What makes you think truth, the encounter with it, is not pleasure itself? Many years ago a professor of philosophy faced her undergraduate class of almost 100 students and said with an intensity that itself nearly proved her point, that "Philosophy is erotic(!)". Near as I can tell, she was correct.

Is the sacrifice of pleasure worth becoming able to try to answer such questions? — Nikolas

Interesting question. Really. I think in this point we have to consider how far the pleasure goes in our lives. Some would consider that pleasure is selfish while others maybe think it is good because it drives us to human satisfaction.
Trying to answer your question I would say yes. Specifically in this one

What must I do?

When the word or verb must appears we need somehow sacrifice something. Probably our own pleasure to confront others. I guess this could be one of the steps to promote a community.

What makes you think truth, the encounter with it, is not pleasure itself? Many years ago a professor of philosophy faced her undergraduate class of almost 100 students and said with an intensity that itself nearly proved her point, that "Philosophy is erotic(!)". Near as I can tell, she was correct. — tim wood

:clap: :fire: :100:

What makes you think truth, the encounter with it, is not pleasure itself? Many years ago a professor of philosophy faced her undergraduate class of almost 100 students and said with an intensity that itself nearly proved her point, that "Philosophy is erotic(!)". Near as I can tell, she was correct. — tim wood

Is that the pursuit of truth and wisdom or a pleasurable action or opinion?

What is Philosophy? The term ‘philosophy’ was coined in ancient Greece by the philosopher and mathematician, Pythagoras. 1 Pythagoras (c. 570-490BCE) needed a term for a certain kind of individual, one who prized truth and knowledge above all things. Accordingly, he combined the ancient Greek terms for love, philein and wisdom, sophia to produce philosophos, one who loves wisdom. Philosophy, then, is the love of wisdom.

Is wisdom more than eroticism?

Do you think that pleasure and truth should be seen as being in conflict with one another?This tension existed within Kant's philosophy, but it may have created a lot of difficulties for people. Of course, it is possible to differentiate between higher and lower pleasures, but even that is not absolute. I am not sure that pleasure has to be seen as an obstacle towards the finding of truth, and William Blake suggested that, 'Those who restrain desire do so because theirs is weak enough to be restrained.'

"does there exist in man a natural attraction to truth and to the struggle for truth that is stronger than the natural attraction to pleasure?" — Nikolas

Our choices are not truth and pleasure. Truth and knowledge are instrumental - we look for them, we're built to look for them, because we need them in order to ask the only real question - What do I do now? I haven't thought much about it, but I guess pleasure is instrumental too. It's the signal our body sends us to let us know we're doing what we're supposed to do.

Truth smooth. What the heck am I supposed to do next?

... philosophos, one who loves wisdom. Philosophy, then, is the love of wisdom.

Is wisdom more than eroticism? — Nikolas

Philosophy is "the love of wisdom", not wisdom itself; and love, at its most pleasurable, or ecstatic, is often erotic. (vide Plato ... Spinoza ... Nietzsche ... Iris Murdoch ...)

Our choices are not truth and pleasure. Truth and knowledge are instrumental - we look for them, we're built to look for them, because we need them in order to ask the only real question - What do I do now? I haven't thought much about it, but I guess pleasure is instrumental too. It's the signal our body sends us to let us know we're doing what we're supposed to do. — T Clark

Knowledge can serve the pursuit of truth but the pursuit of pleasure obstructs the pursuit of wisdom. What keeps the prisoners in Plato's cave attached to the shadows on the wall? I believe it is being attached to what offers pleasure.

By pleasure I mean a standard dictionary definition: the state or feeling of being pleased. enjoyment or satisfaction derived from what is to one's liking; gratification; delight. worldly or frivolous enjoyment: the pursuit of pleasure.

Truth is objective reality which can lead to wisdom while pleasure serves our subjective desires. They do seem to be mutually exclusive.

Philosophy is "love of wisdom", not wisdom itself; and love can be, at its most pleasurable, erotic. — 180 Proof

There is nothing wrong with the pursuit of pleasure. It is the way of the world. I'm just suggesting that the world needs this minority willing to sacrifice the drive for pleasure in the cause of experiencing truth which philosophy should inspire

Truth is objective reality which can lead to wisdom while pleasure serves our subjective desires. They do seem to be mutually exclusive.
3m

I don't think they are. I and many others often feel pleasure in the pursuit of truth, and so they are not incompatible. Reading the great philosophers, for example, can give many people great pleasure.

