Questions regarding “What is art?” can become highly emotional, and are impossible to answer objectively. Like beauty, art is in the eye of the beholder. While I personally am more comfortable with using the term “art” to describe things like paintings and sculptures and music and literature, almost ANYTHING can be viewed as art, and I cannot objectively disagree with someone whose definition of art is different from mine.

At the same time, if we agree to label EVERYTHING as “art”, then the term loses all meaning and usefulness, just as if we were to label all colors shades of “blue”.

In the end, I suppose we must simply acknowledge that each of us has our own standards not only for what constitutes “art”, but also for what “art” we personally find appealing. I would be happier coming up with some objective judgement on what constitutes art, or at least some way to assure that those who were claiming something was “art” were at least sincerely representing their own view, but I know of no way to accomplish either of these goals.

Truth is complicated.

Wikipedia defines capital punishment as “the infliction of death upon a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offence”, which I suppose is as good a definition as any. In recent years, the entire idea of capital punishment has become increasingly controversial, and it has been abolished in many countries and individual US states.

People on both sides of the issue have an almost infinite number of reasons for their positions. Curiously, one of the reasons some Americans oppose capital punishment is that under our present system, it ends up costing much more to execute a convicted criminal than to keep them incarcerated for life.

For me, there are currently TWO good reasons NOT to use capital punishment. The most serious is the fact that our system does not do such a good job of determining guilt or innocence. When a person sentenced to prison is later determined to be innocent, they can be released (which does not make up for wrongly imprisoning them, but it’s better than keeping them in prison). When an executed person is later determined to be innocent, there is no solution. Still, in certain cases, this “guilt or innocence” problem can be overcome. In certain cases there is NO reasonable doubt about guilt.

The more insurmountable problem with capital punishment is harder to put into words. Basically, it is the idea that we need a more serious punishment to hold over the heads of lesser criminals to keep the less serious crimes from becoming more serious ones. For instance, I believe that rape should be a capital offense — though there is still the problem of separating the innocent from the guilty. However, if the punishment for rape was the same as the punishment for murder, a rapist might conclude that they should go ahead and murder their victim, rather than risk the victim testifying against them.

It is this second problem that may be impossible to overcome. Even if we come up with ways to absolutely separate the guilty from the innocent, we will still need a way to prevent the “smaller” crimes from escalating. If not for this problem, I would favor capital punishment for a shocking variety of lesser crimes.

There is a third serious problem with my visions for capital punishment, but this problem applies to almost all crimes and punishments. Potential criminals must both understand what actions are considered illegal, and realize that they will truly face punishment. As an example, take “speeding”. Currently, most American drivers do not consider driving a few miles per hour over the posted limit to be “speeding”, or at least they do not believe they will be punished for driving a few miles per hour over the posted limit. Personally, I would like this to change, and have the posted speed limit be the ACTUAL “limit” — the fastest that a person could drive while avoiding punishment. However, I realize that under our current system this would be unfair, since no one is AWARE that they risk punishment for driving 56 miles per hour when the posted “limit” is 55.

The same applies to capital punishment. IF we made shoplifting a capital offense, then people would have to be AWARE that shoplifting was a capital offense. By the way, I am NOT arguing that shoplifting should be a capital offense. However, if there was some way to solve these three problems, I would favor capital punishment for a wide variety of crimes — many of them malicious rather than serious. For example, if someone deliberately throws a brick through your window, I would consider capital punishment — IF there was some way to absolutely determine that they were guilty of intentionally doing this maliciously, AND there was some way to keep smaller crimes from escalating into larger ones, AND everyone was AWARE that brick-throwing was a capital offense.

I have not addressed any of the other objections to capital punishment. Basically, my belief is that we presently have too many people on earth, AND we are not very good at actually “rehabilitating” prisoners, and therefore capital punishment, though far from perfect, makes sense on a philosophical level. But I cannot overcome those two problems.

I am left in the awkward position of favoring capital punishment on a philosophical level, but opposing it in many cases unless we come up with a way to overcome those problems. By the way, I am basically okay with those few cases in which our society currently uses capital punishment, since I am fairly certain those particular people have actually been proven guilty.

Truth is complicated.

