board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Existentialism (Warning: it's dark in here.)

Post Reply   Page 1 of 1  [ 18 posts ]
Author Message
Legolas the elf
Post subject: Existentialism (Warning: it's dark in here.)
Posted: Sun 23 Sep , 2007 9:02 pm
Trudging the road of happy destiny...
Offline
 
Posts: 1712
Joined: Wed 06 Jul , 2005 5:04 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland
 
(If you have time & interest, read the page on the URL.)

"God is dead." said Nietzsche.
He means it in the sense that we, humans, killed God with our scientific advancement...For example: the heavens are no longer "the heavens", but intergalactic space. That w/o a God, there is no absolute values....no longer a final saying on what's good and bad.

Hence: existentialism. A dark situation to have arrived at, where nothing is for sure. Where do we as humans go from here?
What struck me most was towards the end of that url's essay, it talked about mass media entertainment used as a distraction from the world's society from confronting the dark issue at hand: the "death of God" via science. (Which, whether I buy this existential stuff or not, brings up an important issue: mass media.)

My personal view: I'm not convinced that God is dead. I would like to hear people's thoughts in reaction to existentialism....existentialists and non-existentialists alike.

Is it REALLY dark out there?


http://faculty.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/Nietzsche.htm


Top
Profile Quote
TheMary
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 24 Sep , 2007 12:15 am
I took the stars from my eyes, and then I made a map, And knew that somehow I could find my way back; Then I heard your heart beating, you were in the darkness too - So I stayed in the darkness with you
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 7067
Joined: Mon 27 Jun , 2005 3:44 pm
Location: On my tush!
 
Very interesting topic Lego. I will read the links article before going into detail but I need to post a quick and confidant No god is not dead!! I am more certain of that now than I ever have been in my life.

Be back when I have more time :)

_________________

Lay down
Your sweet and weary head
Night is falling
You’ve come to journey's end
Sleep now
And dream of the ones who came before
They are calling
From across the distant shore

Why do you weep?
What are these tears upon your face?
Soon you will see
All of your fears will pass away
Safe in my arms
You're only sleeping


Top
Profile Quote
yovargas
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 24 Sep , 2007 1:57 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

—Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Section 125


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 24 Sep , 2007 3:04 am
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Imagine Sisyphus smiling. :D

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Dave_LF
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 25 Sep , 2007 1:07 am
You are hearing me talk
Offline
 
Posts: 2950
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 8:14 am
Location: Great Lakes
 


Top
Profile Quote
Legolas the elf
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 25 Sep , 2007 4:04 am
Trudging the road of happy destiny...
Offline
 
Posts: 1712
Joined: Wed 06 Jul , 2005 5:04 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland
 
I guess it all boils down to a personal arrival at a belief. I'd just like to hear some existential moans and groans. :blackeye:


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 01 Oct , 2007 10:46 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
One thing that always seems to be missing from any synopsis of Neitzsche is his sense of humor. He had an acid wit for the follies of earlier philosophies, and he knew them very well, you see. He was a master of all the schools of thought that had gone before him ... like Sartre (father of Existentialism), very deep understanding of his predecessors, and it is difficult to contradict either man effectively for that reason.

It's worthwhile to read Neitzsche in his own words, at length - the whole book, you know, because he takes great care building his arguments (again like Sartre) and you can't come in at the end or read random quotes and understand what he is trying to say. He is ironic and deadly serious at the same time ... a flavor that doesn't come through in summaries of his philosophy.

He's readable. So is Sartre, if you start with his plays. (Don't start with Being and Nothingness :) )

I don't see Existentialism as dark at all. Rather as a blinding light. The uttermost freedom that Sartre talks about, and the master morality espoused by Neitzsche, are both widely misunderstood, imo. When they say that every individual is the arbiter of morality for him/herself, they are not suggesting that we make it up as we go along to suit some whim of the moment. Both philosophies are about an individual accountability which in earlier philosophies, in practice at least if not explicitly in theory, rested with some preordained authority. For the Existentialists, the existence of such an authority is an illusion, and we created that illusion to deceive our own selves ... hence the wonderful snippet from Fowles that Dave linked.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
jadeval
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 02 Dec , 2007 10:37 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu 29 Nov , 2007 9:47 pm
Location: Ecotopia
 
It's an interesting topic... I just read The Anti-Christ a few days ago and was impressed at the prescience of Nietzsche's criticisms of Christianity. Reading Dostoevsky might also help with Nietzsche (esp. The Idiot for Nietzsche's view of Christ). Christ is the "idiot" who is so idealistic that everything in this world is projected as a mere symbol in and for the world to come. This emphasis on the other-worldly was Nietzsche's primary concern, but he nevertheless considered Christ to be one of his few worthy philosophical opponents.

