The beauty asymmetry
Imagine you are good at art - you can, if you so wish, produce beautiful paintings - but you decide not to. Have you done wrong?
It seems clear enough that you have not. It seems a good thing if you exercise your ability. It might be praiseworthy. But you are not doing wrong if you do not.
And the same applies if you are good at creating beautiful music, sculpture, or literature. You do nothing wrong if you exercise your ability. Indeed, you would be making the world a better place by introducing things that have value - your creations - into it. But it seems you are under no positive obligation to do so.
But if a beautiful work of art is already in existence, then it is quite wrong (other things being equal) to destroy it, is it not? Perhaps not if the artist themselves destroys it - they seem to be a special case. But if someone who has not created the work of art in question sets out to destroy it, then they are on an immoral mission, other things being equal.
This applies as well if the art has been produced immorally. For instance, 'The dying slave' by Michelangelo was, reputedly, made by having someone killed and watching them dying. It's probably just a myth - but supposedly Michelangelo wanted to see what someone looked like when dying. So he had someone killed and watched them die. Anyway, it doesn't matter if it is true or not. What matters is that 'if' it is true, it would still be clearly wrong to destroy the resulting sculpture.
That's a little peculiar: those of us with talent at producing beautiful things are not under any positive obligation to produce beautiful things. And sometimes producing the beautiful thing may require doing something immoral - in which case we would be under a positive moral obligation not to create it.
Yet beautiful things that have already been created, even those that have been created by immoral means, are ones that we have a standing duty to respect and not destroy.
It seems, then, that we have a duty to respect beauty, but not to create it. Create some if you wish, but that is not part of your moral project. Morally speaking, your job is not to be a producer of beauty, but to learn to respect any beauty that exists.
Note, even if you think that we - those of us with an ability to produce beautiful things - are positively obliged to exercise our abilities, surely even you admit that it is far more wrong to destroy a beautiful thing than it is to fail to create one? And so you too should admit that the evidence indicates it is far more important to learn not to disrespect that which is beautiful than it is to produce that which is beautiful.
It seems clear enough that you have not. It seems a good thing if you exercise your ability. It might be praiseworthy. But you are not doing wrong if you do not.
And the same applies if you are good at creating beautiful music, sculpture, or literature. You do nothing wrong if you exercise your ability. Indeed, you would be making the world a better place by introducing things that have value - your creations - into it. But it seems you are under no positive obligation to do so.
But if a beautiful work of art is already in existence, then it is quite wrong (other things being equal) to destroy it, is it not? Perhaps not if the artist themselves destroys it - they seem to be a special case. But if someone who has not created the work of art in question sets out to destroy it, then they are on an immoral mission, other things being equal.
This applies as well if the art has been produced immorally. For instance, 'The dying slave' by Michelangelo was, reputedly, made by having someone killed and watching them dying. It's probably just a myth - but supposedly Michelangelo wanted to see what someone looked like when dying. So he had someone killed and watched them die. Anyway, it doesn't matter if it is true or not. What matters is that 'if' it is true, it would still be clearly wrong to destroy the resulting sculpture.
That's a little peculiar: those of us with talent at producing beautiful things are not under any positive obligation to produce beautiful things. And sometimes producing the beautiful thing may require doing something immoral - in which case we would be under a positive moral obligation not to create it.
Yet beautiful things that have already been created, even those that have been created by immoral means, are ones that we have a standing duty to respect and not destroy.
It seems, then, that we have a duty to respect beauty, but not to create it. Create some if you wish, but that is not part of your moral project. Morally speaking, your job is not to be a producer of beauty, but to learn to respect any beauty that exists.
Note, even if you think that we - those of us with an ability to produce beautiful things - are positively obliged to exercise our abilities, surely even you admit that it is far more wrong to destroy a beautiful thing than it is to fail to create one? And so you too should admit that the evidence indicates it is far more important to learn not to disrespect that which is beautiful than it is to produce that which is beautiful.
Comments (38)
:lol: Absolutely not.
On the other hand, as a lover of the arts (music and literature are my jam, but there's nothing wrong with the visual arts) and a Nietzschean of sorts in terms of how I look at humanity's existential priority list (I suppose you could call it): the aesthetic experience and aesthetic value are, imo, some of (if not THE) highest and most valuable things humans can aspire to, and the closest things to redeeming the viciousness, suffering, and absurdity of the world and the human experience.
