I'm glad that our exchange produced some fruits.

Just a tiny note: Macedonians, with Alexander as leader, had created a larger empire than Romans and before them. Only it lasted for a very short time.

Again, this has been a very pleasant exchange. :smile:

I am posting this on page 33 of the topic "Is there an external material world?", which is very close to 1000 responses!

I really wonder and cannot believe how could such a trivial and without real value or use --for me, of course-- question, the answer to which is more than obvious,, could arise such a huge interest and create such a huge discussion!

I know of course that threads use to deviate a lot from the subject of the topic and that a lot of "personal" discussions are going on, and that kind of things, but ... Really, this topic?

Philosophers create problems by misusing language. — Harry Hindu

:up: Well said!
We certainly and absolutely need to read more often such general comments about philosophy!
The above applies very also to the discussions carried out in this and other philosophical fora and communities.

All well said and interesting! :up:

All this has been a very nice and useful exchange! :smile:

I undestand your point.
BTW, in my experience, from the hundreds of texts and dozens of philosophers I have read in my life, starting with Socrates at school, most known philosophers are "ordinary language philosophers" ...
However, we must take into consideration another point: Most of us read and know about the works of philosophers from translations into English or our mother language. That is, we know nothing about how did these guys use their own (original) language.

I don't know what your point is. — Bartricks

Maybe because you don't know what "knowldge" and/or "consciousness" are ... If you did, you would certainly get my point.

what is a good word for having knowledge and morality that manifest a great nation? — Athena

Reverse definition! Well, I don't know exactly what you have in mind saying that. I can think of "social consciousness/awareness" and "ethics". Ethics for me are based on major good for the greatest number. Which, in this case means acting in a way that benefits one's society/country rather than oneself, at least for matters concerning the society/country.

Trump, just wanted to push all immigrants out. Biden is questioning what we can do to improve living conditions in other countries — Athena

You see, Biden is more ethical than Trump because he thinks beyond even his country, i.e. in a larger sphere, than Trump, who was caring only about his country. Which, BTW is already good, comparing e.g. to Greek Prime Ministers who think mainly about themselves and their parties. Which is translated into "major good for the smallest number" (= bad ethics).
You see how well my "ethics" work? :smile:

I am secular and believe our humanness depends on education, not a supernatural being. — Athena

I am secular too! :grin:

[quote="Bartricks;d13161"we can explain why we can trust - or at least, default trust - our intuitions[/quote]
You are talking a lot about intiution(s) but I din't see the words "knowldge" and "consciousness" mentioned at least once. How can you speak about external world, evolution, God, etc. without these two very important elements?

It sounds like the only thing human beings have is intuition, i.e knowing something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning ...

He's within and responding to the tradition of western analytic philosophy (the problem of other minds, epistemology, ethics, education, skepticism, etc.) — Antony Nickles

All this is fine and thank you for the clarification.
However, my response was about the meaning, usefulness, etc. of such statements, independenty of who has stated or states them. They are quite general, and one should not need to know or study the work of Wittgenstein or whoever else to find out what they mean about philosophy and whatever other terms or concepts are involved in these statements.

If one wants to refer specifically to philosopher X, he should form the title of his topic as follows: "What did X mean by saying this and this?" This would put the topic and discussion in the right perspective. Isn't that right? And in that case, I wouldn't have anything to say.

Are we made from mud and born into sin and therefore ... — Athena

Allow me to suggest to just forget about the myths of Christianity. I have already expalined why.

I failed because nothing of any significance was said of what makes us human. — Athena

Do you mean that you failed to get useful responses to your topic and that the things I brought up that make us different from animals (i.e. what makes us human) were insignifcant or useless?
In fact, tt's quite disappointing that you seem to have ignored esp. what I said about awareness. You won't hear about it from many people ...

Are we greedy animals voting for our personal befit or intelligent beings voting for all? — Athena

In that respect, I'm afraid yes! The vast majority of people vote based on their own interests and benefit, but also fears and beliefs. E.g. If one does not like immigrants, in general, he will vote for the candidate who doesn't like them either and is willing to take measures to reduce their number, privileges, etc.
Yet, this doesn't make us animals or even less humans. There are much worse things that characterize as humans and which are inexistent in animals.

