. In this way, good and evil exist in the eye of the beholder and ideas of 'divine' will and justice are questionable, even if the trials and errors of human beings are constantly altering even if there is some evolutionary developments. There are also likely to be some forms of backsliding and it is hard to know if there is any ultimate purpose beyond the meanings of those developed by the subjectivities of human actors in the dramas of nature and existence.

[LuckyR]

The understanding of good, evil and suffering in human life varies so much depending on whether good and evil is seen from a religious, spiritual perspective or from the standpoint of secular philosophies. It depends whether good and evil are seen as cosmic forces or human constructs. The way this is seen will have likely consequences for how the experience of suffering and of how human nature is seen. The theologian, Victor White, and the psychoanalyst, Carl Jung, engaged in a lengthy dialogue about this, in which Jung argued that the theological idea of evil as the mere absence of good, was inadequate because it denied the real power of evil in it's own right.

Jung discussed suffering and the problem of evil in his, 'Answer to Job'. He saw the dark, repressed side of human nature, the shadow, especially in the emphasis on goodness and perfection, as posing a distinct threat. He saw this as being represented by the threat of mass nuclear destruction. He was writing in the last century and the ecological crisis and many global issues in the twentieth first century would be relevant. The shadow is an important aspect for thinking about destruction in personal life.

Some have seen evil as the lower self and, in, 'Living With the Devil: A Meditation on Good and Evil', Stephen Batchelor says,
'The devil is a way of talking about that which blocks one's path in life, frustrates one's aspirations, makes one feel stuck, hemmed in, obstructed. While the Hebrew Satan means "adversary," the Greek diabolos means "one who throws something across the path. " In India, Buddha called the devil Mara, which in Pali and Sanskrit means "the killer".

The dialogue between East and West on good, evil and suffering are important as between those who come
from a spiritual or secular starting point. The experience and attempts to understand these are framed in the basic philosophy approaches. In addition, the understanding of the experience of suffering may influence the wider philosophies which a person develops. It was such experiences as witnessing sickness and death which was the starting point for the spiritual journey of Gautama Buddha.

There is also the question as to what extent can suffering have a long reaching negative or positive effect on a person's life? I am asking you how do you understand the nature of suffering, good and evil, and how does this influence your philosophy?

Good, evil and suffering are all subjective terms and thus only exist in the minds of humans. That is they are retrospective descriptors that carry no practical value in the moment.

The terms good and evil, as well as suffering, emotive ones, especially used in the media. Sometimes, people, including rapists and serial killers are described as 'evil' which is an all encompassing label beyond the acts committed by the individual. However, there is the danger of cultural and moral relativism creeping in to the point where significant harm to others and conditions of pain are almost denied. For example, the experiences of war and torture involve so much suffering that it would seem ridiculous to deny that it is suffering. There is a whole spectrum ranging from existential angst and the whole culture of misery. But it is a dubious area because while most people have their blue and black shades of emotions the reality of depression, including suicidal despair is real.

Sometimes, the terms good and evil may be unhelpful because they are too black and white. Also, they conjure up the idea of metaphysical forces. Marilyn Manson, in his autobiography says how he did believe that he was the Antichrist at one stage. However, he went onto read the ideas of Jung and concluded that it was probably his encounter with the shadow. The nature of horror movies and fiction and the whole goth movement may be about living with the shadow psychologically. But, living with the shadow as opposed to being dragged by it may be complicated because the human capacity for destruction, including self destruction is powerful.

Several excellent examples of the reality that these terms are in fact subjective. That is not to say that they can't be useful for communicating particular ideas and concepts among humans. My point is that they have no value beyond the human experience.

[JackDaydream]

Sometimes, the terms good and evil may be unhelpful because they are too black and white. Also, they conjure up the idea of metaphysical forces.

Therein rests the problem. The cosmological model we have found most useful is Strict Dualism in which the practitioner or an interested observer provide the conduit by which the communicating influence is introduced into the physical. That model includes the idea that the trans-etheric communication channel is moderated by worldview of the practitioner or an interested observer.

The reason it is so important to define concepts such as good and evil in neutral, even analytical terms is that the Judge function, which depends on worldview and produces perception, is dominated by human instincts. Our human has an instinctual predisposition to be fearful.

