The First Way Explained

[Linusthe2nd]

Errr… I quoted you verbatum from your post #62.

Found it. You read it out of general context. I meant the laws of physics do not adversely affect the First Way.

Surely if we know for a fact that something is impossible in nature then any philosophy which doesn’t acknowledge that fact must be false?

Of course, but you must prove that something is immpossible in nature. And if you are thinking of Aristotle’s Celestial Mechanics or other aspects of his " science, " Thomas is not defending Aristotle in all that, especially his Celestial Mechanics, nor is Thomas teaching science. But what do you have in mind as it supposedly affects the First Way?

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It’s been said before that an argument requiring so much explanation that opponents wander off or fall asleep is called proof by intimidation, argumentum verbosium.

People who point out the flaws in arguments are not “ideologues”. You make it sound like there’s an international conspiracy. The truth is simply that we’ve learned a lot over the centuries, and as a result many arguments have bitten the dust

 

[Linusthe2nd]

“Interaction” is defined as any action where objects have an effect on each another - so gravity isn’t a property of an object.

Thank you, I intend to address that. Wallace has some interesting things to say, so did Gallileo and Newton.

A physicist could explain this better than me, but to see the bijou problemette with gravity, consider the Earth orbiting the Sun. Newton wouldn’t speculate on what gravity is, i.e. on how the Earth and Sun “know” they must be attracted to each other, but Einstein explained it as them curving spacetime. To Newton, the Earth’s path is an ellipse, it constantly changes both direction and speed. But in Einstein’s curved spacetime the Earth follows a geodesic (i.e. a straight line)

The problem with Einstein’s Theories is that it turns reality into mathematical doppelgangers. It abstracts from the real world. Certainly it has predictability success and practical success. But the real world is not a reflection of these Theories. We live in a real world not a matrix.

In Thomistic terms, when considered as an ellipse the motion requires continually changing potential/actual, but when considered in curved spacetime there is no motion (in the Thomistic sense that nothing changes).

We shall see. Wallace has a few things to say.

This shows that potential/actual is a false hypothesis, it disappears just by us changing the way we think. If it were true, we could only make it disappear by changing our coordinate system (in the way that different observers see an object as moving or resting in relativity).

Nonesense. We live in a real world. I will address your objections in due course.

You might add The Modeling of Nature by Wallace to your reading list. Good libraries will have it.

Linus2nd
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Oh, and yet you say you’re not being defensive.

You started this by falsely accusing be of being defensive, now I am. So congratulations, it should make you feel great.

I guess you could always start a blog instead. They’re free and it would allow you to post your opinions while avoiding any adverse comments.

Then I would miss your cheerful, uplifting, objective commentary! I wouldn’t want to loose that.

That sounded like a statement of faith, i.e. you made up your mind beforehand that “no true science” can conflict with Thomas. How doth thee know?

Because Thomisic philosophy express the truth about reality at the metaphysical level.

You might need to be a bit careful of how you’re interpreted here, given Pope Francis’ remark from the same interview in which he spoke of decadent Thomist commentaries. He said: “If the Christian is legalistic, restorationist, if you want everything clear and certain, then you’ll find nothing. The tradition and memory of the past must help us to have the courage to open new spaces to God. Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal ‘security,’ those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists - they have a static and inward-directed view of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies.”

Good grief, I think you could profit from that comment yourself. You are the one who has been doing the interpretation on the Pope’s comments, you are the one who brought them up.

Not sure how that can apply to the First Way, which is an argument relying on physics, albeit a wrong physics.

It does not rely on physics, it relies on common sense observation of the real world. I have pointed out to you before that Thomas was not tied to Aristotle’s Celestial Mechanics or any Mechanics, not even Modern Science, which is so mathematical that it has totally abstracted from reality and has confused Mathematical Abstractions with Reality. That is the way of Stephen Hawking, etc. And it seems the whole world has swallowed the cool aid. We do not live in a matrix, we live in a solid world created by a real God, to whom we are more than dots on a graph, nor do we live in a world sliding along on " geodisic " lines.

:curtsey:

Interesting that me saying “if your objective is” managed to get converted to “fixation”… . And yes, agreed, I’ve said several times that Thomas did a lot of good work, but will point out once again to his fan club that Thomas was human, and humans are not perfect, humans make mistakes.