They may be incompatible for some people, but not for everybody.

And I'm suggesting that these pursuits are not necessarily mutually exclusive and that truth/wisdom-seeking is, for some, the highest, most rarefied, of pleasures.

Truth is objective reality which can lead to wisdom while pleasure serves our subjective desires. They do seem to be mutually exclusive. — Nikolas

You see things differently than I do.

It could be that rather than intentional sacrifice of pleasure being needed, as the starting point for the quest for truth, that the actual experience of its absence will lead individuals in that direction naturally. In other words, the misery of many individuals in our turbulent times may be enough to trigger the pursuit. Many are facing hardship as the comforts and pursuits of pleasure they have been used to are vanishing around them rapidly. Of course, I am not suggesting that all would follow this path, but it may be that certain individuals make the connection with some kind of deeper searching.

↪Nikolas And I'm suggesting that these pursuits are not necessarily mutually exclusive and that truth/wisdom-seeking is, for some, the highest, most rarefied, of pleasures. — 180 Proof

There is an important distinction between pleasure and joy

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-journal-best-practices/201305/the-pleasure-trap#:~:text=There%20is%20an%20important%20difference,within%2C%20and%20is%20therefore%20sustainable.

There is an important difference between pleasure and joy. Pleasure is like a Xanax; it’s a one-time hit that generates a good feeling, but the good feeling wears off when the dose expires. Joy, on the other hand, is achieved from within, and is therefore sustainable. That’s not to say that it’s permanent or automatic; we have to nurture and sometimes mindfully manufacture the joy, which is difficult to do these days..........................

Simone Weil really hits the nail on the head:

"A test of what is real is that it is hard and rough. Joys are found in it, not pleasure. What is pleasant belongs to dreams." -- Gravity and Grace

Imagine a philosopher king who is capable of ruling as only a philosopher king can. He would experience the joy of wisdom and will have outgrown the addiction to pleasure

↪Nikolas
It could be that rather than intentional sacrifice of pleasure being needed, as the starting point for the quest for truth, that the actual experience of its absence will lead individuals in that direction naturally. In other words, the misery of many individuals in our turbulent times may be enough to trigger the pursuit. Many are facing hardship as the comforts and pursuits of pleasure they have been used to are vanishing around them rapidly. — Jack Cummins

Genocides are the truth of the human condition. When humanity is caught up with its own pleasure we are completely oblivious of what happened to the Jews and the Armenians for example. To really feel the absurdity of what is going on in the world is suffering. But at the same time we know that Man is also capable of the greatest compassion. Being consumed with the attraction to pleasure makes it impossible to feel the contradiction between atrocities and compassion so life continues as is and we will worry about it tomorrow.

Perhaps it is a matter of many people needing a better understanding of pleasure. The people who are caught up in acts such as genocide are not necessarily the ones who are likely to be looking for truth.

However, it is complex because as I understand the picture of Hitler, he was interested in some spiritual teachings related to purity. However, he ended up with a whole emphasis on purging the world of people who he saw as less 'pure'. Even those who quest for 'truth' may make atrocious mistakes.

And your point is ...?

↪Nikolas
Perhaps it is a matter of many people needing a better understanding of pleasure. The people who are caught up in acts such as genocide are not necessarily the ones who are likely to be looking for truth.

However, it is complex because as I understand the picture of Hitler, he was interested in some spiritual teachings related to purity. However, he ended up with a whole emphasis on purging the world of people who he saw as less 'pure'. Even those who quest for 'truth' may make atrocious mistakes. — Jack Cummins

Hitler was expressing an opinion. The seeker of truth must learn how to transcend his own opinions in the cause of truth. It is the pursuit of pleasure that makes us call our opinions truth

On what basis do you think that it is pursuit of pleasure that makes us mistake our opinions for truth? I am not sure that the two are related in that way necessarily. Inflated sense of self is likely to be involved, but that could occur independently of pleasure. It may be that the pursuit of the denial of pleasure could lead to a sense of self righteousness, and, indirectly, to an inflated idea of one's perception of truth, so it is complex indeed.