As a co-director of an organization dedicated to understand trans-etheric phenomena, the last thing I wanted was to be seen as endorsing the existence of evil. It is a short logical progression from thinking of evil in terms of metaphysics and thinking of it in terms of God's punishment or Karma.

An assumption of many some ancient spiritual teachings, some modern religions and modern-day Spiritualists, is that our physical life experiences are to be examined to find their hidden lessons. Some teach that the only evil in any experience is our failure to learn from the opportunity.

It is helpful to understand these points of view from the perspective of immortal Self, rather than short-lived humans.

The judge aspects of dividing between good and evil is extremely problematic. It leads not only to moral condemnation of the self but judgmental views of others. Nevertheless, I am not sure that there is not an inherent learning process in human life and in nature. It may incorporate morality but not be about that alone but more about learning from mistakes. This may be an evolutionary aspect of nature and the correction of flaws. But the judgments about good and evil are restrictive, especially as they may depend on where one stands. An event or certain set of circumstances may alter according to where one lies. One person's misfortune may lead to another's fortune in the competitive jungle of life. What is attributed to the gods or God may also be seen as God's will, and thereby as good, such as a nation's victory in war. In this way, good and evil exist in the eye of the beholder and ideas of 'divine' will and justice are questionable, even if the trials and errors of human beings are constantly altering even if there is some evolutionary developments. There are also likely to be some forms of backsliding and it is hard to know if there is any ultimate purpose beyond the meanings of those developed by the subjectivities of human actors in the dramas of nature and existence.

I can definitely see that the terms good, evil and suffering are to be understood in connection with human meaning but there is still the question where do the concepts come from in the first instance. That is because the concepts are central to all human cultures.

That is not to say that there are distinct metaphysical entities like a literal God vs devil, although many people do believe that there is. There is the issue of variation in how concepts of good and evil come into play but they do have an underlying universality, like many other concepts. It may go back to anthropology and ideas like purity, taboo, the sacred and the profane, which were central to the development of religious thinking. In this sense the concepts are archetypal and it would be hard to think of any conscious beings who would be able to make the concepts of good and evil redundant completely.

Nietzsche spoke of going 'Beyond Good and Evil', but this was more about a critique of conventional Christian morality rather than the actual concepts. Of course, part of the issue is binary opposites, with the idea of good and evil central to the formation of ethical ideas. If one really abandoned good and evil, as in going beyond good and evil, everything and anything could be permissible, as complete moral anarchy. But, aside from the duality, there is a whole continuum with many aspects of life being seen as in between good and evil. If anything, linguistically, it may be that the terms of good and, evil especially, are best avoided except in extremes, just as in art it is often recommended that black as a pigment should be used to an absolute minimalist way.

[Tom Butler]

I can definitely see that the terms good, evil and suffering are to be understood in connection with human meaning but there is still the question where do the concepts come from in the first instance. That is because the concepts are central to all human cultures.

One of the principles in the Hermetica is
1. The Principle of Polarity.
Everything is dual; everything has poles; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree; extremes meet; all truths are but half-truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled. https://ethericstudies.org/hermes-concepts/#Principles

The Hermetica is thought to have evolved out of the 6,000 years ago Egyptian priesthood along with the Emerald Tablet, which I think presents a lesson in the creative process ... essential for a spiritual seeker.

The 4,000 year-old kata Upanishad includes instruction in distinguishing between that which is pleasurable and that which is meaningful. https://ethericstudies.org/razors-edge/ Here, pleasurable is a reference to human instincts and meaningful is a reference to spiritual growth.

I submit that humankind has long been aware of nature's polarity. The question I have is whether this probably naturally occurring awareness has come into ancient Egypt fully understood or if it is an evolved understanding. For instance, most people today never consider the creative process, yet it seems to have been a fully developed concept 6,000 years ago.

Good and evil look a lot like a (religious) social engineering version of naturally occurring recognition that Nature tends to be expressed in expressions bound by extremes.