So if someone has the capacity to create great art, I sort of want to say that they should or ought to do so, in some sense; the world and humanity would be better off if they did, and worse off if they did not .. but not in the same sense or to the same degree that one ought not to commit murder, or ought to help or intervene to prevent harm that is in your capacity to prevent. So its not quite a moral obligation, but isn't quite not a moral obligation, either. Is there such a thing as an aesthetic obligation?
Is this not a specific instance of a greater theme - that which exists is given moral priority over that which has the potential to exist. And hence it is not limited only to beauty. Replace "beautiful" with "useful" or anything else that is considered a positive value - I have a greater moral duty to preserve the item that exists, than to create a new additional item.
In some ways, it could be argued that it is a waste of talent if people don't make use of it. I know of someone who was a very good violinist but just decided not to do it any longer. If someone doesn't make use of their potential there is the possibility that they may regret it later, but to see it in a moralistic light may be unhelpful because it just leads to unhelpful guilt.
The trouble is that creativity is not something which mechanical, but it can be in the sense that people may go through the motions in a repetitive way. That would be an emphasis on art as a product. It may be how art and the arts are seen in a consumer society, but that is different from the process.
In some ways, the process of making art may go beauty, and aesthetic techniques. It can be a way of expressing the sublime and beautiful but as a journey it may go beyond this and also about experiencing and living with ugly and the darkest moments of experience and existence. This area was opened up in particular in the postmodernism of the twentieth first century. Each of us may have preferences, whether it is visual art, literature or music. For example, sometimes people are surprised that while I like classical literature my music tastes incorporate goth, metal and punk.
This is where subjectivity comes into it. I read Kant's, 'Critique of Judgment last year and was surprised how he recognised the subjective aspects of aesthetics. The issue may be that each person has their own subjective balance or symmetry rather than it being an 'out there' objective measure, even though there are shared intersubjective cultural aspects. These may involve shared social meanings but the beautiful and the ugly are based within the personal mind of the perceiver, even though there are likely to be overlaps based on the pleasure or displeasures of sensory experiences. In creating art one is making one's mark in the cultural niche but a prescriptive approach to what one should create may extinguish the source of creative inspiration.
And yes, I think there can be aesthetic obligations, although I'd be slightly worried that the word 'obligation' comes with moral connotations (doesn't have to - but I think it does in many people's minds). I think I'd prefer to say that there are aesthetic reasons to do things - including adopt certain attitudes towards things - alongside the other reasons to do things (such as prudential reasons and moral reasons).
It seems to me, for instance, that beauty calls for certain things - one 'ought' (aesthetically) to appreciate the beautiful (or try to), at least other things being equal. Someone who is unmoved by beautiful things seems to be manifesting a rational failing. But if someone fails to fulfil their aesthetic obligations we just deem them a philistine, rather than morally condemn them. That is, being unresponsive to aesthetic reasons seems more akin to a kind of stupidity rather than immorality.
I am not sure, however, that there is even an aesthetic obligation positively to produce beautiful things. I think if one is already in the process of producing something, then one may have aesthetic reason to take it in one direction rather than another. Indeed, artists are presumably responding to these reasons as they proceed. But these reasons did not exist prior to them beginning to produce whatever it was they were producing. That is, if you start to sculpt a piece of marble, then one may detect that there is aesthetic reason to lop off that bit rather than that other bit - for if one does that, then the result will be all the more beautiful. But there was no aesthetic reason to begin the sculpture. Likewise if one is writing something, then one might try and discern what phrase one has aesthetic reason to employ next, even though there was no aesthetic reason to start writing it.
Gauguin famously abandoned his family in order to pursue his art. It seems to me that if there were aesthetic reasons positively to produce beautiful things (as opposed to just aesthetic reasons to behave in certain was towards beautiful things that already exist or that one is in the process of making), then these would operate to lessen the wrong of what Gauguin did to his wife and children. Just as, by analogy, if doing x goes against what i have prudential reason to do, then that can operate to lessen how much blame I deserve for having done x. But when it comes to Gauguin it seems, at least to me, that he deserves the same degree of moral condemnation regardless of how talented he was.
