I think truth is not about philosophy but judicial moralism. If I am not wrong, philosophy was always there (apart from many criteria) to ensure and follow happiness. Truth can be just another path to get it but not the only one. You are asking why truth is useless because sometimes we need to lie... I guess this is why is important because we need to reinforce the good values despite sometimes we are not good enough.
You can see this clearly in judicial system or moralism. Truth is essential to believe in. Without it this power branch of the state collapse.
The truth will make you free...

I'm interested in where I might read the foundations of philosophy as you mentioned, but I have some doubts whether philosophy was born to promote happiness, as if people can start thinking solely to make themselves happy. For example I feel like happiness is subverted due to certain philosophical ideas, with a noteworthy one being extreme nihilism.

When I lie to myself, I do feel like I am not good enough but things need to get done regardless. The value of getting my work done trumps the truth I suppose. That's an interesting way to think about it.

Truth is essential to believe in. — javi2541997

Doesn't that imply that if a falsehood can be believed in, then the truth no longer is needed?

I've thought about this a lot, and my conclusion is that truth is useful in a far more fundamental and long term sense - whereas the lie is short term, and implies costs when falsified.

Doesn't that imply that if a falsehood can be believed in, then the truth no longer is needed? — FlaccidDoor

Probably, but falsehood is not connected with believe in due to are contradictory. I guess that truth and beliefs can be a good opposition against lies. Nevertheless, is upon every individuals of how they want to acknowledge it. There are a lot of people who literally live as liars and only lying. I think this is even an illness and they need psychological help

So your view is that the truth is necessarily the most useful in the long term, where falsehoods are not so. My view aligns with yours but why would this be true?

Probably, but falsehood is not connected with believe in due to are contradictory. — javi2541997

Logically yes, if the truthfulness is known but reality is rarely that way. We are presented with a barrage of information where we have to validate ourselves if they are truths or not. Aren't there believable lies and unbelievable truths? I guess my question is: can we know that we aren't believing in falsehoods? Can the liars you mention, be believing in falsehoods that they misinterpret as truths?

can we know that we aren't believing in falsehoods? Can the liars you mention, be believing in falsehoods that they misinterpret as truths? — FlaccidDoor

They are literally believing in falsehoods but they do not want interpret it as truths because probably this will so painful for them soy they rather live and believe in falsehoods.
If we can or not that actually we believe or not in falsehoods depends on us... and our sense of reality. I guess the key here is to find an equilibrium

So my question is: Are truths useful? — FlaccidDoor

Usually truths are useful apropos their relevant domains.

Aren't there falsehoods that are more useful?

No. The only instance of a 'useful falsehood' of which I'm aware is a falsehood – fiction – that conveys a 'truth' indirectly, ironically, figuratively (e.g. poetry, painting, theatre, erotica, etc). Otherwise, falsehoods are useful as lies, blocking or concealing truths from others and/or yourself.

Is the truths that you pursue(d), if you pursue(d) them, useful?

'My philosophical pursuits' have been useful only as means for me to have widened and deepened my understanding [ ... ]

If they aren't useful, do you practice philosophy knowing that finding the truth is useless?

Understanding (re: the function of philosophy, as I see it) is only as "useful" as it is reflectively lived every day, that is, only "useful" for reflective living (i.e. agency).

Is usefulness the correct criteria to judge if we should pursue truth?

No. Along with 'beauty' & 'good,' 'truth' is itself a criterion for judging that's grounded in – constituted by – understanding: so, the less confused (i.e. untintelligible, inexplicable) your understanding, the less irreflective (i.e. dogmatic, incorrigible) your criteria for judging, then, therefore, the less maladaptive (i.e. frustrating, immiserating, self-defeating) your agency becomes.

So your view is that the truth is necessarily the most useful in the long term, where falsehoods are not so. My view aligns with yours but why would this be true? — FlaccidDoor

Causality! There's a relationship between the validity of the knowledge bases of action, and the consequences of such action within a causal reality. Acting on falsity one naturally acts at a disparity to reality, that only increases with time, and or events. It may not seem, immediately - one suffers any ill-effects, but so long as the lie is maintained as truth, then the clock is ticking on the cuckoos coming home to roost. It's like in a sitcom, where someone tells a lie, then has to tell another lie to cover that, and so on and so on. It comes to be more trouble than it was worth in the first place. Truth is the best long term strategy.

