Axiomatological Approach to Internal Evil and Confronting It

Within the framework of Axiomatology, confronting internal evil is a fundamental challenge that directly impacts how individuals perceive and interpret the world around them. Axiomatology posits that internal evil is not merely an abstract moral failing but a dynamic aspect of one’s internal value hierarchy. Addressing this internal evil requires understanding how it manifests externally and recognizing the tangible influence an individual can exert on its expression. By exploring the interplay between inner moral conflicts and their outward projections, Axiomatology offers a structured method for confronting and potentially transforming internal evil.

Kant and the “Root” of Evil

Immanuel Kant’s exploration of evil challenges the notion of moral freedom by emphasizing the inherent opacity of human motivation. In his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant acknowledges the inherent difficulty in fully comprehending one’s moral incentives, stating:

"We can never, even by the most strenuous self-examination, get entirely behind our covert incentives; for when moral worth is at issue, what counts is not actions, which one sees, but those inner principles of actions that one does not see…” (Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals).

This insight underscores Kant’s recognition that moral worth is fundamentally rooted in inner principles rather than observable actions, suggesting that the true origin of moral decisions lies beyond the reach of conscious scrutiny.

Furthermore, Kant posits that the determination of one’s good or evil nature is grounded in a choice made prior to conscious experience, as he states:

"The root of evil, as an intelligible act, precedes all experience” (Religion within the Limits of Bare Reason, 1793).

This idea suggests that moral predisposition is established before self-conscious awareness, introducing a profound complexity to the concept of moral agency. In this context, the claim that individuals are entirely free to act morally becomes contestable, as the hidden internal principles that shape moral actions may lie beyond conscious understanding.

Kant also highlights this elusive aspect of human cognition in the Critique of Pure Reason, where he refers to the production of schemata as:

"A hidden art in the depth of man’s soul.”

In addition, Kant introduces the concept of a "natural propensity to evil" in Religion within the Limits of Bare Reason, where he describes it as a fundamental part of human nature. He defines propensity as:

"The subjective ground of the possibility of an inclination (habitual desire, craving) which mankind in general is liable to have... my topic here is only the propensity to what is genuinely bad, i.e., morally bad; for since such evil is possible only as a state of the free will, and since the will can be judged as good or bad only by means of its maxims, this [propensity to do evil] must consist in.”

Kant’s characterization of evil as a natural human propensity, inherent in the character of the species, challenges simplistic views of moral choice. By recognizing evil as an integral part of human nature, Kant’s philosophy prompts a more nuanced understanding of moral responsibility, where freedom is intricately bound with inherent moral limitations.

Freedom and Disposition

Schelling’s perspective on moral freedom closely aligns with Kant’s in acknowledging the pre-conscious roots of good and evil within the human soul. In Philosophical Investigations into the Essence of Human Freedom, Schelling asserts that an individual, upon self-reflection, must recognize that their moral disposition—whether good or evil—is not the result of arbitrary choice or mere chance. Instead, even an evil person perceives themselves as acting willingly and according to their will, rather than being externally compelled:

"Each individual, if he is aware of himself, must admit that he is by no means arbitrarily or by accident good or evil... an evil individual, for example, surely appears to himself not in the least compelled... but rather performs his actions in accordance with and not against his will."

Schelling introduces the concept of an "unconscious decision" made before the emergence of self-consciousness, indicating that moral orientation is rooted in a primordial act of the will rather than being a conscious choice. This idea mirrors Kant’s earlier formulation that the origin of moral character is established prior to rational comprehension, as discussed earlier.

A striking example of this concept in Schelling’s work is the portrayal of Judas in Philosophical Investigations into the Essence of Human Freedom:

"Judas... betrayed Christ not under compulsion but willingly and with complete freedom. It is exactly the same with a good individual; namely he is not good arbitrarily or by accident and yet is so little compelled that, rather, no compulsion, not even the gates of hell themselves, would be capable of overpowering his basic disposition ["Gesinnung"]. This sort of free act, which becomes necessary, admittedly cannot appear in consciousness to the degree the latter is merely self-awareness and only ideal, since it precedes consciousness."