If I feel quite strongly about something that you cannot imagine feeling strongly about, it is understandable that you might assume I am exaggerating. Unfortunately, this happens at the very moment I am trying to communicate the fact that I feel strongly about something that you cannot imagine feeling strongly about. The question becomes whether there is any way to effectively communicate these strong feelings that seem so totally outside of another person’s perspective.

A true example: Ice cream is one of my favorite foods. Ice cream with peanuts is one of the worst substances I can imagine putting in my mouth. This is my opinion, and my preference, and it does not necessarily make sense, but it is truly the way that I feel. Generally, if you put peanuts on ice cream, and then attempt to remove them, some of the flavor remains behind, if not some of the actual peanuts, and I do not ever wish to consume ice cream that has ever had even a trace of contact with peanuts. I understand that my strong feelings on the subject of ice cream with peanuts are unusual and difficult to grasp, so when the situation arises, I try to make them clear. Here are a couple of true statements:
1) If you gave me a choice between consuming a dish of ice cream topped with a single peanut, or a dish of something commonly considered horrible, like animal excrement, there is a good chance I would choose the thing commonly considered horrible.
2) Even though ice cream is one of my favorite foods, if I became convinced that SOMETIME in the future my ice cream would in fact contain a peanut, I would seriously consider never consuming ice cream again, just to avoid the risk.
Anyone hearing or reading either or both of these statements can be forgiven for assuming that I am exaggerating, but I am NOT. I really, really, do not like ice cream with peanuts, and it doesn’t help to “ignore them” or “scrape them off”. I would rather just not eat ice cream that has been in any way contaminated with peanuts. Again, the question is whether there is any way of actually communicating these strong feelings, since most people will simply assume that I am exaggerating when I try to state my feelings.

The previous example may have been too inflammatory. Anyone reading this may simply be thinking, “This person is a wacko. NOBODY could dislike peanuts in ice cream THAT much.” Of course, this illustrates my point. If someone expresses strong feelings that seem unusual and foreign to you, one of the easy, understandable routes is to assume that they are exaggerating. (Another route is to consider them to be a wacko.)

I have not addressed the fact that sometimes people truly do exaggerate. This leads to a “boy who cried wolf” phenomenon. Frequent exaggerations make people anticipate more exaggerations, even if one person is doing the exaggerating, and a completely separate person is attempting to accurately state a strong but unlikely belief.

In earlier postings I have pointed out that sometimes I can clearly see a problem, but cannot see any solution. This is one of those areas. It is a problem that people attempting to accurately express strong feelings are often believed to be exaggerating. I guess a partial solution would be to come right out and ASK whether a person is exaggerating in cases in which you are having trouble accepting their stated strength of emotion. This approach has various pitfalls, including the facts that the person might lie to you or to themselves, or that the person might be insulted by the question. Another partial solution is to do your best to accurately state your own strong feelings, without exaggeration. Still, the problem remains.

Truth is complicated.

In those days, there were lots of people writing columns about Nine Eleven, but it seemed to me that Leonard Pitts’ columns were especially insightful, and among the best of anything I read regarding Nine Eleven. I became a regular reader of his columns.

Some day, perhaps I will run across one of those 2001 columns, or check the archives of my local newspaper to see whether at that time they were including a photo of Leonard Pitts with his column. In those early days, I had no particular awareness of his race or ethnicity, though from the name Leonard I assumed he was male. Over time, I found that he often wrote columns concerning race, and that he himself is Black. I would not be surprised to find that his columns had always featured his photo, but I did not notice or care about his race. He was insightful, and wrote eloquently.

As I continued to read his columns, it seemed to me that most of his columns on racial issues were basically variations on the idea of “White people do not understand the Black experience, and will never understand the Black experience.” Fair enough. As a “white” person, I am in no position to argue. I am not saying Leonard Pitts is RIGHT about this, but I cannot figure out any way to know whether he is right or wrong. Perhaps I am not even understanding his point. Still, he seems to work on making this point over and over and over and over. I “get” the fact that I cannot ever “get it”, at least to the extent that I am capable of “getting” that point. Eventually I decided that I was not so fond of Leonard Pitts’ columns dealing with racial issues.

Still, I basically respected his opinions, and even when I disagreed with Leonard Pitts I found him to be intelligent and insightful. Gradually, this began to change. If I had unlimited time, and access to an army of experts, it would be interesting to go back and attempt to study how much of the change was in me, and how much of the change was in Leonard Pitts. People and their opinions evolve, so I am sure that we BOTH changed, though at this point I sincerely believe the change came more in his writing.

