I think that there are various aspects involved in contemplating our death and one aspect is imagining the world without our existence in it. This would include the potential effects that our death will have on significant others, as well as the significant of our non existence will have in the world. However, I do believe that you are thinking more about non existence from a subjective point of consciousness.

I believe that it is possible that the encounter with our non existence through death may vary from person to person. Here, I am suggesting that the transition to death may involve varying states, some more gradual than others, with some people being more conscious that death is being encountered than others. Perhaps, some people fade into unconscious gradually through dreamless sleep.

On the other hand, there is the near death experiences phenomena. Even if these don't necessarily point to immortality itself, they may represent a transitional state of consciousness, and we don't know how they continue in the process of dying because the people who are in the position of describing them returned to life. This leads me to think that the encounter with death represents an 'unknown' experience, and I think that this is conveyed symbolically by Hindu mystics, who speak of, 'Atman' merging with' Brahman'. In other words, self consciousness, or death of the ego may occur, while our bodies return to dust, as an aspect of the recycling of matter.

I agree that sentience is important, and I am not sure that there is any absolute 'reality' behind the way we construct our own meanings, but I do believe that it is an ongoing area of philosophy debate. In saying this, I am aware that it raises and questions the ideas of Kant and Plato in a really big way. I am not saying that I think that they had all the answers, but I still believe that some of their ideas about categories, such as Plato's forms, are still useful for trying to explain some 'mysterious' underlying aspects of reality and existence.

I am glad to see your thread discussion and the article links, and I think that the ethics of war and peace is an interesting area.

I have always had a leaning towards pacifism and its philosophy. I found a CND badge when was I still at school and felt that the non violent protest of Ghandi was an important philosophy to follow. However, I am aware of it can be seen as a form of idealism to oppose war, and, of course, CND is against the idea of nuclear weapons, not war outrightly. There is also the big question of just and unjust war, but I do still believe it is better to find solutions which don't involve war.

I often try to get a white poppy rather than a red one, but that is not to say that I undervalue the people who lost their lives in the first and second world wars. But, I think that we have gone past the age of martyrdom and the couple of individuals who I know who joined the army hoped that they would not be in any frontline conflict. But, I also believe that avoiding war is the best option for leaders with all the sophisticated weaponry available because increasingly it looks more possible that mass destruction could occur.

I see your point about giving up using the word 'evil', but if anything I think that it is a word we should use with caution. From this thread discussion, it has become clear to me that evil is hard to define because it is abstract, nevertheless it does appear that there are extreme aspects of existence and moral behaviour which point to the end aspects of the spectrum in between the polar opposition between good and evil.

I think that you probably go to rather different music events to me, but it probably goes back to what music we were brought up with as children. I was raised on pop and rock. When I get to know people, at first they sometimes imagine that I would like classical music and are surprised to find that I am mostly into alternative rock. But, I guess that we are all inspired in different ways.

Generally, I gravitate the alternative side of creativity and towards creative bohemians, and have some empathy with the description by Keroac, in, 'On the Road', as he says that, the
'people that interest me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones that never yawn or say a commonplace thing..but burn, burn, burn like roman candles in the night.' The reason for this preference is because I think that it captures more of the essence of the mysterious side of life.

I do agree with you that magic is seen as a 'different causal schema' to the explanations we take for granted. The anthropologist James Frazer, in, 'The Golden Bough' speaks of the developments in understanding as magic, religion and science. I believe that he hints that there may be a possibility beyond the final one of science and I am curious as to what that might be.

I think that the words which you emphasize show how the mystery of existence is linked to the question of whe is the meaning of life. Of course, the main link is the human part in trying to figure out a role in the grander scheme of everything and trying to create a sense of importance.

I do think that on my threads and, others at times, it is a problem that people are often talking past one another. I was just looking at a thread started by @Pfhorrest today. This suggests that it would be good if people could begin their thread discussions with showing how their idea relates to previous ideas. I won't explain further because you can look at the thread. However, I think that it is useful when people write threads to do a certain amount of research, but the many ideas which we have come from such a wide spectrum of angles.

When looking at ideas it is almost like peeling back layers and meanings. For example, today I was just reading @"Josh's entry on page 5 of my evil thread, in which he wrote about personal construct theories and I realised how important that is in contrast to metaphysics of good and evil, and seen from that angle, the definitions would be so different from, say a Kantian approach. So, when we begin looking at terms and theories, sometimes it seems to me that it is like trying to dig up the earth and it could go on and on forever.

