Given Spinoza's insistence on a completely ordered world

[Nusc]

"Given Spinoza's insistence on a completely ordered world where "necessity" reigns, Good and Evil have no absolute meaning. Human catastrophes, social injustices, etc. are merely apparent. The world as it exists looks imperfect only because of our limited perception."

Why are humans inclined to seek "Good" over "Evil"?

where would I find Spinoza's passages regarding the question in his book?

 

[WaveJumper]

"Given Spinoza's insistence on a completely ordered world where "necessity" reigns, Good and Evil have no absolute meaning. Human catastrophes, social injustices, etc. are merely apparent. The world as it exists looks imperfect only because of our limited perception."

Why are humans inclined to seek "Good" over "Evil"?

where would I find Spinoza's passages regarding the question in his book?

What do you mean by "Good and Evil have no absolute meaning"? Can you give an example of anything that has "absolute meaning"? AFAIK, the word "meaning" relates entirely to the human experience and is thus a wholly subjective word.

Why are humans inclined to seek "Good" over "Evil"?

I don't see how anyone could live in a deterministic universe. I mean, come on, can anyone really put up with such a knowledge and pretend the universe was otherwise? Maybe i need to do a poll.

 

[Nusc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza

The quote was taken under 'ethical philosophy'.

I asked the question to those who understand Spinoza's ethics, if there are any here.

 

[Nusc]

I don't see how anyone could live in a deterministic universe. I mean, come on, can anyone really put up with such a knowledge and pretend the universe was otherwise? Maybe i need to do a poll.

Are you familiar at all with natural processes?

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/​

The definition above is one of many, but it's what is generally meant in philosophy.

 

[JoeDawg]

I don't see how anyone could live in a deterministic universe. I mean, come on, can anyone really put up with such a knowledge and pretend the universe was otherwise?

Why would someone pretend?
What is so hard to put up with?

 

[WaveJumper]

Why would someone pretend?
What is so hard to put up with?

Lack of free will. If you lose Free Will, you lose everything that one ever thought existed. Lack of free-will is a direct testimony that we are living in a simulated universe and you have no control over the course of your life(which isn't really a life but a pre-determined chain of events that you mistake for Life with conscious choices that humans make). What could ever be worse than this? Example?

 

[WaveJumper]

Are you familiar at all with natural processes?

How does the assumption of "natural processes" prove that we don't have free will? Where did you get the idea there was some sort of consensus that we live in a deterministic universe? Or that consciousness was governed by deterministic processes? Why do you assume that because a human does not understand how free-will works, Free-will does not exist? Such a belief is an enormous leap of Faith that borders on religion. Our ability to understand reality is limited, we are no gods(for certain, at least not yet).
A deterministic universe is the same as saying "God did it", how does the idea of a "natural" process relate with the idea of a creator? Is god 'natural'?

Can you show me what condition had to be met, that the sinularity of the Big Bang had to create my laptop 14 billion years later, if it wasn't for the engineers who willfully designed it? Who designed the LHC - The initial conditions?

Are you familiar at all with emergent properties?

 

[kote]

Discussions of free will are of course linked to the idea of determinism, but I think general consensus is that free will and determinism are not linked. Most incompatbilists simply think free will is impossible whether or not we have determinism. Most compatibilists think free will is possible and determinism is true - some think we have free will either way. But free will doesn't have much to do with good and evil in Spinoza, which is what the OP asked about. Spinoza's framework is clearly 100% rational and deterministic, so discussions of determinism and free will belong in another thread.

In Part III Prop XXXIX of Spinoza's http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ethics_%28Spinoza%29" there is the note:

Note.—By good I here mean every kind of pleasure, and all that conduces thereto, especially that which satisfies our longings, whatsoever they may be. By evil, I mean every kind of pain, especially that which frustrates our longings. For I have shown (III. ix. note) that we in no case desire a thing because we deem it good, but, contrariwise, we deem a thing good because we desire it : consequently we deem evil that which we shrink from ; everyone, therefore, according to his particular emotions, judges or estimates what is good, what is bad, what is better, what is worse, lastly, what is best, and what is worst.

This doesn't really answer the question, but it does reinforce the statement that humans are are inclined to pursue good and avoid evil. This may actually be all that there are to the concepts.