[Stoppelmann]

The understanding of good, evil and suffering in human life varies so much depending on whether good and evil is seen from a religious, spiritual perspective or from the standpoint of secular philosophies. It depends whether good and evil are seen as cosmic forces or human constructs. The way this is seen will have likely consequences for how the experience of suffering and of how human nature is seen. The theologian, Victor White, and the psychoanalyst, Carl Jung, engaged in a lengthy dialogue about this, in which Jung argued that the theological idea of evil as the mere absence of good, was inadequate because it denied the real power of evil in it's own right.

Jung discussed suffering and the problem of evil in his, 'Answer to Job'. He saw the dark, repressed side of human nature, the shadow, especially in the emphasis on goodness and perfection, as posing a distinct threat. He saw this as being represented by the threat of mass nuclear destruction. He was writing in the last century and the ecological crisis and many global issues in the twentieth first century would be relevant. The shadow is an important aspect for thinking about destruction in personal life.

I was struck by Hannah Arendt’s discovery that evil is often banal. Arendt found Adolph Eichmann, the Nazi operative responsible for organising the transportation of millions of Jews and others to various concentration camps in support of the Nazi’s Final Solution, an ordinary, rather bland, bureaucrat, who in her words, was ‘neither perverted nor sadistic’, but ‘terrifyingly normal’. He performed evil deeds without evil intentions, a fact connected to his ‘thoughtlessness’, a disengagement from the reality of his evil acts. I think that this describes my experience of people I thought were evil, which in a way is a voluntary departure from what we agree is being human.

Our shadow, that other half of our personality that we choose to ignore, much like a stroke patients neglects an arm, is able to steer us especially when we are in automatic mode, unaware of what we are doing. Many people who do inhumane things are afterwards shocked at what they did. But there is also the malevolent, malicious activity, which must necessarily dehumanise its victims, and rationalise its deeds as necessary. This is once more a voluntary disconnection from the spoken or unspoken agreement that we have about what is acceptable or not.

Some have seen evil as the lower self and, in, 'Living With the Devil: A Meditation on Good and Evil', Stephen Batchelor says,
'The devil is a way of talking about that which blocks one's path in life, frustrates one's aspirations, makes one feel stuck, hemmed in, obstructed. While the Hebrew Satan means "adversary," the Greek diabolos means "one who throws something across the path. " In India, Buddha called the devil Mara, which in Pali and Sanskrit means "the killer".

Māra, the Buddhist “Lord of the Senses,” has three daughters, Tṛṣṇā, Rati, and Rāga (thirst, desire, and delight), and Satan is traditionally understood as an angel (or sometimes a jinnī in Islam), and as the accuser of mankind is the antagonistic spirit in the world. In a way the adversary is right, and knows us better than we know ourselves, because the truth of the matter is that we frustrate our own aspirations, and we cling to things and have the subjective feeling that we are stuck, hemmed in or obstructed. Diabolos is the slanderer, the backbiter, the false accuser, but often, as with Job, we have to concede the constraints of our human understanding.

The dialogue between East and West on good, evil and suffering are important as between those who come from a spiritual or secular starting point. The experience and attempts to understand these are framed in the basic philosophy approaches. In addition, the understanding of the experience of suffering may influence the wider philosophies which a person develops. It was such experiences as witnessing sickness and death which was the starting point for the spiritual journey of Gautama Buddha.
There is also the question as to what extent can suffering have a long reaching negative or positive effect on a person's life? I am asking you how do you understand the nature of suffering, good and evil, and how does this influence your philosophy?

The word usually translated as suffering is dukkha, which means that which is bad, difficult, and inclining toward illness or harm. It has often been derived from the prefix du meaning "bad" or "difficult" and the root kha, "empty," "hole," which could allude to a badly fitting axle-hole of a cart or chariot giving a very bumpy ride. This isn’t certain however, because it’s opposite is sukha, which means that which is good, easy, and conducive to well-being, and doesn’t suggest a smooth ride. So, the “noble truth” of suffering, does not simply refer to bodily pain, but its meaning is far more subtle and rich.