Well, this didn't end up as well as I expected. Well, it happens! :smile:

Excellent philosophical argument!
And great joke!

Philosophy does not explain anything — Jackson

Oxford LEXICO defines philosophy as "The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline."

Stanford Encyclopedia, on the other hand, does not give any definition of philosophy --at least I have never found one-- but instead it lists a dozen of different philosophies (https://plato.stanford.edu/search/search?query=philosophy).

So, statements like "Philosophy simply puts everything before us", I, etc. do not mean anything, because one must first define philosophy, i.e. tell us what kind of philosophy he is talking about. Isn't that so?

Then, they do not mean anything for another reason: Philosophy itself cannot explain anything, since it is a system of thought, framework of thinking, etc. Only people who use it can or cannot explain something. In other words, philosophy is a tool. It cannot work by itself.

Here is a concrete example: We cannot say that a screwdriver can or cannot drive a screw. Someone has to use a screwdriver to do that. And then, not all screwdrivers are suitable for all kinds of screws.

(BTW, I find most Wittgenstein's statements provocative, in the sense of causing a negative reaction, especially deliberately! :smile:)

Thank you for appreciating my English. I have worked it out a lot during the last 3-4 years, based on philosophical and other discussions in this and other communities, starting with Quora. Yet, I'm aware that it still needs a lot of work since it is not my mother language. (A small secret: I am a professional translator, so that helped a lot too.)

After I started to read your reply, I kept reading and reading my own words for quite long! Of course, since you have quoted my whole reply, which was not short at all! :smile:
(Try instead maybe what I'm doing myself here. I do this when there are a lot of points to respond to.)

Re "Socrates was focused on expanding people's consciousness": Right. And in the best way. Because this was also the purpose of almost all the philosophers of the past. He was connecting morality/etchics with knowledge (meaning consciousness, a term and subject that came into existence after wuite a long time after that period.)

Re "For this reason, we must work on our motivation": Yes, this is what I meant by "intentionally" with regards to moral actions.

Re "Now we can talk about morals as though they come from God's word and not have any awareness that this line of thinking comes from the Greeks": Christianity does not care much about people's consciousness as something that is built by people themselves via knowledge and ethics rather than by indoctrination. In fact, I believe it is even against it. A thinking person is a free person. A person abiding to religious morals and tenets is not free. The Church does not want that. The Church wants to control people. Increasing people's consciousness using critical thinking was what Socrates was trying to do with his teachings. And he was put on trial for that. Because ancient Greecs had there gods, morals and tenets as we have today. This is how Martin Luther --like hundreds of other independent 'thinkers"-- was led to Inqusition. The story continues in modern Christianity via its Church and its long list of heresies (sects) which it ise persecuting.
Ethics/morality must be built with one's own consciousness and acquisition of knowledge. It cannot be forced, or indoctrinated: tt would not be genuine.

Re "Knowledge and agreements are essential to our ability to work together and survive and we start telling stories that unite us": True.

Re "Greek vs Roman mythis, etc.": Sounds interesting. I will have a look at the link.

Re "universals truths that we can discover": I like that. Indeed we have to discover truths ourselves and for ourselves. And I undestand now why are you repeatedly refering to story-telling. It is indeed one way towards that purpose, because it makes us, in an indirect way, think about and discover values ourselves!

Re "It looks like everyone dropped out of this thread except you": Is it maybe because we have deviated a lot from the subject of the topic? :grin: For me is just fine. I always enjoy a nice and interesting "conversation", independently of the subject! :smile:

As for a new topic, and as far as I am concerned, I have a list of topics for posting, waiting in a long queue ... But you may well start one. :smile:

For me a moral is a matter of cause and effect, tieing morality to knowing universal law/science. — Athena

Hi. I'm back.
I assume that by "a moral"? you mean "a moral act" or simply "morality". I will also assume that by "cause and effect" in this context you mean that morality is consequential, i.e. the morality of an act is judged based on its consequences. Which makes sense, but it's not a criterion for me. I believe that a moral act is mainly based on the intentions of the individual who did it and also his [for brevity] knowledge or reality. Because if I do something that has bad consequences but I did not do it intentionally and knowingly, it cannot be considered an immoral act my part.