Of course he made mistakes but making his First Way depend on the Physics of Aristotle wasn’t one of them. He used them because the people of his day ( a lot of the important ones anyway ) believed they were true. He used them only by way if illustration to illustrate what he meant by certain elements in his philosophy, but he warned several times that this physics was open to revision at a later date by a better science.

It is well known that in Thomism there is no " moving " cause. Thomis classifies all movement/change under Efficient causality. So movement from place to place or local motion falls under the category of Efficient causality. The only reasons I can think of to explain why he chose Celestial Movement as his example of local motion is that it was the example Aristotle used to arrive at an Unmoved Mover and that his contempories would view it as an obvious example - not because it was the final word in physics. But it was the principles of reality he was interested in, matter and form, or potentiality and actuality as the underlying principles of motion/change, efficient, formal, material, and final causality, and the act of existence.

When Ratzinger wrote “[they give] the impression of being an organization that keeps on talking although it has nothing else to say” and Francis said “those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists”, I think they were speaking of the same people, so I reckon they know what needs to be done OK.

Since Frances never mentioned any specifics, I don’t see how anyone can know who or what he had in mind. Your reference to Ratzinger went right by me. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Que? Not upset, except when personal remarks are made against guys like Magee.

In regard to Magee, I do not regard him as a reliable Thomist. Surely you don’t deny me the right to have a personal opinion, not when you freely express so many of your own.
And how does that illustrate bad temper? I don’t get that at all.

Linus2nd.

 

[inocente]

I did not say that gravity is a property of an object.

You didn’t, but someone else did, and originally I was responding to him.

*I am pointing out that if you are describing gravity as an interaction between matter and spacetime, you simply haven’t ruled out causality of the sort the first way calls for.

Actually, it doesn’t show that potentiality and actuality are false hypotheses. I will reiterate:

Since “motion” does not strictly refer to “local motion,” it’s just a false inference to conclude that “motion” is generally* false because its application to local motion is in question. That said, as I noted above, as long as you are still describing gravity as an interaction, you don’t seem to be substantively disputing the first way.

We need to read the argument as Thomas intended.

“For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality” - newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

And also:

“potentia always refers to something future, which at present exists only as a germ to be evolved …] Potentia is more than a mere statement of futurity, which has reference to time only; it implies a positive aptitude to be realized in the future. It would also be a mistake to identify the scholastic actus and potentia with the actual and potential energy of physics.” - newadvent.org/cathen/01124a.htm

Which to me means that when looked at in terms of curved spacetime the Earth is, by Aristotle’s lights, always in its natural place, neither needing nor possessing any potentia, while to us it is continually changing course and so continually needing and possessing potentia.

Yet it obviously can’t be both.

 

[inocente]

Found it. You read it out of general context. I meant the laws of physics do not adversely affect the First Way.

:coffeeread:

Of course, but you must prove that something is immpossible in nature. And if you are thinking of Aristotle’s Celestial Mechanics or other aspects of his " science, " Thomas is not defending Aristotle in all that, especially his Celestial Mechanics, nor is Thomas teaching science. But what do you have in mind as it supposedly affects the First Way?

I was commenting on your claim that science and philosophy look at reality at different levels. Methinks not really. Science was once called natural philosophy, it’s just reasoning based on evidenced inquiry. Although I guess some philosophers go further than the evidence permits by interpreting the science, for instance a lot of them interpreted Newton’s laws of motion to mean we’re in a clockwork, fatalistic universe until Einstein and others used further evidence to prove them wrong.

The First Way is basically a scientific argument in that it appeals to evidence, Thomas says things like “It is certain, and evident to our senses”. He follows that with a prediction of sorts: “that in the world some things are in motion”. But of course that’s wrong, he didn’t realize that everything is in motion, that had to wait for Teresa de Ávila.

He makes another prediction, that “what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot”, and uses that to support the assertion that there is “potentiality” and “actuality”. But that also turns out to be wrong from what we now know.

