Please explain, plainly. Thank you

[BaalChatzaf]

What does it mean for the universe to be benevolent? The physical universe (and that is all that there is) is NOT a sentient being, although sentient beings live within it. Malevolence and Benevolence are properties of intentions and only sentient beings can have intentions.

The Universe (or Cosmos) just is. It does not care, it does not think, it has no mind, it has no brain, it has no persona. Of visible matter it is mostly hydrogen. Of dark matter, who knows? Does dark matter have dark or bright intentions?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Alfonso Jones]

What does it mean for the universe to be benevolent? The physical universe (and that is all that there is) is NOT a sentient being, although sentient beings live within it. Malevolence and Benevolence are properties of intentions and only sentient beings can have intentions.

The Universe (or Cosmos) just is. It does not care, it does not think, it has no mind, it has no brain, it has no persona. Of visible matter it is mostly hydrogen. Of dark matter, who knows? Does dark matter have dark or bright intentions?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob:

THe following is from Rand on the subject:

There is a fundamental conviction which some people never acquire, some hold only in their youth, and a few hold to the end of their days—the conviction that ideas matter . . . . That ideas matter means that knowledge matters, that truth matters, that one’s mind matters . . . .

Its consequence is the inability to believe in the power or the triumph of evil. No matter what corruption one observes in one’s immediate background, one is unable to accept it as normal, permanent or metaphysically right. One feels: “This injustice (or terror or falsehood or frustration or pain or agony) is the exception in life, not the rule.” One feels certain that somewhere on earth—even if not anywhere in one’s surroundings or within one’s reach—a proper, human way of life is possible to human beings, and justice matters.

“The Inexplicable Personal Alchemy,”

Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, 122.

The following is from Peikoff on the subject:

Although accidents and failures are possible, they are not, according to Objectivism, the essence of human life. On the contrary, the achievement of values is the norm—speaking now for the moral man, moral by the Objectivist definition. Success and happiness are the metaphysically to-be-expected. In other words, Objectivism rejects the view that human fulfillment is impossible, that man is doomed to misery, that the universe is malevolent. We advocate the “benevolent universe” premise.

The “benevolent universe” does not mean that the universe feels kindly to man or that it is out to help him achieve his goals. No, the universe is neutral; it simply is; it is indifferent to you. You must care about and adapt to it, not the other way around. But reality is “benevolent” in the sense that if you do adapt to it—i.e., if you do think, value, and act rationally, then you can (and barring accidents you will) achieve your values. You will, because those values are based on reality.

Pain, suffering, failure do not have metaphysical significance—they do not reveal the nature of reality. Ayn Rand’s heroes, accordingly, refuse to take pain seriously, i.e., metaphysically. You remember when Dagny asks Ragnar in the valley how his wife can live through the months he is away at sea, and he answers (I quote just part of this passage):

“We do not think that tragedy is our natural state. We do not live in chronic dread of disaster. We do not expect disaster until we have specific reason to expect it, and when we encounter it, we are free to fight it. It is not happiness, but suffering, that we consider unnatural. It is not success but calamity that we regard as the abnormal exception in human life.”

This is why Ayn Rand’s heroes respond to disaster, when it does strike, with a single instantaneous response: action—what can they do? If there’s any chance at all, they refuse to accept defeat. They do what they can to counter the danger, because they are on the premise that success, not failure, is the to-be-expected.

I hope this helps.

Bill P

[kiaer.ts]

Bill is correct, but I think it is interesting that the BUP can be seen as a parallel to the Anthropic Principle.

[Alfonso Jones]

Bill is correct, but I think it is interesting that the BUP can be seen as a parallel to the Anthropic Principle.

The thing of psychological importace wrt the BUP is that the BUP affirms that the universe is NOT "out to get you." That is, it is really an affirmation that this universe is not a "vale of tears" in which man is doomed to failure. Instead, that man CAN understand and man CAN act to as to achieve his goals. That if man thinks, values and acts rationally it is reasonable to expect success (achieving values).

I love the Ragnar D. quote when he explains to Dagny how he and his wife can live through the 11 months every year when he is out in the world, at risk. "We do not think that tragedy is our natural state. . . . It is not success but calimity that we regard as the abnormal exception in human life."

Beautiful...