Then you say that morality --being moral-- is connected with one's knowledge of the laws of the universe. If this is right, "Why's that?". And is this too materialistic? That is, based on purely physical things?

f you google "moral stories" the choices begin with Christian stories, but all people sat around the fire and told stories that convey proper beheavior. — Athena

This is true. But I don't think that we can define and build a moral system based on popular and religious stories. Neither on things like "The moral of the story is ..."

What is the Greek word of moral?
A similarity is that moral is a translation of the ancient Greek word ethikos from which the adjective ethical derives. Both words refer to human character and behavior. — Athena

Correct. "Ethikos" can be literally translated in English to "moral". In Greek, it is generally used with the same meaning, applying to same things.

comes from the Late Latin mōrālitās, meaning “human nature.” — Athena

Same with Greek "ethikos": it comes from "ethos", which also exists in the English language and means "the characteristic spirit of a culture, era, or community as manifested in its attitudes and aspirations." ( Oxford LEXICO.

Christianity is bad for our democracy because of its claim to being the authority on all this, perverting our democracy which must be tied to science — Athena

Certainly. Christianity is a dogmatic religion and consequently it cannot be democratic in nature. But I don't know any religion that is "democratic", a term which refers to the political world . That's why religions coexist for eons with democracy.
The problem Christianity however, as I see it, is not that it is not democratic but it is created on totally non-scientific elements. Even the "philosophical" elements that it contains are quite loose, i.e. not based on critical reasoning but rather on unfounded and loose data, like god-sent stories and "wisdom" and a lot of "mythology". How can one trust all that?
Buddhism, on the other hand, has much more solid foundations, based on logic and applications in life (experience). That's why it is the only religion --I can call it religious philosophy or even just philosophy-- that makes sense to me.

Science and morality go together. — Athena

I am not sure how do you use the term Science. Certainly not in the standard, conventional way, which is "The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained." (Oxford LEXICO) Which refers to a totally materialistic/physical world, irrelevant to morality.

Hi. I have to "study" all that and at this moment I can't. I'll be back soon! :smile:

I just assumed your were adopting the convention of restricting that "something" to propositions. And I understood your "simple logic" to be classical logic. — Banno

I'm sure you did. And I'm sure you also aware that assumptions can be big traps. :smile:

The principle of charity at work. — Banno

Thank you for your kindness, Banno. :smile:

Are you so preoccupied with the idea of the pointlessness of existence that you need to distract yourself?
Can't you just not think about it? There's nothing else to do. Turning your mind to something else is just avoiding thinking about it. In fact, it strengths it up. It's like it is stronger than you and it wins. Being possessed by it, fighting it, and in general opposing it, you make it stronger.

I believe the best "medicine" for something that you don't like and you really cannot do anything about it, is to accept it. Once and for all. You can talk about it as I am talking to you right know, from a neutral, unbound, independent viewpoint. In the same way in which you have accepted and are addressing other things concerning life, politics, society, and so on.

Accepting something as a fact, fully and truly, you make the idea of it disappear.

So, either we know that something is true or false or we cannot say anything about its truthness or falseness.
— Alkis Piskas
So you are going with the rejection of classical logic ... — Banno

BTW, I just realized that my above statement was wrong. And you had the opportunity to easily refute it, if you had paid attention to a detail instead of wondering about what is the type of logic that this statement belongs to. The detail is the word "something". Because one might simply ask: "An apple is 'something'. Can we say that an apple is true or false?" Of course not. It makes no sense. Only a statement or an assertion or a report and that sort of things can be true or false. So my statement was clearly wrong.

Well, another mistake I did was stating that "I stick to simple logic". One might well ask "What is simple logic?", "Simple in comparison with/to what?"[/i], "Simple in what way?", "Why, is there a complicated logic?" and so on. You shouldn't miss that either. I like to have strong "opponents"! :smile:

In philosophical discussions we must pay attention to these things. I'm careless sometimes, too.

The truth is in the detail! :smile:

No, you did well. You proved my point that one of the bad things about naming or categorizing "logic" is that it may lead to confusion! :grin:

No problem, @Banno. I know you mean well.