If anything, it could be that awareness of one's own sensory pleasures allows for a more balanced perspective of self awareness. In some ways, we can only follow the path to greater conscious awareness, and that may be a more humble endeavor. Of course, we may wish to grasp 'truth', but that does depend on a whole set of epistemological and metaphysical assumptions, which are very difficult to establish.

Most people who search for truth, settle for the claims of known thinkers and teachers. To set out to search for 'truth' independently from reliance on established teachers, may involve a path with likely loss of everyday pleasure, but it would probably be more than that, and be a whole experience of going beyond the life that most people lead and not merely about self renunciation. I wonder if this is what you mean really in your thread introduction, but it is it may be that the discussion is a bit too esoteric to work properly on a thread of this site.

If anything, it could be that awareness of one's own sensory pleasures allows for a more balanced perspective of self awareness. In some ways, we can only follow the path to greater conscious awareness, and that may be a more humble endeavor. Of course, we may wish to grasp 'truth', but that does depend on a whole set of epistemological and metaphysical assumptions, which are very difficult to establish. — Jack Cummins

Can we agree on the distinction between knowledge and opinion as described by Plato?

"Plato drew a sharp distinction between knowledge, which is certain, and mere true opinion, which is not certain. Opinions derive from the shifting world of sensation; knowledge derives from the world of timeless Forms, or essences."

Sensory pleasures are subjective responses by our unique essence to the shifting world of sensation. It is what drives animal life. However human consciousness when awakened is attracted to the timeless forms and that is where truth bides.

I am not sure that Plato's ideas can be applied so easily to the life which many are expected to lead. You speak of the idea of striving not to be an animal. Perhaps, we have more the situation that we are expected to operate like machines. Certainly, when I have been working I felt that so much demands were placed on me that I ended up with stress and insomnia. I think that mindfulness is needed to help us balance our own physical and mental wellbeing and clarity of thinking.

I think that the quest for knowledge is so different in the time of Plato in this information age. I am not saying that Plato's ideas aren't important but that he was writing in a different time in history. The ancient teachers were aware of wisdom which is valuable but their ideas need to be seen in their historical context rather than in isolation. I don't think that it would be particularly helpful to expect a person to seek objective knowledge through detachment from sensory experiences now. Even Buddhism stressed the middle way. It seems to me that the biggest challenge of our time is not to go beyond the sensory but beyond the robotic level.

The challenge is not necessarily about finding objective truth but about increasing consciousness, and critical awareness, to see through the murkiness of the bombardment of information we have available before us. I suppose the pleasures available on the internet are a possibile source of distraction for some. Many people I know find that they spend so much time watching television. I prefer listening to music, but I think I would probably go crazy if I could not relax by listening to it.

Sensory pleasures are subjective responses by our unique essence to the shifting world of sensation. It is what drives animal life. However human consciousness when awakened is attracted to the timeless forms and that is where truth bides. — Nikolas

It has to be acknowledged that Plato was an ancient philosopher, and that the ancients lived in a very different world to our own, as Jack Cummins says above. I agree on the distinction between 'truth and pleasure' but I would express more in terms of the distinction between intelligence or rationality, and sensation. Intelligence is refective and intepretive, where sense-pleasures are essentially physical and habitual. As Aristotle said, we share sensory pleasure with animals but rational intellect is unique to us. So, I subscribe to a form of Platonic dualism, but I think it has to be interpreted carefully.

Intelligence is refective and intepretive, where sense-pleasures are essentially physical and habitual. — Wayfarer

And yet there are so many sense pleasures we need to learn to enjoy. Think about enjoying to drink coffee or smoking: those "pleasures" are learned.
And so many others the enjoyment of which is culturally conditioned.

And yet there are so many sense pleasures we need to learn to enjoy. Think about enjoying to drink coffee or smoking: those "pleasures" are learned. — baker

I managed to give up smoking before it killed me. Still probably drink more than is good for me. Nothing philosophical or wise about it, I’m like any other of the hoi polloi.

. I want you to understand this truth ...

. That is the most important question that can arise in anybody’s mind, but there is no answer for it. The most important question, the ultimate question, cannot have any answer; that’s why it is ultimate.

