Comments

  • Best introductory philosophy book?
    Plato’s The Republic is as good a place as any to start. In terms of fiction 1984 is also a very nice window into philosophy.

    Overall I think an eclectic interest is more useful than than a direct ‘introduction’ to philosophy. If you are interested enough in the sciences, history, film/theatre, literature, language, psychology, economics, politics and art (or most of them) then you should have a good base to start from. If you’re not interested in most of those philosophy probably isn’t worth your time right now but might tickle our fancy more in the future.
  • power of words terrorism and hate speech
    Your idea that the problem is painting with a broad brush is genius.Athena

    It really isn’t as I’m far from the first person to point this out. It’s kind of obvious. Why it is happening is likely due to multiple reasons including mass ‘communication’ (social media), general technological advancements (paired with dissipation of religious views) and the general upheaval of world views (the axis mundi) caused by such interactions leading to the projection of an existential threat anywhere and everywhere it can get a toe hold (manifesting in group mentality and focus of nationalistic/patriotic drivel).

    There are enough positive signs though ( as usual mostly ignored) not to worry too much about all this.

    As for a US civil war it could happen, but it is far more likely it will just be a civil split not a complete severing. Either way I’m more and more convinced by the end of this century the idea of nation will have lost its current, and fleeting, fashionable appeal.
  • The Problem with Monotheism?
    What you've done is to say you have no particular evidence of various competing gods existing in the world, but it would helpful in your understanding of the world to think that such gods do exist, so you therefore do. Such is pragmatism. The problem is that if you posit these actual physical gods engaging in battle with one another and existing in human form, you need to show them to me, tell me where they live, explain their reproductive systems, and all sorts of other matters. Because you can't do that, your positing their existence violates the epistemological system you use for knowing other similar matters.Hanover

    There seems to be a blind spot here. I am guessing you accept the evidence for pantheons being believed in at various points in human history. That is all the ‘evidence’ I need because I’m not arguing for or against the actual existence of any god/s.

    I think the reactions from theists and non-theists here shows the gulf in understanding and the unwillingness to engage with each other unless one comes to the meeting bristling with swords and shields.

    And this is actually one very good reason for monotheism and a highly abstracted god. By not demanding any physical property or anything that would otherwise be provable in the mundane universe, a belief in such a god avoids violating the epistemological system you use to know other things in the universe. God, under this definition, would be unlike all else in the universe and could therefore be accepted as existing for pragmatic reasons without violating my epistemological system and so could be believed just because his existence makes your life more understandable.Hanover

    From the believer perspective this might make some sense. It well be easier to believe in something more abstracted (which is an interesting point). That isn’t really dealing with the benefit of one over the other though only addressing the longevity of one over the other. I guess you could then propose that the longevity leads to durability and therefore any knowledge held within endure better than in a polytheistic framework. Seems like too much of a stretch though.
  • Love doesn't exist
    That makes no sense to me whatsoever. If it aligns with your beliefs and experiences though I’m not going to argue.
  • The Problem with Monotheism?
    Fair enough. I was making a broad generalisation as in a pantheon the gods interact quite readily in a 'human' manner. Still the question remains as a plurality of gods allows for more specific investigation though. If you think otherwise how and why?
  • The Problem with Monotheism?
    Then I don't know what you're trying to argue. That polytheism is easier to understand than monotheism?Michael

    That would be something of an oversimplification I feel. The gist is close enough though. Easier doesn't mean better, I just see more scope for exploration with polytheism than with monotheism (introspectively or otherwise). I do view 'exploration' as generally a good thing for a developing society.
  • The Problem with Monotheism?
    I looking at it as if it is beneficial to human society to have theism and that polytheism allows for a more expansive view of the world at large, but that monotheism does benefit from a 'togetherness' of thought (possibly?).

    I think we can both agree that through history the major religions have shifted from polytheistic origins to a monotheistic form. My argument (if there is one) is that we'd have been better off sticking to polytheistic views in order to develop a more sound psychological state from which to pass more smoothly into a more monocultural ideology - I don't think we were psychologically mature enough as a species to deal with monotheism yet some individuals clearly were and may not have recognised the problems it could lead to (social division rather than social unity).

