Review for Exam 2

 AGENDA

1. Presentation--SLIDES
2. Review

_________________________

Exam 2  Advice

Exam covers two modules

1. Autonomy module: Nietzsche & Confucius
2. Threat of meaningless module: Meaning authors

(1) Don't blur good life and meaning authors

•  Nietzsche and Confucius don't talk about meaning
• The authors in module 5 do talk about meaning

(2) Don't blur meaning OF life and meaning IN life

• Holt is worried about the meaning OF life. Why is there something rather than nothing?
• Tolstoy & Taylor are worried about meaning IN life

(3) Meaning IN life

• Meaning IN life: makes MY life better (like happiness, virtue, self-invention)
• Other meanings of "meaning"
• But what is meaning in life? Do we need it?

(4) Fragility

• Cottingham: authors discussing meaning tend to be concerned with the fragility and contingency of life  
• good life authors see humans as strong, self-sufficient, in control

(5) What kind of fragility are different authors worried about?

• Tolstoy: death, all our efforts coming to nothing
• Taylor: not death (Sisyphus is immortal), but repetitive effort that comes to nothing

(6)  Understand one-pole vs. two-pole meaning scales (Nyholm and Campbell)

• One pole scale (monopolar) vs. two pole scale (bipolar)
• They think of negative meaning primarily as an attack on meaning (e.g. Trump undoing Greta Thunberg's accomplisments)
• We speculated that Taylor could have a hate theory of negative meaning
• You don't need to know all the details in that article (e.g. counterforce vs. defeater model)

(7) Imagery, analogies -- incorporate into answers, don't ignore!

• Tolstoy: the ink spots, the man in the well
• Taylor: the ugly worms, birds, city street, abandoned house, 3 versions of Sisyphus

(8) Arguments

1. Tolstoy: two arguments, how he overcomes them
2. Taylor: three arguments, objections to them

(9) Define unfamiliar terms

• Setiya: telic vs. atelic

(10) Get ready to be specific

• Nietzsche: how to live passages & morality passages
• Confucius: examples of Li

Subjective and Objective Meaning (2)

AGENDA

1. More Taylor
2. Review

_________________________

Richard Taylor, "The Meaning of Life" 

First argument: No meaning (objectively)

1. A meaningless activity involves activity that comes to nothing, as in Original Sisyphus. whereas a meaningful activity produces a significant and lasting result, as in Temple Sisyphus.
2. All our activities eventually come to nothing. THEREFORE,
3. All our activities are meaningless (objectively).

Second argument: Meaning for us (subjectively)

1. If you are passionate about an activity, as in Obsessed Sisyphus, it is meaningful for you (subjectively)
2. We are passionate about some of our activities. THEREFORE,
3. Some of our activities are meaningful for us (subjectively).

Third argument: Subjective meaning is better!

1. Objective meaning, as in Temple Sisyphus, would lead to boredom.
2. Subjective meaning, as in Obsessed Sisyphus, is never boring. THEREFORE,
3. Subjective meaning is better than objective meaning. AND,
4. We should not be disappointed that all we can have is subjective meaning.

WORKBOOK

_________________________

Subjective meaning, details

Taylor: 

• Our wills create meaning for us 
• wanting, caring, passion, obsession, love

Degrees of meaning?

• The more we want to do something, the more meaningful it is

Negative meaning?

• Loving to do X -> positive meaning
• Hating to do X --> negative meaning

_________________________

TAYLOR VS. TOLSTOY

• Cottingham says meaning authors come to terms with some sort of fragility
• What kind of fragility is Taylor focused on?
• What kind of fragility is Tolstoy focused on?
• How are these issues simiilar and different?
• Tolstoy's solution ....What is it? What would Taylor say about it?
• Taylor's solution .... What is it? What would Tolstoy say about it?

Subjective and objective meaning (1)

AGENDA

1. Recap & some preliminaries
2. Taylor, "The Meaning of Life"
3. Friday: autonomy folks present + Review
4. Monday: exam 2

_________________________

Where have we been? Where are we going?

