You need to define evil first,
"Evil is lack of good[ness]" — SpaceDweller

SpaceDweller, please don't glide over the following; it is of utmost importance that you read, and understand the following.

Is there goodness in a neutral state?

There are only two scenarios: yes, there is, and the other is, no, there isn't.

If there is, then it's not neutral, since evilness can't balance it out; evilness is lack of good, and the premise states that there is goodness in neutral. If there is goodness in neutral, then the state is not neutral, since it's good.

If, however, neutral state does not contain goodness, then it's not evil; and yet it lacks goodness.

Therefore "lack of goodness is evil" is not an acceptable definitioin, since neutrality lacks goodness, and yet it's not evil.

A google search for "displestitude" reveals your usage as the only combination of those letters to exist on the internet. — introbert

Brilliant, my dear Watson.

You're correct. I did create that word, as well as "evility". I don't have a problem with that; ultimately, all words in the English langauge were created. "In the beginning there was the Word", and that was all. Other words came along by creation by man. (By men and women.)

If word creation had ever been a problem, we'd still not have a language.

Some words do get created and then discarded by lack of use. I won't take offence if that happens to "evility" and to "displestitude".

Man, as a person just getting into philosophy, this worries me. If I do my best in constructing an argument that happens to be sorta shitty due to my lack of experience, should I expect to be reamed like this? Is this kind of conduct expected around here? — Matt E

I'm forceful, but Bartricks is screamingly and obviously:
- rude
- illogical
- spews nonsense
- argumentative
- and in my opinion should have been ousted from this forum a long time ago.

His best quality is the choice of words with which he berates others. Other than that, please do ignore his opinions; they are of no consequence.

Please don't feel pressured to accept my opinion about Bartricks. Look at what he wrote about me. Draw your conclusions.

One word of advice: if you angage him in an argument, it will go on forever, and will only end because of an escalation of mutual anger, due to tempers rising. Adhering to the expression "DO NOT FEED THE TROLL" is the best and most useful way of dealing with him.

But first and foremost, please dont' feel discouraged by his remarks.

He is not singling you out. Please feel free to see his remakrs / posts in all discussions, and immediately you will see an underlying motive there. Click on his username, until you see his profile, and then read his remarks.

It's that easy.

You need to define evil first,
"Evil is lack of good" — SpaceDweller

I am afraid I can't accept your definition.

There are things in the world which are neither good nor bad. They are neutral.

Since your proposition depended on the aforementioned definition, I can't accept the proposition either.

purely carnivores or purely vegans. — Benj96

I'm surely purely both. I eat both meat and vegetables.

I sympathise with the sentiments of vegans re: killing and torturing animals is very sad and vile. I compensate by noth thinking about that.

Killing a live thing by a human is hard for that human. For most of us, anyway. We're all different.

Plus you can get used to killing, if you do it often enough, so that you don't develop guilt or remorse. One way to do it is to be born sadistic to the max or else to be born a psychopath, with no empathy for pathological reasons. But those conditions are rare, although we read about their acts every second day in the papers. The reason we read about them is that we don't readt about the half-billion (or so) other Americas who don't do that. "Mr. John Tavernicky did not kill anyone today" would make a poor headline.

Prehistoric people have made it a habit to pray or do something spiritual after a successful kill of a large mammal. They were not able to just kill and eat it. The trend continues. We, today's people, can eat it, if we don't have to kill it first.

But once in a while a vegan rears its ugly head (figure of speech - they are not ugly) and instills in us a sense of guilt.

This is a strange and difficult world we live in.

All this does depend on which Christian you speak too. — Tom Storm

True.

Everything about Christianity depends on whcih Christian you speak to.

I converesed with Christians on this forum who thought they were the only christians in this great, wide world.

Furthermore I argued with a person here who insisted on very strict interpretations of the Holy Books, and when I put it to him, he denied he was a Christian, or even a god-fearing person.

This has not much to do with the original topic, other than some christians can't accept that god has any bad or negative qualities, and some others can.

I have a much more relaxed view of psychiatry than Introbert, Mark Nyquist, et al.