    It is a highly speculative thought but it is one I've been carrying around for a while so thought I may as well put it out here and see if anyone could add anything or take it somewhere else.
  • The Problem with Monotheism?
    I'm not going there. My aim for this thread us quite specific. I am assuming there are no actual gods and that they are a manifestation of human experience projected and interacting with the immediate world. It doesn't matter if you agree with this or not or whether I believe it or not IF we are analysing the possible psychological benefits of, mistakenly or otherwise, following a monotheistic line or a polytheistic line given the variety of human social activity.

    A War god makes sense to a soldier and more readily than a monotheistic entity as the former is a direct meaningful line for them. Tangentially such pantheons that contain War gods necessarily interact with other gods within the mythos so favouring one is not denial of another, and may lead to switching perspectives and learning.

    That is all I was thinking.
  • The Problem with Monotheism?
    Whenever I post something and there is only ONE person who understands what I'm getting at, asking or playing with it's always YOU!

    Maybe you don't get it though? Either way surprise me and throw in your thoughts about this as mine are biased toward what I put forward in the OP but by no means firmly established.

    I would necessarily see a progression towards a monotheistic set up but I don't think there was, or has been, much time for it come to full fruition (in terms of what it could offer PURELY as a psychological edifice of guidance and reference).
  • The Problem with Monotheism?
    I as not asking about it in this way. I was simply thinking about how relatable such 'ideas' are to a developing human society. A plural of perspectives from which to approach human life just seems more tangible to me.
  • The Problem with Monotheism?
    That has nothing to do with whether or not monotheism is correct.Michael

    So? What are you talking about? You've lost me. Maybe you're taking this thread as something it isn't at all.

    Any facts about the supernatural and religious cosmology are entirely separate to human introspection.Michael

    I think I'm right. you don't seem to even have hold of the same stick let alone the wrong end of it. If you're a religious person yourself I'm not belittling 'religion' only looking at it as a human phenomenon (an anthropological perspective) and viewing how it applies to human life and psychology.

    That is all.
  • The Problem with Monotheism?
    The idea of deities exists. Psychologically I just think ONE deity seems like an oversimplification as I don't believe they really 'Exist' only that they are a reflection if humanity trying to understand its place in/about the world.

    Having a god of War or a god of Love makes sense rather than god as it seems restrictive in terms of an individual's exploration of themselves and their place in/about the world.

    I'm not saying the jump to monotheistic was 'wrong' just that maybe it hasn't had much time to bed in compared to polytheism. I guess we could argue that today humanity is polytheistic in the sense that there are multiple iterations of god but I wasn't talking about a multiplicity of monotheistic views as opposed to a singular monotheistic view. The narrowing of options and confinement of religious perspectives was more or less what I am getting at.

    Monotheism seems less flexible and less forgiving.
  • Anti-vaccination: Is it right?
    This thread follows the Anti-vaccination. Those of us who believe everyone should be vaccinated and those of us who believe this is the government's effort to control us and that we will lose our liberty if we don't fight against our government, are at each other's throats.Athena

    This is an exaggeration of the position for those opposed to making vaccines mandatory. To be 'anti-vax' is a completely different issue. It is precisely such broad painting with a brush of anyone who questions or disagrees that is the heart of the problem.

    I don't believe the government is using vax's to 'control' people but it is fairly clear that we're talking about freedoms and we've seen creeping laws against 'terrorism,' 'hate speech' and such that have not exactly instilled people with confidence.

    I'm not a US citizen btw and the laws of my homeland are opposed to ANY compulsory vaccinations so my perspective is different.
  • The Problem with Monotheism?
    Which makes little sense given modern scientific discoveries because in the end it all leads to one God one way or the other.SpaceDweller

    I don’t know what you mean by that. If you’re a religious follower yourself I guess what I’m saying is fairly moot to you anyway.
  • The Problem with Monotheism?
    I agree that polytheism offers more inspiration for people in terms of how they may want to shape their life. Yet, I'd say that the polytheistic beliefs have the same problem in being "beyond" human.Hermeticus

    I don’t think so as they are not omnipotent and make mistakes.

    I would also say that people reflected themselves into the pantheon of gods more and this had a psychological effect that grounded them rather than some absolute overseer of monotheism. The god of war becomes a more ready expression of human conflict and how to deal with troubles, not some being beyond any human reach. For the monotheism the god is simply ‘everything’ and mysterious. The pantheon of gods allow greater access and selection without any real need to stick hard to one principle in life. The war god will make sense for those who avoid conflict as much as those that seek it out (a kind of ancient representation of The Art of War in that it needed be about making war but merely avoiding it). A fertility god can relate to many things like how to manage a household, perfect a craft or farm land.