Both Heidegger and Kierkegaard have things to say against mass media. It's fascinating how these ideas get filtered down into postmodern and post-structuralist thought (e.g. Foucault), especially Nietzsche's style and political tactics, which I consider to be a form of methodological anarchism in a truly Socratic vein. But this method is for the elite, and Nietzsche's political views are definitely anti-democratic... there are higher and lower instincts in higher and lower men, and the better and nobler should have a corresponding position in the social heirarchy, freeing themselves ideologically from the stupidity of the masses. This is a part of his thought over which I am uneasy. On the one hand, people like Foucault are trying to disrupt the social constructs in order to level the ideological playing-field, so to speak. This frees us from the predominating structures, and so must be methodologically anarchical, but it is hard not to see an implicit doctrine of progress behind these subversive attempts... I suppose it could be considered a non-technological form of progress... "cultural" progress.

I do think Nietzsche had a point with "God is dead". He sees figures like the Buddha and Christ as fundamentally mistaken, and his philosophy represents an alternative, but the followers of such religious figures (and the institutions of religion) constitute a kind of herd mentality which has flipped the weaker values on top of the stronger, nobler ones. Even the so-called "atheists", if they accept or attempt to preserve the ethical values of Christianity without the religious package, are nihilists in the same way as the Christian flock. Both Sartre and Heidegger have something similar to say: the person who looks at the situation and says "well, there is no god... so let's go on with our day" is fooling himself. It's the person who says "my god, there is no god" and has an anxiety attack over the opening abyss who is really being authentic in the Heideggarian sense. It's the same as the madman running outside with lantern for Nietzsche. No one understands him, they even laugh, and when he gets his message across they just stare blankly without realizing the situation. They are the atheists, the Christians, the socialists, the true nihilists who think they believe in something but believe in nothing. They believe on the basis of "strength of conviction", on the basis of their "free will" to be "moral" human beings... whereas the higher man is a self-empowering, spontaneously creative and often even destructive force within the otherwise sad excuse for a civilization. He does not stake his actions or beliefs on "free will", but on amor fati--the love of fate--regretting nothing. He embodies a kind of Spinozistic ideal of the conatus, the striving for self-preservation and the acceptance of causal determinism (but not the absolute denial of freedom or creativity). It's interesting how both Nietzsche and Spinoza strike one as the really "courageous" philosophers... they both have a tendency to deny what we so often take to be the most "human" values: pity, compassion, love, emotion, forgiveness, etc. These two are like ice to the touch, but they actually inhabit a far-off land, the Hyperboreans as Nietzsche termed them in the Anti-Crist, beyond the coldness and death of the nihilistic masses.

For Heidegger too, the words "theist" and "atheist" are meaningless because existence pertains to human beings (to dasein), not to whatever it is we could be trying to get at with the word "God". It is our immediate presence which occupies the existentialists, not the derivation of morals or ethical principles.

Last edited by jadeval on Sun 02 Dec , 2007 10:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

"Every determination is a negation." -Spinoza


Top
Profile Quote
vison
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 02 Dec , 2007 10:58 pm
Best friends forever
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6546
Joined: Fri 04 Feb , 2005 4:49 am
 
" But this method is for the elite, and Nietzsche's political views are definitely anti-democratic... there are higher and lower instincts in higher and lower men, and the better and nobler should have a corresponding position in the social heirarchy, freeing themselves ideologically from the stupidity of the masses. This is a part of his thought over which I am uneasy."

I should bloody well think it makes you uneasy. :Q Jeez. :rage:

So God is Dead. So what? That's what I say. No, what I say is, "God was never alive, never existed." I know that when people say "God is dead" they think they mean the same thing as I say, but they don't. Most of them think, "Yeah, God is dead and that's bad." Maybe they even think, "We killed god."

Yes, yes, yes, I KNOW. But I mean something different.

The realization of the lack of a god is one of the steps we take on the road to our destiny as humans: and I have NO CLUE what that destiny is. NONE. So don't ask me. I have enough to do, to get through my own days.

_________________

Living on Earth is expensive,
but it does include a free trip
around the sun every year.


Top
Profile Quote
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 03 Dec , 2007 8:51 pm
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
:bow: to many.

Personal accountability. Jnyusa summed it up.

But Nietzsche had it slightly wrong. For us to successfully convicted of having murdered god requires more than circumstantial evidence. And there was never more than circumstantial evidence god existed in the first place.