His piece of wood contains trillions of molecules, each “jiggling” with kinetic energy. The average rate of jiggling is called the temperature. End of story. No potentia required. Indeed within his piece of wood, whatever its temperature, some molecules jiggle a lot faster than others, so his assertion is incorrect as the wood simultaneously contains “hot” and “potentially hot” molecules.

You could try to avoid this problem by doing some violence to his argument, and saying it only applies to one molecule rather than trillions - one molecule can’t jiggle at two speeds simultaneously, right? But curtains, that runs you into the troublesome beast known as Schrödinger’s cat.

I’ll stop enumerating the problems with the First Way now until someone has a go at those already raised.

 

[inocente]

Let’s just say that ideologues stick together naturally and act concertedly, like any crowd that shares a common interest or a common affiliation or a common enemy. Nothing strange about it at all. And yes, I think you are definitely an ideologue, don’t mean to be insulting, just stating facts. How do I know, I’ve already answered that several times. Basically it is because you put so much trust and faith in science, even allowing all its Inferences but absolutely reject any philosophical reasoning.

You just described meme theory, an invention by Richard Dawkins supposedly explaining how ideas spread and evolve. Is that what you mean by scientism? Not a fan of that kind of stuff myself, too speculative, I prefer evidence.

*Are you intentionally being perverse? How can you draw that conclusion from what I said here or any where? The Church has great respect for the learning of its Doctors and of the Fathers and of all its Saints. Yes revelation ended with the death of Christ, but the Holy Spirit continues to teach the Church, fillining in the nuances and details, rounding out the Truth, as it were. *

I think we’re getting off topic here.

*Of course not, but all seminaries I know of, in the States at least, require about 30 hours of it, and most Catholic Colleges and Universities offer a wide range of courses in Thomistic Philosophy and other Philosophies…
*

Back on topic. Not sure that it’s ever a valid defense in philosophy to imply that all of a philosopher’s work was inspired by the Spirit. Some maybe. All, unlikely.

I know you don’t think it is, but I discount that because I’m convinced you are an anti-Thomistic ideologue. I don’t know why.

I don’t know why you’re convinced of that either. Well, I have an hypothesis, but that’s off-topic.

*I agree totally, but that remark addresses nothing I said in the quote… *

Errrr… you said I have put great stress on the Bible as a reason to reject Scholastic Philosophy and I replied “That’s completely wrong” and pointed out that neither abstract arguments nor knowledge of the bible maketh the Christian. Anyway, I’m glad we agree that encountering Christ might have a bit to do with making a Christian.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

:coffeeread:

I was commenting on your claim that science and philosophy look at reality at different levels. Methinks not really. Science was once called natural philosophy, it’s just reasoning based on evidenced inquiry. Although I guess some philosophers go further than the evidence permits by interpreting the science, for instance a lot of them interpreted Newton’s laws of motion to mean we’re in a clockwork, fatalistic universe until Einstein and others used further evidence to prove them wrong.

The First Way is basically a scientific argument in that it appeals to evidence, Thomas says things like “It is certain, and evident to our senses”. He follows that with a prediction of sorts: “that in the world some things are in motion”. But of course that’s wrong, he didn’t realize that everything is in motion, that had to wait for Teresa de Ávila.

He makes another prediction, that “what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot”, and uses that to support the assertion that there is “potentiality” and “actuality”. But that also turns out to be wrong from what we now know.

His piece of wood contains trillions of molecules, each “jiggling” with kinetic energy. The average rate of jiggling is called the temperature. End of story. No potentia required. Indeed within his piece of wood, whatever its temperature, some molecules jiggle a lot faster than others, so his assertion is incorrect as the wood simultaneously contains “hot” and “potentially hot” molecules.

You could try to avoid this problem by doing some violence to his argument, and saying it only applies to one molecule rather than trillions - one molecule can’t jiggle at two speeds simultaneously, right? But curtains, that runs you into the troublesome beast known as Schrödinger’s cat.

I’ll stop enumerating the problems with the First Way now until someone has a go at those already raised.

I think we have been through all that before and I have answered all the objections already. However I will note them and address them at the proper time. So far you have disproven nothinhg. See, I can be all negative too.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You just described meme theory, an invention by Richard Dawkins supposedly explaining how ideas spread and evolve. Is that what you mean by scientism? Not a fan of that kind of stuff myself, too speculative, I prefer evidence.