Actually I think for a lot of people the truth is at best unhelpful and at worst unhealthy.

Are truths useful? Truth refers to many kinds of ideas so this is a pretty loose series of questions. I think there are many useful applications for truth. In areas where truth matters - health - for instance, an untruth/deception/omission can kill people. I think where people most crave or project truth - in spirituality, or meaning or the nature of reality - we don't know of anything definitive.

Aren't there falsehoods that are more useful? Not sure of your intended meaning here- in some contexts lying is better than truth telling.

Is the truths that you pursue(d), if you pursue(d) them, useful? I have no idea. I was interested in epistemology some years ago. I came to the view that it isn't worth pursuing subjects I am not an expert in. In these I have no clear way of discerning truth. Possibly the most useful thing I know of is the ability to write a clear sentence. It doesn't have to be a true one.

If they aren't useful, do you practice philosophy knowing that finding the truth is useless? I don't practice philosophy but I try to reflect on choices I make and on what ideas/actions I choose to engage with. In real life I suspect philosophy doesn't matter. It does not appear to be useful in quotidian activities.

Is usefulness the correct criteria to judge if we should pursue truth? In some contexts, yes, if the utility of that truth can help conscious creatures to flourish and reduce suffering (I am a piss-poor, simple minded utilitarian). — FlaccidDoor

Aren't there believable lies and unbelievable truths? I guess my question is: can we know that we aren't believing in falsehoods? Can the liars you mention, be believing in falsehoods that they misinterpret as truths? — FlaccidDoor

Yes to all of these. Much of human nature (and certainly not limited to humans) is the preference to rationalize the truth we find convenient rather than rationally seek actual truth. Think of all the people with contradictory philosophies who are nevertheless completely convinced that they're the ones in the right, with everybody else being wrong. They're all lying to themselves, and believing the lies. Not lying that their view is the correct one, but lying that it must be the correct one.

I personally hold contradictory beliefs. I thus know that some of my beliefs cannot be correct, but one cannot simply will ones self to unbelieve something.

As for lies I tell others, I've never told my Mother that I've abandoned belief in God the way I was raised. What's the purpose in telling her that? She just doesn't need to worry that her child is going to hell, although I admit to having been at several funerals of vocal atheists where the mourners (and even the pastor) still comfort each other with words like "he's in a better place now", which is exactly a lie told for a purpose.

Your question makes sense to me because I can remember a time when I was really afraid of possible finding of truth in my searching. What if the truth I discovered was not bearable at all. At the time, I was hovering between Christianity and atheism and afraid of both possibilities. Was it surprising that I began reading in the direction of Eastern traditions.

My answer may seem absurd to some people, because finding the truth is sometimes seen as important above all else, especially in philosophy.My own feelings of fear of finding truth of Christianity were based on my guilt and fear of hell, while the prospect of atheism seemed to spell out cosmic insignificance. But, the point which I am making is not I was aware of feeling fearful of truth itself. I was looking for answers which would make life endurance.

I am still inclined to think that finding 'truth' when we are searching for answers to all the big questions is connected to our psychological motivations. For many aspects of this, it is not as if truth is revealed easily, so it may be that we often perceive and think what we find helpful to make life meaningful.

What I am saying does worry me though, because I would like to believe that my own exploration is impartial. I have moved on from the big fear of theism vs atheism and like to think that I am more impartial now. However, as a general principle, I do wonder about when we search in the world of ideas and explanations, what if we discovered truth which was simply horrific, beyond all worst possibilities? Would we fight against it and seek untruths instead?

They are literally believing in falsehoods but they do not want interpret it as truths because probably this will so painful for them soy they rather live and believe in falsehoods. — javi2541997

I'm not sure I follow. Why is believing in falsehoods not the equivalent of interpreting it as truths? If you believe it is real, convince yourself it is real, then to that person it is as if that is a truth. Do you think we turn to falsehoods only because we are unprepared or scared to face the truths?

I ask because I see some people believe in falsehoods because it 'works.' For example, a thief may be able to become a greater thief if they believe that the rich he steals from deserves it, especially inherently. The thief is able to steal with less hesitation and thus is able to be more efficient and effective, regardless of how true this perception is.