Bill P

[Neil Parille]

(Quote: Peikoff) Although accidents and failures are possible, they are not, according to Objectivism, the essence of human life. On the contrary, the achievement of values is the norm—speaking now for the moral man, moral by the Objectivist definition. Success and happiness are the metaphysically to-be-expected. In other words, Objectivism rejects the view that human fulfillment is impossible, that man is doomed to misery, that the universe is malevolent. We advocate the “benevolent universe” premise.

The “benevolent universe” does not mean that the universe feels kindly to man or that it is out to help him achieve his goals. No, the universe is neutral; it simply is; it is indifferent to you. You must care about and adapt to it, not the other way around. But reality is “benevolent” in the sense that if you do adapt to it—i.e., if you do think, value, and act rationally, then you can (and barring accidents you will) achieve your values. You will, because those values are based on reality.

Pain, suffering, failure do not have metaphysical significance—they do not reveal the nature of reality. Ayn Rand’s heroes, accordingly, refuse to take pain seriously, i.e., metaphysically.

Call me a humanity-diminisher, but isn't the truth here in the middle? This is one of the problems I have with Rand and Peikoff. They love to a position they disagree with and make a carciature of it, thus making it seem that their position is the reasonable one. E.g., if the opposite of egoism is altruism as they define it, then who wouldn't want to be an egoist?

-Neil Parille

[tjohnson]

“We do not think that tragedy is our natural state. We do not live in chronic dread of disaster.

Who does??

[galtgulch]

“We do not think that tragedy is our natural state. We do not live in chronic dread of disaster.

Who does??

It is not that anyone does. But there are those who see something to gain by encouraging others to think that that is the way things are. Then if they can get them to accept that the world and this life is one of chronic dread they have them where they want them. Then they can offer the hope of eternal salvation in the afterlife and collect a few coins each Sunday morning for the privilege of reminding them.

It is a con game which has always worked and never better than in our little Bible belt from sea to shining sea, America.

gulch

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

“We do not think that tragedy is our natural state. We do not live in chronic dread of disaster.

Who does??

GS,

Michael Crichton explained it better than anyone I have come across so far:

State of Fear

I am starting this thread to discuss a syndrome I found in the book State of Fear by Michael Crichton. I am probably pushing the limits of fair use, but this is very important. I broke it up to make up for the length and I hope this use sells more books for the author and publisher. Please buy the book. It is worth every cent.

The excerpt speaks for itself. The quote is from a crazy professor-almost-prophet type (Hoffman) who showed up suddenly and the hero (Evans). Hoffman starts. (pp. 453-459)

”If you study the media, as my graduate students and I do, seeking to find shifts in normative conceptualization, you discover something extremely interesting. We looked at transcripts of news programs of the major networks—NBC, ABC, CBS. We also looked at stories in the newspapers of New York, Washington, Miami, Los Angeles, and Seattle. We counted the frequency of certain concepts in terms used by the media. The results are very striking.” He paused.

“What did you find?” Evans said, taking his cue.

“There was a major shift in the fall of 1989. Before that time, the media did not make excessive use of terms such as crisis, catastrophe, cataclysm, plague, or disaster. For example during the 1980s, the word crisis appeared in news reports about as often as the word budget. In addition, prior to 1989, adjectives such as dire, unprecedented, dreaded were not common in television reports or newspaper headlines. But then it all changed.”

“In what way?”

“These terms started to become more and more common. The word catastrophe was used five times more often in 1995 than it was in 1985. It is doubled again by the year 2000. And the stories changed, too. There was a heightened emphasis on feat, worry, danger, uncertainty, panic.”

“Why should it have changed in 1989?”

. . .

“At first we thought the association was spurious. But it wasn’t. The Berlin Wall marks the collapse of the Soviet empire. And the end of the Cold War that had lasted for half a century in the West.”

. . .

“I am a leading to the notion of social control, Peter. To the requirement of every sovereign state to exert control over the behavior of its citizens, to keep them orderly and reasonably docile. To keep them driving on the right side of the road—or the left, as the case may be. To keep them paying taxes. And of course we know that social control is best managed through fear.

“Fear,” Evans said.

“Exactly. For fifty years, Western nations had maintained their citizens in the state of perpetual fear. Fear of the other side. Fear of nuclear war. The Communist menace. The Iron Curtain. The Evil Empire. And within the Communist countries, the same in reverse. Fear of us. Then, suddenly, in the fall of 1989, it was all finished. Gone, vanished. Over. The fall of the Berlin Wall created a vacuum of fear. Nature abhors a vacuum. Something had to fill it.”