When it came to matters of politics, I began to view Leonard Pitts as automatically blaming George W. Bush and/or Republicans for most of our problems, and expressing a good deal of hatred for both. This may be related to my earlier dislike of his racial columns, in that now that we have a black President, I believe anyone who opposes him is almost automatically accused of being racist — and Leonard Pitts is not above accusing those who disagree with President Obama of being racially motivated.

In my opinion, the truth is complicated. There is enough blame to go around for everyone. Each of us is partly to blame for our problems, and both George W. Bush and Barack Obama have had good and bad ideas and done good and bad things, and neither the Republican nor Democrat party is always right or wrong. This is not to say that some individuals or parties are MORE right or wrong or MORE to blame than other individuals or parties, especially with regard to certain issues, but the truth is complicated. Leonard Pitts seems to have lost sight of that idea.

In fact, there was one particular column — almost two years ago — where he seemed to be arguing precisely the opposite, and saying that the issues were clear-cut, and that Republicans were one hundred percent wrong and Democrats were one hundred percent right. At that point, he lost me. I decided that he had little to offer me now, and that life was too short to continue reading his columns. It is NOT that I disagree with him. I can learn a lot from those I disagree with, and regularly read columns by those I disagree with, and spend time with those I disagree with. It is that I have lost respect for his entire way of thinking.

Leonard Pitts’ columns still appear in our local newspaper, and sometimes I still start to read them, but I almost always regret it, and consider it a waste of precious time. I find it to be very sad, sort of like losing a trusted friend. Granted, a friend who has never heard of me.

My mother and I have long held very different views on many topics, and tend to disagree frequently. Now elderly, she is increasingly confused, and struggles to comprehend the world around her. We continue to argue regularly, as we always have, but now the “arguments” are often over relatively un-debatable ideas like what day of the week it is, and whether it is morning or evening. (Granted, in the strictest sense, even these things are open for debate — when it is morning at one location on earth, it is evening at another, and the precise day of the week varies in relation to your position relative to the international date line, but still …) I find myself wishing there was some way to convince her that SOME ideas are much less debatable than others. I would be happy to argue with her about politics, or religion, or recipes, or even fashion, but arguing about what school I attended, or what make of car I drive, seems like a horrible waste of time.

At one time, my arguments with my mother were based on differing views and differing values. Now they tend to be based on the fact that her brain is no longer functioning particularly well. This is a special case. However, there are often arguments that are just as groundless, and just as much of a waste of time.

As our society becomes increasingly polarized, people of differing views tend to automatically oppose each other, and be reluctant to agree on ANYTHING. I myself have fallen into the trap of refusing to acknowledge the truth of someone’s TRUE statement, simply because I profoundly disagreed with them on other issues. We seem to believe that agreeing with our opponent on ANY idea somehow weakens our own position. Or, perhaps we wish to portray those who disagree with us as ALWAYS wrong, and incapable of stating a truth.

A key to successful communication, and a key to resolving our differences, lies in finding ANYTHING, small or large, upon which we can agree — though it is unfortunately true that our words of agreement MAY be twisted by those who disagree with us, in an attempt to strengthen their positions, and weaken ours. Still, our only hope is to limit debate to those ideas which are truly debatable, and agree on those that are not.

I find myself inwardly cheering when I encounter cases of people agreeing NOT to debate those ideas which are un-debatable. Here is an emotion-charged example: Shortly after the start of the Second Gulf War — the war that led to the removal of Saddam Hussein from power — I heard a program on National Public Radio featuring a number of experts on International Law. At the time, many citizens were stating that the war was illegal according to International Law. The experts featured on the radio program were unanimously deeply opposed to the war, but also unanimously of the opinion that, according to International Law, the war was completely legal. One or two even argued that International Law might be viewed as REQUIRING the war, as a means of upholding the terms that ended the earlier gulf war. This was a rare moment in modern life. A group of experts on law, all opposed to something, yet all agreeing it was legal. Obviously, this made a deep impression on me, as I vividly remember it from years ago.

(Please note that I am NOT an expert on International Law, and am simply accepting the opinions of THESE experts, which I found all the more credible since they ran contrary to their own values. Also note that I am NOT stating whether I myself favored or opposed the war.)

