Discussion Issues with Pro-life philosophy

[Jean Améry]

Haha we should found out own philosophical school

If you can come up with a catchy name why not? Personally I'm a strong believer in the notion that everything's already been said and done: nothing new under the sun as the philosophical Jewish writer of Ecclesiastes put it.

I am writing about these topics (antinatalism, pessimism, death and suicide) as I want to leave a book as the fruit of my life, harsh and bitter as it is. This necessitates serious philosophical reading and thinking.

Right now I'm re-reading the essay on suicide by the author whose name I appropriated as my nickname here: Jean Améry. He has interesting things to say especially about the dignity of the self-chosen death and the disgust for a life that is below the suicidal individual's standard: Améry posits that these two combined produce suicide. The suicidal individual respects herself and doesn't want to live a life that is repugnant so she chooses to no longer be.

The Ancients (especially the Stoics) also held interesting views on this as did David Hume and many others. I intent to capture this tradition of free death in my book which will be a condemnation of life, a defense of the notion of death as a) not harmful to the individual and b) a welcome reprieve from the wretchedness of life and ultimately a defense of the sovereign individual's moral right to self-deliverance.

After that I'll either decide to kick the proverbial bucket or I'll have to find another imaginary goal to occupy my thoughts with.

 

[a.n.kirillov]

If you can come up with a catchy name why not? Personally I'm a strong believer in the notion that everything's already been said and done: nothing new under the sun as the philosophical Jewish writer of Ecclesiastes put it.

I am writing about these topics (antinatalism, pessimism, death and suicide) as I want to leave a book as the fruit of my life, harsh and bitter as it is. This necessitates serious philosophical reading and thinking.

Right now I'm re-reading the essay on suicide by the author whose name I appropriated as my nickname here: Jean Améry. He has interesting things to say especially about the dignity of the self-chosen death and the disgust for a life that is below the suicidal individual's standard: Améry posits that these two combined produce suicide. The suicidal individual respects herself and doesn't want to live a life that is repugnant so she chooses to no longer be.

The Ancients (especially the Stoics) also held interesting views on this as did David Hume and many others. I intent to capture this tradition of free death in my book which will be a condemnation of life, a defense of the notion of death as a) not harmful to the individual and b) a welcome reprieve from the wretchedness of life and ultimately a defense of the sovereign individual's moral right to self-deliverance.

After that I'll either decide to kick the proverbial bucket or I'll have to find another imaginary goal to occupy my thoughts with.

Cool man, now I want to read your book :-) you already sold me on it. I've read the Hume essay recently and currently I'm studying Schopenhauer pretty intensively. Haven't heard of Jean Améry before but since I have got a lot of time on my hands right now, I might go ahead and read it soon.

How far are you with your book?

 

[Epsilon0]

I don't think any of the discussions that go on here about philosophical questions will enter our minds during our final moments. But it is enjoyable, nonetheless, to talk about topics such as free will and determinism.

Free will means having the freedom to decide how to act in any given situation. It is essentially a question of choice: I can do this, or I can do that. It is up to me.

To anyone who has ever stood at a cofee shop trying to decide between a capuccinno and a caffe latte, the idea of free will surely seems simple, logical and downright common sensical. Of course we are free to choose.

But it is really so? The simplicity of the example above is deceitful. In reality, we are not free agents capable of free choices. We, and our entire decision making process, is conditioned by a myriad of factors such as heredity, upbringing, culture, environment, relations, ideology, religion etc.

If we go back to the coffee shop, even the fact that you can choose between cappucino and latte is proof that your choice is influenced and corrupted by an external factor, i.e. the food culture in your country.

Free will is an illusion.

 

[Lucifer'sRight]

I would like to address 2 problems that I see with pro-life/anti-choice philosophy and arguments. There are 2 main set of arguments that pro-lifers have against CTB. The first is the consequentialist argument these are argument such as "it will get better soon" and the second are the rights arguments where the pro-lifers assert that individuals should not have the right to take their own lives. The second set of arguments from my experience is rarely made however I believe it is the common belief of most pro-lifers. I recently encountered this when I watched a BBC clip posted on exit(you can find it if you go to the website, scroll through the homepage gallery until you find PN BBC clip titled 'Why suicide should be a human right'). The way the host talks about right to die gives me the impression that she actually believes that humans should not have the right to CTB.