I think psychiatry has a bad rep because (true premises according to my belief):
1. Pscyiatrists have no clue where psychiatric illnesses get generated an how. Truly.
2. Symptomology has demarked quite a few conditions, but they have huge overlaps.
3. They can't use symptomology to treat patients effectively.
4. The only drugs that do anything positive to a psychiatric patient are antipsychotics.
These include schizophrenia, schizotypal everything, manic depression, OCD.
5. Some biochemical functionalities of these drugs are known, some are not.
ON the other hand:
- psychiatry, like all branches of medicine, is an empirical science. Not theoretical like QA or Chemistry.
- the expectations compared to the results have poor performance ratio.
- there is no direction for developement; only a hope that some drugs that are discovered in the future
will perfom better than the present ones. This is an expectation by the profession.
- the expectation of the populus is wholly different from that of the profession, and it expects nothing
less of miracle. Much like with the physical medicine.
- both the lay population and the patient population has larger proportions who have no faith in
the profession's viability, and most psychiatric patients live in state of denial of their own conditions.
- there is stigma attached to the madness.
- the stigma is warranted, as psychiatric patients are very hard to get along with.
- but psychiatric patients suffer as well as they present a set of symptoms.

This is a difficult situation, and without much further development, it remains very much a difficult
situation.

↪Mark Nyquist If hunches are being accepted, here's one of mine: 60% of the US population, including philosophers, are under some kind of psychiatric medication for disorders ranging from insomnia to schizophrenia. With so many mad people, it's amazing how we can get anything done at all! — Agent Smith

This is PECISELY why the rest of the 40 percent of the US population carries a loaded gun.

Look; you are not stupid. So don't for a moment think that I don't know your tactic. You oppose and you give opinions without making a stand on issues. Your main strength in argumenting is being evasive and noncommittal, while being at the same time provocative and apparently (but without substance) evocative.

You make the other person think by implying what your opinion is; then when we get to a conclusion, "yes, this is what 180 Proof's opinion is" you simply deny it, on the grounds that you never said it.

Why do you do this? Many may or may not think it's because you are spineless. I don't think that. I think you are just deathly afraid of being proven wrong.

For instance:

Existence is being not nothing.
— god must be atheist
Clear as mud. — 180 Proof

What??? Like I said, you are not stupid. But you are reduced to using your brilliant mind now for simple and childish naysaying, instead of providing arguments.

Again, I ask, why do you do this? This is a philosophy website, not junior kindergarten.

Clarify what you mean by "a thing ... exists". — 180 Proof

Existence is being not nothing.

Cite the claim/s you are referring to. Thanks — 180 Proof

Please give me some time to research the quotes in which you tried to refute my argument that some human-made structures are not natural. It will be hard to show your stance, since your opinions on that thread section were expressed by derisive laughter shown by emojis.

You know what? Instead of my going on a busy-body wild goose chase and show your opinion the way you showed it, I ask you here to say what you consider not natural and what you consider natural that exists in the physical world. Please do not allow me to put words in your mouth; but I remember you asked me to show examples of any human creations that are not made by obeying natural phyisical laws; and I said that there are structures in the univerese that are not freely found in nature. From then on your arguments consisted of derisive laughter expressed by emoji(es), and I responded to it in like.

From there I jumped here, and declared that you denied that any physical creation or unit or change is natural. It may have been an invalid jump, as your point was (from your cryptic claims) I believe that all HUMAN creations were natural; but that does not necessarily mean that all creations are natural. Just because I juxtaposed human creation vs natural creations, you may have other creations in mind that are physical but not natural.

Please enlighten me of your opinion on what is natural, and if in your opinion anything in the physical world can be unnatural.

Thanks.

[1] We live in an ordered universe that can be understood by humans.
[2] The universe consists entirely of physical substances - matter and energy.
[3] These substances behave in accordance with scientific principles, laws.
[4] Scientific laws are mathematical in nature.
[5] The same scientific laws apply throughout the universe and at all times.
[6] The behaviors of substances are caused.
[7] Substances are indestructible, although they can change to something else.
[8] The universe is continuous. Between any two points there is at least one other point.
— T Clark
[9] Space and time are separate and absolute.
[10] Something can not be created from nothing.[/quote]

These reflect my world view almost completely.

I would add 2.1. that entities can be made up based on physical substances, but being entities of... what? emotions, the "I" (eye) feeling, the senses, sensations... these are definitely based on physical substances, but they create motions of physical substances that can't be explained by rules that govern physical substances alone; they can't be explained by the laws of the physical universe. Such movements are a man approaching a woman to make love to her. A dead man will not approach a woman to make lover to her. Or a crab approaching a food item to eat it. A dead crab will not approach the food item. In these instances there is motivation that is not possible to explain by the laws of the physical universe alone, while at the same time the motivations are not supernatural, and they are not supernaturally originated. They don't have substance, but they have a presence. Go figure.

