I might ask, is it possible that darkness could ever be considered good? — chiknsld

This thread seems rhetorical/poetic and maybe plain silly. You might upset the neighbors.

Toward the question, sure, like anything else, it's just a question of moderation and balance. Darkness is fine, insofar as one always has means/access to light, given how vital our vision is for navigating the world. It's too much or little of anything, or stimuli in the wrong proportions, which threaten well being or life.

Some folks buy black out curtains with a desire to help themselves ease into sleep by shutting out the light. That kind of sweet darkness before bed is bliss.

How could the good exist without darkness, if one is necessarily conditioned by the other?

I might ask, is it possible that darkness could ever be considered good? — chiknsld

Certainly, by bats, jaguars, clandestine lovers and prisoners in fluorescent-lit cells.
Our association of night with all things sinister arises from fear, due to our inability to see potential dangers in the dark.

This thread seems rhetorical/poetic and maybe plain silly. You might upset the neighbors. — Nils Loc

Preface? :cool:

Some folks buy black out curtains with a desire to help themselves ease into sleep by shutting out the light. That kind of sweet darkness before bed is bliss. — Nils Loc

Indeed it is pal.

Darkness is fine, insofar as one always has means/access to light, given how vital our vision is for navigating the world.
— Nils Loc

How could the good exist without darkness, if one is necessarily conditioned by the other? — Nils Loc

The dark facilitates the light? :sparkle:

Reminds me of when Navy Seal Team 6 rescued two hostages from Somali pirates. Night vision.

Certainly, by bats, jaguars, clandestine lovers… — Vera Mont

Good point.

…and prisoners in fluorescent-lit cells. — Vera Mont

Love this :ok: but I had to think about it for a second.

Our association of night with all things sinister arises from fear, due to our inability to see potential dangers in the dark. — Vera Mont

Therefore the common association of darkness and evil is a consequence of the fear of the unknown.

Our sensory dependence upon light creates a false, moralistic dualism between darkness and wretchedness and light and goodness.

It also feels like it is more common to see darkness as swallowing the light (which would be bad) rather than as light feeding it (which would be good).

Our sensory dependence upon light creates a false, moralistic dualism between darkness and wretchedness and light and goodness. — chiknsld

Well, it goes back a long, long way through our ancestry. Monkeys are easy prey at night, and even the strong, aggressive hominids were at a disadvantage against some heavy-duty feline predators. Not to mention the literal pitfalls and quagmires waiting for a diurnal species with no artificial light at their disposal.
In civilized times, right up to the present, spies, guerillas, burglars and murderers operate at night, as well as the purveyors of illicit pleasure.
Also, more people die between 2 and 4 am than any other time period, again, because we are a diurnal species. In the hours of deep sleep, our bodies are at their lowest energy level. Since this has been so through our entire existence as a species, it's not surprising that we associate night with death.

It is not by chance that the Enlightenment was a movement that considered rationality the main reference point for humanity. Rationality is a tremendously powerful and useful instrument, but it also create risks. It seems to me that today philosophy is experiencing something like a new Enlightenment, which means that today philosophers seem unable to appreciate, or even to understand, what is not rational, not logical, not scientific. I am referring especially to analytical philosophy.
It is true that darkness is quickly referred, in human experience, to fear, lack of reference points, not knowing about possible threats, Obscurantism. I said “quickly” because actually it seems that babies don’t fear darkness, until life drives them to develop this fear.
But darkness is also the time for dreams, sex, lovers, meditation, contemplation, slowness, irrationality, the unconscious, deep emotions. Darkness is where life in conceived and grows in the womb, until it becomes “coming to light”, that actually coincides exactly with the very first experience of high discomfort and desperate crying. All the nice and deep things of the darkness seem to be the things that today philosophy has left aside, leaving them, if ever, to literature and art.
Today is the era of lighted screens, primarily our great god the smartphone, then smartwatches, computer screens, tablets, TVs, Satnavs, all things that again push us towards what can be seen, what can be visual, controlled, making us dismiss what cannot be explained. I would say that even music belongs to darkness rather than light, and even painting belongs to it: a great master of lights in painting was actually the master of shades: it is Caravaggio. One of the most important paintings of all times is Van Gogh’s “Starry Night”.

I think that all of this has a lot to say to philosophy today. I call it spirituality.

The dark facilitates the light? — chiknsld

More so, you can't meaningfully have the concept of one without the other, and how we value either is dependent upon a variety of contexts in which both (stimuli and its absence) play potentially good and bad roles in relationship to what we are.