Rights Argument:
There are certain statements that I believe are self evident(some of these may be directly derived from definition):
1. A human is not a slave if and only if that human has exclusive ownership over his own body.
2. A human(H) is an exclusive owner of an object(O) if and only if H has the exclusive right to determine the fate of O.
3. The destruction of O is a fate of O.

Conclusions:
4. From 2 and 3: H is an exclusive owner of O if and only if H has the exclusive right to destroy O.
5. From 1, 2, and 4: H is not a slave if and only if H has the exclusive right to destroy (the body of H).
6. From 5: If H is not a slave then H has the exclusive right to destroy (the body of H).
7. From 6: if H does not have the right to destroy (the body of H) then H is a slave.

From what I understand Pro-lifers believe that humans do not have the right to destroy their own bodies. This indicates that they believe that humans do not own their own bodies and thus they must believe that humans are slaves. So who is our owner? Not all Pro-lifers are religious.

Even many Pro-life philosophers believed that slavery was an undignified existence and that slaves should CTB.

Consequentialist argument:
One of the most common arguments in favor of inhibiting CTB is that we(the pro-lifers) are doing what is in the best interest of the suicidal individual. Since the state of death is unknown it is impossible to determine its value relative to the state of life. So how can Pro-lifers assert that they are doing what is in the best interest of the individual?

Another common argument in favor of inhibiting CTB is "it will get better". Even assuming that this assertion is correct it still doesn't address the fact of whether the state of death is superior to the state of life and thus doesn't even answer the question of whether an individual should CTB from a consequentialist perspective.

Another common argument is that suicidal thoughts are temporary. This is similar to the above argument and has the same issues.

Overall my point is that since the state of death is unknown it is impossible for anyone to determine whether the state of life is superior to the state of death. Thus all consequentialist arguments proposed by pro-lifers are invalid. Furthermore this yields the conclusion that life and death are equivalent in terms of goodness(which one is better). Thus they should be treated equally.

This results in many interesting conclusions one of which is:
If it is considered an atrocity to kill(force death upon) an arbitrary individual then it must also be an atrocity to force life upon an arbitrary individual.

I agree. But I wouldn't expect anything more or less in a society where slavery is engrained in human psyche under many different names. We are owned by figures of authority, real life people and imagined abstracts. I am yet to meet a person that owns themselves. Most human being's default position is on their knees with their head in their ass. Don't ask me how can they accomplish that. I see one problem that lead to this. People are not interested in truth. And apart from intuition the inevitable path to truth is logic. But because people are not interested in truth, they learnt to dodge logic and go straight to the most comfortable shelter they can find - delusions. Since most people believe that there is no such thing as objective truth or objective moral laws delusions are practical and fun, they can make them into whatever they want and no one can deny them. Playdo reality.
Another words, quoting Laurie Anderson "Freedom is a scary thing not many people really want it". But I guess it has it's charm making up rules as they go cause in this scenario they can do whatever they please as long as there is enough crowd to agree with them. But I still see them kneeling down in front of their masters with their head in their ass even if they all agree with each other that up is down and down is up.

 

[alizee]

There are ways to explain quantum entanglement and other quantum phenomena(QP) which seem to violate locality in a manner that does not violate locality and does not assume determinism for example ER=EPR. Furthermore non-locality is another possible explanation for such phenomena. The assumptions of superdeterminism violate assumptions made throughout all of science and violate assumptions that are made in the scientific methodology itself. Moreover it should be noted that it is just one possible explanations of such phenomena.

Furthermore QP are widely believed to contribute true randomness to the universe thus making the universe non-deterministic(Copenhagen interpretation is widely accepted and if you reject this claim you must accept that it is still a prominent interpretation of QP). Quantum random number generators(which are considered true random number generators) currently exist and are utilized actively for cryptographic application. This demonstrates that there is wide spread acceptance that quantum phenomena contribute true randomness to the universe and thus make it non deterministic.