I could not call these points [1] through [10] metaphysics, rather, points of belief.

My points are not good reasons to start a discussion over. That you call them "metaphysics" and I call them "points of belief" is a minor, very minor difference.

2.1. could be discussed or argued, but I won't be so military about it as I was when we talked about "metaphysical statements have no truth value".

--------------------------------------------

I could not call these points [1] through [10] metaphysics, rather, points of belief.
— god must be atheist

There's not much else for us to discuss then.
-- T Clark

===========================
It seems to me that I made an error. I somehow imagined, and that's how I remembered, that T Clark opposed my view [2.1.] of entities' existing while not being material, and that's why T Clark said he has nothing to say to me.

This is an error by me, I admit it, and I apologize for it.

However, the claim that is described in [2] is in opposition of my view decribed in [2.1] My mistake is that I misattributed the reason why T Clark has nothing to say to me. I attributed it to the disagreement described in [2] and in [2.1], whereas T Clark's not willing to talk to me is due to my calling the points above not metaphysical but of belief.

Sorry, I made this mistake, and again, I apologize.

"Evil" is both a noun and an adjective and works very well as either. — T Clark

You are right; I have no arguments against that. I am just saying I am not happy with that arrangement, and I created a neologism to circumvent this use of the same word for both.

How does free will explain childhood cancer? Tsetse fly? Covid? — Banno

Good question.

Evil is an intentional harm done. For harm's sake, for the pleasure of the harmer.

Tsetse flies and cancer: according to Christian dogma, god created them. So no human free will is involved in the harm, but god's intentional doing in the works of creation. You're right, Banno, I agree, the evility lies with god in these instances and have nothing to do with free will of humans.

But I've also asked myself the question - which may or may not be applicable to religion - why is evil a problem specifically? — Manuel

I think early religionists feared to give the almighty any negative qualities. This later evolved into annointing god only with positive qualities and leaving him bereft of negatives. Hence, the evility is impossible to be god-created.

How is "evility" different than "evil?" — T Clark

Evility is a noun. Evil is an adjective. Evil is used as a noun because the English language lacks a noun form of evil. Hence the neologism evility.

2. God did not create evility.
— god must be atheist
Sez who, where? — Vera Mont

Many Christians say that.
Please see this and internalize its meaning:

Four basic premises present in Christian dogma give rise to this argument: — god must be atheist

Mine is not an original idea, but I developed it on my own without reading about it... some I expect will find it outrageous.

Soiciety is a living, evolving creature, which is multi-cellular, and its cells are people.

Much like a multi-cellular biological organism, its cells will differentiate to perform their functions better.

And some funcitons will be coveted because they provide power, pleasure and variety; other functions will be shunned, but some will be forced into doing it, because they are dirty, dangerious and unrewarding.

A street-sweeper or a janitor or a mortician (funeral home employee) will perform societal functions comparable to cells that line the stomach walls and the rectum.

Some CEOs, movie stars and politicians will perform societal funcitons comparable to brain cells, and to cells that promote and conduct the process of an orgasm.

Societies are not as well-organzied into differning funcitonality of their parts as biological units. Yet some permanent differentiation can be observed. They predicate the functions of a unit (humans acting as cells). A low-IQ low-self-confidence, not very attractive person is not very likely to become a mainly pleasure-receiving unit. His or her progeny, ditto.

Naturally, or unnaturally, unless you ask 180 Proof who does not beleive that there is anything unnatural in the real world, according to this writer's impression based on the posts of 180 Proof, this process will be aborted very soon with the advent of an AI population explosion.

By "this process" in the prevous paragraph I meant the evolution of societies as viable stand-alone units created by humans organized similarly to how cells are organized in a human body.

Naturally or unnaturally, my description above is a skeletal picture of the process... there are much intricacies and nuances that my post did not delve into.

Morally what ought they to do? — Bartricks

You show here very clearly that you haven't the slightest clue what morality entails. It is a social construct. There is no morality without society. So what society does a single god live in? Outside of his or her own company how many other gods is this god responsible for survival?

Yikes!! Your questions make exactly as much sense as your other participatory remarks on this board.