I have never studied Philosopy. I only had a course in College, based on the philosophy of Epictetus. On the other hand I have read really a lot of philosophical books (i.e. books with a philosophical content), but not on Philosophy itself, as a discipline or field of knowledge. Yet, I know about a few common terms, but I use them scarcely, only as a "garnish" or a common reference (e.g. materialism, dualism. etc.). But I can do very well without them! :smile:

I stick to simple logic/critical thinking/reasoning. Sometimes I use the (fuzzy) term "common logic", which is not a logic "common" to all, but the priviledge of only a few! By "common", I mean "simple". My mottos: Simple is beautiful. Simple is efficient.

Not much point in complaining about he use of specialised language in a thread on logic. — Banno

I wasn't complaining. I just gave you FOUR reasons why I, personally don't use a specialized language. And also because you asked me what kind of logic I'm using, most probably assuming that I would or should know ...

Re "have you further thoughts, given the consequence of your proposal?": What consequence?

Re "Are you happy to throw out classical logic?": I don't know if I have thrown out any kind of logic, classical or other. See, you are still bound to philosophical "lliterature" and generalities.
I asked you to just disprove my statement-position using plausible arguments and/or examples. You still haven't. So I have to assume that you cannot. I'm not surprised ...

You suggest three truth-values - "true", "false" or "cannot say". My bolding. All I was wondering is what variation you might choose. I'm aware of two choices. Intuitionist logic, such that statements are not true until proven, and paraconsistent logic, rejecting ex contradictione quodlibet. — Banno

I see, OK, but I'm not familiar with either intuitionist or paraconsistent logic. I never use and never need to use such terms. 1) They render a discussion to a literary one, 2) They require special knowledge from all the persons involved in the discussion, which might not be available, 3) They might be confusing and/or irrelevant to the subject that is discussed and, most importantly, 4) They do not really add anything that is of essence or importance.

A clear statement/argument talks and can stand by itself, however you call or categorize it.

Ah, @Banno ... No, I didn't noitice, sorry. Well, nevertheless ...

This is just criticism, @Banno. You only present characterizations (names and adjectives). No argumentation. If you want to disprove my statement-position, you must do it with plausible arguments and/or examples. Can you?

Release your fear of God, and accept Him — Metaphysician Undercover

Is this a kind of preaching?
This is a philosophical medium, not a religious one. And the above statement does not sound at all like a philosophical one or belonging to any kind of philosophy, including Philosophy of Religion, i.e. Theology.

From the Scientific Revolution in the 16th and 17th centuries onward, Materialism has steadily grown into the dominant worldview of Western civilization. — Peter Sas, Critique of Pure Interest (Blog)

Of course. I think it is quite evident. My experence with dozens of discussions I have had related to the the material/physical vs immaterial/non-physical world, as well as a poll and a couple of discussions I have launched in this medium, show that "materialism" wins by 5:1 (80%)! And, consider that this occurs in the philosophical community (taken as a whole). One has to also add the almost 99% materialistic scientific community in the equation ...

I think calling something an "unknown truth" is a fallacy or just wrong, since truth is that which is in accordance with fact or reality. So, either we know that something is true or false or we cannot say anything about its truthness or falseness.

Then, "if all truths are knowable" is meaningless because truth is something known by definition!
Besides that, it is also an arbitrary assumption or hypothesis that looks like being used to serve supporting the above mentioned fallacy or wrong statement.

Therefore, I consider the whole construct as unfounded.

Thank you for your acknowledgment of my response to your thread.

And yes, it is quite frustrating indeed to see that some members do not get the point of a topic, αnd even more, when they criticize w/o offering a single argument!

Re "We must not leave moral education up to the church": Unfortunatly, this is true for most churches, esp. those belonging to dogmatic religions, e.g. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism. Yet, morality is a spiritual subject, and as such it belongs to the field of religion. Yet most religions are based on "ready-made" or "given" moral codes --e.g. The Ten Commandments-- so they don't have to analyze or discuss the subject of morality; they just "enforce" these principles. In other words, they don't have a sound system of ethics --I prefer to "morality"-- on which to base moral behaviour. And this, for me is a huge mistake and it actually invalidates Man because he is able --with the appropriate education-- to exert his own judgment on what is right or wrong, good or bad.

There are of course some branches of philosopy that treat the subject of ethics/morality, but they are either materialistic or not clear about the nature of the mind, and certainly they don't want to have anything with the human spirit or soul. (I am not talking about the ancient Greek philosophers or the philosophers of the East.)