See https://www.idquantique.com/random-number-generation/products/quantis-random-number-generator/, https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.03304, https://qrng.anu.edu.au, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.3.054004 if you are interested.

I don't see what pseudo random number generators have to do with this topic.

I did not make any real claim regarding freewill and yes it is true that if we accept that QP contributes true randomness and makes the universe non deterministic it does not really impact the debate on freewill however it is still an important consideration since you addressed determinism in your argument. (Maybe I will make a claim regarding freewill later when I have more time).

I would enjoy chatting with you on discord sometime. I still don't agree that true randomness can exist from what you're asserting. True randomness isn't even something I can see an all powerful being do. I don't necessarily believe in such a being but I'm agnostic. The reasons people assume randomness from quantum random number generators are truly random is because we just cannot measure determinism from it. I can think logically of how the universe can be making it impossible for us to ever know it's truly determinism in multiple ways besides super determinism. But anyway I want to end the discussion about it because it's somewhat off-topic. Although I thought my first post was on topic with the original post.

 

[Jean Améry]

How far are you with your book?

The chapter on antinatalism is roughly finished but I think I'll rework and expend it to make to include more contemporary philosophical discussion. The other chapters still need a lot of work and since I'm working full-time and this is exhausting not to mention time-consuming the end is not in sight. All in all I have written about 150 pages.

Cioran said 'a book is a suicide postponed' and for me this might very well be the case.

As I plan on this being my legacy so to speak it needs to be good and thorough. I won't know anything about what'll happen after my death but I do want to try to ensure there can be no doubt my ability to think rationally, i.e. compos mentis,

 

[a.n.kirillov]

The chapter on antinatalism is roughly finished but I think I'll rework and expend it to make to include more contemporary philosophical discussion. The other chapters still need a lot of work and since I'm working full-time and this is exhausting not to mention time-consuming the end is not in sight. All in all I have written about 150 pages.

Cioran said 'a book is a suicide postponed' and for me this might very well be the case.

As I plan on this being my legacy so to speak it needs to be good and thorough. I won't know anything about what'll happen after my death but I do want to try to ensure there can be no doubt my ability to think rationally, i.e. compos mentis,

That indeed seems like a good reason. I curse Cioran some days because he was right about it always being too late to kill oneself haha. You have to be determined to do this while working a full time job, I applaud you; my 9to5s always killed any creative energy I had left.

Okay well then I hope I will make it long enough so that I can one day enjoy reading your book ^^

 

[Élégie]

@Jean Améry I would be very interested to read your book once it's finished!

 

[Jean Améry]

That indeed seems like a good reason. I curse Cioran some days because he was right about it always being too late to kill oneself haha. You have to be determined to do this while working a full time job, I applaud you; my 9to5s always killed any creative energy I had left.

Okay well then I hope I will make it long enough so that I can one day enjoy reading your book ^^

I do work full-time which is exhausting and draining so it's slow going. Oftentimes I don't even have the energy nor the inclination to write which I try to make up for by being more productive during the weekends.

It's funny: I was once faced with someone here who in response to my critique of psychiatry and psychiatric practice snidely remarked I should do something about it then... As if I have the time to protest (which would be useless anyway) let alone the energy but I do want to do my part. I want to prove being suicidal does not preclude rational thinking and even if my life didn't bear fruit at least I'll have stood up for something I believed in.

@Jean Améry I would be very interested to read your book once it's finished!

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

 

[a.n.kirillov]

I do work full-time which is exhausting and draining so it's slow going. Oftentimes I don't even have the energy nor the inclination to write which I try to make up for by being more productive during the weekends.

It's funny: I was once faced with someone here who in response to my critique of psychiatry and psychiatric practice snidely remarked I should do something about it then... As if I have the time to protest (which would be useless anyway) let alone the energy but I do want to do my part. I want to prove being suicidal does not preclude rational thinking and even if my life didn't bear fruit at least I'll have stood up for something I believed in.


Thanks for the vote of confidence.

That's a common defense mechanism for a lot of people. They think you can't critique something without first having the perfect solution for it, but it's only because they feel you are attacking them personally somehow, or at least that has been my observation with those kinds of people.