. When Pontius Pilate asked Jesus, “What is truth?” Jesus remained silent. Not only that, the story says that when Pontius Pilate asked the question, “What is truth?” he did not wait to listen for the answer. He left the room and went away. This is very strange. Pontius Pilate also thinks that there cannot be an answer for it, so he didn’t wait for the answer. Jesus remained silent because he also knows it cannot be answered.

. But these two understandings are not the same, because these two persons are diametrically opposite. Pontius Pilate thinks that it cannot be answered because there is no truth; how can you answer it? That is the logical mind, the Roman mind. Jesus remains silent not because there is no truth, but because the truth is so vast, it is not definable. The truth is so huge, enormous, it cannot be confined in a word, it cannot be reduced to language. It is there. One can be it, but one cannot say it.

. For two different reasons they behaved almost in the same way: Pontius didn’t wait to hear the answer, he knew already that there is no truth. Jesus remains silent because he knows truth, and knows that it could not be said.

. Chidvilas has asked this question. The question is absolutely significant. There is no question higher than that, because there is no religion higher than truth. It has to be understood; the question has to be analyzed. Analyzing the question, trying to understand the question itself, you may have an insight into what truth is. I will not answer it, I cannot answer it; nobody can answer it. But we can go deep into the question. Going deep into the question, the question will start disappearing. When the question has disappeared you will find the answer there at the very core of your heart — you are truth, so how can you miss it? Maybe you have forgotten about it, maybe you have lost track of it, maybe you have forgotten how to enter into your own being, into your own truth.

. Truth is not an hypothesis, truth is not a dogma. Truth is neither Hindu nor Christian nor Mohammedan. Truth is neither mine nor yours. Truth belongs to nobody, but everybody belongs to truth. Truth means that which is: that is exactly the meaning of the word. It comes from a Latin root, verus. Verus means: that which is. In English there are a few words which are derivations of the Latin root verus: was, were — they come from verus. In German, war — that comes from verus. Verus means that which is, uninterpreted. Once the interpretation comes in, then what you know is reality, not truth. That is the difference between truth and reality. Reality is truth interpreted.

. So the moment you answer the question, “What is truth?” it becomes reality; it is no longer truth. Interpretation has entered into it, the mind has colored it. And realities are as many as there are minds; there are multi-realities. Truth is one because truth is known only when the mind is not there. It is mind that keeps you separate from me, separate from others, separate from existence. If you look through the mind, then the mind will give you a picture of truth. That will be only a picture, a photograph of that which is. And of course, the photograph depends on the camera, on the film used, on the chemicals, on how it has been developed, how it has been printed, who has done it. A thousand and one other things enter in; it becomes reality.

. The word reality is also beautiful to be understood. It comes from the root, res; it means thing or things. Truth is not a thing. Once interpreted, once the mind has grabbed it, defined it, demarked it, it becomes a thing.

. When you fall in love with a woman there is some truth — if you have fallen absolutely unaware, if you have not ‘done’ it in any way, if you have not acted, managed, if you have not even thought about it. Suddenly you see a woman, you look into her eyes, she looks into your eyes, and something clicks. You are not the doer of it, you are simply possessed by it, you simply fall into it. It has nothing to do with you. Your ego is not involved, at least not in the very, very beginning, when love is virgin. In that moment there is truth, but there is no interpretation. That’s why love remains indefinable.

. Soon the mind comes in, starts managing things, takes possession of you. You start thinking about the girl as your girlfriend, you start thinking of how to get married, you start thinking about the woman as your wife. Now these are things; the girlfriend, the wife — these are things. The truth is no longer there, it has receded back. Now things are becoming more important. The definable is more secure, the indefinable is insecure. You have started killing, poisoning the truth. Sooner or later there will be a wife and a husband, two things. But the beauty is gone, the joy has disappeared, the honeymoon is over.

. The honeymoon is over at that exact moment when truth becomes reality, when love becomes a relationship. The honeymoon is very short, unfortunately — I’m not talking about the honeymoon that you go for. The honeymoon is very short. Maybe for a single moment it was there, but the purity of it, the crystal purity of it, the divinity of it, the beyondness of it — it is from eternity, it is not of time. It is not part of this mundane world, it is like a ray coming into a dark hole. It comes from the transcendental. It is absolutely appropriate to call love God, because love is truth. The closest that you come to truth in ordinary life is love.

. Chidvilas asks: “What is truth?”