The talented artist who decides not to produce anything has not shown disrespect to anyone or anything. The artist does not owe it to anyone else to produce beautiful things. There is no injustice done to anyone if the artist paints nothing, or the writer writes nothing, or the composer composes nothing. (Not unless they made a promise to someone to do so - but that's different as now a debt is owed to someone).
But there is an obligation not to disrespect those beautiful things that already exist. Imagine, for instance, that the talented artist has in their possession a beautiful work of art by someone else. The talented artist decides to paint over it with another beautiful painting of their own creation.
It seems to me that - other things being equal - this act is wrong. The world has not been made any the less beautiful by it - there is the same amount of beauty, as the new painting is every bit as beautiful as the one that it destroyed - but disrespect has been shown to the painting that was already in existence. Indeed, it seems to me that the artist here has done wrong even if their replacement painting is more beautiful than the original.
The reason for this may shed some light on the question.
If someone held a hostage at gunpoint and demanded you draw them a beautiful painting to let the hostage go, I think you would be obligated to draw said painting if you can. The difference between that situation and the situation where you decide whether or not to draw under no stress, seems to be the clarity of the consequences.
It is not at all clear that if you do not exercise your ability to create beautiful things that anyone would be seriously (if at all) hurt by that. But if there is reason to think that creating said beautiful things will serve to relieve a lot of suffering (somehow) and you choose not to do it, then you would be wrong.
It depends on the situation. There is no clear right/wrong to it. But generally, an artist can't guarantee that their work will have some sort of significant positive influence that justifies the effort, so they are under no obligation to make it.
Quoting Bartricks
That's because generally, destroying a beautiful thing is entirely unnecessary, whereas an artist may have reasons for not creating a beautiful thing (burnout, no time, mental/physical toll, etc).
The point I am making in the OP is not that we are never obliged to create beautiful things. There are all manner of circumstances under which one might be obliged to exercise a talent, such as the one you describe, where exercising it is called for in order to prevent someone suffering a great injustice.
The point, rather, is that the mere fact you have the ability to produce beautiful things - things it would be good for the world to contain - does not generate any obligation to exercise the ability in question.
Yes, there are circumstances under which one would be obliged to exercise it. But there is no standing obligation to do so. Whereas, for instance, there is a standing obligation to show others respect and, indeed, not to destroy any beautiful things in existence.
Quoting khaled
There are lots of things that are unnecessary, yet morally permissible.
And a person who has an artistic ability and is in perfect health, mental and otherwise, is still not under any positive obligation to exercise their ability.
Destroying something beautiful is generally not only entirely unnecessary, but also harmful (more specifically, denies people pleasure).
There is also the fact that tearing down something beautiful is destroying someones property (again, unnecessarily) assuming it is man made. That should be reason enough for it to be wrong.
But even if someone with artistic ability is in perfect health and has the motivation to make something they think is beautiful that doesnt change the fact that it will take a lot of effort and time, and is not guaranteed to even produce a positive result. Its not clear it would be worth it for the artist. So there is no obligation to do it.
If the artist could magically create era defining pieces of art at the snap of his fingers, and chooses not to do so, then yes Id think hes in the wrong.
Quoting Bartricks
I discovered when I was very young that I had a talent for drawing. This was the first skill that I was good at, and I enjoyed sharing my art with family and friends. I developed my skills through college, but since then I have all but abandoned it in favor of other interests which I find more creatively satisfying. Others ask me from time to time if I still draw, and I know some of them think it is a shame that I havent continued to pursue this talent. Also, my art was aesthetically accessible to them , whereas my philosophical interests are generally not.
From my vantage , it is as though I never abandoned my artistic interests. My philosophical thinking is very visual, and it has always felt to me as though , rather than abandoning art , I simply transferred my visual creativity from the canvas to the page.
The point I want to make is that there are myriad ways at any point in time we can choose to add value to the world, from contributing to charity to creating art to supporting our fiends and family to building a successful business.Whichever of those at any given time seems to us to be the most satisfying way to contribute to the world ( and to our our own well-being) is what should determine the correct path, not the second-guessing by others who do not know us. The value of the art within us is not for others to determine. The tortured novelist or musician who quits writing or music completely is not cheating the world of their gifts , but opting for the best way to offer themselves to others.