Evans frowned. “You’re saying that environmental crisis took the place of the Cold War?”

“That is what the evidence shows. Of course, now we have radical fundamentalism and post-9/11 terrorism to make us afraid, and those are certainly real reasons for fear, but that is not my point. My point is, there is always a cause for fear. The cause may change over time, but the fear is always with us. Before terrorism we feared the toxic environment. Before that we had the Communist menace. The point is, although the specific cause of our fear may change, we are never without the fear itself. Here pervades society in all its aspects. Perpetually.”

He shifted on the concrete bench, turning away from the crowds.

“Has it ever occurred to you how astonishing the culture of Western society really is? Industrialized nations provide their citizens with unprecedented safety, health, and comfort. Average life spans increased fifty percent in the last century. Yet modern people live in abject fear. They are afraid of strangers, of disease, of crime, of the environment. They are afraid of the homes they live in, the food they eat, the technology that surrounds them. They are in a particular panic over things they can’t even see—germs, chemicals, additives, pollutants. They are timid, nervous, fretful, and depressed. And even more amazingly, they are convinced that the environment of the entire planet is being destroyed around them. Remarkable! Like to believe in witchcraft, it’s an extraordinary delusion—a global fantasy worthy of the Middle Ages. Everything is going to hell, and we must live in fear. Amazing.

“How has this world view been instilled in everybody? Because although we imagine we live in different nations—France, Germany, Japan, the US—in fact, we inhabit exactly the same state, the State of Fear. How has that been accomplished?”

Evans said nothing. He knew it wasn’t necessary.

“Well, I shall tell you how,” he said. “In the old days—before your time, Peter—citizens of the West believed their nation-states were dominated by something called the military-industrial complex. Eisenhower warned Americans against it and the 1960s, and after two world wars Europeans knew very well what it meant in their own countries. But the military-industrial complex is no longer the primary driver of society. In reality, for the last fifteen years we have been under the control of an entirely new complex, far more powerful and far more pervasive. I call it the politico-legal-media complex. The PLM. And it is dedicated to promoting fear in the population—under the guise of promoting safety.”

“Safety is important.”

“Please. Western nations are fabulously safe. Yet people do not feel they are, because of the PLM. And the PLM is powerful and stable, precisely because it unites so many institutions of society. Politicians need fears to control the population. Lawyers need dangers to litigate, and make money. The media needs scare stories to capture an audience. Together, these three estates are so compelling that they can go about their business even if the scare is totally groundless. If it has no basis in fact at all.”

. . .

At the very least, we are talking about a moral outrage. Thus we can expect our religious leaders and our great humanitarian figures to cry out against this waste and the needless deaths around the world that results. But do any religious leaders speak out? No. Quite the contrary, they join the chorus. They promote ‘What Would Jesus Drive?’ As if they have forgotten that what Jesus would drive is the false prophets and fearmongers out of the temple.”

He was getting quite heated now.

“What we’re talking about is a situation that is profoundly immoral. It is disgusting, if truth be told. The PLM callously ignores the plight of the poorest and most desperate human beings on our planet in order to keep fat politicians in office, rich news anchors on the air, and conniving lawyers in Mercedes-Benz convertibles. Oh, and our university professors in Volvos. Let’s not forget them.”

. . .

“What happened,” he continued, “is the universities transformed themselves in the 1980s. Formerly bastions of intellectual freedom in a world of Babbittry, formerly the locus of sexual freedom and experimentation, they now became the most restrictive environments in modern society. Because they had a new role to play. They became the creators of new fears for the PLM. Universities today are factories of fear. They invent all the new terrors and all the new social anxieties. All the new respective codes. Words you can’t say. Thoughts you can’t think. They produce a steady stream of new anxieties, dangers, and social terrors to be used by politicians, lawyers, and reporters. Foods that are bad for you. Behaviors that are unacceptable. Can’t smoke, can’t swear, can’t screw, can’t think. These institutions have been stood on their heads in a generation. It is really quite extraordinary.