There is more insight in the preface to Part IV (note that Spinoza earlier states good and evil are synonymous with perfection and imperfection in a way):

Perfection and imperfection, then, are in reality merely modes of thinking, or notions which we form from a comparison among one another of individuals of the same species ; hence I said above (II. Def. vi.), that by reality and perfection I mean the same thing. ... As for the terms good and bad, they indicate no positive quality in things regarded in themselves, but are merely modes of thinking, or notions which we form from the comparison of things one with another. Thus one and the same thing can be at the same time good, bad, and indifferent. For instance, music is good for him that is melancholy, bad for him that mourns ; for him that is deaf, it is neither good nor bad.

And in the definitions to Part IV:

Definitions
I. By good I mean that which we certainly know to be useful to us.
II. By evil I mean that which we certainly know to be a hindrance to us in the attainment of any good.

(Concerning these terms see the foregoing preface towards the end.)

Perhaps even more importantly we get the following, also in Part IV:

Prop. LXVIII. If men were born free, they would, so long as they remained free, form no conception of good and evil.

Proof.—I call free him who is led solely by reason ; he, therefore, who is born free, and who remains free, has only adequate ideas ; therefore (IV. lxiv. Coroll.) he has no conception of evil, or consequently (good and evil being correlative) of good. Q.E.D.

What I get from all of this, and other sections, is that your original question, Nusc, isn't answered by Spinoza . He doesn't need to answer it. He simply defines good and evil as what people do search for or avoid, and not what they should strive for. Good and evil are, as you mentioned, arbitrary human modes of thinking. There is no such thing as a true final cause, or a why, for Spinoza. Final causes are mental constructions by imperfectly rational humans. God or Nature (Deus sive Natura) has no use for why.

What Spinoza thinks we should strive for is freedom, or perfectly rational reasoned thought. Perfect reason is what defines God. By aiming for this perfection we bring ourselves closer to God or Nature. One criticism of Spinoza is that he doesn't really show why we should prefer perfect rationality to irrational emotions such as love, for example. I don't think that he really explains this point. In Part V he does go on to explain [STRIKE]how to search for freedom, but not why.[/STRIKE] Edit: I lied. He talks about reason as a means to control and power, particularly in minimizing ones own emotions and becoming more godly, as God has no emotions. This still doesn't address the final cause issue of why one should want to be more godly. He does say that wanting to be godly is the only rational thing to do, and you can't do otherwise.

It has been suggested that Spinoza's personal life - his lack of a love life, his excommunication by his community and faith - heavily influenced his philosophy and drove him to idealize rationality over emotion. The lack of final causes in his philosophy, however, make it hard for him to show why we should prefer perfection over imperfection.

 

[Nusc]

Kote,

thanks again for the thoughtful input.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

I think a lot of people would argue that humans are naturally altruistic due to natural selection. So "evil" is just a stigma for people who are "bad" or the species. Don't most species have things that are both negatively and positively reinforced within the group? Good and evil could just be a more complex form of that.

I think free will and determinism can coexist as well. Skinner thought free will was a false notion of inner causality.

 

[JoeDawg]

Lack of free will. If you lose Free Will, you lose everything that one ever thought existed.

Well, we certainly lack the magical freewill that religions often use as a way to blame us for 'sin'. But that sort of freewill is self-contradicting. You can't make a choice if what you choose doesn't determine the outcome. Determinism is necessary for freewill.

And what does 'lose everyting' even mean? Whether you have something that can be described as freewill or not, I don't see how you could possibly know the difference.

Lack of free-will is a direct testimony that we are living in a simulated universe and you have no control over the course of your life(which isn't really a life but a pre-determined chain of events that you mistake for Life with conscious choices that humans make).

Seriously, you have to stop having those Matrix movie marathons, they are rotting your brain. Simulated universe? What does simulation have to do with determinism? You're falling prey to what I like to call the fallacy of omniscience. You assume that because an outcome is causal, that it has already happened. Those are very different. And the word 'pre-determined' actually refers to something that is not causal. If an outcome is pre-determined, it doesn't follow a causal chain. When a boxer throws a fight, the outcome is not determined by the action of the fight, it was pre-determined. It is determined in the sense that there is a cause before the fight, but its not part of the fight.