1. The good life -- what makes a person's life go well? -- no discussion of "meaning"
• Virtue theories (Aristotle, Epictetus, Marshall)
• Happiness theories (Mill, Vitrano)
• Autonomy vs. social harmony (Nietzsche, Confucious)
2. Enter: the meaning of life
• Meaning OF life
• why are we here?
• why is there something rather than nothing? (Holt)
• Meaning IN life
• Tolstoy: Confession
• Or was it a midlife crisis? (Setiya)
• Does my life have meaning? Am I living meaningfully?
• Meaning = union with the infinite
3. Next: Meaning in life --  many other views
• Tolstoy
• Taylor
• Wolf
• DeBres
• Setiya
• Weinberg

_________________________

Meaning in life: some preliminaries

What are we talking about?

1. The meaning of a sentence
2. The meaning of a symbol, 
3. The meaning of a dream
4. The meaning of Mt. Rushmore
5. The meaning of The Holocaust
6. What my life means to other people
7. Meaning as a life asset for me (like happiness is an asset for me) THIS!!!!

What can be meaningful?

1. A whole life
2. Moments, hours, days, activities
3. Both (we all agree)

Are there degrees of meaning?

1. No degrees, meaning is "yes-no"
2. Yes there are degrees--something can be a "6" or a "10" on the meaning scale (most say this)

How may poles? 

1. Meaning has one pole.  Meaningless things just lack meaning.
2. Meaning has two poles. Sometimes "meaningless" connotes lack of meaning, but sometimes it connotes outright anti-meaning.

_________________________

Richard Taylor, "The Meaning of Life" (1970) 

What do we mean by....

• Meaningless existence
• Meaningful existence

Taylor's strategy--use the Myth of Sisyphus to clarify meaninglessness

_________________________

Taylor's Three Versions of the Myth of Sisyphus

Original Version, all the work comes to nothing (p. 20-21)

Temple Version, all the work is done to build a
"beautiful and enduring temple" (p. 21)

             Obsession Version, p. 22

_________________________

Definitions--p. 22-23

1. Meaningless "endless pointlessness" (p. 23) -- original Sisyphus
2. Meaningful: activity with a "significant culmination, some more or less lasting end that can be considered to have been the direction and purpose of the activity" (p. 23)  -- temple-building Sisyphus)
3. Objectively meaningless but still meaningful for someone: a life/activity can be both objectively meaningless and meaningful for the person whose life it is -- obsessive Sisyphus

_________________________

"Which of these pictures does life in fact resemble?"--p. 23

Start with animals

Ugly worms in New Zealand, p. 23

Migrating birds, p. 24

Human life is the same (READ)

The busy street, p. 24

The country road, p. 25 

We invent ways of denying it--p. 25 (READ)

• We want to be like Temple Sisyphus but we aren't

_________________________

Crisis point of article...suggests despair ... but how does he avoid despair?

Who has the best life?

• not original Sisyphus
• not temple Sisyphus (he'd just get bored)
• the answer is: obsessive Sisyphus--p. 26

We are like obsessive Sisyphus

• our lives are meaningless (objectively) but meaningful for us 
• and that's fine--READ p. 26-27

_________________________

Options so far....

Tolstoy: a meaningful activity has a result that's not destroyed by death. 

• Crisis: there's nothing like that!
• Resolution: union with God is like that

Taylor: a meaningful activity has a significant and lasting result

• Crisis: there's nothing like that!
• Resolution: we can't have meaning (objectively), but we things we passionately care about are meaningful for us which is much better

Next time: we'll look at this resolution more closely

Meaning and anti-meaning

 AGENDA

1. Class until 1:30, no office hours
2. Setiya follow-up
3. Meaning and anti-meaning

_________________________

Setiya advice

_________________________

Nyholm and Campbell, "Meaning and Anti-Meaning in Life"

• What activities in life are meaningful?
• What activities in life are meaningless?

Two ways to think about the meaning scale (first paragraph of article):

Think about some meaningless activities

1. Driving to airport...do you agree it's meaningless? 
2. Sisyphus pushing boulders up the hill...they roll down...he pushes again 
3. Destroying or undoing a meaningful thing --  killing 1000, destroying a book manuscript
4. Others?

Left: meaningless things just lack meaning.  Like the windiness scale.
Right: meaningless things can have negative meaning.  Like the pleasure/pain scale.