I just looked at the results and there is a lot of disagreement on many of the questions. It shows just how complex the relationship between theories and definitions are. We use and need definitions to construct theories. However, the developments in theories alter our construction of theories. I am aware of this difficulty in my own threads on the self, evil. I think that what was also so interesting was that a few months ago a thread was started by @T Clark on what is consciousness? What became apparent was that how the many users on this site write about consciousness and have different meanings of the term, and how these are linked to our understanding of consciousness itself.

I like your 'music of the spheres played in the park'. Summer is the time of music festivals and it feels so miserable that Glastonbury and other music festivals are on hold. I prefer the smaller festivals, but how I would love to be at one this summer. I would love to be leaning back on the grass, with faint traces of cannabis drifting through the air, listening to some obscure band, while contemplating the mystery of existence.

I definitely agree that 'magic exists in the eye of the beholder.' What once appears as science fiction becomes a living reality. Think about how different the world is today from a hundred years ago. Even going back 25 years ago, we did not have smartphones and change is taking place at an incredible pace, due to the 'magic' of science.

The question is what will come next. We have the possibilities of transhumanism. However, while there are ideas of making the individual human as 'immortal', there is still the question as to what extent human beings have power over nature. We believe that we have mastery over it, but not fully, especially with climate change and, the pandemic has left the world struggling, in spite of vaccines. I think that we need more 'magic' and some new shamans to look for new healing potentials for humanity and planet earth.

I have just read your article which you linked in, and thanks for sharing this. It is very useful in thinking about blame. In addition, Kelly's ideas of personal constructs is an interesting perspective of the psychology of how we think about good and evil in general.

Welcome to the thread. I don't live in America, but in England. I do believe that it is often a case of being prepared for the worst in many aspects of life. I often think about what is the worst thing that can happen? But, life is unpredictable. A couple of years ago I am sure no one expected a global pandemic and all the upheavals. Also, climate change seems to be escalating at a much faster rate than expected. But, I do believe that there are many aspects of life for many of us to appreciate, but we have to be alert to all potential evils. Of course, evil cannot be eliminated, but we probably have to find the best possible solutions to avert suffering, and this may mean facing up to the underlying sources, and examining them in a reasoned way.

I tend to think of evil as negative energies, or tendencies destructiveness. Aside from any religious worldviews, I still do find that Freud's idea of life and death, as Eros and Thanatos useful in understanding of opposition or inherent conflict. Of course, Freud was probably drawing upon the binary logic of traditional or religious worldviews. But, whether we think from within Christianity, Taoism or other perspectives, I am not sure that we can get away from the extremes, especially the reality of evil as an aspect of existence, as suffering, and in connections with the actions of people who created. As far as I can see, evil is an extreme aspect of real life which is evident, so cannot be ignored.

I am glad that you are feeling better about this forum than others you have joined. It is my first one but I feel that I have learned a lot since I joined last September. I think that this one is very 'human' in the sense that the various people have unique writing voices. There is a lot of interaction night and day. I enjoy writing threads and I do my best to reply to as many as I possibly can, but I try not to rush them because it can affect the quality of the replies. Besides, it is often best if people within the thread exchange ideas too. Anyway, I wish you the best in your interaction on the forum and in this thread discussion.

I clearer now in understanding why you brought up a previous thread. In comparing human beings with animals, it is definitely true that the big difference is that we have metaphysical and moral notions about good and evil. They live on the basis of instincts whereas we have language and the use of reason to guide us, so ideas of good and evil arise in that sense.

In your discussion of the golden rule, you bring in Nietzsche and his ideas are relevant. The reason why I have not discussed these is because there was a thread going on his criticism of moral views on compassion during the last couple of weeks. I think that it has only gone off the front page in the last couple of days, and you may be interested in looking at that thread.

Thinking about Nietzsche's ideas in the context of this specific thread though, Nietzsche's critique of Christian ideas does address the golden rule directly. In 'Beyond Good and Evil,' he states,
'the sentiment of surrender, of sacrifice for one's neighbour, and all self-renunciation morality must be called to account and brought to judgement.' He is opposed to asceticism but he is directly against social ethical concerns, favouring the 'will to power'. As far as I understand, he was not in favour of Nazism, but it is possible to see how his ideas could be used to justify such ideologies. I think it is questionable whether human beings can really go 'beyond good and evil' and to ask what that would truly mean? I often read Nietzsche's ideas as poetic truths, and in the context of pointing to some basic problems in culture arising from some aspects of Christianity, but I think how far one interprets Nietzsche is of critical importance. I certainly believe that if stretched too far, or too literally, his ideas could be used to make anything permissible, including oppressive ideologies and actual oppression in the world.