I think we’re getting off topic here.

Back on topic. Not sure that it’s ever a valid defense in philosophy to imply that all of a philosopher’s work was inspired by the Spirit. Some maybe. All, unlikely.

I don’t know why you’re convinced of that either. Well, I have an hypothesis, but that’s off-topic.

Errrr… you said I have put great stress on the Bible as a reason to reject Scholastic Philosophy and I replied “That’s completely wrong” and pointed out that neither abstract arguments nor knowledge of the bible maketh the Christian. Anyway, I’m glad we agree that encountering Christ might have a bit to do with making a Christian.

Objections noted, not much of interest here. I’m taking a few days off .

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

The problem with Einstein’s Theories is that it turns reality into mathematical doppelgangers. It abstracts from the real world. Certainly it has predictability success and practical success. But the real world is not a reflection of these Theories. We live in a real world not a matrix.

Not true, find another text. All science, really all reasoning about the world, can be seen as versions of Aristotle’s cave, the idea that what we perceive are shadows on the wall, and we must use reason to work out what those shadows tell us of the deeper reality.

This is particularly easy to see with spacetime: hold a ruler parallel to a wall (doesn’t have to be a cave ) so it makes a shadow. Now rotate the ruler so it turns to become at right angles to the wall, and (obviously) the shadow becomes shorter.

When something moves very fast, we observe that it becomes shorter. Einstein uses Aristotle’s idea to reason that what we observe is the shadow of a deeper reality where there is a rotation, just like your ruler. Einstein reasons the rotation is between space and time. That would mean that a fast moving object isn’t just shorter, time will pass at a different rate for it. That prediction turns out to be completely correct - a clock in a satellite ticks at a different rate from one on the ground. GPS has to take that into account or it wouldn’t work.

So spacetime is as much part of your everyday world as is GPS.

Nonesense. We live in a real world. I will address your objections in due course.

That’s very subjective - if you widen your project to claim that the Scholastics’ science was more real than modern science, or that your reality is more real than someone’s in sub-Saharan Africa, you’ll never be done.

You might add The Modeling of Nature by Wallace to your reading list. Good libraries will have it.

What a strange recommendation. According to its blurb, the book argues about which school of the philosophy of science is bestest. There are dozens of that kind of thesis book published every month. Subscribe to something like the Times Literary Supplement or the NYT Review of Books and you’ll find such lengthy reviews of them that you don’t have to read the books.

Seriously, then you have more time to read books about what we know rather than books about people’s opinions about how you should interpret what we know.

 

[inocente]

It does not rely on physics, it relies on common sense observation of the real world. I have pointed out to you before that Thomas was not tied to Aristotle’s Celestial Mechanics or any Mechanics, not even Modern Science, which is so mathematical that it has totally abstracted from reality and has confused Mathematical Abstractions with Reality. That is the way of Stephen Hawking, etc. And it seems the whole world has swallowed the cool aid. We do not live in a matrix, we live in a solid world created by a real God, to whom we are more than dots on a graph, nor do we live in a world sliding along on " geodisic " lines.

Ooooh, subjectism. Hopefully you don’t share Aristotle’s common sense view that the Sun and all else revolves around you , or Thomas’ common sense that light is instantaneous. Common sense is fickle.

Do you have reason to think Thomas would agree with your personal antipathy for math and modern science? From what I’ve read of him, I’d have thought he would be excited to discover all that has been learned.

Of course he made mistakes but making his First Way depend on the Physics of Aristotle wasn’t one of them. He used them because the people of his day ( a lot of the important ones anyway ) believed they were true. He used them only by way if illustration to illustrate what he meant by certain elements in his philosophy, but he warned several times that this physics was open to revision at a later date by a better science.

So you admit he knew his argument might turn out to be wrong?

It is well known that in Thomism there is no " moving " cause. Thomis classifies all movement/change under Efficient causality. So movement from place to place or local motion falls under the category of Efficient causality. The only reasons I can think of to explain why he chose Celestial Movement as his example of local motion is that it was the example Aristotle used to arrive at an Unmoved Mover and that his contempories would view it as an obvious example - not because it was the final word in physics. But it was the principles of reality he was interested in, matter and form, or potentiality and actuality as the underlying principles of motion/change, efficient, formal, material, and final causality, and the act of existence.