_____________________

Argument for left scale 

• "Meaningless" just means lacking meaning, like windless (is that right?)
• "anti-meaning doesn't seem to be a part of common sense" (p. 13)

Argument for right scale (Nyholm and Campbell)

• important to separate driving to work (low meaning) from Sisyphus and killing 1000 (negative meaning)

_____________________

ANTI-MEANING

On both scales, there can be anti-meaning in this sense: there is some sort of pre-existing meaning, and something destroys it.

• Greta Thunberg's meaningful campaign...undone by Trump (feel free to disagree)
• Charlie Kirk's meaningful mission...undone by a shooter (feel free to disagree)
• Amazing, meaningful book manuscript .... undone by putting it through a shredder
• 1000 lives with meaning...undone by a bomb

Two interpretations of anti-meaning

1. Defeater model--threats to meaning can reduce meaning, but not into a negative range  (+5 -->  0)
2. Counterforce model--threats to meaning can reduce meaning into a negative range (+5 ---> -5)

Nyholm and Campbell: we should accept the counterforce model

_____________________

Our questions going forward--

1. What is positive meaning?
2. What is negative meaning?

The midlife crisis

AGENDA

1. Tolstoy's crisis, reinterpreted
2. Next time: a question about the logic of meaningfulness

ANNOUNCEMENTS

1. Yes we have class Friday, but it will be a little short
2. I received an email from the bookstore saying they mistakenly told someone they had run out of Tolstoy. They actually have more copies!
3. Are you having trouble with Qwickly?  I fixed a problem on my end. It may help to go into your phone settings and clear the cache for Qwickly.  The HELP desk can help you do that.

_________________________

Big picture

The threat of meaninglessness

1. Cottingham: meaning writers come to terms with fragility, contingency
2. Tolstoy: threat is death
3. Setiya: threat is certain problems at midlife
4. Taylor: threat is Sisyphean futility

_________________________

Tolstoy's crisis

1. The problem:  death undoes everything; makes it appear that life is meaningless
2. The solution: faith, union with the infinite, parts of life are meaningful

Tolstoy's crisis, a second look: was he having a midlife crisis?

• Age and happiness -- 
• Graham and Pozuelo, "Is happiness just a matter of waiting for the right age?"
• Graham and Pozuelo, "Happiness, stress and age" (pdf pg. 29 onward)
• Tolstoy was around 50 at the time of his crisis

_________________________

Kieran Setiya, Midlife: A Philosophical Guide

• MIT philosophy professor, author of many books and articles, married with children
• having a crisis in his 40s
• Annotated Reading is here 

_________________________

What is the midlife crisis all about?  

1. Schopenhauer on desires/goals

All three are bad to some degree

2. Pursuing goals is strangely self-undermining 

What gives purpose to your life is having goals. Yet in pursuing them, you either fail (not good) or in succeeding, bring them to a close. If what you care about is achievement—­ earning a promotion, having a child, writing a book, saving a life—­ the completion of your project may be of value, but it means that the project can no longer be your guide. Sure, you have other goals, and you can formulate new ones. The problem is not the risk of running out, the aimless nightmare of Schopenhauer’s boredom. It is that your engagement with value is self-­ destructive. The way in which you relate to the activities that matter most to you is by trying to complete them and so expel them from your life. Your days are devoted to ending, one by one, the activities that give them meaning. (Setiya, Midlife, p. 133)

3. Telic vs. atelic activities

• Telos = goal, end
• Telic activities: "they aim at terminal states, at which they are finished and exhausted" (p. 133-134)
• walking home, writing a book (can be completed)
• Atelic activities: "they do not aim at a point of termination or exhaustion, a final state in which they have been achieved" (p. 134)
• going for a walk, listening to music, hanging out with friends (can't be completed, though you can just stop)

4. Putting it all together to explain the midlife crisis

If your sources of meaning are overwhelmingly telic then whatever their value ...­ they are schemes for which success can only mean cessation. It is as if you are striving to eradicate meaning from your life, saved only by the fact that there is too much of it or that you keep on finding more. This is what Schopenhauer got right: if you focus on telic activities, your efforts work against you. Your motivation “springs from lack, from deficiency,” if not from pain: the deficiency that consists in being at a distance from the terminal state at which you aim. Yet in achieving that aim, you end an activity that made your life worthwhile. 