I am not wishing to argue against the importance of the golden rule, but you have to realise that in philosophy it is about competing views. But, of course, you offer a valid viewpoint. I am sure that the world would be a better place if everyone followed the golden rule.

I don't know why you have dug up a much older thread on defining reality and written the same post onto it. Since I started my thread someone else started a thread on what is evil. We now have 3 'evil' threads, warring against each other on the front page, and I am still fighting for mine because I believe that some people have put some really 'good' comments in this particular thread.

You could start your own thread on utilitarian ethics because there if you simply have your view on this thread or another there is a possibility that people who might be interested in it will not see it. There is a thread on the greater good on the front page which is new, but I am not sure that is exactly what you are looking for. There have been threads contrasting deontological and utilitarianism approaches to ethics, but not recently as far as I am aware.

My own view is that consequences of behaviour iin the real world are of supreme importance, and I think that is an argument against deontological approaches to good and evil. But, I do believe that there are some problems with utilitarianism. Partly, determining the greatest good is not simple because it involves so many factors. Also, it is not always possible to determine consequences of all actions. Therefore, I think that it is important to think about effects of action, but also to think about the meanings of those actions from specific subjective viewpoints, including competing subjectivities.

I definitely agree that there is 'no one answer' to the problem of evil. To 'preserve one's existence' seems to me to be an instinctual aspect of life and in the construction of morality, the idea of what must be preserved is essential. The idea of destruction, especially for human beings is where it gets more complex. It comes down to what is regarded as 'evil'. That is why I think that consideration of evil is important.

In war, evil is seen as the war against the 'enemy'. We have been through a war against terrorism. Perhaps, this was almost replaced globally as the war against Covid_19. But, the question may be can we really eliminate evil? Of course, I am not saying that we don't need to strive to overcome specific evils, but it is not simple. The war against Covid_19 shows this symbolically, as new mutant strains arise. Evil keeps arising in new guises in all aspects of life, and I think that it is more about holding it back. Christian thinking often pointed to a cosmic battle of good and evil, and this may have lead to an emphasis on fighting evil. But, here we are in 2021, with Covid_19 still in our midst, conflicts between many nations, nuclear threats and climate changes suggesting severe ecological problems.

I think that your idea of evil being 'trying to get back at God' for being in the world is one which some people have, even if they don't believe in a God literally. It may be about a general attitude of anger. Camus speaks of metaphysics rebellion, as a general approach of rebellion. This is also connected to his views of suicide and that can be seen as a form of metaphysics of rebellion in the face of the absurdities of existence.

I think that you are really describing a utilitarian approach to ethics, but more from the standpoint of the view that the individual subjects should be thinking of their own lives in terms of the greater good. I think that it is useful to think about, but the only problem is that it is prescriptive. I think that it may be easier to apply to the principle of evil than good in the sense of people wishing to avoid doing evil. I believe that is because most people fear evil to a large extent, although for some there may be some attraction to it in a gothic way, or as an act of rebellion. However, for many people there is a deep fear of evil. This may go back to the Christian idea of the devil. However, I believe that it exists beyond that as a fear of the 'dark' side of reality.

Interesting poem, and we could also ask what is nothing? Is it a complete absence, because as you point out,' ''nothing' never sleeps'. So, maybe, the idea of the void is important because it appears to be nothing, but it not mere absence, but a point from which something new will arise, as rebirth.

A few years ago I bought and read a book by Stephen Grosz, called, 'The Examined Life: How We Lose and Find Ourselves'. It was mainly a collection of psychological case studies, with the author being a psychoanalyst. I think that the idea of the 'examined life' is an approach which begins from the starting point of the importance of self knowledge, which incorporates aspects of psychology and, as @DingoJones points out, the centrality of reflection. This can be seen as a starting point for philosophy, including ethics, but with an emphasis on understanding the self, and subjectivity being at the core.

It goes back to Socrates, but has moved on into psychoanalysis and cognitive behavioral therapy, as well as counselling. I remember having some counselling when I was an adolescent by a pastoral counsellor, who used to keep stressing that, 'You have to lose yourself to find yourself'. But, when he went on further, I found this counsellor's philosophy was about the importance of losing one's own individuality in order to conform. I came to the view that finding one's own pathway, even though it often involves getting lost, or facing obstacles, can be extremely important, as both a psychological and philosophy quest.

I think that it is a problem that human beings don't all wish to be treated or have their needs met in exactly the same way is one of the complexities of life. I think that is even one of the problems of the categorical imperative because while we may think about universalisation we don't all want to do the same as each other.

I do believe that universalisation is about general issues of justice and fairness, but does need to allow for listening to the needs of individuals. I believe that one of the problems of advice is that it often involves assumptions that the person giving the advice knows what is good or bad for the other. I believe that is why counsellors avoid giving advice and try to listen and enable individuals to make their own decisions about their lives.

I have to admit that I am inclined to look at mysteries and even wrote a whole thread several months ago about philosophical mysteries and whether they can be solved. In some ways, I think that it some may give up and conclude there are no possible answers. Nevertheless, I think that, even then, we can create our own sense of meaning and purpose. But, generally, I believe that human beings are inclined to ask questions, and have done so ever since the dawn of human civilisation.

As far as the mystery of human existence is concerned, while it is not possible to answer definitely, I don't know how much of the discussion you have read. But, given the nature of it not being possible to come up with definitive answers, I think that some people have come up with some excellent attempts to answer this question during the last couple of weeks in this thread.

Perhaps, I did not explain clearly enough. I was trying to say that torture would be classified as being one of the most severe crimes, taking account of all factors. The end of the victim receiving repeated acts of torture and the ongoing malicious intent of the person perpetuating it.

But torturing someone over a period of time would involve the subjective experience of the person suffering as an end, and clear long term intent to harm. So, in the scheme of things, it would be seen as falling into the darkest regions of the spectrum of 'evil' acts. I am not trying to be pedantic, because all these factors would play so much weight in any legal evaluation of repeated a acts of torture.

That's interesting because I thought that you had started it as an alternative one. I have read some of yours but you may some relevant discussion on this one, because I have been extremely impressed by the quality of some of the replies which I have received.

Oh, I think that I now understand why you started another thread on what is evil. You thought that mine was based on religious assumptions. That is fine, but I will simply reassure you that I was not really coming from that angle, and I, and others in the thread embrace the question in the widest possible way.

I am glad that you have mentioned your post to @Trey because his thread is based on the same theme as mine, and he wrote his thread only about 12 hours after I began my one. He would probably find a lot of detailed discussion on this one, although he must be aware of it as has often been riding along next to mine. I was impressed by your post and do plan to give a more detailed response, but I had a lot of replies to write.

You have just written a great little short story on the theme of this thread, and I hope that others see it!

I think that it can be a challenge to work with people who have committed terrible crimes. But, I think that it is easier to work with those who show remorse than those who are actively harbouring malicious intent. I have definitely thought about what circumstances would lead me to do all sorts of things, which is a bit macabre, but I do have a gothic streak. If I can, I will see if I can read 'Wickedness' by Mary Midgely as it I am sure that it is very interesting.

The question is whether evil is purely an intention or a consequence though, which is of course a classic philosophy debate and, of course, the former is traced back to Kant. Personally, I think that both measures need to be taken into account, which enables juggling of objective and subjective aspects. I think that to see good and evil purely from an objective or subjective point of view alone is restrictive, and in all aspects of life we need to be able to consider both aspects, and this may be the creative aspect of it.

I believe that you have a useful basis for thinking about evil starting from our experiences and relating it in a wider way to others. Here, I think it involves think about our own suffering and connection it to potential evil of others who may suffer. This may be an existential approach, involving wisdom and compassion.

I do actually understand you being bewildered by what 'evil' is because I think that the nature of good and evil is one of the most complicated areas of philosophy. I have been reading the various replies on the thread yesterday and have been experiencing writer's block or brain fog thinking about it before writing replying

Yesterday, after reading a very impressive post by @Alkis Piskas, even though he did not mention Kant, it lead me to think how Kant's ideas have definite bearing on this topic. You have introduced a very helpful discussion on his thoughts about good and evil. If I think about my own history of thinking on the topic I believe that my own connection between morality and metaphysics it goes back to the connection which Kant spoke of.Of course, he developed his ideas in connection with a theist framework. However, beyond this, his connection is based on the idea of a priori principles. I am wondering how true or helpful a priori logic is a starting point for thinking about the principles of good and evil, and of course, Plato's ideas about underlying ideas.

I believe that it may involve juggling ideas about such objective principles with the practical expression in ethics in real life where it really matters, such as in issues of justice. Perhaps objective principles and moral subjective feelings can both be incorporated, to give a balanced perspective.I also do plan to read Hannah Arendt, as recommended by Banno. But, I do believe that it is a very difficult to think about and it may not be simply that, as you say, 'truth is painful', but also hard to fathom, However, the truth is painful when it becomes evident in the reality of suffering oneself, or witnessing the suffering of other people or other creatures.

I was taught the view that what happened in Nazi Germany was down to Hitler and people I have come across who were alive at the time seemed to have believed that. However, it does come down to whether what people had been lead to believe in the news was true. I have also come across some ideas suggesting that Hitler was following certain thinking in theosophy, such as Madam Blavatsky's notion of a master race.

But, one reason why I do wonder about the extent that Hitler was part of a much wider cultural movement is because I have read Jung's ideas about evil and some of the underlying ideas about the German race being superior are apparent in Jung's writings and many people reject Jung's views because of the way in which his views for this reason. And, Jung is not the only thinker of that time with such a slant to his writings.

I do wonder if human beings are able to learn from mistakes. I am not sure that the leaders of many of our countries do look at past errors, because there is so much going on, that the agenda may be so narrow. We spend time thinking about the philosophical questions about good and evil, but I don't think that many of those in power do. But, that is one of the reasons I think that philosophy should be at the forefront of cultural life. At least, this site is a public one, so let's hope that some people of influence read some of the debates and think about important issues. I am sure that many aspects of our contemporary world will be seen so differently in retrospect, but let's hope that there are no catastrophic events which wipe out vast numbers of people before people wake up to evil which may be lurking in our midst. I know that some people fear that Nazism may be on the rise again.

I know that it is hard to define evil precisely. I know that you say it is a Zen moment by not knowing what evil is. The only problem which I see is that by simply saying that you don't know what it is it makes it harder to even begin to think about the reality of evil in world affairs. Perhaps you just don't think that the word 'evil' is not particularly helpful as a starting line, but I am not sure whether or not this is what you mean.

I definitely believe that understanding how atrocities, such as the German concentration camp come about is essential and @Amitys reference to the 'Axis of Evil'is useful. I think that the way in which people are viewed as evil is part of the problem and how there is often an emphasis on trying to eradicate evil. Hitler was trying to create a master race and trying to get rid of people who he saw as not being pure. There was a whole war on terror and it is hard to know what is yet to come, including tensions between the West and China. Obviously, it is extremely complex because injustices have to be addressed, but there are so many potential problems which can arise, in addressing the problem of 'evil'. This is particularly true with the advances in weapons of mass destruction.

I am from a Catholic background, so most of my own thinking is influenced by my own sense of guilt. I think that a lot of people are a bit dismissive of the whole idea of a Catholic guilt complexes. But, I know that I experience it and most friends I have who are Catholics do so as well. Some Catholics probably don't, and aren't they lucky, and I am sure that many other Christians do too. I think that sometimes guilt can get in the way of seriously thinking about capability for good and evil, because the guilt itself can become the problem in itself. I'm not sure that confession really helped very much as it can be just a superficial process, and I can remember that when I really wanted to talk about issues they were far too complicated to try to explain in a confession box. I did have open confession a couple of times which felt like more helpful and felt like counselling. In fact, when I did some psychotherapy based courses it was surprising just how many of the students came from Catholic backgrounds.

I definitely believe that it is important to separate the nature of 'evil' acts from the people who have committed them. I have worked in some forensic settings with people who have committed very serious crimes and I found that this separation of the act from the actor was essential . It can be difficult to suspend judgements on people, especially if they seem to show the worst possible tendencies. But, I think that many people find some psychological reassurance by projecting evil onto those who reveal the worst side of human nature. But, I do think that it is worthwhile going beyond labelling certain people as 'evil' because they are just people, even if they do behave in extreme ways which we view as being monstrous.

I think that it is a matter of speculation whether 'all philosophy questions are rhetorical questions.' which we may ask are rhetorical or much more. I know that I ask a lot of questions, and I am aware that many of them are extremely difficult to find answers to. They are asked with a view to starting discourse and some genuine attempt to find some kind of answers but I am aware of how many of the real metaphysical questions don't have any clear ones.

I know that you often call me 'Truthseeker', and this is partly the case because I do spend a lot of time thinking about issues, especially the question of life after death. However, I think that at times I am even afraid of a clear answer. I am partly afraid of nothing beyond death, but, equally, afraid of what any possible afterlife may be as well. I have spent a lot of time dwelling on the question, because I think that it matters so much whether we are mortal or immortal. But the paradox is that I would probably be shocked if there was a proven answer, even though I know that you and many others do believe that it is obvious that there is no life after death.

But, I have often thought that I don't wish to spend chunks of time reading and thinking on the question of life after death rather than living a life. This probably applies to many of the philosophy questions, including the mind and body one. The problem may be that some of us can't help but do that. It may be that some human beings are hardwired to be rhetorical creatures.