This passage highlights the paradox of moral freedom: the individual’s fundamental moral disposition is freely chosen, yet this choice precedes conscious awareness. The act of choosing good or evil is thus embedded within the primordial, unconscious domain of the soul, manifesting in subsequent actions as a consistent moral orientation.

Schelling’s philosophy further distinguishes between temporal existence and creation through the absolute, emphasizing that human beings, although born within temporal constraints, are inherently linked to the primordial act of creation:

"Man, even if born in time, is indeed created into the beginning of the creation (the centrum)." (Philosophical Investigations into the Essence of Human Freedom)

This distinction underscores the idea that moral character, whether good or evil, is shaped by an original, non-temporal act that continues to influence the individual’s moral trajectory throughout life. Unlike Fichte, who emphasizes the conscious and self-determined nature of moral development, both Schelling and Kant argue that moral disposition is rooted in a pre-conscious, primordial choice. This perspective challenges the idea of complete moral autonomy by suggesting that fundamental moral orientations are inherent rather than constructed through rational deliberation.

By integrating Schelling’s notion of the primordial choice with Kant’s concept of the “root of evil,” Axiomatology can offer a comprehensive framework for understanding how pre-conscious moral inclinations shape human character. This interpretation not only bridges two philosophical traditions but also highlights the enduring impact of unconscious moral dispositions on conscious moral reasoning.

Evil from the Axiomatological Perspective

Within the framework of Axiomatology, evil does not exist as a distinct ontological or metaphysical entity. Unlike the Christian understanding of evil as an independent moral force, Axiomatology aligns more closely with process theory, where evil is conceptualized as a disruption rather than a fundamental reality. This perspective is rooted in Alfred North Whitehead’s interpretation, which views evil not as an inherent presence but as a "failure in intensity" or a "loss of value."

In his seminal work Process and Reality (1929), Whitehead describes evil as arising when an actual occasion fails to harmonize its prehensions—feelings and data from previous occasions—into a unified experience. The result is disharmony, discord, or chaos. In this sense, evil is not an ontological force but a breakdown in the creative synthesis inherent in the process of becoming. For Whitehead, evil manifests as a relational failure where the dynamic integration of novelty and stability collapses, resulting in incoherence, conflict, or the degradation of value. Consequently, evil is a failure of creative harmony rather than an opposing cosmic principle. Addressing evil, therefore, involves restoring relational integration, whether in personal life, societal evolution, or technological advancement.

Axiomatology expands this idea by conceptualizing evil in two distinct forms that frequently intertwine:

1. Natural Evil: This category encompasses illnesses, mortality, natural disasters, and all forms of existential suffering that are inherently woven into the fabric of life. At its core, natural evil reflects the tragic dimension of existence, where suffering is unavoidable and affects all living beings. It is the inherent suffering that accompanies human existence, and it is impartial, striking without moral intent.

2. Moral Evil: In contrast, moral evil arises from human actions and decisions that inflict unnecessary suffering on others. Unlike natural evil, moral evil is inherently avoidable, as it stems from selfish desires, unethical choices, and deliberate harm. It represents the failure of moral agency when individuals act in ways that could be morally mitigated through better judgment and ethical decision-making.

The Interplay of Natural and Moral Evil
Axiomatology also explores the causal link between these two categories of evil, revealing how natural evil can indirectly give rise to moral evil. Often, the root cause of morally evil actions can be traced back to the experience of natural evil. For instance, when people endure profound suffering or misfortune—such as illness or loss—they may experience an existential crisis, questioning the fairness of life. This psychological void, much like the anguish expressed in the Book of Job, may provoke a reactive stance where unresolved grief or anger is redirected outward as moral wrongdoing. In such cases, the inability to process natural suffering can morph into moral evil, manifesting as acts that perpetuate further harm.