. Asking has to disappear; only then do you know. If you ask, “What is truth?” what are you asking? If I say A is truth, B is truth, C is truth, will that be the answer? If I say A is truth, then certainly A cannot be the truth: it is something else that I am using as synonymous with truth. If it is absolutely synonymous, then it will be a tautology. Then I can say, “Truth is truth,” but that is silly, meaningless. Nothing is solved by it. If it is exactly the same, if A is truth, then it will mean truth is truth. If A is different, is not exactly truth, then I am falsifying. Then to say A is truth will be only approximate. And remember, there cannot be anything approximate. Either truth is or it is not. So I cannot say A is truth.

. I cannot even say, “God is truth,” because if God is truth then it is a tautology — “Truth is truth.” Then I’m not saying anything. If God is different from truth, then I am saying something, but then I am saying something wrong. Then God is different, then how can he be truth? If I say it is approximate, linguistically it looks alright, but it is not right. ‘Approximately’ means some lie is there, something false is there. Otherwise, why is it not a hundred percent truth? If it is ninety-nine percent truth then something is there which is not true. And truth and untruth cannot exist together, just as darkness and light cannot exist together — because darkness is nothing but absence. Absence and presence cannot exist together, truth and untruth cannot exist together. Untruth is nothing but the absence of truth.

. So no answer is possible, hence Jesus remained silent. But if you look at it with deep sympathy, if you look into the silence of Jesus, you will have an answer. Silence is the answer. Jesus is saying, “Be silent, as I am silent, and you will know” — not saying it in words. It is a gesture, it is very, very Zen-like. In that moment when Jesus remained silent, he comes very close to the Zen approach, to the Buddhist approach. He is a Buddha in that moment. Buddha never answered these questions. He had eleven questions listed: wherever he would move his disciples would go around and declare to people, “Never ask these eleven questions of Buddha” — questions which are fundamental, questions which are really significant. You could ask anything else, and Buddha was always ready to answer. But don’t ask the fundamental, because the fundamental can only be experienced. And truth is the most fundamental; the very substance of existence is what truth is.

. Go into the question. The question is significant, it is arising in your heart: “What is truth?” — a desire to know that which is, is arising. Don’t push it aside, go into it. Chidvilas, whenever it happens again, close your eyes, go into the question. Let the question become very, very focussed — “What… is… truth?” Let there arise a great concentration. Forget everything, as if your whole life depends on this simple question, “What is truth?” Let it become a matter of life and death. And don’t try to answer it, because you don’t know the answer.

I think that the quest for knowledge is so different in the time of Plato in this information age. I am not saying that Plato's ideas aren't important but that he was writing in a different time in history. The ancient teachers were aware of wisdom which is valuable but their ideas need to be seen in their historical context rather than in isolation. I don't think that it would be particularly helpful to expect a person to seek objective knowledge through detachment from sensory experiences now. Even Buddhism stressed the middle way. It seems to me that the biggest challenge of our time is not to go beyond the sensory but beyond the robotic level.

The challenge is not necessarily about finding objective truth but about increasing consciousness, and critical awareness, to see through the murkiness of the bombardment of information we have available before us. I suppose the pleasures available on the internet are a possibile source of distraction for some. Many people I know find that they spend so much time watching television. I prefer listening to music, but I think I would probably go crazy if I could not relax by listening to it. — Jack Cummins

You've alluded to several deep ideas but there are three that could initially help us to explain the relationship between the experience of the process of truth and the drive for pleasure. The first is the assertion that Man is a tripartite soul or three parts making one whole.

https://philosophycourse.info/platosite/3schart.html

Sometimes Plato's division of the psyche into its three main elements can be easily misunderstood. Some who read about it for the first time think it is the same as Freud's division of the psyche into the ego (das Ich), id (das Es), and superego (das Über-Ich), but it isn't the same as Freud's division. Others think it's the same as the old adult-parent-child division, but it's not that either. Nor is it the same as the conscious-subconscious-supraconscious division.

Plato's identification of these three distinct elements of a person's inner life is unique, and can be validated by directly turning inward to one's own experience of the self.

Plato's three elements of the psyche are

The appetites, which includes all our myriad desires for various pleasures, comforts, physical satisfactions, and bodily ease. There are so many of these appetites that Plato does not bother to enumerate them, but he does note that they can often be in conflict even with each other. This element of the soul is represented by the ugly black horse on the left.