This is less subtle in the Bible, and the advice there amounts to, “Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.” (Philippians 4)

I find the Buddha’s eightfold path instructive, whereas the advice that Paul gives about putting on the full armour of God, “so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes” puts the problem outside, rather than inside, which seems to be the Buddha’s approach. Yes, there is Māra, whose name means "destruction" and who represents the passions that snare and delude us, but in traditional Buddhism, four or five metaphorical forms of Māra are given:
Kleśa-māra - Māra as the embodiment of all unskillful emotions, such as greed, hate and delusion.
Mṛtyu-māra - Māra as death.
Skandha-māra - Māra as metaphor for the entirety of conditioned existence.
Devaputra-māra - the deva of the sensuous realm, who tried to prevent Gautama Buddha from attaining liberation from the cycle of rebirth on the night of the Buddha’s enlightenment.

So how does this influence my philosophy? First of all, I see the problem as internal and we all should know ourselves well enough to realise that. We have an ego that interprets what is conducive to our well-being in a radical way, sometimes as if we were under threat, and undermines a more social perspective. Secondly, we have the challenge of the outside world, whether it is the ego of others or the natural powers that be, which can both make our lives miserable.

This means that we need a right view or understanding as the eightfold path tells us, which virtually means we have to be realistic about the true nature of reality.
We also need the right intention. In the Dhammapada, we read (Gil Fronsdal’s translation):
“All experience is preceded by mind,
Led by mind,
made by mind.
Speak or act with a corrupted mind,
and suffering follows
As the wagon wheel follows the hoof of the ox.”
But right intention includes the relinquishment of desire, such as greed, envy, jealousy or other forms of ill will. Instead of that, good will is pursued. Also Ahimsa, the doctrine of non-violence, concerned with the sacredness of all living things and an effort to avoid causing harm to them.

Right speech means using speech compassionately. In Pali, Right Speech is samma vaca. The word samma has a sense of being perfected or completed, and vaca refers to words or speech, so to me it means mastering speech in a compassionate way.
Right action means to use ethical conduct as a means to manifest compassion, or cultivating “normative ethics” which is concerned about how we should be motivated and how we should act.
Right livelihood means making a living in the sense of right action and right intention, through ethical and non-harmful way.
Right effort points to cultivating wholesome qualities, which includes healthy, beneficial, and restorative habits.
Right mindfulness, which is the basic human ability to be fully present, aware of where we are and what we’re doing, and not overly reactive or overwhelmed by what’s going on around us.
Right concentration. The Pali word translated into English as "concentration" is samadhi. The root words of samadhi, sam-a-dha, mean "to bring together."

This is for me more instructive and helps me give the word love a deeper meaning, which in Christianity has similar aspects, though I find (perhaps falsely) that Buddhism is more pragmatic than emotional. Especially the last two meditative and contemplative aspects instruct me to align with what I conceive to be the will of God.

[JackDaydream]

I can definitely see that the terms good, evil and suffering are to be understood in connection with human meaning but there is still the question where do the concepts come from in the first instance. That is because the concepts are central to all human cultures.

One of the principles in the Hermetica is
1. The Principle of Polarity.
Everything is dual; everything has poles; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree; extremes meet; all truths are but half-truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled. https://ethericstudies.org/hermes-concepts/#Principles

The Hermetica is thought to have evolved out of the 6,000 years ago Egyptian priesthood along with the Emerald Tablet, which I think presents a lesson in the creative process ... essential for a spiritual seeker.

The 4,000 year-old kata Upanishad includes instruction in distinguishing between that which is pleasurable and that which is meaningful. https://ethericstudies.org/razors-edge/ Here, pleasurable is a reference to human instincts and meaningful is a reference to spiritual growth.

I submit that humankind has long been aware of nature's polarity. The question I have is whether this probably naturally occurring awareness has come into ancient Egypt fully understood or if it is an evolved understanding. For instance, most people today never consider the creative process, yet it seems to have been a fully developed concept 6,000 years ago.

Good and evil look a lot like a (religious) social engineering version of naturally occurring recognition that Nature tends to be expressed in expressions bound by extremes.

I am extremely interested in 'The Hermetica', as a source underlying so much in the development and evolution of religious thinking, especially in the underlying esoteric aspects. It may be that such thinking was extremely advanced capturing 'spiritual wisdom' of great importance. A lot of twentieth first century thinking, especially in the context of reductive materialism being so popular, tries to trace all thinking down to humanity. Of course, ideas, such as duality, including good and evil, may have been realised as intuitive 'truths'. Most human beings may have become cut off from 'the divine' source, seeing the idea of the 'divine' as conjuring up a ridiculous, distant anthropomorphic deity. This ignores the soul as the seat of the divine, interconnected and imminent in human consciousness.