Steven Pinker’s observation in The Blank Slate resonates with this analysis, as he notes the inherent asymmetry between good and evil:

“Good and evil are asymmetrical: there are more ways to harm people than to help them, and harmful acts can hurt them to a greater degree than virtuous acts can make them better off.”

This insight aligns with Axiomatology’s deeper analysis of evil, which addresses the underlying mechanics that perpetuate harm. Axiomatology posits that the asymmetry between good and evil is not merely a statistical or empirical observation but a consequence of how human suffering is processed—or left unprocessed—within the internal value hierarchy. When individuals lack the resilience to endure natural suffering and fail to integrate it meaningfully, the resulting void often becomes a breeding ground for moral evil.

Event Composition Specifics in Relation to Evil

Within the Axiomatological framework, the Self Fusion process involves the integration of three types of prehensions: physical, conceptual, and moral. Understanding how evil emerges within this process requires an in-depth examination of the initial formation of evil thoughts. This inquiry is particularly intriguing when juxtaposing Kant’s and Schelling’s perspectives against Whitehead’s process philosophy.

In Whiteheadian terms, evil is conceptualized as a failure in concrescence—a breakdown in the harmonious synthesis of prehensions. This inadequacy often manifests as either boredom (an experience devoid of creative intensity) or unrealized potential (a failure to actualize novelty). At the same time, both Kant and Schelling suggest that evil is rooted in a primordial predisposition, a moral orientation established before conscious deliberation. Integrating these viewpoints, Axiomatology sees evil as both an ontological disruption (as per Whitehead) and a predispositional flaw (as per Kant and Schelling).


Manifestation of Evil in Event Composition

According to Axiomatology, evil can manifest in two distinct ways during an event, depending on how prehensions are aligned or misaligned with Structured Internal Value Hierarchies (SIVHs) and the Will of God (WOG):

1. Misalignment Between Behavior and SIVH (Moral Dissonance):
   In this form, an individual’s behavior does not align with their established SIVH, even if the hierarchy itself is morally sound and aligned with the WOG. This internal conflict creates a form of cognitive dissonance, leading to actions that contradict one’s moral framework. A literary example can be found in Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, where Raskolnikov’s actions clash with his underlying moral convictions. This type of misalignment typically results in internal turmoil, which, through self-correction, can lead to moral realignment and personal growth—a so-called “happy ending.”

2. Misalignment Between SIVH and WOG (Anti-Alētheia):
   This second form of evil is more characteristic of psychopathic individuals or those exhibiting dark triad traits. In this scenario, the person’s SIVH is fully aligned with their behavior, but both are fundamentally misaligned with the WOG as a moral prehension. This state represents Anti-Alētheia within Axiomatology, as it involves a deliberate suppression of moral truth. Such individuals may convincingly uphold a false reality for extended periods, lying without remorse or moral conflict. However, this suppression of truth is inherently unstable, as suppressed moral truth inevitably resurfaces, often with destructive consequences.
   

Cognitive Dissonance and the Constructed False Reality

The two forms of evil misalignment can be further distilled into two core dynamics:

• Resolution through Cognitive Dissonance:
  In cases where there is misalignment between behavior and a moral SIVH, cognitive dissonance acts as a corrective force, eventually realigning actions with both SIVH and WOG. This alignment process often signifies a moral restoration, leading to a positive resolution.

• Persistence of a False Reality:
  In cases of Anti-Alētheia, the constructed SIVH and behavior pattern override the WOG. This alignment with a false moral framework creates a distorted reality, where lies and self-deception sustain a façade of integrity. Eventually, this artificial coherence breaks down, revealing the truth with vengeance, as suppressed moral reality cannot be permanently overridden.