There is considerable overlap between the ideas of “debatable” and “reasonable” — which I discussed in an earlier blog entry. I have already stated that our society would be better off if we all broadened our standards as to what we considered “reasonable”. At the same time, we would be better off if we NARROWED our standards as to what was considered “debatable” — or at least were more willing to acknowledge those things that are basically NOT debatable.

Truth is complicated.

As I was growing up, I had one particular friend who had opinions pretty much opposite from me on most topics, yet we had very enjoyable, non-rancorous discussions on these topics. I look back on those discussions quite fondly. The thing that made our discussions so enjoyable, and possibly productive, was honesty, and the absence of “spin”. Truth remains truth, whether one is a Republican, Democrat, Independent, Marxist, Vegan, or Philatelist. When one of us made a good point, the other would acknowledge that it was a good point. When one of us had a glaring weakness in our position, we would both acknowledge that it was a glaring weakness. When there were facts beyond reasonable dispute, we would both acknowledge that they were facts beyond reasonable dispute.

These characteristics are absent from too many discussions today, especially discussions regarding politics. In politics, both parties commonly mask the truth, and do everything possible to avoid acknowledging that anyone from “the other side” can ever be right about ANYTHING. In fact, people are sometimes reluctant to voice an opinion on an idea before learning the source of that idea — if it came from someone on “our side”, then it can be labeled a good idea; if it came from someone on “the other side”, then it must be labeled a bad idea, or at least ignored.

I have strong opinions about politics, but am sometimes reluctant to state them, for fear that those who disagree with me on any one statement will feel compelled to automatically discount my ideas on every statement that follows.

Another problem in discussions is jumping from one topic to another, in an effort to “win” the discussion. For example, if I criticize a particular politician, the politician’s defender may respond by criticizing a completely different politician, rather than defending the politician to which I am referring. BOTH politicians may be worthy of criticism, but this approach does little to advance communication. We should both discuss either politician “A” or politician “B”. There is little to be gained by one of us talking about apples while the other is talking about oranges.

Then there is the fact that even the best idea may have flaws, or the worst idea may have positive points. There is little to be gained by denying this. Truth is complicated. Few things in life are one hundred percent good or one hundred percent bad, and to argue otherwise impedes true communication, and casts suspicion upon ALL our statements and beliefs.

Finally, there is the fact that for some people, in some circumstances, the goal of discourse is “victory” rather than communication. While this may occasionally be necessary, I find it to be very sad, and I personally have little use for such discourse.

I am not sure I have stated anything here that I have not stated elsewhere in this blog. Truth is complicated.

Anyone viewing the world philosophically often faces the paradox of things that are different, yet the same. Generally, it’s not so much the paradoxical nature of the things themselves, but instead of our point of view, or what we are choosing to focus on.

I had a group of friends who had a standing joke regarding the idea that there are only a very limited number of different personalities, and everyone you encounter has one of these personalities. I think the number was something like “seventeen”, but I don’t recall the precise number. While this was said as a joke, I believe there is a kernel of truth in the idea. I suspect the total number is far greater, but still finite. To clarify: I suspect if you had every person answer a large number of questions about themselves (say, a thousand questions) and then matched them up with other people who had answered all or most of the questions in the same way, then you could successfully predict how one person would respond to a situation by looking at the response of another who had provided the very same answers. This would be an interesting experiment. I suppose this idea is already being used by people like guidance counselors and criminal profilers. However, even if this idea is useful, it does not contradict the idea that everyone is unique.

Then there is the realm of ideas. My favorite college instructor, Marty Shichtman, liked to focus on the similarities between ideas. A discussion of “Beowulf” could include a discussion of “Star Wars”, or a discussion of Dante’s Inferno could lead to a discussion of The Wizard of Oz. These stories can also be considered “different, yet the same.”

I first encountered the idea that “There are no original thoughts” while in middle school. Some may debate this concept, but it seems to have merit. Anyone wishing to disprove it must somehow establish that a certain thought is indeed “original” — and I do not know how this could ever be established. Central to the debate would be the question of what constitutes “original” and what constitutes “the same as previous thoughts.”