Aren't there falsehoods that are more useful?
No. The only instance of a 'useful falsehood' of which I'm aware is a falsehood – fiction – that conveys a 'truth' indirectly, ironically, figuratively (e.g. poetry, painting, theatre, erotica, etc). Otherwise, falsehoods are useful as lies, blocking or concealing truths from others and/or yourself. — 180 Proof

So only truth is useful, other than to cover truths, and any falsehoods that seem useful, in this case fiction, just has truths hidden in it? I see where you're getting at but there at least seems to be manipulative benefits to lies in regards to people. If you tell someone a lie, you definitely cover the truth, but depending on the lie you manipulate them differently. This seems like a usefulness independent of truths.

No. Along with 'beauty' & 'good,' 'truth' is itself a criterion for judging that's grounded in – constituted by – understanding: so, the less confused (i.e. untintelligible, inexplicable) your understanding, the less irreflective (i.e. dogmatic, incorrigible) your criteria for judging and then, therefore, the less maladaptive (i.e. frustrating, immiserating, self-defeating) your agency becomes. — 180 Proof

Wouldn't then, truth having value as a criterion for judging ultimately be rooted in its usefulness in "improving" your agency? So then if a falsehood that is more useful in improving our agency exists, then that falsehood would be better than truth.

It may not seem, immediately - one suffers any ill-effects, but so long as the lie is maintained as truth, then the clock is ticking on the cuckoos coming home to roost. — counterpunch

I agree that's what I feel goes on in my experiences, but what if there is a "perfect" lie in which the lie does not come back in a negative way. With the causal analysis, that lie would appear just like a truth.

Changing perspectives, if a person only has a day to live, there are many lies that this person can spread without having to meet the negative consequences. Now we don't only live a day, but in some respects, the human lifespan is short and some lies may take longer than that lifespan to prove its falsity.

If either of these lies exists, then there are possibilities that some "truths" that we take for granted by causality may be falsehoods instead.

I've thought about this a lot, and my conclusion is that truth is useful in a far more fundamental and long term sense - whereas the lie is short term, and implies costs when falsified. — counterpunch

Pardon me quoting myself for reference.

Logically yes, if the truthfulness is known but reality is rarely that way. We are presented with a barrage of information where we have to validate ourselves if they are truths or not. Aren't there believable lies and unbelievable truths? I guess my question is: can we know that we aren't believing in falsehoods? Can the liars you mention, be believing in falsehoods that they misinterpret as truths? — FlaccidDoor

*truthfulness is rarely known X
*lot of information / (nearest thing I got to a tick, weird right!)
*difficulty of validating information /
*credible lies /
*incredible truths /X - reality is incredible but truth has an appeal we recognise and gravitate toward.
*difficulty of validating information - again! no tick for you!
*misplaced piety /

Almost the whole gamut of epistemic implication. I'm impressed by the seemingly accidental concentration of philosophical themes - stuffed into such a short paragraph. I'm only disappointed you didn't also reach for the sceptical argument underlying utter epistemic relativism, and conclude by suggesting we can't actually KNOW anything!

I don't accept truthfulness is rarely known. Rather, I think science now constitutes a highly valid and increasingly coherent understanding of the reality we inhabit - to which we ought pay attention if we'd rather continue inhabiting it. Emphasis on absolute certainty is a red herring. I would like to continue inhabiting earth. I'd like to belong to a species with a future, and faced with significant future challenges - I see an opportunity in the objective validity of science, to meet and overcome those challenges - and secure for our species a long and prosperous future. Should I not talk about it? I'm aware there are reasons that maybe I shouldn't; and that's why you haven't, and that's why we're almost certainly doomed.

It is a lot. Everything is. Reality is complex and entropic. That's why we need vast amounts of energy to spend, and we have it. It's there, and key to human survival. I've gone through a lot to reach that conclusion. Painfully aware of how difficult it is to get anything done, I've sought to identify the key log - and it is limitless clean energy. It's the most scientifically fundamental approach - and the greatest good for the least cost, with least disruption. I can imagine fossil fuel producers freaking out at the very idea, but I would argue more energy gives us more time and discretion in the short to mid term, and would be applied to create sustainable markets in the long term. Nothing in that argument is beyond the scope of our knowledge or the potential of our technology.