 

[Cave Johnson]

@Jean Améry I would also be interested in reading your books, should I outlive your writing project that is.

As far as the argument as a whole, I've not read much Locke(Or much other philosophical works tbh) lately, but this feels rooted in Locke's work with the whole 'self-ownership' concept.

 

[Jean Améry]

As far as the argument as a whole, I've not read much Locke(Or much other philosophical works tbh) lately, but this feels rooted in Locke's work with the whole 'self-ownership' concept.

I'm not an expert on Locke but it seems he did advocate this yes: "every man has a Property in his own Person" (Two Treatises on Government). It makes sense given that he's pretty much known as 'the father of liberalism'.

Anyone who claims to a liberal yet doesn't support the right to choose one's own end is a hypocrite.

The concept of sovereignty of the self goes back to Seneca at least, the Romans in generally had no qualms with suicide except in very specific cases like slaves (which in their view amounted to destruction of property), soldiers (weakening of the state, desertion) and those accused of capital crimes (no conviction meant to confiscation of property).

Such discussions do warrant a separate subforum dedicated to philosophical discussion so those threads don't get lost between the rest. Perhaps you could contact a mod with this request if you're interested.

 

[Epsilon0]

The chapter on antinatalism is roughly finished but I think I'll rework and expend it to make to include more contemporary philosophical discussion. The other chapters still need a lot of work and since I'm working full-time and this is exhausting not to mention time-consuming the end is not in sight. All in all I have written about 150 pages.

Cioran said 'a book is a suicide postponed' and for me this might very well be the case.

As I plan on this being my legacy so to speak it needs to be good and thorough. I won't know anything about what'll happen after my death but I do want to try to ensure there can be no doubt my ability to think rationally, i.e. compos mentis,

I can't help but feel a pang of sadness at the thought of 150 pages on antinatalism. Not because this view on life offends me in any way, but because I find it heartbreaking that one's magnus opus and legacy (as you call it) should be the fruit of so much anguish.

Reading about your struggles to finish what can only be described as a titanic project, made me think of this quote from Kierkegaard... Suffer some more!



What is a poet? An unhappy man who hides deep anguish in his heart, but whose lips are so formed that when the sigh and cry pass through them, it sounds like lovely music.... And people flock around the poet and say: 'Sing again soon' - that is, 'May new sufferings torment your soul but your lips be fashioned as before, for the cry would only frighten us, but the music, that is blissful."

 

[!!!!!julpet]

Before I begin, I have a question.

Is there a broad resentment here on SS, aimed at those people who enjoy life, and who wish to preserve not only their own lives, but that of others?

But my main question. Hasn't the discussion drifted off course somewhat?

Perhaps I misunderstand. But isn't this basically pro life vs pro suicide?

If it's argued that people are, or/and should be, 'free' to kill themselves, then isn't it an equally valid argument that people are, 'free' to oppose suicide, and to be pro living?

I don't know the exact stat's, I doubt anyone does, but with over 8 billion humans currently alive, the observable evidence is that the vast majority are pro living and are not suicidal. That suggests to me, that being pro life has a default logical basis. And suggesting that such a huge number of of people are wrong in their thinking, doesn't make much sense.

Now clearly, there are also a very large number of people, who for a variety of reasons, do not want to be alive. They are not all the same. Their reasons are not all logical. Again, I doubt anyone knows the stat's for how many are rational in their desire to kill themselves. But no doubt it's a very large number. It may be large though, but given it's a smaller number than those who are pro life, shouldn't some thought be given to accepting that, being pro life is actually rational?

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

Before I begin, I have a question.

Is there a broad resentment here on SS, aimed at those people who enjoy life, and who wish to preserve not only their own lives, but that of others?

But my main question. Hasn't the discussion drifted off course somewhat?

Perhaps I misunderstand. But isn't this basically pro life vs pro suicide?

If it's argued that people are, or/and should be, 'free' to kill themselves, then isn't it an equally valid argument that people are, 'free' to oppose suicide, and to be pro living?

I don't know the exact stat's, I doubt anyone does, but with over 8 billion humans currently alive, the observable evidence is that the vast majority are pro living and are not suicidal. That suggests to me, that being pro life has a default logical basis. And suggesting that such a huge number of of people are wrong in their thinking, doesn't make much sense.