Imagine as well that there is a sensible world, exactly like this one.

And imagine that this omnipotent omniscient person really likes the sensible world, and likes how it operates and does not want to interfere with its operations, with one exception: they want to introduce life into it. — Bartricks

Bartricks, my friend, you are moving your own goal posts, very conisistently to your style, but this time you are fucking your own self.

If the world is exactly like ours, then it ihas sentient beings; if it does not have sentient beings, then it's not exactly like ours.

You shot yourself in the foot right in two of the first few paragraphs.

But I don't think that we must read the essay in that way. — Moliere

Without agreeing or disagreeing, if not that way, then in what way must we read the essay?

It is the first instance I meet on this forum a claim that multiple, possibly (but not necessarily) contradicting ways, and definitely different ways are all allowed to interpret a text at the same time and in the same respect.

This is interesting. Carrying this further, which to your credit you don't, if we accept that more than one interpretation of reality can be accepted, AND THEREFORE TRUE, then the acceptance of more than one interpretation contradicts the doctrine that everything is caused and everything causes everything else that comes after it.

Maybe this is why I don't like divergent thinking. With more than one solutions to a problem. Especially when one is lectured that HIS way of reading the text is wrong, but the opposite of his way, has many different acceptable ways of interpreting the text.

Accepting more than one interpretations, that are non-congruent with each other, then obviously many of them are wrong, and only one or zero are right.

So what's the point of accepting more than one explanations, interpretations, etc? I should have thought that philosophy was about finding the truth, which is necessarily singular, and not about pussy-footing around a set of acceptable interpretations.

Better than your non-answer ... — 180 Proof

Please don't blame me for your not seeing the answer in what you call non-answer.

You expressed your demand of showing you separateness between natural and man-made this way:

Btw, cite a single case of a "man-made structure" that is separate from nature — 180 Proof

You added that these structures must be independent from natural laws; but your understanding of nature is different from my understanding of it, and you are begging me to show you what I understand as nature.

Basically how I see your claim (1) is that the set of nature fully encompasses humans and creations of humans as its proper subset. Please correct me if my view of your view is not correct.

What I am saying is that that is not true, IFF you take the common informal meaning of nature vs human-made, because there are human-made objects that are not found made by other than humans.

This is an important difference. And I supplied the parameter under which I claim that nature is separate from human-made.

If you agree with the fact that man has only made objects that are found in replicates made by non-humans, then I disagree with you. You actually did not claim that, but it follows from your claim (1), under the parameters I have specified for my claim.

Now, your wording:

Btw, cite a single case of a "man-made structure" that is separate from nature — 180 Proof

There is a danger of equivocation here, so I spell out the differences, in order to avoid further misunderstandings:

You gave your parameters, as "separate" must mean not following natural laws.

But my parameters not as stated, but implied implicitly that "separate" is something that is unlike. Different. Separate in appearance, structure, and component parts.

This has not been spelled out in my initial claim, but many things have not been spelled out by your initial claim, either.

However, in my question my definition, if you like, of separateness has been insinuated. Your laughing at it is meaningless and fully dismissed as anything of merit, substance or brains.

wtf :sweat: — 180 Proof

I am sorry, but that's not a good answer.

Please find me a natural object that is not throughly the product of conventional schemes of language that incorporate such cultural features as how we understand the use of our measuring devices. As our linguistic, material and technological interactive engagements with our world change, so does the meaning of the ‘nature’ we observe — Joshs

I fail to see why I should find you such a natural object. Go find it yourself. You probably put it under the tool box in the shed, like the last time you were so desperately looking for it. :-)

In the common informal English, it is. Man-made structures are not considered natural structures, unless they are freely found in nature, too. — god must be atheist

Btw, cite a single case of a "man-made structure" that is separate from nature – unconstrained by laws of nature. — 180 Proof

Why should I?

Instead, please find me:
- a pyramid, in the fashion of burial place of pharaohs, complete with sarcophagi and mummies and mummified remains of food items in proper containers, freely found in nature formed by other than man;
- a nuclear power station, that generates electricity, with all its intricacies in its design, freely found in nature other than created by man;
- a plastic shopping bag, with a company logo printed on its two sides, freely found in nature, that has not been a manufactured product of man.

What distinguishes a trivial unknown from a magnificent unknown? — Pantagruel

The human mind that will perceive it once it's known is what will MAKE it magnificent. The difference the expectation; that is what separates trivial from magnificent. The same thing will sound trivial to some, and magnificent to others.