Of course, Nietzsche is talking about the concept of a god - a belief which ultimately cannot be reasoned against, and how overall the number of (truly) religious people is on the decline due to their being less 'fill in the gaps' pieces of our understanding. At least on the basic level (M Theory is a different matter, but then again that doesn't impinge on most people's everyday lives as far as they are concerned).

Nietzsche is correct - the number of religious people continues to decline in more affluent societies. Then again, it is on the increase in poor or afflicted countries / societies / sub-societies (people for whom "shit happens" isn't adequate to get them through the day).

So while Nietzsche's observation on the *quanta* of people believing is ultimately correct (if overexaggerated), at least in certain populaces, he, Satre, and all the other gang of philosophers can no more *prove* the non-existence of god than Elvis Presley has of becoming the next US President.

Whether a falling tree missing a two-year old qualifies as proof of a god, or tsunamis proving otherwise is not something I'll debate. I can't, and no one can debate belief and come to any conclusion other than "dunno".

Many who have read Godel's Incompleteness Theorem (1930's) will suspect there is an analogous concept in physics. Stanley Jaki, Stephen Hawking and others argue that (an analogous argument to) Gödel's theorem implies that even the most sophisticated formulation of physics will be incomplete, and that therefore there can never be an ultimate theory that can be formulated as a finite number of principles, known for certain as "final". Just as Godel stated, you won't be able to prove all the rules of a system without going outside the system.

Relinquishing the belief in God, Nietzsche stated opens the way for human creative abilities to fully develop. Most gods, with their arbitrary commands and prohibitions, would no longer stand in the way, so human beings might stop turning their eyes toward a supernatural realm and begin to acknowledge the value of this world. The recognition that "God is dead" would be like a blank canvas. It is a freedom to become something new, different, creative — a freedom to be something without being forced to accept the baggage of the past.


But yes, personal accountability. I'll take that. And I don't think it's a dark subject. Being able to stand completely on your own two feet, being responsible for your actions and reactions to what the world does with you, being free to have your own moral code which happens to include many features of the Ten Commandments, well hell, that's a proud thing.

Last edited by Lidless on Tue 04 Dec , 2007 6:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Legolas the elf
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 04 Dec , 2007 12:42 am
Trudging the road of happy destiny...
Offline
 
Posts: 1712
Joined: Wed 06 Jul , 2005 5:04 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland
 
Quote:
the higher man is a self-empowering, spontaneously creative and often even destructive force within the otherwise sad excuse for a civilization. He does not stake his actions or beliefs on "free will", but on amor fati--the love of fate--regretting nothing.
Jadeval, so 'the higher man' believes in fate? What do you mean by 'fate'? Doesn't fate mean a plan, which would be created by an Intelligence("God")?

And do I have this right: Nietzsche's higher man isn't loving, compassionate, or forgiving?

Quote:
Relinquishing the belief in God, Nietzsche stated opens the way for human creative abilities to fully develop. Most gods, with their arbitrary commands and prohibitions, would no longer stand in the way,
It's fear that prevents creativity from flowing at it's full potential. Obviously, a fear of God would prevent this. What good is a God that should be feared? It could be worded, "Relinquishing the fear of God". Seems like Nietzsche was hung up on a Terrorist God.

I can't fathom the no love, no forgiveness thing....to me, that makes Nietzsche dark.


Top
Profile Quote
jadeval
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 04 Dec , 2007 12:53 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu 29 Nov , 2007 9:47 pm
Location: Ecotopia
 
It's definitely not fate in the sense of a divine plan, or in the sense of a fatalism. One way I think it could be explained is with reference to Nietzsche's denouncement of the way traditional morality reverses the order of cause and effect: it is usually supposed that virtue leads to happiness, whereas Nietzsche claims that virtue follows on happiness. Vice is not the cause of wretchedness; rather, wretchedness simply "happens" and vice is the result. There are men with good instincts and men with bad instincts. It's a mistake to think of it as a free "will" or "agent" or "subject" or "mind" which is "willing" or "doing" good or good actions. If one is great, one just knows one's greatness. It flows spontaneously and effortlessly from the center of that person. The person who tries very hard to be "good" or "noble" is weak and wretched. It is true that the nobler men must be trained and habituated to greatness (through proper education for instance), but there are intrinsic differences too. Not all men are created equal for Nietzsche.