Predetermined is more like 'fate', where no matter what you do, the end will be the same. Its not a causal relationship, within the scope of defined action.

What could ever be worse than this?

Having to watch a Matrix movie marathon?

 

[WaveJumper]

And what does 'lose everyting' even mean? Whether you have something that can be described as freewill or not, I don't see how you could possibly know the difference.

Without free-will, what you know exists is simply what you are lead to believe by a chain of actions. There is absolutely no way to ascertain what is real and what exists. Reality is simply a pre-determined chain of events. You can't even claim that there is a universe, all you can say is that "I am lead to believe there exists a universe because of the pre-determined chain of events that appear in what apears to be my mental experience." This is a complete dead-end for our scientific endeavours to understand the universe.
It entails giving up on explanation in science. It is in the very nature of the idea of strict determinism, that we should have no means of understanding the real physics - the physics underlying the chain of deterministic events.

Seriously, you have to stop having those Matrix movie marathons, they are rotting your brain. Simulated universe? What does simulation have to do with determinism?

You are thinking skin-deep. Did the initial conditions at the BB require that i would appear to write this post 14 billion years later? In a completely deterministic universe, where you have no free-will, you cannot even prove that you exist, simple as that. You can only assert that your "logic" is a result of the initial conditions. But you cannot attach any truthfulness to such a statement because your fate was pre-determined, along with your reasoning, which might be completely wrong about reality as it really is(outside pre-determined events).

You're falling prey to what I like to call the fallacy of omniscience. You assume that because an outcome is causal, that it has already happened.

Tell that to Einstein or the multitude of brilliant physicsts who take GR seriously and think the block universe, where there is no "NOW", is true. Can you show me the flaws of GR? Preferrably something that is peer-reviewed or at least from a reputable source.

Those are very different. And the word 'pre-determined' actually refers to something that is not causal. If an outcome is pre-determined, it doesn't follow a causal chain. When a boxer throws a fight, the outcome is not determined by the action of the fight, it was pre-determined. It is determined in the sense that there is a cause before the fight, but its not part of the fight.

Predetermined is more like 'fate', where no matter what you do, the end will be the same. Its not a causal relationship, within the scope of defined action.

Having to watch a Matrix movie marathon?

That fate then includes your "conclusions" about fate and renders them completely meaningless and worthless(we can never verify if they are true or false, we can only say fate brought up the conclusions that you just put forward). Way to prove your own theory wrong.

 

[JoeDawg]

Without free-will, what you know exists is simply what you are lead to believe by a chain of actions.

You're not led to believe anything. Cause and effect means that one thing leads to another. You believe what you believe, because of your history. You make it sound like causality is some great anthropomorphic puppet master. Things are the way they are.

There is absolutely no way to ascertain what is real and what exists.

I know I exist. I think therefore I am.

Reality is simply a pre-determined chain of events.

No, determined and pre-determined are not the same.

Did the initial conditions at the BB require that i would appear to write this post 14 billion years later?

Well if you believe quantum mechanics then no, its not completely deterministic. On the quantum level the universe may be probablistic, which means you can't predict what will happen over that long a time frame. But quantum level fluctuations wouldn't affect individual choices, just the overall direction of the universe.

In a completely deterministic universe, where you have no free-will, you cannot even prove that you exist, simple as that.

That is a total non-sequitar. First, freewill requires at least everyday level determinism or else the choices you make would have a random result, which means no choice. Second, what does free will have to do with proving you exist??

You can only assert that your "logic" is a result of the initial conditions.

If I have logic at all, I exist.

Can you show me the flaws of GR?

GR is not a theory of everything.

That fate then includes

Fate and determinism are not the same thing.

 

[WaveJumper]

You're not led to believe anything. Cause and effect means that one thing leads to another. You believe what you believe, because of your history. You make it sound like causality is some great anthropomorphic puppet master. Things are the way they are.

I know I exist. I think therefore I am.

No, determined and pre-determined are not the same.

Well if you believe quantum mechanics then no, its not completely deterministic. On the quantum level the universe may be probablistic, which means you can't predict what will happen over that long a time frame. But quantum level fluctuations wouldn't affect individual choices, just the overall direction of the universe.