    Obviously all these representations can, and do, interact too. We see this is all pantheons where they fall in and out of fashion, absorb each other and/or split into other fragments. Monotheism seems more or less to do away with the exploratory force of human nature. I think this is reflected well enough in the idea of a wrathful singular god that is not seen with such force in polytheism where there is the choice to favour another god when one seems not to help your current path.

    I am looking at this from a psychological perspective and what seems to be a ‘healthier’ view.
  • The Problem with Monotheism?
    Note: I’m not ‘saying’ anything. I am expressing an idea :)
  • Philosophy/Religion
    @Xtrix Have you ever looked into mnemonics in religious/cultural practice? There was a book written fairly recently by someone I cannot remember the name of that looked into prehistoric systems for passing on knowledge - through mnemonic techniques embedded in mythos.

    People used something akin to complex rosary beads to store information. Peoples alive today familiar with such mnemonic techniques (in Australia) view constructs like Stone Hedge as blatant mnemonic devices. I think it is an interesting to view prehistoric landscapes as canvases upon which a rich tapestry of knowledge was written by way of mythos and ritual. This is something I was trying to get at earlier in mentioning Eliade’s work. The Mundane is imbued with a Sacred meaning. Knowledge is passed on this way as the written form didn’t exist.

    As a basic example if some people had a successful hunt the would be happy about it. The location of this hunt would leave a lasting psychological mark on the landscape. From this we have the beginnings of a ritual. The site will become ‘special’ it will take on a Sacred meaning.

    I don’t see this as being anything like religion nor philosophy. Those two distinctions are merely laid out for academic convenience but the underlying principles of human existence are still items of human existence. Giving authorship and agency to inanimate objects is also something human infants do before they can either walk or talk - in is a natural disposition (the psychological/neurological evidence for this is clear as can be).

    I understand the problems of metaphor, mythos and mimetic functions, but they are nevertheless power tools of human cognition that allow us to relate to each other and the world at large.

    Note: Her name is Lynne Kelly (referring to study of mnemonics).
  • Philosophy/Religion
    To view ‘religiosity’ as a pathological illness is a reasonable question to pose just as it would be to view a lack of ‘religiosity’ as a pathological illness.

    Either way you do seem to be avoiding any attempt to explain/show/adumbrate what it is that was asked for. I don’t even know what you mean by ‘mystical looking glass’ nor would it seem obvious to anyone as it is too vague a statement.
  • Love doesn't exist
    So you’re arguing that there are no selfless acts and that this, in and of itself, refutes the existence of ‘love’ (which you haven’t bothered to define)?

    To be ‘selfish’ requires ‘selfless’ acts because we live in society. In society ‘love’ often extends to others, but I need not direct ‘love’ toward people. ‘Love’ can be both ‘selfish’ and ‘selfless’.
  • Philosophy/Religion
    Um...I'm not calling you unintelligent at all, but also not not saying you're conceited.theRiddler

    I never hinted or suggested you were?
  • Philosophy/Religion
    Not living merely for survival. I then went on to show instances where ‘survival’ could well have been the only real focus for prehistoric humans and argued against that too - as we don’t know either way and should guard against transferring modern perspectives back into the past.

    This is a speculative thread you’ve started though but I was just playing around with the ‘what if’ of merely ‘trying to survive’ as the be all and end all of prehistoric human’s existence. I would argue to some degree that ‘surviving’ is probably closer to ‘living’ than merely ‘existing’ (meaning ‘going through the motions’ rather than engaging directly with life in some capacity).
  • Philosophy/Religion
    simply put Nietzsche was remarking about how people adhere to ‘moral principles’ as if they are rules to live by. The axe he ground was about how to make our own ‘morals’ rather than live comfortably by adhering to whatever societal principle we were expected to live by.

    ‘Asceticism’ as a ‘moral principle’ he would no doubt mock. As a principle arrived at (beyond societal dictates) he wouldn’t. This is why there are a number of seeming contradictions in Nietzsche as he doesn’t lay out ‘rules’ only comments on the problem of creating rules when old rules are disposed of.