As for love, compassion and forgiveness... I'm not sure entirely. I think Nietzsche does embrace love as a type of spiritualization of sensuality (Twilight of the Idols, Morality as anti-nature, section 3), which he considers to be a "triumph over Christianity" because Christianity does not succeed (in his eyes) in spiritualizing sensuality. It professes it, but fails because the weaker types adopt the weaker/ascetic morality precisely because they cannot be ascetics (because they cannot exercise self-control). Christian morality is thus simply prohibitive: it prohibits with "though shalt not". It is essentially a form of "castration" for Nietzsche, not a true elevation (or love).

I may think about it some more... the concept of amor fati is very interesting to me. At the end of his life, depressed and going insane, Nietzsche still vowed that he regretted nothing. Ultimately he lived a miserable life, but he affirmed it without qualification.


Top
Profile Quote
Legolas the elf
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 04 Dec , 2007 2:56 am
Trudging the road of happy destiny...
Offline
 
Posts: 1712
Joined: Wed 06 Jul , 2005 5:04 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland
 
Quote:
At the end of his life, depressed and going insane, Nietzsche still vowed that he regretted nothing. Ultimately he lived a miserable life, but he affirmed it without qualification.
So, this higher man, while not wretched, is miserable? So Nietzsche was not wretched? I recall a quote by Nietzsche paraphrased as: He who is most alone is greatest.

Have you ever read When Nietzsche Wept, Jadeval? It's a novel, though I was younger when I read it I didn't retain it all, you'd probably find interesting if you haven't read it.
Or what about Herman Hesse's Steppenwolf?


Top
Profile Quote
jadeval
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 04 Dec , 2007 5:06 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu 29 Nov , 2007 9:47 pm
Location: Ecotopia
 
Well, by "wretched" I meant "weak" in the sense of those who adopt the slave morality... they are terms which have a place in Nietzsche's vocabulary. By "miserable" I was just referring to the common-sense evaluation of Nietzsche's life, which was, to all appearances, not a very joyful one. I don't think the higher man must be miserable... Nietzsche may have been miserable in a way, but he actually extolled happiness and joy in life (his book The gay science)... Christian morality represents the opposite of joy because it is fundamentally life-denying for him.

He did believe that the philosopher stands apart... Aristotle once said that only animals and gods live alone... Nietzsche added a third: philosophers. I think he had the perception that he was outside or beyond his own time in terms of his methods and views... so I'm not sure his actual life is the best "model" for the type of life he envisions (perhaps technically, but not that it is the necessary or universal form of that life).

And yes, I love Hesse... read nearly everything except the Glass Bead Game, which I have yet to get around to. Steppenwolf is interesting. It's a bit stylistically experimental though, and I might have to agree with Hesse about waiting until I'm a bit older to fully sympathize with the story. My personal favorites are probably Gertrude, Beneath the Wheel and Peter Camenzind. I'm fascinated by the way Hesse portrays the various stages of life, especially of youth and the vital energy therein... something he had in common with Nietzsche... I haven't read the other one you mentioned.

With regard to the darkness of existentialism, I think it is dark... but that may be because we are still seeing life from the perspective of the old values, the systems of philosophy and religion that want a solid ground or reference frame from which to provide morals and meaning in life. For Heidegger, for instance, I think most of these things are culturally relative, but that doesn't mean we can't flourish in our own existence. We perish eventually, and the existentialists don't put much hope in the continuance of our existence (in any way) after death, but it would be the opposite of life-affirming to want to "affirm" life on the basis of "another life"... Plato's ideas as a kind of archetype for reality were rejected by Aristotle as unnecessary and nonsensical. Existence may be dark in the sense that it is not fully intelligible (intelligible in the sense of absolute foundations), but this kind of "intelligibility" is seen as a distortion of the phenomena.

_________________

"Every determination is a negation." -Spinoza


Top
Profile Quote
Legolas the elf
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 04 Dec , 2007 6:27 am
Trudging the road of happy destiny...
Offline
 
Posts: 1712
Joined: Wed 06 Jul , 2005 5:04 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland
 
Liddy, I re-read your post. True, science is making parts of the Bible starkly seem like something pulled out of someone's ass. Hence less "religious people"= people who literally believe the Bible, or whatever holy text they were born near word for word, are on the decline.

But where did this "God" idea come from? Is a god-instinct not naturally present in man?