It is this engine of self-­destruction that powers my midlife crisis and perhaps a part of yours. I have spent four decades acquiring a taste and aptitude for the telic, for achievement and the next big thing, for personal and professional success—­ only to feel the void within. Fulfillment lies always in the future or the past. That is no way to live. (p. 134-135)

_________________________

Tolstoy's crisis -- is it this kind of crisis of the overly telic?

What did you say?

_________________________

Setiya's advice for avoiding a midlife crisis

1. Everyone has to be telic to some degree--you have to make dinner, do your job, etc--don't stop doing those things!
2. But you can take a less telic approach to your life
• If you stick with a telic activity, focus on the process, not just the goal
• Choose atelic counterparts of your telic activities 
• You should shift away from telic activities and toward atelic activities 

Advice to Tolstoy, if he accepted the diagnosis "midlife crisis"

_________________________

Discussion

Setiya seems to say that all telic activities pose a risk of post-completion deflation.  But is that true? Could Tolstoy have resolved his crisis by just shifting to different telic activities?

WORKBOOK

Religious meaning

AGENDA

1. Tolstoy's crisis
2. Resolution
3. Next reading--was Tolstoy suffering a midlife crisis? 

_________________________

Tolstoy, Confession (continued) - kindle version

CHAP 1-2 Tells story of his life

CHAP 3- 4 Crisis

Tolstoy "has it all" but around age 50 (~1878) he has a crisis and begins to think life has no meaning. The crisis is brought on by thinking about death.  "If everything dies or comes to an end, what's the point of anything I do?" 

The argument for meaninglessness

1. If death brings everything to an end, then life is meaningless.
2. Death does bring everything to an end.  THEREFORE
3. Life is meaningless.

The argument for despair

1. Life is meaningless. 
2. If life is meaningless, I have nothing to live for. THEREFORE
3. I have nothing to live for.  [despair] 

_________________________

CHAP V -- Looks for answers in science

• Pivot: have I made some kind of mistake? 138
• What's the question? 139-140
• looks for answers in science

CHAP VI -- Looks for answers from great thinkers

• Socrates, Schopenhauer, Ecclesiastes, Buddha
• they all find value in death instead of affirming the meaning of life

CHAP VII -- Four strategies for coping + turning point

1. The way of ignorance
2. Epicureanism -- enjoy pleasures of life (Mill) -- ignore the mice, enjoy the honey
3. The way of strength -- end your life
4. The way of weakness -- wish to end it, but don't

Turning point

• 160  "a dim awareness of the wrongness of my thoughts"
• 161  "the whole of mankind" understand the meaning of life (DO THEY?)
• 162  the wisdom of laborers

CHAP VIII -- The wisdom of the masses

• 165 -- they don't employ any of the four strategies (ignorance, pleasure, etc.)
• 166 -- they "get" the meaning of life .... because of their faith...
• Tolstoy's circle -- too frivolous, 

_________________________-

Empirical interlude

Tolstoy's claim: low-income religious laborers have a sense of meaning whereas wealthy, irreligious, upper class people in his circle are vulnerable to a "crisis of meaning" like his

1. Data on meaning and religion
2. Data on life satisfaction and wealth
3. Looking for data on meaning and wealth

_________________________

CHAP IX -- The answer, the search for faith

• 168 -- he finds the answer! 
• Rest of the book-- laying doubts to rest, coming to believe
• 177 -- he accepts faith, God 

CHAP XI - XVI Finding faith

• 186-187 (last para especially)
• which religion? a universal, inclusive religion without ideology

POSTSCRIPT - WALKING THE TALK

• future writing had religious themes
• transferred copyrights to his wife
• tried to have a celibate marriage
• spent time in monasteries

_________________________

The two arguments, now refuted

The argument for meaninglessness

1. If death brings everything to an end, then life is meaningless.
2. Death does bring everything to an end.  THEREFORE
3. Life is meaningless.

The argument for despair

1. Life is meaningless. 
2. If life is meaningless, I have nothing to live for and may as well be dead. THEREFORE
3. I have nothing to live for and may as well be dead.  [despair] 

Death and Meaninglessness

AGENDA

• Tolstoy's crisis
• Autonomy presentation

_________________________

TOLSTOY'S LIFE (1828-1910)

_________________________

TOLSTOY'S CONFESSION

Kindle version--has same page numbers as paperback.