The spirited, or hot-blooded, part, i.e., the part that gets angry when it perceives (for example) an injustice being done. This is the part of us that loves to face and overcome great challenges, the part that can steel itself to adversity, and that loves victory, winning, challenge, and honor. (Note that Plato's use of the term "spirited" here is not the same as "spiritual." He means "spirited" in the same sense that we speak of a high-spirited horse, for example, one with lots of energy and power.) This element of the soul is represented by the noble white horse on the right.

The mind (nous), our conscious awareness, is represented by the charioteer who is guiding (or who at least should be guiding) the horses and chariot. This is the part of us that thinks, analyzes, looks ahead, rationally weighs options, and tries to gauge what is best and truest overall.

The author doesn't include anamnesis explained by Plato or higher mind sometimes called noesis. Modern philosophy limits itself to dianoia but opening to the process of truth or the vertical conscious potential to discriminate between qualities of now or the quality of a moment. The line of opinion is a horizontal line on a cross which is experienced by remembering the past and anticipating the future. The vertical line of being is the line of now on a cross which intersects the horizontal line of opinion and when taken together produces our understanding: what we are with what we know..

Modern life is so rapid that Man has become more oblivious of the vertical line of now and remains caught up in the horizontal line of before and after so everything repeats

noesis (immediate intuition, apprehension, or mental 'seeing' of principles)
dianoia (discursive thought)
pistis (belief or confidence)
eikasia (delusion or sheer conjecture)

The psych of Normal balanced man would be governed by the rational mind. The spirited part would serve the rational mind and the sensations can not only be enjoyed but providing the ability to accomplish something in the world.

However fallen Man, in the world has become upside down. As a whole we are governed by our appetites which are supported by our negative emotions and rationalized by partial truths. This problem know as the human condition assures everything will remain the same for the majority.

Dr. Needleman isn't suggesting that sensory pleasures are evil but for those attracted to experiencing the process of truth, the rational mind leading to higher mind must become dominant where the body serves the mind rather than the mind serving bodily appetites at the expense of the potentials for the mind as popular in these times.

I don't think it's truth versus pleasure. I think its power versus truth. I think there is an innate attraction to truth as a consequence of evolution. The organism has to be correct to reality; physiologically, behaviourally, and with us, intellectually - or it dies out.

We built power structures based on supposed truths i.e. God, and then discovered science - and power prevented science being recognised as (the means to establish) truth. We all now live in the shadow of that mistake, and are doomed unless we correct it.

I don't think it's truth versus pleasure. I think its power versus truth. I think there is an innate attraction to truth as a consequence of evolution. The organism has to be correct to reality; physiologically, behaviourally, and with us, intellectually - or it dies out.

We built power structures based on supposed truths i.e. God, and then discovered science - and power prevented science being recognised as (the means to establish) truth. We all now live in the shadow of that mistake, and are doomed unless we correct it. — counterpunch

Science can establish the objective truth of facts in the world. However it can't reveal the objective truth of values. The human condition prevents it. Since it cannot, society values pleasure over the pursuit of truth. That is the problem: can facts and values become reconciled as a quality of truth normal for balanced Man? It can IMO but it requires a quality of consciousness rejected by the world as a whole which glorifies its imbalance described by Plato as cave life.

I managed to give up smoking before it killed me. Still probably drink more than is good for me. Nothing philosophical or wise about it, I’m like any other of the hoi polloi. — Wayfarer

My point is that many pleasures are actually learned, they don't come naturally, contrary to your earlier claim. You, too, probably had to learn to enjoy smoking and drinking. That first puff or sip couldn't have been enjoyable.


(The hoi polloi? /blush/)

"does there exist in man a natural attraction to truth and to the struggle for truth that is stronger than the natural attraction to pleasure?"

It would seem to be the goal of a philosopher who prizes truth and knowledge above all things. The philosopher would be one who sacrifices pleasure in pursuit of the experience of truth.

Do such people exist anymore? Why bother with the need for truth when a person has easy access to pleasure.

Kant sked three essential questions: “What can I know?” “What must I do?” and “What may I hope?”

Is the sacrifice of pleasure worth becoming able to try to answer such questions? — Nikolas

I can't imagine anything more pleasurable than the truth.
I can't imagine that other people could be different in this regard.