Evil as Sub-Optimal Concrescence

From the Axiomatological perspective, both scenarios reflect evil as a form of sub-optimal concrescence. The ultimate purpose of an occasion—to harmonize internal values (SIVH) with external moral imperatives (WOG)—is compromised. When this synthesis fails, the occasion’s objective is unrealized, resulting in moral incoherence or ethical collapse. Thus, evil in Axiomatology is not merely a moral transgression but a disruption of the inherent process of value integration, where the final aim of an event fails to materialize due to inadequate alignment between personal values and moral reality.

More Detailed Analysis within the Self Fusion Process

The Self Fusion process, as understood in Axiomatology, reveals a fundamental discrepancy between the resolution of a given occasion and the Will of God (WOG) as the moral prehension. This discrepancy indicates that the objective outcome of the Self Fusion process is inherently sub-optimal. But what does this sub-optimality precisely entail?

At its core, this means that the influx of prehensions within the Self Fusion process may contain elements that allow for the emergence of "evil." In other words, the society of occasions, comprising subjective prehensions accumulated over time, already harbors the latent potential for evil to manifest. These prehensions carry within them traces of previous physical experiences or moral failures, creating a predisposition toward moral misalignment. This inherent presence of “darkness” in the nexus of prehensions implies that past subjective experiences, whether morally flawed or discordant, are integrated into the present fusion process.

This phenomenon is inevitable and inherently complex, as it is challenging to pinpoint the exact origin of such predispositions. The presence of evil as an inflowing prehension does not contradict the fundamental principles of Kant, Schelling, or Axiomatology. In fact, it aligns with the idea that human moral predispositions are shaped by pre-conscious decisions and primordial choices, as both Kant and Schelling suggest.


Temporal Chains of Causal Prehensions

In Axiomatology, the continuity of evil can be understood as a series of objective occasions that have “dropped” into history, each with a causal link to the next. These temporal lines form a continuous chain where each concrescence (or Self Fusion event) incorporates subjective prehensions from past occasions. The interconnectedness of these prehensions forms a lineage of moral and physical experiences that are passed from one occasion to the next.

The causality between these occasions is absolute, meaning that one can theoretically trace the chain back to the very first occasion that contained the initial subjective memory related to the individual. This first subjective occasion marks the point where personal identity and moral predisposition begin to take form. However, this initial occasion itself is often influenced by the subjective memories of significant others—such as parents or close caregivers—who shape the early stages of moral alignment and value hierarchy. Thus, the first subjective memory is not purely isolated but is a product of preceding relational occasions.


The Ontological Gap of the First Occasion

One of the most intriguing aspects of this analysis is the consideration of the very first subjective occasion of a new individual. At this nascent stage, there are no subjective prehensions and no society of occasions linked to the specific individual. Instead, the prehensions are purely universal, representing the unfolding universe itself without any concrete subjectivity attached to the emerging self. This primordial state is characterized by the ongoing process of the universe—an unbroken series of objective events where subjectivity, as tied to a specific individual, has not yet crystallized.

This ontological gap signifies a profound moment where the individual’s narrative identity has not yet begun, and any notion of moral predisposition remains absent. It is only through subsequent events, influenced by interpersonal relations and cultural contexts, that the subjective prehensions begin to accumulate, eventually giving rise to a distinct moral and personal identity.


The Emergence of Moral Identity

The transition from pure universal prehensions to the formation of subjective identity marks a critical juncture in the Self Fusion process. During this phase, the fusion of prehensions from familial and social contexts gradually shapes the individual’s Structured Internal Value Hierarchy (SIVH). The moral direction taken in these formative moments is deeply rooted in the inherited prehensions of caregivers and the socio-cultural matrix. Consequently, moral evil as a predisposition may emerge not as a purely autonomous decision but as a consequence of these inherited prehensions.


Implications for Axiomatology

Understanding this dynamic allows Axiomatology to address moral responsibility within a framework that acknowledges the inevitability of inherited predispositions while maintaining the potential for moral realignment. Since the Self Fusion process continually integrates past prehensions, the key to moral growth lies not in erasing past influences but in reorganizing the value hierarchy to better align with the Will of God (WOG). In this way, Axiomatology emphasizes moral transformation through awareness of inherited prehensions rather than attempting to sever them entirely from one’s identity.