 

CHAP I. CHILDHOOD

• never really believed (p. 115)
• rejects Christianity at 16 (p. 119)
• focused on self-perfection, ambition

CHAP II. EARLY ADULTHOOD

• youthful debauchery
• believes in the meaning of poetry and literature but begins to have doubts (p. 124)

CHAP III. SUCCESS, DOUBTS

• writes his great novels War and Peace and Anna Karenina
• rich, famous, lives on huge country estate
• witnesses execution, calls into question progress and popular opinion
• marries, eventually has 13 children (a number die young)
• surrounded by admirers
• 

CHAP IV. CRISIS

• Age 50 (1878)
• arrests of life, questions, black dots (R1 129-130)
• why am I doing anything, no meaning (R2 131-132)
• fable (image)
• thoughts of death (R3 131)
• thought of suicide (R4 132-133)
• success (R4)
• death and meaning (R5 136)
• hang on to the branches (R6 135-136)
• the two drops (R7 136)
• meaning (R8 136)

CHAP. V-XVI SEARCH FOR MEANING (next time)

• Searches for a solution
• Finds many possible solutions inadequate
• In the end, finds a solution

_________________________

THE ARGUMENTS

The argument for meaninglessness

1. If death brings everything to an end, then life is meaningless.
2. Death does bring everything to an end.  THEREFORE
3. Life is meaningless.

The argument for despair

1. Life is meaningless. 
2. If life is meaningless, I have nothing to live for. THEREFORE
3. I have nothing to live for.  [despair] 

DISCUSSION AT WORKBOOK

Happiness/Meaning in life

AGENDA

1. Happiness presentation
2. Meaning in life

_________________________

Meaning of life (Monday

Meaning in life: modules 5, 6, 7

_________________________

How are the blue topics different from the lilac topics?

Answer 1: Meaning language is relatively new

"The first English use of the expression “the meaning of life” appeared in 1834 in Thomas Carlyle’s (1795-1881) Sartor Resartus II. ix, where Teufelsdrockh observes, “our Life is compassed round with Necessity; yet is the meaning of Life itself no other than Freedom.” The usage shortly caught on, and over the next century and a half the phrase “the meaning of life” became common. The adjective “meaningful” did not appear until 1852, the noun “meaningfulness” until 1904." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Meaning of life"

No use of "meaning of life" talk in any of our authors so far except in the Peter Singer video

 _________________________

Answer 2: Meaning authors are concerned with a different aspect of life, compared to good life authors

John Cottingham -- contemporary British philosopher

• Philosophy Bites interview with John Cottingham (transcript)
• We will read an article by him on April 20

STARTING AT 1:15

Cottingham: The main problem about human existence is its fragility. The projects which we embark on are constantly in danger of foundering because of ordinary contingencies of life.

Warburton: You don’t mean it’s because of death, for instance. I mean,that’s the obvious fragility underlying everything that we’re always gonna die at some point.

Cottingham: Exactly. That’s the most striking one, but illness, old age, infirmity. Philosophers have often written as if human beings are autonomous, grand, self sufficient agents who are somehow in charge of their lives, and then philosophy’s job is supposed to be to map out the conditions for the good life. Well, there’s nothing wrong with trying to map out the conditions for the good life, but there’s more to it than that because we are dependent on these contingencies. And so a meaningful life has to be one which is not just rich in various ways, including enriching and valuable activities, but which somehow comes to terms with this fragility and this contingency.

Warburton: So you’re saying that as human beings, we encounter things, obstacles to our projects. I might want to be an athlete and I’ll break my leg when I’m twenty one, and it just is not possible. So any mapped out plan for life that doesn’t allow for contingency isn’t gonna work. 

Cottingham: That’s exactly right. Yes.

Cottingham: 

• Good life authors: portray humans as "autonomous, grand, self-sufficient agents"
• Meaning in life authors: trying to come to terms with "this fragility and this contingency"

Fragility and contingency (unpredictability) 

• death
• illness
• old age
• obstacles to our projects
• and others

Is he right? Is it fair to say that our authors so far did not try to come to terms with "this fragility and contingency" and portray humans as "autonomous, grand, self-sufficient agents"?

• Aristotle 
• Epictetus
• Mill
• Nietzsche

Is he right? Do our meaning authors focus on fragility and contingency? 

_________________________

First meaning author: Tolstoy, Confession (1880, written when he was in his 50s)

1. Crisis.... (distress advisory)
2. Resolution, involving religion

Why is there something rather than nothing?