    I guess it wouldn’t be too far fetched to equate his ‘overman’ with buddhist ‘nirvana’. Neither is to be possessed or attained. They are ‘the reaching for’ or ‘to strive’.

    The western world isn’t buddhist it is judeochristian. The judeochristian principles cannot be ‘removed’ without replacing them with something other. The whole point of ‘god is dead’ is the problem of taking responsibility on ourselves rather than shifting it away from ourselves. But we’re all weak and pathetic and will continually keep clutching at ideas of ‘morality’ in the shadow of Christian Virtues. The very same exists in buddhists doctrines with dos and don’ts and Nietzsche would rile against those just as ardently if they happened to fall into his western world.

    The quote above from The Genaelogy of Morals is how he first started to address the problem of human values and how to replace and rethink how human value systems can be replaced and/or reconstructed (in the west) in light of the disintegration of Christianity’s appeal due to the age of science. The recognition of humans as animals (less substantiated in his time than now) is something many, including myself, find hard to hold to having lived a life in a culture that regards humans (as someone mentioned) as on a ‘pedestal’ compared to other animals. The crazy thing is we have been trained to deplore our animal self because we’re able to see ourselves as apart from nature. Our images of godhood are our images of our future selves … but we have no idea how to attain them. The Greek gods were more human and lived for war and to murder and torture, to gain the upper hand over each other. The monotheistic god destroys human nature, impedes the capacity to use our ‘animal nature’. It sets up rules that ‘evil’ is a thing rather than Fortune.

    I certainly don’t agree with @Xtrix that ‘religion’ came before ‘philosophy’. They are the same thing but the division made in human cognition - socially impelled for unknown circumstances/reasons - most likely allowed the concept of ‘religion’ to congeal more readily in the public eye than the concept of ‘philosophy’. Underlying the Weltanschauung (‘world view’), that has always given us ‘presence,’ was the catalyst for all items of division whether we like it or not.

    I’ve tried to frame ‘time’ before through use of the symbolism of Prometheus and Epimetheus. I think it makes sense to look at (speculatively) how ‘time’ (now atomized) sat quite differently for prehistoric humans. Without a conceptual adumbration of ‘time’ I don’t see how ‘religion’ or ‘philosophy’ can gain a good foothold. Maybe they can slightly through use of narrative that exists independent of history.
  • Philosophy/Religion
    That’s not how I live, nor how anyone I know lives. We can think it and say it, but an “organism trying to survive” isn’t my experience. First and foremost I’m engaged with someone or something, I’m moving towards something, I’m caring about or interested in something. I have a world, not an environment.Xtrix

    This may well be true of humanity today. Humanity in the depths of prehistory could justifiably be framed as only concerned with survival having (possibly in some cases) more interest in basic sustenance.

    Although it is unfair to compare hunter gathers today’s world with those of prehistory, there are some signs that with limited resources people don’t really have any course to care for anything other than basic needs. When asked about what is important the reply is often ‘meat’ not ‘god’. When asked about death their imagination has no real time to convey an answer much further beyond some vague hint at a myth followed by ‘I don’t know’ in reference to any ‘otherly realm’.

    In argument against this there must’ve been times where resources were plentiful and then as time kept by more ‘cultivation’ of time was open to them to explore and compare and contrast the inner experience with the outer impressions of existence.

    As mentioned above the stresses and strains on the human body do lead to some quite extraordinary experiences. These are most likely where religious practice stems from. If you have been through an experience where you haven’t slept or ate for a week or so (or some other form of stress/strain) you might well appreciate what I’m saying here.

    Every religious practice has some form of ‘abstinence’ within its rituals and practices. I generally view them as being tied up with some weird idea of ‘otherly realms’ though. I think somewhere the experience of the individual just tried to frame this lingually intangible experience as best they could and perhaps viewed it as ‘other’ or knew of no other way to express something other than through framing it within some ‘fantasy’ realm.

    I was listening to Yuval guy recently talking about the mystery of patriarchy. He suggested something I have been looking at a lot over the past decade. He was suggesting that in smaller groups matriarchy can exist yet in larger social groups (nations and such) something else happens. I’m curious as to whether humans, like locust, go through physical changes once a certain population threshold is met. Obviously we don’t look physiologically different (like locust) but I think the effect could show in our neurological state - hence the lack of matriarchal societies. Given the present state of the species with mass communication this may be revealing itself more now (if there is anything to ‘reveal’).

    I know it’s very speculative but I have found it an interesting premise from which to view social change. Rather than the obsession with the abstract ‘cultural’ exchanges maybe the issue is a matter of physiological changes due to reaching a population threshold.
  • Philosophy/Religion
    Where’s the irony? Do you not understand what he is saying here. This is basically a description of ‘asceticism’ that he is praising.

    You take it that I worship Nietzsche because I quote him mentioning something that is clearly about ‘asceticism’? Is youur ‘sacred cow’ buddhism … I don’t assume that but I could have been petty and threw such nonsense at you if I wished to.

    He actually praises it (‘asceticism’), so I gather you both agree and disagree with this. I don’t see how this isn’t about the use of ‘asceticism’.

    Ignore the derogatory remark of you not ‘seeing’. I’m interested how you can read this and not appreciate it as a direction reference (and understanding of) ‘asceticism’.

    I guess if you view the view of the Dionysian as ‘indulging’ then you can easily mistaken his point as being opposed to ‘ascetic’ living. That is a fair stance I guess but I don’t think it can be justified fully or stand up to the test of other points put across by him and others.
  • Philosophy/Religion
    placing living man at the forefront of everything and human endeavor on a pedestal...now that's conceit.theRiddler

    Conceit as in intelligence? ;)
  • Philosophy/Religion
    And I don't see any reason to believe that Nietszche had an insight or training into what ascetic practises are supposed to open up and why anyone would pursue them.Wayfarer

    Because you ‘follow’ and ‘see’ nothing.

    “Genuine - this is what I call him who goes into godforsaken deserts and has broken his venerating heart.
    In yellow sand and burned by the sun, perhaps he blinks thirstily at the islands filled with springs where living creatures rest beneath shady trees.
    But his thirst does not persuade him to become like these comfortable creatures: for where there are oases there are also idols.
    Hungered, violent, solitary, godless: that is how the lion-will wants to be.”

    - Thus Spake …

    So I cannot possibly agree with our point because it is blatantly wrong.
  • What is insanity?
    If you follow it through you'll find absurdism ... some just get stuck in nihilism though.

    If you get stuck you're my enemy.
  • What is insanity?
    I struggle with the idea of free will. Sometimes, like AA mentions, I find it helpful to acknowledge my helplessness. Taking responsibility and admitting helplessness are both forms of facing up to reality, I guess, and very hard to do.Yohan

    I know what you mean. This is where nihilism sneaks in often enough. Sometimes people have to become nihilistic to see past it.

    Acknowledging helplessness is usually another way to avoid a problem. Jung used an analogy about problems we face in life by referring to a storm in a valley. When we're in the storm there is no way out yet when we look back down the valley once we're out of it we know the problem still exists yet we are not exactly in its shadow.

    I would go for saying 'acknowledging ignorance' rather than what I often see as 'clinging to helplessness' in order to avoid any possible recognition of responsibility. If you listen to yourself you will eventually come to understand, bit by bit, where to put your energies. Put them somewhere though rather than opting for passivity as nihilism will eat you up.
  • What is insanity?
    They are just thoughts. And they are basically my own voice. But I recognize voices represent different parts of myself, if that makes sense.Yohan

    OK. You're human. Congrats! It is a madness in and of itself in times like these. You might come to recognise this 'insanity' as sanity that is probably what is needling you :)

    -My mind is constantly moving and agitated. I'm never fully at peace. Never fully present. I feel the need to keep myself constantly distracted from my own thoughts and feelings. At the same time, I try to hide this fact from myself.Yohan

    This is the burden of freedom. Many ignore it and suffer as a consequence, some don't ignore it and suffer actively. Choose the later if you have the fortitude.
  • What is insanity?
    -I have multiple voices in my head. Eg, one voice says "do what you want" another says "better be careful". Sometimes I talk to myself, even fight myself. Some voices say things to me like, "you are an awful person." while other voices say megalomaniacal things to me which I am too shy to share.Yohan

    Do you ‘think’ this thoughts or actually hear ‘voices’? There is a HUGE difference and some experience the first believing it to be the later.

    There are people who hear voices and they live perfectly normal lives without any medication. In fact many report the use of having these voices to solve problems. Hearing voices is not necessarily a sign of insanity. If you hear voices (I mean really hear voices) that are independent of you then …

    I would highly recommend visiting a psychologist - NOT a psychiatrist - and discussing your concerns. It may well be merely an episode of psychosis (it is more common than you think) or it could be the sign of a more severe underlying brain condition such as schizophrenia (in which case get second and third opinion before consulting a psychiatrist if possible).

    I’m not qualified at all but what you’re describing sounds a lot like what they classify as hypomania, but in all honesty such labels are vague at best. Chances are you’re just having an episode that will pass but you should probably still seek out a psychologist to discuss this with for your own safety and peace of mind.

    Just to emphasis having strange thoughts and drives vying for attention is not the same as hearing voices. Either way the voices are You so don’t get lost in them.

    Book an appointment and insist on seeing a professional rather than filling out some nonsense form and being dismissed without speaking to anyone.
  • What is Nirvana
    I’m not a buddhist.

    Buddhism as far as I’m concerned is related to nihilism. The nihilist grows from the assumption that life needs to give them something, that they deserve more. They stare down into the abyss instead of recognising what is around them. The buddhist is in the abyss, they look up but see nothing much. Both disregard life. One expected more from life and the other nothing whatsoever.

    Both abstain from living. Some who tread that pass hit the depths of despair so hard they suffer just the right amount and release something within that shine a light on life in full technicolour.

    Heroin isn’t ‘bliss’ btw. I know someone who took it and they sounded more like a nihilist/buddhist. They wanted to stop feeling, it numbed them. The thing is such practices (like buddhism or nihilism) cause stress and strain. From stress and strain humans can trigger something in themselves.

    It is no coincidence that the stories of Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha stem from each individual being under enormous stress and strain prior to their revelations. For buddhism the story is a little more unique as buddha appears on the cusp of nihilism coming from a life of extraordinary wealth and riches. His exposure to ‘suffering’ gave him life not his unknown avoidance of it.

    The same ritual is plain enough in shamanic practices too all around the globe.
  • Death
    I didn’t quote you?
  • Philosophy/Religion

    More precisely 'Heirophany'

    To quote:

    Man becomes aware of the sacred because it manifests itself, shows itself, as something wholly different from the profane. To designate the act of manifestation of the sacred, we use the heirophany. It is a fitting term, because it does not imply anything further; it expresses no more than is implicit in its etymological context, i.e., that something sacred shows itself to us.

    - Introduction to The Sacred and The Profane, by Mirea Eliade
  • Philosophy/Religion
    @Xtrix I'd highly recommend reading The Sacred and The Profane by Eliade. Unlike other works of his (like Shamanism) it isn't a dry piece of scholarship and he actually attempts to frame some of his thoughts rather than just give a scholarly record.

    His use of 'Heirophant' is something I carry around with me every day now
  • Philosophy/Religion
    Yes, and the 'weltanschauung' is not readily questioned because it is the foundation upon which our conscious appreciation exists.
  • Philosophy/Religion
    I didn't exactly attempt to define religion and that isn't what I meant either way.

    In simple, and short, terms I just meant that 'religion' (as in that part of us sometimes referred to as 'religiosity') is more concerned with the 'world grounding' of our existence than science. Science is not concerned so much with what 'feels' right but rather how items operate.

    As the OP isn't directly about science/religion I was more or less cutting away the 'science' part to make clearer what distinctions there are between philosophy and religion ... I do not view 'religion' as merely the modern presentation of some social institution though.

    Philosophy deals with 'questions' (broadly speaking) and 'religions' deal with orientation (sense of place and world at large).

    I would argue strongly against any of these rough adumbrations being anything clearly defined bounds, meaning I see 'religion' in 'science' and 'science' in 'philosophy,' and 'philosophy' in 'religion' and round and round we go. I would add a forth aspect but that is not what this OP is about.
  • What is Nirvana
    I had bliss. That is all I can say on the matter. It's quite clear to me that persons/myths such as Buddha are existent because their there are people who experience this thing and some actually manage to interpret it in part to others. In other situations (due to their 'bliss') they are 'influencers' and those looking and listening will inevitably mischaracterise what is said/shown and trip over themselves.

    Such persons in history most likely knew damn well what problems they would reveal ... but someone had to really because there has to be a pinhole for others in the knowledge that some others will 'see' rather than 'follow'.