The First Touch of Evil

To conceptualize the inborn nature of evil, we must first acknowledge that, in the consciousness of a newborn individual, there are no inherent "negative" or "evil" prehensions. The nascent consciousness emerges devoid of moral or immoral associations, as it has not yet integrated subjective experiences that could be labeled as good or evil.


The Emergence of Consciousness Before Birth

The beginning of new life can be seen metaphorically as a “tear” in the fabric of the universe—a moment when a new subjective connection to the universal field of consciousness emerges. This connectivity likely occurs even before actual birth, as evidence suggests that fetal consciousness—while not fully self-aware—exists in a rudimentary form. For instance, research has shown that fetuses can recognize certain lullabies heard during the third trimester, indicating both perceptual awareness and the capacity for implicit memory formation. This recognition, however, does not imply fully formed memory storage or retrieval, as these abilities remain limited at this stage. The debate here centers not on the existence of memory itself but on its nature—predominantly implicit rather than explicit.

When considering the first encounter with evil, it is crucial not to frame it as a singular, spatiotemporal event or a specific moment. Instead, the initial touch of evil should be understood as a gradual process unfolding over time. The notion of evil as an inborn quality is misleading; rather, it develops as the individual becomes increasingly integrated into the world of subjective prehensions.


From Universal to Subjective Prehensions

Initially, the newborn exists primarily in a state of pure connectivity to the universal field—an unstructured consciousness without defined moral prehensions. As the individual begins to accumulate experiences, primarily through sensory input and relational encounters, the integration of these prehensions shapes the moral fabric of the developing self. The emergence of evil, therefore, is not rooted in the original state of consciousness but in the gradual integration of prehensions that carry the potential for discord and disharmony.


The Transition from Innocence to Moral Awareness

During early development, the individual remains relatively untouched by moral judgments, as the foundational prehensions are largely neutral or benign. It is through continued interactions with the environment and other beings that the potential for evil gradually becomes apparent. This process aligns with Axiomatology’s understanding that moral predispositions are shaped over time rather than being inherently present at birth.

From an Axiomatological perspective, evil does not manifest in a single transformative moment but rather emerges as a cumulative result of experiences that fail to harmonize with the Structured Internal Value Hierarchy (SIVH) and the Will of God (WOG). As relational and environmental influences interact with the emerging self, the potential for moral discord—if not properly aligned—leads to the gradual manifestation of evil.

Thus, pinpointing the "first touch of evil" is less about identifying a concrete event and more about recognizing a developmental trajectory where discordant prehensions progressively integrate into the evolving consciousness. Understanding this gradual emergence of evil allows for a more nuanced approach to moral development and the role of inherited and experiential influences in shaping one’s moral character.

Presentational Immediacy vs. Causal Efficacy

To fully grasp the manifestation of evil within the Axiomatological framework, one must shift from pinpointing specific occasions to reconceptualizing the very experience of being in the world. The core issue lies not in identifying a singular event where evil emerges but in understanding the dynamic interplay between two fundamental modes of perception: Presentational Immediacy and Causal Efficacy.


Presentational Immediacy

According to process theory and Axiomatology, a more adequate way of perceiving the world is not through Presentational Immediacy—the immediate sensory perception of physical properties through our perceptual faculties. This concept closely aligns with Kant’s notion of the a priori intuition of space in outward experience, where spatial perception precedes empirical data.

However, attempting to locate the "entrance" of evil into an individual’s subjective world solely through Presentational Immediacy is misleading. This perspective mistakenly attributes the emergence of evil to a singular, present moment of experience. Yet, any particular occasion perceived through immediate sensory awareness is already interwoven with previous subjective experiences. These pre-existing experiences may already contain traces of evil, forming a continuum rather than a new, distinct instance of moral disruption.