“The modern State of Fear could never exist without universities feeding it. There is a peculiar neo-Stalinist mode of thought that is required to support all this, and it can throve only in a restricted setting, behind closed doors, without due process. And our society, only universities have created that—so far. The notion that these institutions are liberal is a cruel joke. They’re fascist to the core, I’m telling you.”

I am very grateful for reading this book if only because of this passage. I have perceived an excess of fear here in the USA that is not present in Brazil and I have been perplexed as to what it is. When I look, I see what Crichton says is true. The world is essentially a much safer place than years ago, but people are sheep and scared out of their wits.

This is precisely the danger of rejecting a benevolent universe attitude.

The first step to fixing a problem is recognizing it.

Michael

[tjohnson]

It is not that anyone does. But there are those who see something to gain by encouraging others to think that that is the way things are. Then if they can get them to accept that the world and this life is one of chronic dread they have them where they want them. Then they can offer the hope of eternal salvation in the afterlife and collect a few coins each Sunday morning for the privilege of reminding them.

It is a con game which has always worked and never better than in our little Bible belt from sea to shining sea, America.

gulch

OK, I get it but that statement seems a bit melodramatic to me.

[Alfonso Jones]

“We do not think that tragedy is our natural state. We do not live in chronic dread of disaster.

Who does??

It is not that anyone does. But there are those who see something to gain by encouraging others to think that that is the way things are. Then if they can get them to accept that the world and this life is one of chronic dread they have them where they want them. Then they can offer the hope of eternal salvation in the afterlife and collect a few coins each Sunday morning for the privilege of reminding them.

It is a con game which has always worked and never better than in our little Bible belt from sea to shining sea, America.

gulch

Gulch -

Well put on the con game.

Bill P

[Brant Gaede]

If you are depressed then it's a malevolent universe.

If you are happy then it's a benevolent universe.

(One may be depressed and claim it's a benevolent universe but not actually feel that way.)

If neither you'll become depressed over the fact you aren't happy. This in between isn't stable. Happy takes work. Unhappy is laziness, sloth, genetics, victimization, personal tragedy, etc. It may or may not be a moral issue. Happy reflects positive morality unless one is a psychopath or sociopath. I think seeing oneself as a victim is the number one reason for being depressed.

--Brant

Edited February 8, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[ginny]

To put it simply, to me benevolence on a daily basis simply means that someone is okay until proven differently. Also, people are different. Someone can have traits that we don't agree with, but unless they are detrimental to us, so be it. My time is too precious to argue. I have a friend who discovered religion in a bad way. She knows my views. She knows to shut up about it. It doesn't interfere with our relationship all that much. (I do think a bit less of her for her beliefs, but that doesn't mean we can't have dinner or go to a movie together.)

I believe our attitude is within our control, and the better the attitude, the better. Let me give you an example: A while back, I had to work on a Saturday. The time went on much longer than I anticipated or wanted. I took some equipment from someone's desk, found it didn't work, and left it there. I went to another desk and tried again. I left both desks in disorder when I left late at night, fully intending to correct this Monday morning. Come Monday, one of the woman had a hissy fit before I could even apologize; she demanded loudly and angrily that I put things straight. (That's what I was going to do!) The other woman greeted me with a laugh, said she'd already cleared her desk and she hoped my Saturday hadn't been too bad. See the difference between these two. They faced the same situation. Yes, they had every right to be angry at me. One of them, however, wasn't about to waste her day on anger. Who do you think is the happier of the two and who enjoys life the most?

As for "bigger" stuff, like politicians, etc.: Yes, I'm more demanding. But I don't fully condemn without a good reason. Within the Objectivist community, words like "evil" are thrown around with alacrity. I can dislike a politician, but I don't necessarily call them evil. I think Obama is a full fledged idiot who is going to ruin the damn economy. No, I don't call him evil. He's accepted so many stupid and current ideas. He's undoubtedly ambitious. But I reserve evil for people like Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, etc.

Ginny

[tjohnson]

I think seeing oneself as a victim is the number one reason for being depressed.

--Brant

Yes, I usually refer to this as feeling sorry for oneself. No matter how justified it is it prevents one from doing constructive things to improve your circumstances.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

At least the universe works pretty benevolently for us until it goes South or runs out...

(That's an awkward way of saying it, but it's on purpose.)

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

benevolent = OL

malevolent = SP

--Brant

[kiaer.ts]

The proper perspective on both the BUP and the weak Anthropic Principle is Darwinian.