One tradition which looks at duality itself is Taoism. In the idea of opposites in duality, the various qualities, including good and evil are seen in the context of the larger picture of the Tao. In this respect, what is seen as good and evil is not static and would have a subjective element with what is perceived as good and evil being relative. However, in this perspective, the dynamic of 'evil' is important as part of the continual interplay in life. In this sense, both good and evil, masculine and feminine, light and dark need to exist in some form because the opposites rely upon one another.

[JackDaydream]

The understanding of good, evil and suffering in human life varies so much depending on whether good and evil is seen from a religious, spiritual perspective or from the standpoint of secular philosophies. It depends whether good and evil are seen as cosmic forces or human constructs. The way this is seen will have likely consequences for how the experience of suffering and of how human nature is seen. The theologian, Victor White, and the psychoanalyst, Carl Jung, engaged in a lengthy dialogue about this, in which Jung argued that the theological idea of evil as the mere absence of good, was inadequate because it denied the real power of evil in it's own right.

Jung discussed suffering and the problem of evil in his, 'Answer to Job'. He saw the dark, repressed side of human nature, the shadow, especially in the emphasis on goodness and perfection, as posing a distinct threat. He saw this as being represented by the threat of mass nuclear destruction. He was writing in the last century and the ecological crisis and many global issues in the twentieth first century would be relevant. The shadow is an important aspect for thinking about destruction in personal life.

I was struck by Hannah Arendt’s discovery that evil is often banal. Arendt found Adolph Eichmann, the Nazi operative responsible for organising the transportation of millions of Jews and others to various concentration camps in support of the Nazi’s Final Solution, an ordinary, rather bland, bureaucrat, who in her words, was ‘neither perverted nor sadistic’, but ‘terrifyingly normal’. He performed evil deeds without evil intentions, a fact connected to his ‘thoughtlessness’, a disengagement from the reality of his evil acts. I think that this describes my experience of people I thought were evil, which in a way is a voluntary departure from what we agree is being human.

Our shadow, that other half of our personality that we choose to ignore, much like a stroke patients neglects an arm, is able to steer us especially when we are in automatic mode, unaware of what we are doing. Many people who do inhumane things are afterwards shocked at what they did. But there is also the malevolent, malicious activity, which must necessarily dehumanise its victims, and rationalise its deeds as necessary. This is once more a voluntary disconnection from the spoken or unspoken agreement that we have about what is acceptable or not.

Some have seen evil as the lower self and, in, 'Living With the Devil: A Meditation on Good and Evil', Stephen Batchelor says,
'The devil is a way of talking about that which blocks one's path in life, frustrates one's aspirations, makes one feel stuck, hemmed in, obstructed. While the Hebrew Satan means "adversary," the Greek diabolos means "one who throws something across the path. " In India, Buddha called the devil Mara, which in Pali and Sanskrit means "the killer".

Māra, the Buddhist “Lord of the Senses,” has three daughters, Tṛṣṇā, Rati, and Rāga (thirst, desire, and delight), and Satan is traditionally understood as an angel (or sometimes a jinnī in Islam), and as the accuser of mankind is the antagonistic spirit in the world. In a way the adversary is right, and knows us better than we know ourselves, because the truth of the matter is that we frustrate our own aspirations, and we cling to things and have the subjective feeling that we are stuck, hemmed in or obstructed. Diabolos is the slanderer, the backbiter, the false accuser, but often, as with Job, we have to concede the constraints of our human understanding.

The dialogue between East and West on good, evil and suffering are important as between those who come from a spiritual or secular starting point. The experience and attempts to understand these are framed in the basic philosophy approaches. In addition, the understanding of the experience of suffering may influence the wider philosophies which a person develops. It was such experiences as witnessing sickness and death which was the starting point for the spiritual journey of Gautama Buddha.
There is also the question as to what extent can suffering have a long reaching negative or positive effect on a person's life? I am asking you how do you understand the nature of suffering, good and evil, and how does this influence your philosophy?