That is a total non-sequitar. First, freewill requires at least everyday level determinism or else the choices you make would have a random result, which means no choice. Second, what does free will have to do with proving you exist??

If I have logic at all, I exist.

GR is not a theory of everything.

Fate and determinism are not the same thing.

If your "conclusions" were determined or pre-determined, then they are very possibly wrong and say nothing about the underlying physics. Do you really believe pre-determined and determined events(thought and conlcusions in this case) carry any weight at all?
Why should i take seriously your determined "conclusions"?

Your theory is clearly the end of science and our attempts to understand reality.

 

[JoeDawg]

Your theory is clearly the end of science and our attempts to understand reality.

Can you be a little more melodramatic?

And really, its not like I made this up myself. I'm not that smart.
You should really do some research on the terms you are using.
Fate/pre-determined are not the same as 'determinism'.

They really are quite different conceptually.

Also you might look into this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

 

[WaveJumper]

Can you be a little more melodramatic?

And really, its not like I made this up myself. I'm not that smart.
You should really do some research on the terms you are using.
Fate/pre-determined are not the same as 'determinism'.

They really are quite different conceptually.

Also you might look into this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

This link is a shot in the dark. Please give me an exact quote that says humans don't have free will.

Repeating 1000 times -"Determinism is not fate" will not get you out of your contradictions. Please show me evidence(I am now ready to discuss any source) that determinism and lack of free will do not equal fate.

Can you be a little more melodramatic?

Your own theory is melodramatic. I think that free will is an emergent phenomena and my view does not lead to the blatant contradiction that your view has.



What does

If I have logic at all, I exist.

mean?
How would you prove that the logic you have, which is caused by a preceding chain of events is even logic? Please be specific.

Would you care to make a clean statement about your position? So far you have stuck up for determinism and made several vague comments that don't say much what you are arguing against or for.

Are you willing to say clearly and unambiguously if you think we have or not free will? If you are now leaning towards compatibilism, i don't see why your initial statement was harsh and you stuck up for strict determinism, when my statement was that strict determinism leads to a simulated universe.

And what does 'lose everyting' even mean? Whether you have something that can be described as freewill or not, I don't see how you could possibly know the difference.

If you don't have free-will, all your statements that you will ever make, carry absolutely no weight and meaning. Free will is essential for science.

 

[JDStupi]

I don't mean to intrude upon other's arguments, nor do I really wish to argue, but I was just reading and figured I would throw out the suggestion of clearly defining your terms, specifically; Determinism. I may be wrong, but what I think is going on is that JoeDawg may be speaking of a Determinism which is Mechanical as opposed to teleological, meaning, that the "determined" events are not-neccessarily strictly implying something else, leading toward a specific end, rather, that an event happened (probabilistic or otherwise) that lead to another event happening, thus the latter event was "determined" by the prior, though not in a long causal chain running to "The Prime Mover". Fatalism may be implied in a strict teleological deterministic universe, but that need not be the case for looser forms of determinism/causality. Ultimatley, in my opinion, beyond this all is speculation for we (at this point) cannot know if the determinism we are arguing about is teleological,mechanistic, or some other form.

 

[kote]

I don't mean to intrude upon other's arguments, nor do I really wish to argue, but I was just reading and figured I would throw out the suggestion of clearly defining your terms, specifically; Determinism. I may be wrong, but what I think is going on is that JoeDawg may be speaking of a Determinism which is Mechanical as opposed to teleological, meaning, that the "determined" events are not-neccessarily strictly implying something else, leading toward a specific end, rather, that an event happened (probabilistic or otherwise) that lead to another event happening, thus the latter event was "determined" by the prior, though not in a long causal chain running to "The Prime Mover". Fatalism may be implied in a strict teleological deterministic universe, but that need not be the case for looser forms of determinism/causality. Ultimatley, in my opinion, beyond this all is speculation for we (at this point) cannot know if the determinism we are arguing about is teleological,mechanistic, or some other form.

We should be using the definition that was stated clearly by the OP in post #4. But, then again, this should also be a thread about Spinoza's views. Spinoza was a hard determinist, as defined by the literature the OP quoted.