Validation! I'll do it myself if I have to. Just give me the money, and get out of the way. I'll hire the expertise and machinery and have at it. You might be better going with someone with a proven track record in project management; I'd certainly look to hire such a person. But give me the cash and in five years I'll give you a working prototype of a system that can be scaled all the way up to limitless clean electricity, that extracts atmospheric carbon and buries it by the megaton, and produces hydrogen fuel and fresh water in industrial amounts.

Credible lies. I'm not lying. Naively, I set out upon my philosophical journey wanting to know what's truly true, and I found something - I'm somewhat inadequate to describe. It could be likened to an old lever, overgrown and forgotten - that in face of impending challenges, and having considered the consequences - I eventually concluded I'm morally obligated to point out. I have asked myself if pointing out the existence of the lever is equivalent to pulling the lever myself, or being reckless as to whether the lever is pulled. I have asked myself if pointing out the existence of the lever might cause that which, I believe pulling the lever would prevent. I've asked myself if I might be wrong, and found I was, and backtracked and changed my mind - and thought about it all - all over again and again until, as far as I can tell I'm right. Why, in all that - would I lie?

Incredible truths is pretty much covered above.

Nil points for repeating yourself. In fact, one demerit.

And then there's misplaced piety. I don't doubt the piety of others, even if I believe it's misplaced, but rather, refine my proposal to one specific, scientifically fundamental key application of technology, necessary to a sustainable future - precisely to afford our ideological irrationalities. I presume too much to draw an analogy with Prometheus, but in parallel style - advocate bringing home the truth we can live with. I don't advocate truth with a capital T - but pulling the big truth lever in a pragmatic fashion. Science is a highly valid and coherent understanding of reality we can trust in, and in those terms - it's possible to drill for magma energy, and use that energy to avoid the impending catastrophe of our existence.

Truth refers to many kinds of ideas so this is a pretty loose series of questions. — FlaccidDoor

I had a weird feeling that I was missing a key component and I think you might've hit the nail, thanks. I didn't have a strict idea of truth when I made this post, but I believe the closest definition in my usage is that truth is a statement or idea describing reality as is, as opposed to falsehoods which are statements or ideas that do not.

With this definition, would there be falsehoods that are more useful than truths?

I also feel like philosophy in many forms fail to be useful in 'quotidian' (new word!) activities. Its usefulness is in soothing my curiosity about the next stupid question that pops up in my head to gnaw at my mind.

Think of all the people with contradictory philosophies who are nevertheless completely convinced that they're the ones in the right, with everybody else being wrong. They're all lying to themselves, and believing the lies. Not lying that their view is the correct one, but lying that it must be the correct one. — noAxioms

Wouldn't lying necessitate that you "know" something else is true? When I asked about the liars from a previous post, I was implying that those liars believed some falsehoods to be truths, rather than lying to themselves per se. So if people with differing philosophies know believe they are right, they can also believe that they must be the correct one without lying.

I personally hold contradictory beliefs. I thus know that some of my beliefs cannot be correct, but one cannot simply will ones self to unbelieve something.

As for lies I tell others, I've never told my Mother that I've abandoned belief in God the way I was raised. What's the purpose in telling her that? She just doesn't need to worry that her child is going to hell, although I admit to having been at several funerals of vocal atheists where the mourners (and even the pastor) still comfort each other with words like "he's in a better place now", which is exactly a lie told for a purpose. — noAxioms

I can relate pretty heavily to that. My family is Christian and growing up I could never swallow the ideas they threw at me about bibles, prayers, "Christ's love" and especially when they say "God works in mysterious ways" when someone dies in a way they didn't deserve. I don't intend to make fun of these things. I was jealous they could believe it if anything, because people who did actually enjoyed the boring bible lectures and prayer times. I've come to terms with it recently with pragmatism, in that believing in those Christian things have usefulness to them. I agree that there are lies that are told in these environments, like "he's in a better place now" but they attempt to be useful lies.

I was looking for answers which would make life endurance.

I am still inclined to think that finding 'truth' when we are searching for answers to all the big questions is connected to our psychological motivations. For many aspects of this, it is not as if truth is revealed easily, so it may be that we often perceive and think what we find helpful to make life meaningful. — Jack Cummins

I resonate with what you're saying because my interests definitely does its part in swaying the direction of my thinking. I want a belief that justifies how I lived and will live. I suspect this is true for other philosophies and makes me question the motivations behind philosophies like anti-natalism.