By the same token, art is destroyed ( the demolition of temples and religious icons by new regimes) when it is determined that its existence will cause more harm than good, that is, when it is not perceived as inspiring art but as a source of corruption. What youre arguing is a truism: we should not destroy what we consider to be uplifting art. And no one ever does. They destroy what they fail to see as uplifting art.
So, why do we have no obligation to create beautiful things, yet we do have an obligation not to destroy any that already exist?
I have offered a potential answer: that we have a duty not to show disrespect to others, including other things. So, if one destroys a beautiful painting, then one has shown disrespect to that feature of the world. But if one omits to create a beautiful painting, then one has not shown disrespect to anyone or anything.
That is, we do not have a duty to promote the good, or to prevent harm, except where failure to do so would show disrespect.
This delivers the correct verdict: despite the fact the act of producing beautiful works of art promotes the good - the world will have more good in it for one having done so - it is not morally required. Why? Because omitting to create such works does not show disrespect to any person or to any object.
Is there any reason to reject that analysis?
Quoting khaled
That's counterintuitive. So, Leonardo da Vinci had no obligation to produce art, as doing so clearly took him a lot of effort (he produced barely anything). But John Singer Sargent or Picasso did have an obligation to produce art, as they worked very quickly and with ease (as much ease as clicking one's fingers). That just seems prima facie false
How do you draw that conclusion? No, none of them were obligated to create art, because none of them could have known their art would have been worth creating. There are many people who can create art quickly and with ease, and who even think their art is fantastic, yet there are very few Picassos. They didn't have the benefit of hindsight.
My example was a hypothetical. An artist cannot know that his piece will bring much good. But if he did, and he could create it easily, then yes he would be obligated to do so.
Quoting Bartricks
There are many things that do not show disrespect to any person or object and yet are morally obligatory. For example, reporting a robbery if you see one. So it seems that "does not show disrespect" is not enough to guarantee something is not obligatory.
I am presenting a different analysis. That the creation of art is not obligatory because it is effortful and not effective at producing much good (statistically). I don't think something effortful can be obligatory unless it has a very good chance to produce a lot of good.
But of course, art can give us more than just beauty. It can question us, make a statement, express a lot more.
Art is complex, as is the judgement of beauty, and your example makes it appear simple. To begin with, you need to distinguish between what the artist knows as "beautiful", and what the audience wants as "beautiful".
So, for example, the artist might produce what oneself knows to be beautiful, yet it is not respected as such by others, so the artist is not paid, and must take a real job. Then the artist might quit producing art for the reason of having no time for it. In another case, the artist might get paid for one's work, and be inspired to produce more, but the work might be known by the artist to be not beautiful, and only being produced for money.
Those are two possible reasons why the artist might give up on producing beautiful work. One, because there is no pay for it, and the artist does not have the time, and the other, that the artist gets good pay to produce things which the artist believes to be not beautiful.
There are two keys required for unravelling the issue. One is to understand what qualifies as "beautiful". And the other is to understand the importance of money in the artist's life. Since money is a necessity for living, and there is no necessary relation between beauty and compensation, the artist has no obligation toward beauty. We cannot remove the importance of money, and simply assume that the artist's necessities are supplied, because that kills the will to do anything.
No I don't. The issue here is not what makes something beautiful or what beauty is. The issue is why there is an asymmetry - why is there no obligation to produce the beautiful, but an obligation not to destroy anything beautiful?
I have offered an explanation. The job, then, is to test that explanation.
Jeez. You said that if an artist could produce art with the click of his fingers, then he would have an obligation to do so. Yes?
So, unless you think there's something special about the act of clicking one's fingers specifically - in which case you're nuts - then your point is that if one can produce things of beauty with great ease, then one is obliged to do so. That's YOUR view. That's the view you expressed here:
Quoting khaled
Now, it's an implausible view for the reasons I explained. John Singer Sargent's party piece was to draw pictures of people in seconds that were fantastically good. Similarly, Picasso could produce artworks in seconds. Whereas other artists - Da Vinci, Vermeer etc - took ages. It is implausible that the former had an obligation to produce art, whereas the latter did not. The truth is that it is self evident that neither have obligations to exercise their respective abilities, regardless of how easy it would be to do so.
See?
False. I said if an artist can produce era defining pieces with the click of his fingers. That is to say, if the artist can produce art he knows will be good (and can do so very easily). Which never actually happens.
See?