Weak anthropic principle (WAP) (Carter): "we must be prepared to take account of the fact that our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers."

We are evolved creatures. If our nature were incompatible with successful reproduction, we would not exist in the form in which we do. Nature has "found" that the human form is a particularly successful one at reproducing itself. But the burden of raising children is quite high, and we require that nature bribe us with Joy in order to motivate us to live and reproduce.

Were the laws of physics different, no doubt other unimaginable reproductive and hence Darwinian beings would also exist that were compatible with their own circumstances, scale, physical laws, etc. They too would marvel at how well their universe fit them.

The BUP's significance is aesthetic, (deals with optional values,) not cosmological.

[BaalChatzaf]

Were the laws of physics different, no doubt other unimaginable reproductive and hence Darwinian beings would also exist that were compatible with their own circumstances, scale, physical laws, etc. They too would marvel at how well their universe fit them.

The BUP's significance is aesthetic, (deals with optional values,) not cosmological.

Very Panglossian. Everything is for the best in this, the best of all possible worlds.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Ginny:

'Let me give you an example: A while back, I had to work on a Saturday. The time went on much longer than I anticipated or wanted. I took some equipment from someone's desk, found it didn't work, and left it there. I went to another desk and tried again. I left both desks in disorder when I left late at night, fully intending to correct this Monday morning. Come Monday, one of the woman had a hissy fit before I could even apologize; she demanded loudly and angrily that I put things straight. (That's what I was going to do!) The other woman greeted me with a laugh, said she'd already cleared her desk and she hoped my Saturday hadn't been too bad. See the difference between these two. They faced the same situation. Yes, they had every right to be angry at me. One of them, however, wasn't about to waste her day on anger. Who do you think is the happier of the two and who enjoys life the most?"

Excellent example of two different "senses of life". I was engaged in a mediation between two conflicted parties about a decade ago, we had reached an impasse and one of the parties threw up their hands and said "...see to her the glass is always half empty!"

I responded that it is irrelevant whether the glass is half empty or half full because we still have to wash the damn glass. The impasse vanished because this was not an issue for the mediation, it was a therapeutic issue that needed to be resolved elsewhere.

One of my ancestral aunts who was the youngest woman in NY State to become an obstetrician had instilled that concept in me. You have the choice to be a victim and the predator needs you to think as a victim.

As I have opined in a different thread, I believe that one of the seminal insights that Rand gave to me was the "sanction of the victim" and how empowering it was to shrug and not carry that half full glass throughout life because the mother gets real heavy and real old.

Thanks Ginny for reminding me of staying the course on how to stay happy lol.

Adam

[Rich Engle]

One thing for sure is that the universe certainly becomes a little bit less malevolent every time we affect it in a benevolent manner. That's how metaphysics works.

[Alfonso Jones]

Interestingly, from the top-level page of Nathaniel Branden's website today:

To take responsibility for our life and happiness, we need to relinquish the belief that frustration and defeat are our natural and inevitable fate.

— Nathaniel Branden

Bill P

[BaalChatzaf]

Thank you all for your replies.

What I am getting is this: We have evolved in this universe (the only one we have) and we are well adapted to the local planetary conditions. Therefore it is possible for us not only to survive, but with wit, luck and pluck, even flourish. There is nothing inherent (currently) in the physical environment that wants to kill us dead. Of course this could change quickly if an asteroid the size of Texas slams into Earth. But this is not News. This has been well known long before Rand. My problem with Rand's statement is that it cannot be taken literally. But that is my Asperger Self manifesting.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited February 8, 2009 by BaalChatzaf

[Selene]

"It is a con game which has always worked and never better than in our little Bible belt from sea to shining sea, America."

gulch

Here is another one and it is alive and well in your state gulch!

"According to hysterical anti-smoking zealots at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, smoking costs the nation $92 billion a year in "lost productivity." (Obviously these conclusions were produced by people who not only have never smoked, but also don't know any smokers, who could have told them smoking makes us 10 times more productive.)

Meanwhile, single motherhood costs taxpayers about $112 billion every year, according to a 2008 study by Georgia State University economist Benjamin Scafidi.

Smoking has no causal relationship to crime, has little effect on others and -- let's be honest -- looks cool. Controlling for income, education and occupation, it causes about 200,000 deaths per year, mostly of people in their 70s.