I have moved on from the big fear of theism vs atheism and like to think that I am more impartial now. However, as a general principle, I do wonder about when we search in the world of ideas and explanations, what if we discovered truth which was simply horrific, beyond all worst possibilities? Would we fight against it and seek untruths instead? — Jack Cummins

I wonder where you find yourself now. It's interesting because I don't associate fear in broad universal truths as much as I do truths at an individualistic level. Violence, rape, torture, mutilation, genocide...they only become truly horrifying when you zoom in. Then I feel immense disgust and fear to these acts and sometimes to how I react to them.

Do you think we turn to falsehoods only because we are unprepared or scared to face the truths? — FlaccidDoor

Completely. They are always making up their reality just to confront themselves because the world outside is not for them or they do not want it. Sometimes, I defended this situation depending in someone circumstances but in the long run could be really dangerous if someone only live in a fantasy
As I already said with you previously, it is better to live the reality as it is. Doesn’t matter how painful or disastrous could be. I remember in my school back in the day, I used to build a fake fantasy imagining myself a life I completely will never get. When I started accepting this reality everything turned out perfectly.

I think that you are speaking of the horrors of life, which is a little different from finding truth, philosophically, or is it? We have moved into an era of post truth, especially after post modernism, as suggested by Michael Kakutani in, 'The Denial of Truth',(2018). He suggests that some individuals tried to 'whitewash entire chapters of history' alongside exploiting 'the postmodernist argument that all truths are partial.'

I'm only disappointed you didn't also reach for the sceptical argument underlying utter epistemic relativism, and conclude by suggesting we can't actually KNOW anything! — counterpunch

Well I think it's absurd to suggest that we can't know anything because we, as people tend to be, claim to know a lot. If it's knowing as in, knowing something to be true, then I find myself definitely heading towards that direction, but I don't want to conclude that. To be honest I'm more surprised there are no Descartes yet to talk about a priori.

*credible lies / — counterpunch

I think this is misworded. I mention falsehoods as in, statements or ideas that describe reality falsely, not necessarily something that is spouted purposefully as a lie. People can speak falsehoods without lying (on purpose) if they believe it is the truth.

I think science now constitutes a highly valid and increasingly coherent understanding of the reality we inhabit — counterpunch

I agree that science has some of the highest validity of any contemporary beliefs regarding objective reality, but I disagree that it contributes any understanding. The greatest strength and weakness of science is that it doesn't make a conclusion. It just associates the evidence to a theory or conclusion. It takes a humble position of not 'understanding' anything, allowing for the natural selection of theories so only the strongest theories remain. However as soon as strong enough evidence to disprove a theory pops up, that theory is replaced with something better. The understanding that you mentioned are conclusions made by scientists and are imperfect and deserving of criticism even in its own field of science.

Nil points for repeating yourself. In fact, one demerit. — counterpunch

I was trying to summarize but I'm also not the greatest writer. I'll try to watch out for it.

Painfully aware of how difficult it is to get anything done, I've sought to identify the key log - and it is limitless clean energy. It's the most scientifically fundamental approach - and the greatest good for the least cost, with least disruption. I can imagine fossil fuel producers freaking out at the very idea, but I would argue more energy gives us more time and discretion in the short to mid term, and would be applied to create sustainable markets in the long term. — counterpunch

This digresses from the main topic but I'm confident in my share of research into renewable energy and I must say there's a reason the fossil fuel industry has survived today, and it's not just because of lobbyists. Wind and solar energy is expensive and arguably more damaging to the environment because the sheer amount of plastics and rare metals that it needs for batteries as well as the electrical generator. These plastics and rare metals all need to be mined or fracked, often with environmentally disastrous methods in poorer nations like China. Once built, they usually have to run for decades (I think solar panels needed to run for around 25 years with our current technology) just to pay for itself. That's IF the technology doesn't lose effectiveness from wear over time which it certainly will, if it doesn't straight up break. So to summarize, clean and limitless energy is a dream that's still far from reality.

Thanks to those who added to this thread. I'll sign off for tonight. Until next time

Wouldn't then, truth having value as a criterion for judging ultimately be rooted in its usefulness in "improving" your agency? — FlaccidDoor

Yes.