Ooooh, relativism. Just moments ago you lambasted abstraction in modern science, now you applaud abstraction, aka “underlying principles”, in an older science. Leaving aside that those abstractions were wrong, methinks the only difference is your preference for abstractions you’re familiar with.

Since Frances never mentioned any specifics, I don’t see how anyone can know who or what he had in mind. Your reference to Ratzinger went right by me. I have no idea what you are talking about.

There’s none so blind as those who will not see?

In regard to Magee, I do not regard him as a reliable Thomist. Surely you don’t deny me the right to have a personal opinion, not when you freely express so many of your own.
And how does that illustrate bad temper? I don’t get that at all.

It’s OK for you and me to have a little banter but I hope you agree that when someone is not here to give a defense and is in a position of trust with students, their personal integrity shouldn’t be questioned without good reason.

 

[inocente]

See, I can be all negative too.

Objections noted, not much of interest here.

Sounds like it would be an excellent idea to take a few days off.

I’m taking a few days off .

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Not true, find another text. All science, really all reasoning about the world, can be seen as versions of Aristotle’s cave, the idea that what we perceive are shadows on the wall, and we must use reason to work out what those shadows tell us of the deeper reality.

I think you will find that it is Plato’s cave you are speaking of..

This is particularly easy to see with spacetime: hold a ruler parallel to a wall (doesn’t have to be a cave ) so it makes a shadow. Now rotate the ruler so it turns to become at right angles to the wall, and (obviously) the shadow becomes shorter.

Not an instance of either Relativity or Special Relativity.

When something moves very fast, we observe that it becomes shorter. Einstein uses Aristotle’s idea to reason that what we observe is the shadow of a deeper reality where there is a rotation, just like your ruler. Einstein reasons the rotation is between space and time. That would mean that a fast moving object isn’t just shorter, time will pass at a different rate for it. That prediction turns out to be completely correct - a clock in a satellite ticks at a different rate from one on the ground. GPS has to take that into account or it wouldn’t work.

Hey, an expert speaks! But we shall see what it all means later.

So spacetime is as much part of your everyday world as is GPS.

I know that is what you think. We shall see what the reality is later.

That’s very subjective - if you widen your project to claim that the Scholastics’ science was more real than modern science, or that your reality is more real than someone’s in sub-Saharan Africa, you’ll never be done.

Now who is being subjective.

What a strange recommendation. According to its blurb, the book argues about which school of the philosophy of science is bestest. There are dozens of that kind of thesis book published every month. Subscribe to something like the Times Literary Supplement or the NYT Review of Books and you’ll find such lengthy reviews of them that you don’t have to read the books.

NYT, didn’t realize it was an authority on philosophy or anything else for that matter, I think, if you care to look more closely, that Wallace is a known authority on the History of Philosophy and on the philosophy of Aristotle and St. Thomas. He is a scholar of the highest rank, author of numerous books and scholarly papers in preer review publications and institutes, a Professor of Philosophy for about forty years, 90 plus years old and still working ( at least as of a couple of years ago ).

Seriously, then you have more time to read books about what we know rather than books about people’s opinions about how you should interpret what we know.

Nothing subjective about that remark, not much.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

Just going out but noticed you replied. Yet earlier you said you were taking a few days off, so no more workaholism, days off means days off, enjoy yourself.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Here is an excellent article on Relativity, it clearly shows that gravity is real, that it certainly is a property of bodies and how it accounts for the speeding up and the slowing down of clocks. Unfortunately enthusiasts have chosen to make something mysterious out of this natural phenomenon and began referring to it as " space time curvature, " or " time warp, " or other " occult " and overly imaginative descriptors. None of this disproves anything about the First Way. Nor does it in any way disprove any of the philosophical elements of Aristotelian/Thomistic philosophy, i.e. potency and act, the four causes, the act of existence, etc.