Perhaps you should focus instead on the 'clicking the fingers' bit. Is your view that it is producing art by the act of 'clicking one's fingers' that is specifically normatively significant? Is that your view Khaled?
I'm afraid that if you cannot grasp the distinction then I think you're too far gone to be worth debating. Please reread what I wrote. These quotes could help you out.
Quoting khaled
Quoting khaled
Quoting khaled
Quoting khaled
Here let me say it one more time Bartricks. Maybe 5th time is the charm. For creating art to be obligatory for an artist, the artist must:
1- Have very good reason to think that his art will bring about much good before they produe it.
2- Be able to produce it relatively easily.
You will notice, Bartricks, that having produced era defining art does not meet condition (1). See?
First, you clearly know nothing about art or artists if you think any of those artists I mentioned didn't know they were creating era defining work. Believe me, most great artists - most great anything - knew full well they were great at the time. It's typically others who do not recognize greatness at the time. The great typically know they are great, which is precisely why they continue doing what they're doing despite not being recognized or encouraged.
So we can use any number of actually great artists to refute your silly argument, or we can just as well imagine an artist who knows full well that were they to exercise their artistic ability, they would create great art (for there is no contradiction involved in the supposition). And it remains as obvious as ever that there is no positive obligation on the person to exercise their ability.
So, those with great artistic ability are self-evidently not under an obligation to exercise it. And that remains the case whether they can exercise it with ease or whether exercising it involves finger snapping.
Thus you have failed to provide a counterexample to the self-evidently true claim that those of artistic ability are not under any obligation to exercise their ability, other things being equal.
Yet we are under an obligation not to destroy anything beautiful that is already in existence, other things being equal.
So, there is no obligation to produce beauty. There is an obligation not to destroy any that exists.
That, note, is the starting point of my discussion, not its conclusion.
Knowing you're a great artist =/= Knowing the next piece of art you produce will bring about much good. Similar to how a gold medalist, even though they (and everyone else) knows they're a great athlete, cannot know they will get a gold medal, or even do well at all in the next olympics.
Quoting Bartricks
But I already did a while ago:
Quoting khaled
And you did not deny that when it was first said. That makes me think:
Quoting Bartricks
Is false. If it was obvious, you'd have denied my quote above.
But at this point I'm just saying X and you're saying "Obviously not X" without any support. The classic "I'm right you're wrong because it's self evident" argument you love so much.
I can't understand why you post discussions in the first place if you believe all your premises are self evident and all your reasoning flawless. That's something I've wondered ever since your first post. What are you even trying to accomplish?
Quoting Bartricks
Quoting Bartricks
If that was the job then why no response to this?
Quoting khaled
What's that got to do with anything? Quoting khaled
Er, what? I did deny it. Read the OP. Clearly I believe that it is self-evident that those with the ability to produce beautiful things are under no positive obligation to do so.
You have provided no evidence to the contrary. All you've done is say what you believe. Namely that - for some stupid reason - you think that if an artist can produce beautiful work by cilcking their fingers, then this somehow means they are under an obligation to produce it, whereas if they produce their work by other means - no matter whether it is just as easy for them or not - they are not.
Look, you just have a silly view. You can't defend it. All you're going to do is repeat your belief - which, let's be honeset, you hold simply because it is the negation of mine - but you cannot show it to be implied by anything self-evident.
Its the same old story time and time again. I appeal to apparent self-evident truths of reason and show how they lead to some interesting conclusions. What you do is just deny the self-evidence of the self-evident truths of reason and then just insist "well my view is as good as yours". It's tedious.
Now, I am not interested in debating with those who can do no more than deny the obvious. That's not good philosophy.
If you can show how an obligation to produce beautiful things is implied by some genuinely self-evident truths about morality, then you'd have the beginnings of a case. But that's not what you're even attempting to do. All you seem capable of doing is saying over and over "my view's as good as yours, ner, ner, ner". It isn't. It's stupid. A stupid view is a view that starts with counter-intuitive claims and uses them to arrive at counter-intuitive conclusions.
I cited 2 things that would make producing art obligatory:
Quoting khaled
In an attempt to refute 1 you say:
Quoting Bartricks
I pointed out that knowing one is a great artist does not give one good reason to think his next painting will bring much good (it does not satisfy 1). Picasso might have known he was a great artist, but he could not have known his next paintings would ever bring much good. Similar to how a gold medalist could not know that he will get another gold medal on the next Olympics, or even a bronze. Thus, Picasso was under no obligation to create art despite satisfying 2 (again, due to not satisfying 1).