Some humans who hear or think of a certain thing, like names of "Aristotle" and "Socrates" become woozy, and they swoon because they are washed over with the feeling of being near to some magnificence. To some others, the same things will be understood easier, without prejudice, and mainly without the magnificence part.

The magnificence comes in as an expectation to something magnificent for those who expect magnificence. To the rest, this feeling of magnificence observed in others is viewed on one part as snobbery, on the other part as pretense, on the third part as bias.

This does not take away from the fact that those who see magnificence in what they want to see it in, are honest, and without pretense. They truly feel this magnificence.

Genetic fallacy. Also, human nature is separate from "nature"? — 180 Proof

In the common informal English, it is. Man-made structures are not considered natural structures, unless they are freely found in nature, too.

How would you write "not found freely in nature"? If man-made objects are part of nature, then their occurrences are also objects found freely in nature. So then "not found freely in nature" are only things that don't exist.

I appreciate that man is part of nature, and man's creations are part of nature by extension. But the language does make a distinction between man-made and non-man-made, by calling things natural and man-made.

Also, this raises the problem of how to consider man, as a thing in the universe. Man is man-made, (man meaning humans, not just male humans), yet it is also a naturally occurring thing.

==============

If you think you can freely insult my intelligence, then don't be surprised if I insult yours.

I don't know if God ever existed, let alone died, but I'm pretty sure that if he does exist, he was able to survive the Enlightenment and Fred Nietzsche. — Bitter Crank

Old joke:


God is dead. -- Nietzsche.

Nietzsche is dead. -- God.

[1] We live in an ordered universe that can be understood by humans.
[2] The universe consists entirely of physical substances - matter and energy.
[3] These substances behave in accordance with scientific principles, laws.
[4] Scientific laws are mathematical in nature.
[5] The same scientific laws apply throughout the universe and at all times.
[6] The behaviors of substances are caused.
[7] Substances are indestructible, although they can change to something else.
[8] The universe is continuous. Between any two points there is at least one other point. — T Clark

[9] Space and time are separate and absolute.
[10] Something can not be created from nothing.[/quote]

These reflect my world view almost completely.

I would add 2.1. that entities can be made up based on physical substances, but being entities of... what? emotions, the "I" (eye) feeling, the senses, sensations... these are definitely based on physical substances, but they create motions of physical substances that can't be explained by rules that govern physical substances alone; they can't be explained by the laws of the physical universe. Such movements are a man approaching a woman to make love to her. A dead man will not approach a woman to make lover to her. Or a crab approaching a food item to eat it. A dead crab will not approach the food item. In these instances there is motivation that is not possible to explain by the laws of the physical universe alone, while at the same time the motivations are not supernatural, and they are not supernaturally originated. They don't have substance, but they have a presence. Go figure.

I could not call these points [1] through [10] metaphysics, rather, points of belief.

My points are not good reasons to start a discussion over. That you call them "metaphysics" and I call them "points of belief" is a minor, very minor difference.

2.1. could be discussed or argued, but I won't be so military about it as I was when we talked about "metaphysical statements have no truth value".

I think you are being disingenuous in your posts. You have participated in discussions in the past where these issues were discussed, so you should know the distinctions that are being made, even if you do not agree with them. — T Clark

This discussion may resemble other discussions. But my "catch" was that you said metaphysical statements can't be true or false. That is false.

(Thanks, by the way, to show the one definition of "metaphysics" that you want to use. I don't doubt that this definition can be used if all in the discussions accept it. I would accept it, if I understood it. But it does not take away from the fact that a metaphysical statement is NOT exempt from rules of logic. That includes a necessary adherence to the rule of the excluded middle.)

Axioms are statements not subject to empirical verification. Thus they are not true or false. — T Clark

That's where you are wrong. They can be true or they can be false inasmuch as they apply to reality falsely or truly. But their true falsehood or truth lies in their a priori adherence to rules of logic.

↪god must be atheist Yours, of course; not mine, sir. — 180 Proof

More proof of your intellectual blindness.