Then, there is phycology and psychiatry, which, although they have included the term "soul" (pchyce) in their names, they don't believe that such e thing exists! Both materialist in nature, they are far from being able to talk about morality and education in an effective way.

Only schools and colleges --and mabe some Universities-- as institutions, could teach about morality and education, but as far as I know, they are also far from doing that in an effective way.

I believe that there must be something, somewhere, sometime, like an Education about Education, which would take up the subject and develop it --in theory and practice-- to a level and state that education --this extremely important subject -- deserves.

***
I don't know if I have clarified for you this point as you asked and expected ... I have really a lot of things to say about both subjects --morality and education-- but I don't want to burden more this thread, which, BTW, is about what is essential in a human being, which it seems we --at least, I-- have totally forgotten! :smile:

However, morality is one more attribute that characterizes human beings, since it is inexistent in animals.

But, since we came back on our main road, I will add the most important maybe faculty that humans have and animals don't: "Awareness of awareness". Animals are aware of their environmnent, but they cannot be aware of that. Humans can: they can be aware of being aware. As they are also aware of their thoughts and that it is themselves who are creating them. This is the essence of the human being.

The idea of an eternal soul says we came into the universe. — Art48

What/who's idea is this? You must present some identification for this idea. Except of course if it is yours, which I will have to assume. Which agrees with my never having heard about such (unfounded) things as the ones you are presenting in your description regarding the human soul.

It suggests we are not a part of nature, but spiritual visitors in a material world. — Art48

Why have you changed "universe" to "nature"? What's the difference between them in the current context? That is, if we are not a part of nature, are we also not part of the universe? I believe that you refer to both as physical, material. In which case, the soul (non-physical, non-material) is separate from them. Is that right?

Thus, the only world we know is depreciated. — Art48

What does that mean? Has it diminished in value over time?

Matter is dumb and “there must be something more.” — Art48

Do you mean matter is stupid? How can that be? It makes absolutely no sense. Matter can be neither intelligent nor stupid.

And the environment suffers abuse. — Art48

What this does have to do with anything? And, even if it is assume that soul exists, couldn't it suffer abuse too?

***

I took up your statements one by one. They are all unfounded: either they are unclear or they make no sense. Considering also the fact that you call the idea of soul "pernicious", I can easily assume that you just despise or even hate the idea of the existence of "soul" and that you are not willing to find the truth about the existence or not of a soul. If you were, your title would e.g."Does sould exist?" or something similare. Then you would start about as follows: "Let's see whether the human soul exists or not." And you will then present sensible arguments in favor or against the existence or non-existence of a soul. Or present a list logical statements (a logical scheme), like "Let's assume that ...", "If 'A' is true then ... " etc. For me, examples also are vital. They make points clearer.
Well, anything will do except your presentation of the subject! :smile:

So, I would suggest that you re-examine and present anew the subject ...

I know. The official language of the Catholic Church is Latin. In the Orthodox Church on the other hand we find Greek, Arabic, Russian, Georgian, Romanian, Serbian and Hebrew languages! One can easily undestand the inconsistency in the teachings among all these people and places.

The Catholic Church always appealed to an illiterate population. — Jackson

I didn't know that. The official religion in my country (Greece) is Orthodoxy. It is the hard-core form of Christianity. The most radical and fanatic. And it certainy appeals most to the illiterate and semi-literate people. I always considered Catholicism much more "civilized" than Orthodoxy.

Why people choose Christianity from the very begining? — guanyun

Who's choosing Christianity and from what beginning?

Anyway.

In the West, people choose Christianity --of any of its variations-- because it is the prevalent religion. In Africa, Japan and other places in the world, people chose Christanity in places where it is established since the early missionaries, who were teaching not only religion, but language and all kinds of knowledge.

I the same way, Christian people choose --actually turn to-- Buddhism and other Eastern religions as their own.

In either case, the reason is simple: because the religion they choose appeals --in various ways-- more to them! :smile:

Even if drugs were producing insight, would someone mess up with his head and health to obtains such questionable insight?
Forget about enlightenment. However one defines it, it has always to do with a clear mind and marked awareness. Impossible to have these under drugs!

What proof? It is us who have invented God!