The word usually translated as suffering is dukkha, which means that which is bad, difficult, and inclining toward illness or harm. It has often been derived from the prefix du meaning "bad" or "difficult" and the root kha, "empty," "hole," which could allude to a badly fitting axle-hole of a cart or chariot giving a very bumpy ride. This isn’t certain however, because it’s opposite is sukha, which means that which is good, easy, and conducive to well-being, and doesn’t suggest a smooth ride. So, the “noble truth” of suffering, does not simply refer to bodily pain, but its meaning is far more subtle and rich.

This is less subtle in the Bible, and the advice there amounts to, “Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.” (Philippians 4)

I find the Buddha’s eightfold path instructive, whereas the advice that Paul gives about putting on the full armour of God, “so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes” puts the problem outside, rather than inside, which seems to be the Buddha’s approach. Yes, there is Māra, whose name means "destruction" and who represents the passions that snare and delude us, but in traditional Buddhism, four or five metaphorical forms of Māra are given:
Kleśa-māra - Māra as the embodiment of all unskillful emotions, such as greed, hate and delusion.
Mṛtyu-māra - Māra as death.
Skandha-māra - Māra as metaphor for the entirety of conditioned existence.
Devaputra-māra - the deva of the sensuous realm, who tried to prevent Gautama Buddha from attaining liberation from the cycle of rebirth on the night of the Buddha’s enlightenment.

So how does this influence my philosophy? First of all, I see the problem as internal and we all should know ourselves well enough to realise that. We have an ego that interprets what is conducive to our well-being in a radical way, sometimes as if we were under threat, and undermines a more social perspective. Secondly, we have the challenge of the outside world, whether it is the ego of others or the natural powers that be, which can both make our lives miserable.

This means that we need a right view or understanding as the eightfold path tells us, which virtually means we have to be realistic about the true nature of reality.
We also need the right intention. In the Dhammapada, we read (Gil Fronsdal’s translation):
“All experience is preceded by mind,
Led by mind,
made by mind.
Speak or act with a corrupted mind,
and suffering follows
As the wagon wheel follows the hoof of the ox.”
But right intention includes the relinquishment of desire, such as greed, envy, jealousy or other forms of ill will. Instead of that, good will is pursued. Also Ahimsa, the doctrine of non-violence, concerned with the sacredness of all living things and an effort to avoid causing harm to them.

Right speech means using speech compassionately. In Pali, Right Speech is samma vaca. The word samma has a sense of being perfected or completed, and vaca refers to words or speech, so to me it means mastering speech in a compassionate way.
Right action means to use ethical conduct as a means to manifest compassion, or cultivating “normative ethics” which is concerned about how we should be motivated and how we should act.
Right livelihood means making a living in the sense of right action and right intention, through ethical and non-harmful way.
Right effort points to cultivating wholesome qualities, which includes healthy, beneficial, and restorative habits.
Right mindfulness, which is the basic human ability to be fully present, aware of where we are and what we’re doing, and not overly reactive or overwhelmed by what’s going on around us.
Right concentration. The Pali word translated into English as "concentration" is samadhi. The root words of samadhi, sam-a-dha, mean "to bring together."

This is for me more instructive and helps me give the word love a deeper meaning, which in Christianity has similar aspects, though I find (perhaps falsely) that Buddhism is more pragmatic than emotional. Especially the last two meditative and contemplative aspects instruct me to align with what I conceive to be the will of God.

Thank you for your detailed reply and it seems that you have read a lot in this area of thought. I haven't read Arendt's writing at this stage but from what I have read about her thinking she does emphasise the banality of evil, just as Jung does. Jung was writing in the context of having being a practicing psychoanalyst in Nazi Germany and was aware of atrocities committed.

I am extremely interested in Buddhism but from some writers who I have come across, there can be a tendency to view suffering and evil in a way which is almost exclusively in the inner rather than the outer conditions. This is in seeing the problem of evil as being a problem of human perspective and the need for peace within. Of course, part of the problem is about the inner conflict between good and evil. However, those who see it all as being about the search for inner peace may become blind to injustice and social sources of suffering, especially when the idea of the 'will of God' is used to justify the status quo. However, it is likely that such thinking is a shallow interpretation of spirituality and one which dismisses the interrelationship between inner and outer conditions.