In essence, perceiving evil through Presentational Immediacy mistakenly treats it as a new event when it is more accurately understood as a directional emergence—a crystallization of prehensions that are already present in the nexus of past occasions. The evil experienced in a given moment is not a spontaneous manifestation but a reflection of accumulated moral and experiential residues.


Causal Efficacy

In contrast, Axiomatology emphasizes the primacy of Causal Efficacy as the more accurate mode of experiencing the world. Causal Efficacy involves perceiving the temporal continuity and interconnectedness of past events with current states, emphasizing the causal relationships that bind occasions over time. This framework aligns with the notion that self-consciousness, when emerging as a new “tear” in the fabric of the universe, does not form in isolation but rather draws upon pre-established causal nexuses from the past.

In the context of evil, this means that what appears as the "first encounter" with evil is actually a moment when self-consciousness becomes aware of long-standing causal chains that link past moral and natural evils to present experiences. The initial act of self-awareness does not generate evil anew; rather, it opens up a continuity of moral and natural evils already embedded in the nexus of preceding occasions. In this sense, the "first touch" of evil is not a creation of evil but an unveiling of its historical embeddedness within the evolving self.

These two dimensions are not mutually exclusive but are intertwined within a dynamic, process-oriented experience of reality. Presentational Immediacy provides a clarity of immediate perception, while Causal Efficacy contextualizes that perception within a causal web of past influences. This synthesis challenges traditional static ontology by positing that perception itself is a dynamic process, shaped by both immediate awareness and the deeper continuity of past experiences.

When considering the emergence of evil, it is important to acknowledge that environmental stimuli and concrete experiences can amplify the awareness of pre-existing evil. In other words, situational triggers may intensify the subjective experience of evil, making it appear more prominent or immediate. However, this does not imply that evil originates from the present moment. Rather, these experiences reveal or accentuate the evil that was already embeddedin the nexus of past occasions.


Evil as a Continuum

Ultimately, evil in Axiomatology is not an isolated occurrence but a continuum of disrupted harmony that permeates through time. The interplay between Presentational Immediacy and Causal Efficacy demonstrates that the perception of evil is both an immediate realization and a long-term unfolding of causally interconnected experiences. Recognizing this dual nature allows us to understand that evil is not newly created at the point of awareness, but rather perceived more clearly when conditions align to unveil its historical roots.

In this light, the experience of evil is not an isolated rupture but a moment of clarity in which the self becomes aware of pre-existing moral discord woven through past and present occasions. The real task, therefore, is not to search for the first instance of evil, but to develop a deeper awareness of how causal patterns of past suffering and moral failuresshape current perceptions and responses.

The Roots of Evil

In Axiomatology, the roots of evil extend endlessly into the interconnected nexuses of previous occasions. This means that all subjective societies indirectly include the experiences of past events. While an individual cannot directly access the concrete evil experiences of previous generations, the formative influences of direct ancestors can still subtly affect the emerging consciousness of a new individual.

When tracing the lineage of evil through history, we encounter an almost infinite trail that can either be amplified or mitigated by each generation. This transmission occurs through subjective inheritance, where the emotional and moral residues from past lives influence the current self-fusion process.

Although the sense of evil does not arise from a single life, it resonates as a moral echo across generations. Familial patterns of moral failure or harm can persist unless actively addressed and transformed. Therefore, each generation has the potential to either diminish or perpetuate the inherited moral flaws.

The key lies in acknowledging and reshaping inherited moral frameworks to break harmful patterns. Recognizing the historical roots of evil allows individuals to counteract its transmission through conscious moral alignment and personal growth.

Encountering Evil: Ulysses (Odysseus) and the Sirens

Understanding the presence of evil requires acknowledging that it is inherent in the physical prehensions of every occasion. There is no way to completely avoid or minimize its inevitable impact. From an Axiomatological perspective, confronting evil involves three fundamental steps:

1. Understand the inevitability of evil and prepare.

2. Suffer through the encounter.

3. Understand the meaning behind suffering.

The myth of Ulysses and the Sirens from The Odyssey serves as an exemplary narrative that aligns with these steps.