While I am mentioning ideas from school, I should also acknowledge my college professors Wilmuth and Marshall. They were discussing a certain author. (I know who the author was, but I am not going to give his name, to avoid potential slander.) One of the professors casually stated that although this author had written a number of books, ALL of the books “said the same thing.” They were not implying that the books were the same, word-for-word, but that all the books made the same basic points. Incidentally, they WERE of the opinion that the author could have just as well stopped with a single book that made all his relevant points.

When I began this blog, I acknowledged that I was not necessarily going to write anything truly original. I also acknowledged that I would feel free to “plagiarize” myself (if such a thing is even possible). Now, as I continue to write entry after entry, I find myself worrying about repetition, and questioning whether the things I am writing are “different” or “all exactly the same.”

I believe there is truth in both points of view. It is logical that key ideas that are particularly important to someone will show up again and again in their writing. It is also logical that they may see subtle, crucial differences in approaching these same basic ideas from different angles, or slightly different forms of the same basic ideas. I ask that anyone reading any of these ideas bear with me, and realize that:
1) If I seem to be writing the same ideas over and over, it may be because I consider those ideas to be really important, and worthy of repetition, and
2) Rather than just dismiss something as “the same”, there might be value in looking for “the difference.”

Truth is complicated.

Like many controversial issues, Global Warming is complicated by the fact that there are thoughtful, rational, intelligent people, looking at the same data, who end up on both sides of the issue. The fact that many, especially on one side of the issue, try to insist that “the debate is over” makes me lean toward the opposite side of the issue.

The “issue” of Global Warming actually involves at least four separate-but-related questions:
1) Is global warming occurring?
2) Is global warming a bad thing?
3) Do the activities of humans have a significant effect on global warming?
4) IF global warming is occurring, AND if it is a bad thing, is there anything humans can do to significantly change the situation?

The answers to each of these questions have a dramatic impact on the other questions. However, I do not believe ANY of these four questions have been adequately answered. Number two is the least scientific of the four questions, and therefore is the hardest to answer objectively. I accept the idea that significant global warming would cause a rise in ocean levels, which would in turn lead to flooding of coastal areas — and since these coastal areas are often densely populated by humans, perhaps this can be labeled a “bad thing” since cities would be lost and people would be driven from their homes. However, if this loss of homes were offset by, for instance, an increase in the world’s food supply, or even an increase in the amount of habitable land on earth (as regions like Siberia and Greenland became more temperate), then perhaps global warming would not be a clear-cut “bad thing”.

Global warming has become highly politicized, which interferes with finding honest, objective answers to the various questions. It has been established that on at least one occasion proponents of one side of the issue deliberately falsified data to support their position. I would not be surprised to learn that proponents of both sides had done this, and probably more than once. We SHOULD attempt to answer factual issues factually — though the “facts” of global warming are complicated by various factors, including the slow time scale of global climate trends.

When a scientific issue become so politicized that it interferes with the scientific study of the issue, we should all be ashamed.

Truth is complicated.

SPOILER ALERT: What I am about to write gives away elements of the movie that would be better experienced by viewing the movie without reading about them first. I will do my best to avoid revealing the plot of the movie, or even many details, but I cannot proceed without giving certain things away.

Many of the things I enjoy about the movie involve a student and a teacher. The student, who wishes to acquire a set of physical skills, often disagrees with the teacher, who insists on imparting wisdom along with the physical skills.

Early in their relationship, the teacher orders the student to perform various repetitive tasks, seemingly unrelated to the student’s education. Later, we learn that each of the repetitive tasks was chosen specifically to help the student acquire the physical skills he was seeking.

This brings up the crucial point that I LOVE about the movie. The student, since he IS the “student”, does not clearly comprehend WHAT it is that he needs to learn, or how to learn it. This is a central point of great teacher/student relationships. IF the teacher knows things that the student does NOT know, then this gives the teacher extra insights that the student does not possess. For a student to assume that THEY know the things they need to learn, and the best way to learn them, contradicts the entire teacher/student notion.

I hasten to admit that I am speaking in philosophical, ideal terms, and the truth of the “real world” is more complicated. In the real world, teachers are not always wiser or more insightful than the students, and sometimes they do NOT know what it is that the student needs to learn, or the best way for the student to learn them. Still, a wise student should not rule out the possibility that the teacher possesses this extra insight.

I will close with one of my favorite quotes, not because it is particularly relevant, but because it is one of my favorite quotes — sometimes identified as a Buddhist proverb:

“When the student is ready, the teacher will appear.”