Education has been focused on those who will go on to college — Athena

This is true. Not only for education but for the whole society, starting from its smallest economic entity that is the family.

What really got me researching education was a commentator who said teachers should not have to waste their time on children not headed for college. — Athena

This is inhuman!

In my grandmother's day, education was for everyone ... there is a place for everyone in society ... — Athena

That's the sane attitude. (I have no data myself about the situation regarding education in my granparents day ...)

If people can earn self-esteem they do not buy guns and become mass murderers. — Athena

This is true in most cases. Every person, since their a child, wants to be esteemed and acknowledged. If they don't get that in family or at school, they look for eaning it by joining group of friends, which sometimes happen to be gangs.

... teachers told him they really loved what he said — Athena

Oh, god. This a pandemic.

killed his school teacher parents, and then went to the school and killed or wounded many more. — Athena

What a tragedy! But the real tragedy starts from parents and authorities (including educational), who keep ignoring --at least as I can undestand-- youth violence. I believe that all these things are interrelated, "infect" one another. It's indeed a pandemic. And I don't see any medicine or vaccine against it, at least not in the near future ...

You are very right to be concerned about education. Few do. Myself included! (Well, except when I talk about this subject, like now.)

OK, thanks. I think that you have both complicated unnecessarily the subject of experience (experiencing) and perception (perceiving). But this is my viewpoint and reality! :smile:

If we accept those definitions, then my claim is that it’s impossible to knowingly sin. The proof is simple: we don’t know God’s laws. We don’t know God’s will. God has failed to make his will and laws known to us. (P.S. following common usage, I speak of God as masculine.) — Art48

The definitions you offered are fine (with me) and you did well to bring them up. Few do that.
Now about the proof: I believe we know well God’s laws because it is us who created the concept of God, his attributes, the principles involved that are related to him, etc. We must also never forget that there are different "Gods" created by different cultures, civilisations and religions. So, when we define "sin" as "an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law", we know well what such an act can be. BTW, I prefer using "moral rules and principles" instead of "divine law", because they are more concrete and are agreed upon among a group of people of same civilization, culture and religion.

So, not only it is not impossible to knowingly sin, but we always know that we sin. This is what confession is all about. It's another thing if we try to justify or "burry" --try to forget, negate, etc.-- the fact that we have sin.

BTW, note that to sin one must know about and agree with what these transgressions and the moreal rules an principles on which they are basd are and also be aware of the act of transgression. That is, one must also be able to distinguish between right and wrong, according to these moral rules and principles. Insane and in general mentally heavily sick pople, for example, often cannot do that.

What the latter shows is that direct connection is necessary to experience a thing. It does not then follow that all things we experience are external world objects, nor that we experience all external world objects. — Isaac

I followed a little this recent exchange of yours with @NOS4A2. I'm not sure what tou both mean by or undestand with "direct connection". Is it a physical connection, involving perception via our senses? From your answer I undestand that we can also experience other things thn external objects, e.g. feelings/emotions/sensations, is that right?
What I didn't understand was "nor that we experience all external world objects". Do you maybe mean "nor that we can experience all external world objects"?

You've yet to show that this teacup is also the thing in contact with my nerve endings. — Isaac

Is this what "direct connection" implies or requires?

As I can see, you didn't deserve my reply to your topic. Well, it's the last one. You are a tired thinker afterall ...

... some of us are not highly intelligent. I worry about that because it is a reality we have to contend with. If we do not care for these people they end up on the streets and maybe in our prisons and that is just sad. — Athena

This is very true. We do not treat lack of intelligence well. In fact, the opposite. People are often punished, invalidated, demeaned, frowned upon etc. by others for being in this condition. If instead they were supported in various ways, they wouldn't end up in prisons or asylums or led to suicide as you say. Not that this is easy, and psychologists do not help much. But there exist quite effecive methods that treat such a condition.

Human beings are born with different degrees of intellectual and other mental abilities, as well with different potential. Their immediate environment --family, scholl, society-- can enhance or worsen them. Note however that intelligence can be enhanced at any moment in the life of an individual, using different methods and techniques. (I have worked in this field in that past, and have seen people changing a lot if not radically and their IQs rising.) Individuals are not bound to lack intelligence for their whole life. Unfortunately though, they do because they are not given the opportunity to change that state.