Main article: Gravitational time dilation

Time passes more quickly further from a center of gravity, as is witnessed with massive objects (like the Earth).Gravitational time dilation is at play for ISS astronauts too, and it has the opposite effect of the relative velocity time dilation. To simplify, velocity and gravity each slow down time as they increase. Velocity has increased for the astronauts, slowing down their time, whereas gravity has decreased, speeding up time (the astronauts are experiencing less gravity than on Earth). Nevertheless, the ISS astronaut crew ultimately end up with “slower” time because the two opposing effects are not equally strong. The velocity time dilation (explained above) is making a bigger difference, and slowing down time. The (time-speeding up) effects of low-gravity would not cancel out these (time-slowing down) effects of velocity unless the ISS orbited much farther from Earth.

The key is that both observers are differently situated in their distance from a significant gravitational mass. The general theory of relativity describes how, for both observers, the clock that is closer to the gravitational mass, i.e. deeper in its “gravity well”, appears to go more slowly than the clock that is more distant from the mass. This effect is not restricted to astronauts in space; a climber’s time is passing slightly faster at the top of a mountain (a high altitude, farther from the Earth’s center of gravity) compared to people at sea level. As with all time dilation, the local experience of time is normal (nobody notices a difference within their own frame of reference). In the situations of velocity time dilation, both observers saw the other as moving slower (a reciprocal effect). Now, with gravitational time dilation, both observers – those at sea level, versus the climber – agree that the clock nearer the mass is slower in rate, and they agree on the ratio of the difference (time dilation from gravity is therefore not reciprocal). That is, the climber sees the sea level clocks as moving more slowly, and those living at sea level see the climber as moving faste

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

Of course, beauty is always in the eye of the beholder. If one is bound and determined to be prejudiced, Not even God can change the mind of those determined and fixed in their attitudes.

Now off for the rest of my " days off. "

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Great little six lecture online course ( for free ) on the Philosophy of Nature by Fr. William A. Wallace O.P., an expert in the field. He gives the essential Aristotelian/Thomistic philosophical back ground and shows how it and modern science are not contradictory and can live and work together. He treats of some of the things I have been talking about and will be talking about.

home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c02000.htm

Linus2nd

 

[Ambien89]

QM refutes Newton’s anachronistic physics just as Newton did to Aristotle. QM also supports an idealistic argument for the existence God (similar to Berkeley’s master argument or Augustine’s Platonism) unless you believe in multiple worlds. Some Christian apologists have been working on an ‘argument from digital physics’ which was started by Johanan Raatz. It has been shaking up the online atheist community. This kid does a decent presentation and there should be some links in the video description:

youtube.com/watch?v=v2Xsp4FRgas

Keep in mind that the phrase objective reality is being used to refer to naive realism and materialism and virtual reality is referring to the world as being inherently rational; that it is information.

 

[Ambien89]

“By faith we understand that the universe was ordered by the word of God, so that what is visible came into being through the invisible.”

Hebrews 11:3

 

[Linusthe2nd]

QM refutes Newton’s anachronistic physics just as Newton did to Aristotle. QM also supports an idealistic argument for the existence God (similar to Berkeley’s master argument or Augustine’s Platonism) unless you believe in multiple worlds. Some Christian apologists have been working on an ‘argument from digital physics’ which was started by Johanan Raatz. It has been shaking up the online atheist community. This kid does a decent presentation and there should be some links in the video description:

youtube.com/watch?v=v2Xsp4FRgas

Keep in mind that the phrase objective reality is being used to refer to naive realism and materialism and virtual reality is referring to the world as being inherently rational; that it is information.

He begins by posing a dilemma with two opposing undemonstrateble assumptions, a universe that creates itself opposed to a mathematical " virtual " world that created itself. Nothing but horse feathers and day dreams, the stuff of science fiction.

Linus2nd.

 

[inocente]

QM refutes Newton’s anachronistic physics just as Newton did to Aristotle.

Newton’s equations still work just like they always did. His laws didn’t suddenly stop working the day QM was published. Philosophers might have interpreted the world differently before and after, but that’s philosophy, not physics.

youtube.com/watch?v=v2Xsp4FRgas

That’s a clip from Through The Wormhole, one of those tv shows where there’s never any education, never anything difficult, just drive-thru speculative instant gratification to turn us all into better consumers.

(I can rant on demand )