1. Understand the Inevitability of Evil and Prepare

In the tale, Ulysses demonstrates a profound awareness of the inevitability of evil by preparing for the encounter with the Sirens. He knows that the Sirens’ song is irresistibly seductive and that succumbing would mean certain death. Acknowledging this inherent danger, he takes strategic measures rather than foolishly trying to avoid the confrontation altogether.

From the Axiomatological perspective, Ulysses exemplifies rationality and recognizes that one cannot control one’s motivations without vertical alignment. The mast to which Ulysses binds himself symbolizes a connection to something that stretches vertically—from the depths to the heights, from chaos to order. It represents a deliberate submission to a higher force—not as a form of slave morality (as Nietzsche would argue) but as an act of choosing one’s suffering consciously and responsibly. Ulysses understands that there must be something to hold on to, something that transcends mere self-control, in order to navigate the chaotic temptations of life.

Ulysses orders his men to plug their ears with beeswax, thereby neutralizing the immediate threat, while he himself chooses to face the danger consciously by being tied to the mast. This preparation aligns with the first Axiomatological step: recognizing evil as an inherent reality and consciously structuring one’s approach to withstand its influence. It is not about passively submitting to temptation but actively preparing for its onslaught.


2. Suffer Through the Encounter (Voluntary Exposure to Evil)

Despite his thorough preparation, Ulysses does not escape the pain and turmoil caused by the Sirens' song. Bound to the mast, he endures the mental and existential agony of the seductive melody, which tempts his deepest desires and instincts. He screams and begs to be released, overwhelmed by the force of his own temptation, but the previous preparation ultimately saves him from self-destruction.

From the Axiomatological perspective, this scenario highlights the futility of relying solely on motivation or raw willpower to resist evil. It illustrates the naivety of assuming that mere self-control can overcome profound temptation. In reality, one must understand that resisting evil is not about moving away from something undesirable but moving toward a higher value. Without such a guiding principle, temptation inevitably overpowers mere determination.

Ulysses’ suffering here is not just physical but deeply psychological and existential. Unlike his crew, who are protected by sensory isolation, Ulysses chooses to confront the evil directly, willingly experiencing the full brunt of its power. This voluntary exposure to suffering differentiates him from the passive avoidance employed by his men. However, his suffering remains incomplete because it lacks the element of meaningful transformation—it is a controlled exposurerather than a transformative confrontation.


3. Understand the Meaning Behind Suffering (Building the Strength to Resist)

After the ordeal, Ulysses realizes he has survived one of the most dangerous temptations through both preparation and endurance. However, while this experience sharpens his awareness of human vulnerability, it does not complete the Axiomatological transformation.

Ulysses represents an initial step toward facing one’s fears—voluntary exposure in a controlled environment. Yet, his encounter lacks the crucial final step: transforming suffering into internal strength. True moral evolution requires continuous, voluntary suffering in open and unpredictable contexts, not just in controlled settings.

To complete this journey, Axiomatology points to the biblical narrative of Exodus, where God instructs Moses:

"Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole; and it shall be that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, shall live." (Numbers 21:8)

This motif reappears in the New Testament:

"Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him." (John 3:14-15)

These passages indicate that constant and voluntary exposure to suffering—the willingness to face one’s deepest fears—is the path to true transformation. It is not enough to avoid relapse or temporarily withstand temptation; one must develop internal strength by systematically exposing oneself to challenging realities and pushing through sufferingto build resilience and moral fortitude.


Conclusion: Integrating Ulysses and the Biblical Lesson

While Ulysses’ approach is commendable as a pragmatic starting point, it falls short of the Axiomatological ideal. His strategy reflects practical wisdom, but not the ultimate conquest of evil through transformative suffering. To fully integrate this lesson, one must move beyond controlled confrontation and willingly embrace meaningful suffering in everyday life. Only through this continuous process can one achieve the moral alignment necessary to resist evil in a profound and enduring way.