Truth is complicated.

It is an interesting area of fiction to speculate what would have happened if some detail of the past were to be changed. What if the other side had won a war? What if someone who died had lived longer, or what if someone had died earlier than they did? These might be “big” changes, but changing any slight detail might result in a completely different world. There are science fiction stories that deal with the subject of beings traveling back in time, and changing their own futures.

I may seem to have strayed off topic — I started off discussing activism, then jumped to the idea of changing the future by changing the past. My point is that no one can ever accurately state what WOULD have happened if things had happened differently than precisely the way they DID happen. This leads to the idea that I cannot prove or adequately support my current beliefs on activism.

Still, my current opinion is that activism often, or usually, produces the opposite of desired results. That is, I believe that anti-war protesters often lengthen wars, pro-environmental activists often lead to increased environmental destruction, and activists fighting for social change often delay or prevent their desired change. As I have already acknowledged, without being able to go back and forth in time and change variables, there is no way to prove or disprove this idea.

Even if it is true that activism usually produces the opposite of the desired results, this is not to say activism is totally wrong or bad. There may be a valid role in simply giving the activists an outlet for their strong feelings, the need to “do SOMETHING”. Still, I would ask the activist whether he or she is truly certain that their actions will serve to further their goals, or whether they may just be fulfilling their own need to take some sort of direct action.

There are some interesting, if sometimes questionable, overlaps between physics and human interaction. A well-known principle of physics states that “Every action produces an equal and opposite reaction.” While we may debate whether this is strictly true in all circumstances, there are certainly cases in which it seems to apply to human interaction. I personally have encountered situations in which I had no strong opinions on a topic until I encountered a person who held strong opinions — and I ended up feeling strongly that the person was WRONG. The person succeeded in changing me from having no opinion to having a strong opinion, but it was opposite of their desired result.

This is especially a problem when using “direct, often confrontation action”. Many onlookers will be repelled simply by the fact that the action is direct and confrontational, regardless of the merits of the cause. Sadly, this can hinder communication, leading to an ever-widening gulf between two positions that might not have been that far apart to begin with.

A clear example involves some of the actions taken by the animal-advocacy group, PETA. Please note that I am stating neither my support for nor my opposition to PETA’s agenda. In fact I have profoundly mixed feelings regarding PETA, due at least partly to their tactics. For instance, there have been occasions when young people were subjected to a “pie in the face” for appearing to promote an industry that PETA was opposed to, such as a “pork queen”. Publicly assaulting a high school girl on the stage at a county fair MAY make the local or even national news, but I question whether it will advance PETA’s agenda of having fewer people consume pork — AND I submit that it may engender sympathy for the girl and lead to LESS sympathy for the cause of animal rights.

While I can offer instances that seem to support my belief that activism often or usually produces the opposite of the desired results, I repeat that I cannot prove this idea, and I do not believe it can ever be proven or dis-proven.

Activists, almost by definition, have strong feelings about the causes in which they are active, and would probably view my opinion with strong hostility. If an activist wished to engage me in a debate, they might cite instances in which high-profile activism seemed to advance the activists goals. For example, there have been some famous strikes that are credited with leading to changes sought by the strikers. I have two responses. First, I am willing to stipulate that SOMETIMES activism might be effective in accomplishing the activists goal (though I am not convinced). Secondly, I have questions about “the big picture”. Activism may win the battle but lose or at least delay winning the war. An example is “women’s suffrage”. Without activism, it might have taken longer for American women to have gained the right to vote. Without activism, American women might have more quickly gained equal status in the workplace. I realize that these statements may be viewed as highly inflammatory.

Then there is the matter of degree, or the question of what each person calls “activism”. One person may consider it to be “activism” to refuse to eat a certain species of fish, while another might scoff at calling this “activism”, and instead insist on physically attacking the fishing boats. The person who physically attacks the fishing boats may accomplish more in both directions, both attracting people to their cause and repelling them from it.

Perhaps I am not giving enough credit to the idea of “doing SOMETHING”. Perhaps it is more important for the activist to take some sort of action than for the activist to further their stated goal. I suspect that there are times when this is absolutely the case. After all, at the end of the day, you have to live with your opinion of yourself, and you can probably never know for certain whether you are truly furthering your own stated goals.

Truth is complicated.