Quoting Bartricks
Except I have, and you continuously ignore it:
Quoting Bartricks
Quoting khaled
Those were the only falsehoods in your reply that are correctable. The rest show a confusion so profound I wouldn't know where to begin. You have shown that there is no merit in debating you, so I will take my leave now.
It is self-evident that those who are able to produce beautiful things are not obliged to do so.
if 1 is true - that is, if people are obliged to create something that will bring about a lot of good, other things being equal - then that self-evident truth would be false. But it's true, or at least we are default justified in believing it to be. So 1 is false until or unless you provide some evidence in support of it.
When it comes to 2, that too is clearly false. For Picasso could produce art with ease whereas Leonardo could not, but neither of them had any obligation to produce any art.
So, again, you are just making counterintuitive claims, not providing any kind of case against what I have argued.
To argue well you need to appeal to self-evident truths of reason and derive from them interesting conclusions (that do no themselves contradict self-evident truths of reason that we have no independent reason to think are false, or that are as strong or stronger than those from which your conclusion was derived).
You don't understand this. You think that any premise in any argument is as good as any other, yes? If I present an argument of this form:
1. 1+ 1 = 2
2. If A is bigger than B, and B is bigger than C, then A is bigger than C
3. Therefore 1 + 1 = 2 and if A is bigger than B, and B is bigger than C, then A is bigger than C.
All you are going to do is make the following argument:
1. 1+ 1 does not = 2
2. If A is bigger than B, and B is bigger than C, then A is not bigger than C.
3. Therefore 1 + 1 does not = 2 and if A is bigger than B and B is bigger than C, then A is not bigger than C.
And you think your argument is as good as mine, yes? Even though it's not - it's stupid.
Why is it stupid? Because this claim - 1 + 1 = 2 - is powerfully self-evident. By contrast, the claim that 1 + 1 does not = 2 is self-evidently false.
Notice that my arguments appeal to self-evident truths. All you do is think "Bartricks is wrong......therefore those premises are false, and if I say that, then my claim that those premises are false is just as justified as Bartricks's claim that they are true".
Your claims contradict mine. But all you are doing is assuming that artists are obliged to produce art and taking that for granted, even though that's intuitively false.
Counterintuitive claims need support. That is, they need to be 'conclusions' of arguments, not premises.
So stop thinking that if you think something then that's evidence it is true. Try supporting your claims with arguments that have self-evidently true premises.
Now try and focus on the OP and the relevant issue.
Here are two self-evident truths: those who are able to produce beautiful things are under no obligation to do so, other things being equal.
Don't question that.
Here's the other self-evident truth: we are obliged not to destroy any beautiful things taht are in existence, other things being equal.
Don't question that either.
The issue is why that would be the case.
Has TPF fallen to this level of intellectual discourse? :roll:
No. Im saying what I find to be intuitively true. Which is that when 1 and 2 are met, artists have an obligation to create art. And now you will just say Ah, you disagree with my premises therefore you are too far gone as usual. Its like a script with you.
Again, why do you post here if you dont want your premises to be doubted? You keep harping about self evident truths but cannot conceive that what is self evident for one is not self evident for another.
But even when not doubting your premises, I already said why your explanation is bad. Why have you not addressed this? If you dont again, I can only assume its because you cannot.
Quoting khaled
Maybe the reason you (and I) cannot find a good explanation for both statements to be true is that theyre not both true.
1 and 2 are refuted by this argument:
1. If one is obliged to do that which would promote good when doing so is easy, then someone possessed of talent who can exercise it with ease would be obliged to exercise it, other things being equal.
2. Those possessed of talent are not obliged to exercise it, even if they can do so with ease
3. Therefore one is not obliged to do that which would promote good when doing so is easy.
Now, this thread isn't actually about whether 2 is true or not. It is intuitively clear that it is. This thread is about how best to explain this, given that we are obliged not to destroy anything that is beautiful and already in existence.
Quoting khaled
One wants intelligent criticism, not mindless naysaying. That's not intellectually challenging. It's just tedious.
Quoting khaled
Er, I can explain it and did. Jesus. Read the OP.