Very nice question. My answer is that we dont live in a moral universe. I doubt there is an objective morality given that the universe doesn't offer a moral basis or standard in nature to compare human actions. Animals that occur in nature eat meat as we do. Some insects will enslave other insects. If all animals ate plants and no insects enslaved other insects then immorality would be against the object order of nature. But instead morality is about how things make us feel. What makes us feel bad is bad vice versa. I truly don't believe in objective morality and anyone who makes morality out to be an objective thing is likely a hardcore moralist. — introbert

I agree wholeheartedly.

Morality is a man-made concept to describe a mechanism that forces man and some warm-blooded creatures to feel bad or good when they act according to or against a set of expected behaviour.

Try to explain that to political leaders, FaceBook moralists or to vegans and permutational nomenclaturalists.

That said, I do believe that humans do need and get benefit as a species from their ability to enjoy morality. I agree with Introbert that human morality does not exist outside of humanity. Trying to apply human morality to nature is unnatural.

Thank you for admitting to intellectual blindness.

On the basis that the examples you gave, e.g. "my spirit is green," are not metaphysical statements. — T Clark

The examples you gave are also not metaphysical statements.

Yes, Collingwood. Example - materialism, realism, physicalism, idealism, anti-realism, monism, dualism, solipsism, and all the other ontological isms are metaphysical positions. Determinism and free will are also. I don't know if Collingwood would agree with these examples or not, but he's dead so I can say what I want. — T Clark

To say that these are metaphysical positions, you have to define "metaphysical" first.
I would agree if you said "these are conceptual positions", or "intangible positions", or even "non-physical positions".

However, saying that they are metaphyscal positions is a false. Metaphysics is not a concept, it is a bunch of thoughts (originally, at least), that Aristotle came up with, which he could not categorize.

So are you saying, that the list you said are things that can't be categorized in the categories established by Aristotle?

I have encountered no other useful, workable definition of "metaphysics". Ask any philosopher what it means. I have, and they all said "well, it is not defined."

What "metaphysics" has boiled down to, is a popular term for something irreligiously supernatural, something kind of other-wordly. This is the best acceptable use in the vernacular of common informal English. Is that what you meant?

180 Proof says your statements are "conceptually incoherent." I say they are meaningless. I think we're both saying the same thing. — T Clark

What I am saying is that you don't need meaning to be necessarily true or necessarily false.

The point here was truth value, not meaning.

The greenness of spirit is not something you can prove; but you can't prove anything to be true or false in the physical world, in a sense. (think of how senses could be deceptive and report to us a false picture of reality.) Truth, absolute truth, can only be done in an a priori way. And for that you don't need a truth that applies to the physical world.

For instance, 1+2=3. There is no physicality in this, this is all conceptual. Yet it's true.

ETC.

You guys, T. Clark and 180 Proof are hung up on something that I don't think has anything to do with what the truth value of anything else. I mean, I don't know what your problem is. The claim by 180 Proof, or by T Clark was that metaphysical claims can't be evaluated for truth or falsehood. I said, that's false, and proved it. You now come back saying that a thing that has no meaning can't be true. That may or may not be true, but saying that a case that a thing that has no meaning AND the case that the thing has meaning is necessarily false.

You start to argue about that? On what basis?

WHAT??

As opposed to the chemical and biological processes of the human body you mentioned that we don't understand, yes. — schopenhauer1

WHAT??

I guess we will have to assume nothing is truly infinite. — TiredThinker

I don't want to assume that. There is no reason why we need to assume that (Other than for maintaining a mental well-being, for some.)

"Finiteness is for people who can't handle infinity."

:grimace: :yikes: :worry: :gasp: :sad:

The statement is not a contradiction, it's conceptually incoherent (i.e. not even false). — 180 Proof

You are false again. This is an axiomatically wrong thing to claim what you claimed. If you deny the validity of the law of the excluded middle on a philosophy site, then you are truly wrong.
EDIT:
I did not claim contradiction. I claimed that it is necessarily false.

You are 1. wrong and 2. you are trying to explain your report card by mixing apples with oranges.

How do we develop our conciousness and self-awareness?

My first thought is that the inquiry itself is a helpful place to begin exploring.
— Universal Student

My first thought is that I don't know.

My second thought is the same.

And no matter how I try, all my thoughts result in the same conclusion as the first two.
— god must be atheist

Self awareness is a skill, just like any other. It is developed through practice. Everything boils down the ability to discriminate and differentiate the subjective from the objective in experience. — Pantagruel

Obviously, then, I have no self-awareness whatsoever.

I think I should be celebrated as one such to be first on a philosophy site.