For Spinoza, everything that is is necessary. Nothing could ever be anything other than what it is. The past and the future are illusions, and the infinite history of nature is just part of the infinite substance of God.

This is already getting away from the OP's question though. Does anyone have anything to say about seeking good over evil in The Ethics, or about Spinoza's ethics in general?

 

[WaveJumper]

We should be using the definition that was stated clearly by the OP in post #4. But, then again, this should also be a thread about Spinoza's views. Spinoza was a hard determinist, as defined by the literature the OP quoted.

For Spinoza, everything that is is necessary. Nothing could ever be anything other than what it is. The past and the future are illusions, and the infinite history of nature is just part of the infinite substance of God.

I'll concede one thing - determinism might be true, there can be such a thing as fate. A good case can be made in favour of determinism and i am aware that arguments can be raised that will tip the scales more in favour of determinism. My personal opinion is that such knowledge(Spinoza's belief that there is no such thing as free will) cannot be compatible with life, i imagine there are other people who feel this way towards pre-determination and fate and who will argue against hard determinism till they run out of their last argument.

Moreover, i don't see conceptual difference between "we are living in a simulated world" and " The past and the future are illusions, and the infinite history of nature is just part of the infinite substance of God." If determinism is true, it is possible that the "simulator" is god-like, such a proposition is definitely not out of the question.

This is already getting away from the OP's question though. Does anyone have anything to say about seeking good over evil in The Ethics, or about Spinoza's ethics in general?

Spinoza's ideas, in so far as i am able to understand them, are vague. He talks about the human mind, rational choices, knowing God, emotions, etc. but how does he reconcile such notions with the idea that humans don't have free will? How would he know what God is if his thoughts were pre-detemined by God? If Spinoza lacks free will, he can't even know if there is a god or not. We cannot even have a rational discussion of any sort if we don't assume upfront that we have free will.

 

[kote]

Spinoza's ideas, in so far as i am able to understand them, are vague. He talks about the human mind, rational choices, knowing God, emotions, etc. but how does he reconcile such notions with the idea that humans don't have free will? How would he know what God is if his thoughts were pre-detemined by God? If Spinoza lacks free will, he can't even know if there is a god or not. We cannot even have a rational discussion of any sort if we don't assume upfront that we have free will.

You're right about Spinoza not allowing for free will. Not even the infinitely perfect God is accorded free will. He describes his view in Part I:

Prop. XXXII. Will cannot be called a free cause, but only a necessary cause.

Proof.—Will is only a particular mode of thinking, like intellect ; therefore (by Prop. xxviii.) no volition can exist, nor be conditioned to act, unless it be conditioned by some cause other than itself, which cause is conditioned by a third cause, and so on to infinity. But if will be supposed infinite, it must also be conditioned to exist and act by God, not by virtue of his being substance absolutely infinite, but by virtue of his possessing an attribute which expresses the infinite and eternal essence of thought (by Prop. xxiii.). Thus, however it be conceived, whether as finite or infinite, it requires a cause by which it should be conditioned to exist and act. Thus (Def. vii.) it cannot be called a free cause, but only a necessary or constrained cause. Q.E.D.

Corollary I.—Hence it follows, first, that God does not act according to freedom of the will.

Corollary II.—It follows, secondly, that will and intellect stand in the same relation to the nature of God as do motion, and rest, and absolutely all natural phenomena, which must be conditioned by God (Prop. xxix.) to exist and act in a particular manner. For will, like the rest, stands in need of a cause, by which it is conditioned to exist and act in a particular manner. And although, when will or intellect be granted, an infinite number of results may follow, yet God cannot on that account be said to act from freedom of the will, any more than the infinite number of results from motion and rest would justify us in saying that motion and rest act by free will. Wherefore will no more appertains to God than does anything else in nature, but stands in the same relation to him as motion, rest, and the like, which we have shown to follow from the necessity of the divine nature, and to be conditioned by it to exist and act in a particular manner.

Spinoza finds notions of free will to be absurd and contradictory. Will is an illusion and does not exist. Between compatiblists, who define free will so that it works with determinism, and incompatibilists who say free will is not compatible with determinism, I don't think anyone would really argue Spinoza's point here. It is usually accepted that the notion of free will you seem to have is not compatible with either deterministic or indeterministic accounts of physics. It also leads to logical paradoxes.