In countries where the physical quality of life is harsh, where the people only know "shit always has, and does happen" it is plain to see why people are so quick and eager to accept the idea of a god...but in the Western world, where pain and physical suffering is delayed, we lounge and gather an education on things...and at our pinnacle, develop theorems that tell us nothing is for certain. There's a wide universe out there that infinitely dwarfs our intelligence in comparison.
However one wants to approach it: man is limited.
So how can we be so insistent that there is no one Great Thing, or "God"? To turn to the spiritual requires the heart, not intelligence. (Which is why only intelligent people/thinkers are atheists, or philosophers. They don't like the idea of their shining intelligence taking a backseat; and I can't say I blame them.)
Quote:
so human beings might stop turning their eyes toward a supernatural realm and begin to acknowledge the value of this world.

But what is 'supernatural'? It could be said that all of the love, and pleasant things one feels/experiences in this world is supernatural, or is spiritual. Could not the love between two human be evidence of spirituality, or spirit? What is the love between two human beings if it's not spiritual? Is it only carnal? No. Is it only mental? No. What if all things of value in this world are actually spiritual? It is the plane crashes, the bullets through flesh, the lies, the rapes, the greed, and the murdered children that are the things that are not valued in this world. (Even orgasming loses it's value after a while w/o love.) It is the spiritual that is responsible for all of the good things, like love. As far as I'm concerned, it is love, ie spiritual things, manifested that keep us coming back for more. That give us hope to live another day. Is knowing that one is a higher man, or has more of an insight into "truth", alone, enough to bring true meaning to one's life? Without the hope of love, what is this life but dying flesh and isolated misery?
The idea of the spiritual being apart of this world makes me feel better about "the next world". It's as if this world and the next are connected....The hope that some things(the 'good things') will carry on for eternity.


I re-read your post above Jadeval.
Quote:
On the one hand, people like Foucault are trying to disrupt the social constructs in order to level the ideological playing-field, so to speak. This frees us from the predominating structures
What are the structures you talk about. And post-structural...what does that mean? We are in post-structural times? define structural. (i know you mean socially, but how?)


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 04 Dec , 2007 1:58 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Quote:
Is it only mental? No.
Or yes. There might be faeries, but they are no longer necessary to explain where dew comes from. There might be a non-corporeal plane of existence, but it's not necessary to explain human thought or feelings. It's all in your head and mine. That which we deem valuable we then seek to give special status to by attributing it to superhuman, supernatural sources, and resisting efforts to explain it as a purely biological phenomenon. It's as if people, upon finding out that music didn't magically emerge from boxes, but was recorded by people, decided it was no longer beautiful anymore. Inexplicable.

However, that doesn't eliminate the very real question,
Quote:
Is a god-instinct not naturally present in man?
There is a natural tendency towards pattern recognition--or pattern fabrication--in our species. We see effect, we look for cause. Back when we were limited to what we could see and hear and otherwise detect with our own sense organs, that led to some many, many perfectly reasonable suppositions about how things were and are...some of which are more or less correct, some of which now live with the faeries. But that still doesn't explain why people still experience things they attribute to non-physical causes, and more to the point, why others don't, unless you really want to apply Calvinism to neuroscience.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Dave_LF
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 04 Dec , 2007 2:18 pm
You are hearing me talk
Offline
 
Posts: 2950
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 8:14 am
Location: Great Lakes
 
In medieval times, "nature" was something to be feared and beaten into submission to ideal of the sprit. Today we've gone to the other extreme where if something is "natural", it means it's good, wholesome, and (ironically) maybe even spiritual, and it's the machine that we fear (if we're going to be philosophical, I might say that the medieval antitheses of Nature and Spirit synthesized into the modern concept of The Organic, which is now antithesized by The Machine).

The truth about nature is somewhere in the middle, I believe. It's natural to love your family and your tribe, but it's also natural to tease the funny-looking kid or go to war with tribes who don't act like you do. I think the the ubiquity of theism makes it pretty tough to argue that it isn't part of human nature. As some comedian said, bees build hives, birds build nests, and people build religions. But that doesn't mean that religion, even some abstract perfect religion, is true or even good.


Top
Profile Quote
jadeval
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 05 Dec , 2007 7:54 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu 29 Nov , 2007 9:47 pm
Location: Ecotopia
 
hmm, well, I think it depends on who you ask... structuralism often refers to a lot of French academic type stuff over the last 100 or so years which tries to formalize language and meaning down to basic "structural" elements which are ahistorical or abstract. Post-structuralism and deconstruction, themselves contentious and ambiguous terms, refer to thinkers who reject this formalization in favor of a genealogical view of language over time and the ability of the individual and culture to shape meaning and discourse through social practice, either inadvertently or subversively.

_________________

"Every determination is a negation." -Spinoza


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 1 of 1  [ 18 posts ]
Return to “The Symposium”
Jump to: