{"id":21317,"date":"2024-03-15T12:25:23","date_gmt":"2024-03-15T11:25:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kennethsorensen.dk\/?p=21317"},"modified":"2026-05-13T16:46:01","modified_gmt":"2026-05-13T15:46:01","slug":"the-problem-of-evil","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kennethsorensen.dk\/en\/the-problem-of-evil\/","title":{"rendered":"The Problem Of Evil"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Evil has no separate existence, Assagioli argues. On the problem of evil, the unitary conception that consoles without justifying laxity, and why pain serves the soul.<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

By Roberto Assagioli<\/strong> (under the pseudonym Considerator)
Assagioli Archives, Florence.
Source: psicoenergetica.com.
Original title: Il Problema del Male<\/em>
Translated and edited with notes by Jan Kuniholm<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Editorial Note<\/strong>
The abstract and contextual subtitle in this online edition have been added by the editor, Kenneth S\u00f8rensen, to support readability, navigation, and archival consistency. The original wording has not been altered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Abstract<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

A pseudonymous lecture by Roberto Assagioli, writing as “Considerator,” given to the Italian Independent Theosophical League sometime before 1938 (the year that body was dissolved by fascist racial laws). He addresses the classical problem of evil: how is evil compatible with divine goodness? His answer is the “unitary conception”: evil has no separate, real existence; it is the absence of good, and from a sufficiently high vantage point all evils are partial, transitory, and productive of good. With a crucial guardrail, the unitary view does not license moral laxity. Drawing on Hugo’s Manichean horse, Tagore on finitude, and the educative function of suffering, he offers an answer that consoles without weakening moral rigour.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

What Ms. Calvari <\/span><\/span>[1]<\/span><\/span><\/a> said about evil, about how to consider and justify it from a unitary point of view, surprised and even upset some of you.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I think this was very helpful, because it provides an opportunity to clarify our attitude on this truly fundamental and paramount issue, both from the cognitive and practical side.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first point to be made clear is that the unitary conception of evil <\/span><\/span>does not imply and does not justify any laxity, license or indulgence in the moral realm.<\/span><\/span><\/em> This statement is not superfluous, for there has been no shortage of cases in which these unwarranted consequences have been drawn instead. Our lower nature continually attempts to delude and deceive us, and often does so with great skill, with specious and ingenious sophistry, trying to turn every higher principle, every good thing to its own personal and selfish ends. Everyone knows how every virtue that is misunderstood or badly practiced can become an imperfection and even a vice: thus goodness can become weakness and guilty indulgence, firmness can become hardness and obstinacy, humility can be the mask of subtle spiritual pride, and so on.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Likewise, the grand unified conception of the universe, when misunderstood and misapplied, has created confusion and errors in some people; and among other things it has given rise to erroneous teachings and morally pernicious practices.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is precisely the reason why the Independent Theosophical League, <\/span><\/span>[2]<\/span><\/span><\/a> while on the one hand proposing as its essential task <\/span><\/span>the realization of the unitary ideal in its full integrity and purity<\/span><\/span><\/em> , on the other hand has wished to reaffirm with great force and in the most explicit manner the need to practice the strictest morality.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n