How does a personal experience of evil differ from the philosophical problem of evil for Gabriel Marcel?

For Gabriel Marcel, the distinction between the philosophical problem of evil and the personal experience of evil lies in the difference between primary and secondary reflection.1

The problem of evil is approached through primary reflection, which treats the existence of evil as an abstract, objective puzzle—specifically, how to reconcile an all-powerful, benevolent God with the presence of suffering. This method requires detachment, viewing the issue as a universal task that can be solved by anyone through logical analysis. While Marcel acknowledged this discussion has value, he argued that it necessarily excludes the individual's lived reality, as it requires the philosopher to step outside the experience to analyze it as an object.1

In contrast, the mystery of evil is a personal, existential encounter. Marcel defined a mystery as a problem that encroaches upon its own data; because the individual is directly involved, they cannot detach themselves to study it objectively. One can only truly grasp evil as it "touches" them personally. Consequently, the mystery of evil is not a puzzle to be solved, but a reality to be lived, requiring a deeper, secondary reflection that honors the individual's involvement and response to suffering.1