This view is not universal, of course. Philosophers who say that determinism and free will are incompatible and we do have free will are called libertarians. The most relevant SEP article is http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incompatibilism-theories/" . This article discusses potential options for a libertarian account of free will. It concludes with:

Incompatibilist accounts require, first, that determinism be false. But more than this, they require that there be indeterminism of a certain sort (e.g., with some events entirely uncaused, or nondeterministically caused, or caused by agents and not deterministically caused by events) and that this indeterminism be located in specific places (generally, in the occurrence of decisions and other actions). What is our evidence with regard to these requirements' being satisfied? ...

If free will requires agent causation, and if such a thing is possible, that is another requirement about which we lack evidence. Indeed, it is not clear that there could be any empirical evidence for or against this aspect of agent-causal views (though see Pereboom 2001: ch. 3, for argument that there could be evidence favoring agent causation but in fact there is not).

In sum, we do not have good evidence that any incompatibilist account is true.

It seems like a stretch to make such strong claims about what we can and can't do without free will, as you define it, when we can't even tell in principle whether we have free will or not. You might conclude that all of our actions are meaningless if they are determined, but that won't stop us from doing them anyways and deluding ourselves about their meaning. If you take rationality to the extreme, Spinoza's framework is exactly what you get. I certainly wouldn't call indeterminism rational - arbitrary and irrational would be more like it.

For Spinoza, not even God has free will. Even God is completely determined by his own nature and cannot do anything other than exactly what he does. Emotion, intellect, will, good and evil, are all perfectly rational and explainable illusions.

 

[JoeDawg]

This link is a shot in the dark. Please give me an exact quote that says humans don't have free will.

Why do you need a quote? There are lots of people in history who have made the claim.

I am now ready to discuss any source

How kind of you.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fatalism/

I think that free will is an emergent phenomena and my view does not lead to the blatant contradiction that your view has.

You can believe what you like. Freewill requires causation. Cause and effect. If you don't have that, you can't choose to do anything, because any choice you make will lead to a random result. The problem is how you define freewill, not whether it exists.

What does mean?

Simple. I have logic. Doesn't much matter if its based on causal determinism, or duct tape and fairy dust. I have logic. I am a thing that has logic. Whatever else I can or can't say, a thing that has logic exists. Even if I'm totally deluded. Its Descartes standard Cogito Ergo Sum argument.

Would you care to make a clean statement about your position? So far you have stuck up for determinism and made several vague comments that don't say much what you are arguing against or for.

Freewill requires determinism.

Are you willing to say clearly and unambiguously if you think we have or not free will?

Yes I do.

when my statement was that strict determinism leads to a simulated universe.

That's a non-sequitar. Hard determinism, whether you believe in it or not, has nothing to do with 'simulated'.

If you don't have free-will, all your statements that you will ever make, carry absolutely no weight and meaning.

Why? That makes no sense. What does 'meaning' have to do with it? In fact it is just the opposite, if strict determinism exists, then every action is necessary, and has meaning, because it is part of a causal chain. The only actions that lack meaning are those that are uncaused, and have no effect.

Free will is essential for science.

Is not.

 

[Nusc]

WaveJumper, I would appreciate if you would stop diverting the original topic because it's really annoying. If you would like to carry on with your discussion create a new thread.

 

[Nusc]

Kote, in our discussion last time, you said Spinoza never explained why we choose perfection over imperfection. How does Spinoza define perfection?

 

[Nusc]

If rational;

perfection - perpetuation
imperfection - extinction

if irrational:

the reverse

 

[rfstanton]

"Given Spinoza's insistence on a completely ordered world where "necessity" reigns, Good and Evil have no absolute meaning. Human catastrophes, social injustices, etc. are merely apparent. The world as it exists looks imperfect only because of our limited perception."

Why are humans inclined to seek "Good" over "Evil"?

where would I find Spinoza's passages regarding the question in his book?

I think that our existence is far simpler in reality than our physical senses would lead us to believe. We are better at experiencing than we are at understanding our world. We are inherently good and find ourselves in a corruptable invironment. Keep looking sincerely to satisfy your heart's desire. (Would you rather eat the food, or be an expert on the menu?)
...RS