Single motherhood, by contrast, directly harms children, occurs at a rate of about 1.5 million a year and has a causal relationship to criminal behavior, substance abuse, juvenile delinquency, sexual victimization and almost every other social disorder.

If a pregnant woman smokes or drinks, we blame her. But if a woman decides to have a fatherless child, we praise her as brave -- even though the outcome for the child is much worse."

Thus, the Times writes warmly of single mothers, always including an innocent explanation: "Many of these women followed a similar and familiar pattern in having their first child: They planned to marry, found they hadn't by their 30s, looked some more and then decided to have a child without a husband." At which point, a stork showed up with their babies.

So apparently, single motherhood could happen to anyone!

How about: These smokers followed a similar and familiar pattern, they planned never to start smoking, found themselves working long nights at the law firm and then decided to have a cigarette to stay alert.

Then there is the Times' reversal of cause and effect, which manages to exonerate the single mother while turning her into a victim: "The biggest reason that children born to unmarried mothers tend to have problems -- they're more likely to drop out of school and commit crimes -- is that they tend to grow up poor."

First, the reason the children "tend to grow up poor" is that their mothers considered it unnecessary to have a primary bread-earner in the family.

Second, the Times simply made up the fact that poverty, rather than single motherhood, causes anti-social behavior in children. Poverty doesn't cause crime -- single mothers do. If poverty caused crime, how did we get Bernie Madoff?

Studies -- including one by the liberal Progressive Policy Institute -- have shown that controlling for factors such as poverty and socioeconomic status, single motherhood accounts for the entire difference in black and white crime rates.

The Times' claim that poverty is the "biggest reason" for the problems of illegitimate children is on the order of claiming that the biggest reason that smokers develop heart disease and lung cancer is not because they smoke, but because they tend to work so hard. It's a half-baked, wishful-thinking theory contradicted by all known evidence. Other than that, it holds up pretty well.

Finally, the Times produced an imaginary statistic that is valid only in the sense that no study has specifically disproved it yet. "No one has shown," the Times triumphantly announced, "that there are similar risks for the children of college-educated single mothers by choice."

No one has shown that there are similar risks for smokers who run marathons, either. There are probably about as many college graduate single mothers by choice (7 percent) as there are smokers who run marathons. And, unlike single mothers, smokers who run marathons look really cool.

If the establishment media wrote about smoking the way they write about unwed motherhood, I think people would notice that they seem oddly hellbent on destroying as many lives as possible."

Adam

[Xray]

What does it mean for the universe to be benevolent? The physical universe (and that is all that there is) is NOT a sentient being, although sentient beings live within it. Malevolence and Benevolence are properties of intentions and only sentient beings can have intentions.

The Universe (or Cosmos) just is. It does not care, it does not think, it has no mind, it has no brain, it has no persona. Of visible matter it is mostly hydrogen. Of dark matter, who knows? Does dark matter have dark or bright intentions?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Correct. For indeed, attributing benevolence (or malevolence) to "the universe" is projecting qualities of sentient beings into what is clearly NOT a sentient being.

Edited April 5, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

XRay:

Welcome to this group. Hopefully your vision will throw more light on the "enlightened", lol.

Good post.

Adam

Edited April 3, 2009 by Selene

[Flagg]

Thank you all for your replies.

What I am getting is this: We have evolved in this universe (the only one we have) and we are well adapted to the local planetary conditions. Therefore it is possible for us not only to survive, but with wit, luck and pluck, even flourish. There is nothing inherent (currently) in the physical environment that wants to kill us dead. Of course this could change quickly if an asteroid the size of Texas slams into Earth. But this is not News. This has been well known long before Rand. My problem with Rand's statement is that it cannot be taken literally. But that is my Asperger Self manifesting.

Ba'al Chatzaf

This is the explanation why the "Universe" (i.e. the context of one's life) ought to be expected as benevolent, rather than malevolent. Obviously there are many exceptions, such as the malevolent universe of the Soviet Union during the Cold War or in the country of Iran nowadays.

I agree that the Universe just is - calling it malevolent or benevolent is an error of category, sort of like saying the Universe is hungry. But this is not what is intended. The anthropomorphic notion really means that, as you said, we have evolved to survive rather than to die - if the "Universe" of our lives was malevolent, we wouldn't exist as a species.