I might ask, is it possible that darkness could ever be considered good? — chiknsld

"Good" -- for what? How about: "darkness" is good for seeing the stars, or good for sleeping, or good for prey avoiding predators, or good for cooling-off desert fauna & flora, or good for (many forms of) mysticism, or good for vampires (& goths) ...

Well, it goes back a long, long way through our ancestry. Monkeys are easy prey at night, and even the strong, aggressive hominids were at a disadvantage against some heavy-duty feline predators. — Vera Mont

Indeed, the primitive emotion of fear (useful only for survival) should have little to no value in a highly advanced society.

Consider the age of our universe -13 billion years, but imagine a society that is just as old as our universe. :naughty:

Not to mention the literal pitfalls and quagmires waiting for a diurnal species with no artificial light at their disposal. — Vera Mont

Very scary I suppose, especially before discovering fire. :fire:

In civilized times, right up to the present, spies, guerillas, burglars and murderers operate at night, as well as the purveyors of illicit pleasure. — Vera Mont

Indeed, they seem to operate under the same priniciples of fear such as a "cockroach" with human capabilities, and purveyors only dealing with the first part of course.

Also, more people die between 2 and 4 am than any other time period, again, because we are a diurnal species. In the hours of deep sleep, our bodies are at their lowest energy level. Since this has been so through our entire existence as a species, it's not surprising that we associate night with death. — Vera Mont

I just realized that if all of humanity were blind, then darkness could never be used in the same colloquial sense to confer random, evil forces.

It would also make no sense to refer to a music piece as being dark.

Indeed, the primitive emotion of fear (useful only for survival) should have little to no value in a highly advanced society. — chiknsld

Only? Survival is important to most of us.
When do urban muggings and home invasions typically take place?

Very scary I suppose, especially before discovering fire — chiknsld

Even after. Have you tried crossing trough terrain with a torch? Or even a flashlight?

I just realized that if all of humanity were blind, then darkness could never be used in the same colloquial sense to confer random, evil forces. — chiknsld

Indeed, they seem to operate under the same priniciples of fear such as a "cockroach" with human capabilities, — chiknsld

No, they just need cover so as not to be caught. It's perfectly straightforward: light-adapted species function best and are in less danger in daylight than in darkness.
The artificial lighting in modern cities and buildings does a great deal of harm.

No, but it's not that big an advantage.

Most blind people with no perception of light, however, experience continual circadian desynchrony through a failure of light information to reach the hypothalamic circadian clock, resulting in cyclical episodes of poor sleep and daytime dysfunction.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3202494/

But it's true that if we had evolved and remained deep underground, we would not have formed eyes and might well be different in many other ways.

Post deleted

It is not by chance that the Enlightenment was a movement that considered rationality the main reference point for humanity. Rationality is a tremendously powerful and useful instrument, but it also create risks. It seems to me that today philosophy is experiencing something like a new Enlightenment, which means that today philosophers seem unable to appreciate, or even to understand, what is not rational, not logical, not scientific. — Angelo Cannata

This is interesting. Now if we consider light to be a source of knowledge or rationality, then what could be the opposite?

I am having trouble seeing light and dark as diametrically opposed, but rather a soft gradient where rationality transfigures irrationality.

I would say that even music belongs to darkness rather than light, and even painting belongs to it: a great master of lights in painting was actually the master of shades: it is Caravaggio. — Angelo Cannata

Could we say that she sees a light to her misery? To her, this is justice.

More so, you can't meaningfully have the concept of one without the other, and how we value either is dependent upon a variety of contexts in which both (stimuli and its absence) play potentially good and bad roles in relationship to what we are. — Nils Loc

I can definitely envision countless scenarios where light provides adverse effects, indeed.

I might ask, is it possible that darkness could ever be considered good?
— chiknsld

"Good" -- for what? How about: "darkness" is good for seeing the stars, or good for sleeping, or good for prey avoiding predators, or good for cooling-off desert fauna & flora, or good for (many forms of) mysticism, or good for vampires (& goths) ... — 180 Proof

These are great examples of the utility of darkness. Vegetation shows how darkness creates life.

We can consider that what is light and what is darkness can be very subjective from a psychological, emotional point of view. As you hinted, a harsh and violent revenge can be considered light from a subjective point of view.
The opposite of the enlighted rationality are emotions, irrationality, intuition. We can even say that, from a subjective perspective, darkness is just a different kind of light, like a different colour.

That metaphor has suffered enough. I can watch no longer.

Darkness is what you make of it...