 AGENDA

1. Next time: no RR, but please listen to Cottingham podcast (just 10 minutes) or read transcript
2. Friday and Monday: reading Tolstoy, The Death of Ivan Ilyich and Confession (trans. Carson) -- there are copies at bookstore
3. Today: meaning of life questions

_________________________

Our questions in modules 5, 6, 7: mainly meaning IN life

_________________________

The most ultimate of the "meaning of life" questions: 

Why is there something 
rather than nothing?

Jim Holt, Why Does the World Exist?

The history of thought about this question

1. Question is especially urgent if you think "once there was nothing, and then there was something."
2. But ancient myths portray creation as chaos --> order. (p. 5) 
3. Genesis doesn't portray God as creating the world out of nothing, but "out of a chaos of earth and water 'without form and void' -- tohu bohu, in the original Hebrew." (p. 5)
4. Ancient Greek philosophy (Plato, Aristotle) assumes world is eternal. (p. 5)
5. Middle ages: Maimonides and Aquinas, "God created world out of nothing." (p. 5)
6. God explains the universe existing, but why is there God rather than nothing?
7. 18th century: Leibniz, Principle of Sufficient Reason. Everything except God is contingent--needs to be explained. God is necessary, so self-explaining.
8. 18th century responses to Leibniz: Hume and Kant say no to "necessary beings." They don't pursue the question why there is something rather than nothing.
9. After Hume and Kant philosophers shy away from the question.
10. 19th century: Schopenhauer says people who try to answer are "fools" and "vain boasters." (p. 6)
11. Schelling: world arose out of nothingness by an "incomprehensible leap." (p. 6)
12. Hegel's obscure answer dismissed by Kierkegaard.
13. 20th century: Bergson says nothingness is impossible, so the question is a pseudoquestion. (p. 6)
14. Heidegger: thinks the question is very deep and important, but has no answer. (p. 6)
15. Wittgenstein: the question is deep, but ultimately senseless.
16. Ayer: the question is meaningless, like asking "where do all things come from?" (Or "What color is the number 4?")
17. Logical positivism (Ayer): all truths are either logical truths or empirical truths. Any answer to "why is there something rather than nothing" would be neither. So can't be true.
18. Russell: "I should say that the universe is just there, and that is all." (p. 7)
19. Science: Copernicus, Galileo, Newton believed the universe has always existed. (p. 7)
20. Einstein, Lemaitre: the Big Bang, the universe has a beginning. Now the question is "harder to dodge." Why does there suddenly start to be something! (p. 8)
21. Nozick explores in his book Philosophical Explanations, says any answer is bound to be strange. (p. 9)
22. Three camps:
• optimists (has to be an answer, we'll eventually find it)
• pessimists (might be an answer but we can't find it)
• rejectionists (it's a bad question)
23. Emotions toward the world as a whole.
• some frown on it--e.g. Schopenhauer; Sartre, Nausea
• some smile on existence as a whole -- Haydn, The Creation 
24. Possible view: there is something rather than nothing due to blind chance, because every possibility has an equal chance of being true.
25. Possible view: reality is causa sui (the cause of itself) -- Spinoza's view.

_________________________

Question arises on all four of these pictures of reality

top left: Genesis         
top right: creation "ex nihilo"
bottom left:  world is eternal       
bottom right: Big Bang

Holt's TED talk -- a mix of philosophy, science, religion, and comedy

_________________________

Holt's arguments in the last 7 minutes

Argument that we don't need an answer to WITSRTN

1. The possible worlds range from nothing to the multiverse.
2. Some of these worlds are special: the most empty, the most full, the most elegant, the most ethical.
3. We'd have to explain why there is our world, rather than other worlds, ONLY if our world were special.*
4. But our world is not special. THEREFORE,
5. We don't need to say why there is our world rather than other worlds, such as the nothing world.

* Argument for this: If someone wears a suit to class it makes sense to ask "why are you wearing a suit, rather than ordinary clothes?"  But if they're wearing grey, you wouldn't ask "why are you wearing grey rather than blue?"

Several reasons why it shouldn't be distressing that it's improbable and unexplainable that this particular world exists

1. Same is true of your individual existence and that's not distressing.
2. Some of the other special worlds would be worse.