I wrote my post to explain the usefulness of truth, and you didn't read it before you replied. That's why you're confused - because you've made no effort to understand. Does the phrase "limitless clean energy" suggest windmills and solar panels? No, it does not. But thanks for the heads up on just how little impact my ideas have had.

Why is believing in falsehoods not the equivalent of interpreting it as truths? If you believe it is real, convince yourself it is real, then to that person it is as if that is a truth. — FlaccidDoor

Truth seems to not be something relative to a person or a belief, so despite the fact that I hold what I would label as 'beliefs', I'm not so naive to assert that those beliefs correspond to truth.

In my case, the things probably closest to truth are probably what I'd label as 'suspicions' rather than beliefs, and my strongest beliefs probably correspond to falsehoods. I find those beliefs useful to me. They make me fit for instance.

Maybe you define truth differently:

truth is a statement or idea describing reality as is.

With this definition, would there be falsehoods that are more useful than truths? — FlaccidDoor

What about belief in specific god X? There's a lot of mutually contradictory X's from which to choose, and some of them must be falsehoods, yet belief in them leads the believer into leading a better life (sometimes) and leads them to fit better into their local community, which is definitely beneficial.

Think of all the people with contradictory philosophies who are nevertheless completely convinced that they're the ones in the right, with everybody else being wrong. They're all lying to themselves, and believing the lies. Not lying that their view is the correct one, but lying that it must be the correct one. — noAxioms

Wouldn't lying necessitate that you "know" something else is true? — FlaccidDoor

You use the word 'know' like 'believe' here. One can believe something (be certain about it even, which is the lying to which I refer), but true knowledge is seemingly out of reach because there is not enough data. The existence of alternate valid interpretations of things means there is no way to know which interpretation (if any) is the true one. No, such lying is due not to knowing something else is true, but to realizing that something else could be true.

I can relate pretty heavily to that. My family is Christian and growing up I could never swallow the ideas they threw at me ...

Oh I swallowed it completely at first, and was put in a Christian school that taught that science (evolution in particular) didn't contradict the teachings of the church. But then other churches began to deny science and force a choice, so I looked at both as objectively as I could, and the choice was pretty obvious to me. I've been on a search ever since to identify the biases I never thought to question and it has led to some less than mainstream conclusions, but not conclusions so strong that I'll make the mistake of asserting them as truth. Just higher on the probability scale (fewest unanswerd problems) than any other interpretation I've considered.

I've come to terms with it recently with pragmatism, in that believing in those Christian things have usefulness to them.

My example above, yes. I wrote that before seeing this.
My first answer was more controversial and I abandoned it for this simpler case.

I wrote my post to explain the usefulness of truth, and you didn't read it before you replied. That's why you're confused - because you've made no effort to understand. Does the phrase "limitless clean energy" suggest windmills and solar panels? No, it does not. But thanks for the heads up on just how little impact my ideas have had. — counterpunch

I didn't think I was confused until now. Limitless clean energy does suggest windmills and solar panels unless it refers to nuclear energy. However that still has it's own problems and many people don't describe it as limitless because it technically isn't. I'm not sure what other technology you could have been referring to, unless it's perpetual motion machines.

While I did digress a bit my purposes of going into this topic was to criticize your example of useful truths in which you named science. I don't think science presents any truths in the form of understanding per se because science does not offer conclusions. It just pushes for affirming and then reaffirming evidence and any conclusions made from said evidence isn't science. Just a logical assertion made by the researcher. I assumed you were talking about renewable energy because renewable energy is a popular scientific topic boasting green, limitless energy, but it's false at it's current state. This was meant to show that science, as you named it, is a potential source of (useful?) falsehoods.

So then usefulness is the correct criterion for judging if we should pursue truths.

I didn't think I was confused until now. Limitless clean energy does suggest windmills and solar panels unless it refers to nuclear energy. — FlaccidDoor

I mentioned harnessing magma heat energy using drilling technology. I've mentioned it often enough, and we've spoken often enough - you should know that. If you'd read my post before replying, you'd know that - but you never do. It's not the first time I've read your response - and it's clear you haven't read the post you're responding to.

it is better to live the reality as it is — javi2541997

I agree. You shouldn't deceive yourself from the reality as it is presented to you, because it often sets you up for failure. When I don't want to work or eat well, sometimes I find myself trying to trick myself into thinking that I will just do it tomorrow, when past history has clearly shown that I will not.