Now clearly, there are also a very large number of people, who for a variety of reasons, do not want to be alive. They are not all the same. Their reasons are not all logical. Again, I doubt anyone knows the stat's for how many are rational in their desire to kill themselves. But no doubt it's a very large number. It may be large though, but given it's a smaller number than those who are pro life, shouldn't some thought be given to accepting that, being pro life is actually rational?

It's not rational to want to be alive . and much less to want strangers to be alive as it is none of their business what I do in my life.
1. Can you or anyone tell me what is an objective reason to live ? I don't see any objective reason purpose for life. Life is meaningless.

2. Someone might have a subjective reason to want to live but imo that it not objective nor even rational if you do a pros and cons analysis including the horrible things that can happen to any human which are not worth anything.. There are many horrible things that can happen to a human any day, kidnapping torture, accident brain damage, stroke, cancer, parasites, diseases, unfair firing old age ... thousands .Just one example of the many horrible things that can happen to a human:
I think there can be other kinds of pain and suffering most people don't want for example being burned with 3rd degree burns all over your body and remaining alive. Not only is the pain constant and unbearable but added to that is the mental suffering of seeing your whole face and skin burned looking like a monster. This has happened to people. Is eating that sandwich or watching that clickbait youtube video worth this or the worst kind of torture imaginable ? i think most wouldn't want that torture for that "pleasure'" as the pain is much greater. but the thing is humans are taking those risks everyday for no objective purpose so is that rational?

It can happen to any human as in a house or car fire.
I can't stand pain and suffering and can't stand just existing also carrying around and feeding 70 kilograms of trillions of monstrous cells for what purpose?
3. cancer around 40% lifetime chance, . stroke 25%. kidnapping torture? millions disapear every year what is the probability. car accident and remaining alive with brain damage or disability chance? I just mentioned 4 threats but there are many more. why should I risk these threats for what reason?
4. every human and I will die anyway . so why does a stranger want me to stay alive at any cost since i'm going to die anyway and they tell me "well you have to fight to live" and i say "no i choose not to and you can't tell me what to do nor even a valid reason why i have to do anything even live plus i'm going to die anyway so what you are saying is illogical....
I can say all this here but anywhere else i'd be banned and irl if i say this they will call the police and or mental hospital and have me put in a mental ward
Im just touching on this and might try to write a longer post

 

[Dot]

Before I begin, I have a question.

Is there a broad resentment here on SS, aimed at those people who enjoy life, and who wish to preserve not only their own lives, but that of others?

Nt - th/ resentmnt = fr ppl wh/ wn2 contrl th/ lves of othrs

If it's argued that people are, or/and should be, 'free' to kill themselves, then isn't it an equally valid argument that people are, 'free' to oppose suicide, and to be pro living?

Ppl cn b pro- or anti whtevr thy lke as lng as thy respct autnmy of othrs

I don't know the exact stat's, I doubt anyone does, but with over 8 billion humans currently alive, the observable evidence is that the vast majority are pro living and are not suicidal. That suggests to me, that being pro life has a default logical basis. And suggesting that such a huge number of of people are wrong in their thinking, doesn't make much sense.

Now clearly, there are also a very large number of people, who for a variety of reasons, do not want to be alive. They are not all the same. Their reasons are not all logical. Again, I doubt anyone knows the stat's for how many are rational in their desire to kill themselves. But no doubt it's a very large number. It may be large though, but given it's a smaller number than those who are pro life, shouldn't some thought be given to accepting that, being pro life is actually rational?

Agn - ppl r free 2 Njy lfe if thy wn2 -- jst nt mke unwelcme decsns fr othr ppl

 

[!!!!!julpet]

pthnrdnojvsc, you say,

"It's not rational to want to be alive . and much less to want strangers to be alive as it it none of their business what I do in my life."

Don't you agree that is an entirely personal perspective? Why is someone who enjoys being alive, and wants others to enjoy being alive, being irrational?

I do agree, you can argue your life ( death) is none of their business. But shouldn't one also accept, that ones actions do impact other people to a greater or lesser extent? We don't live in isolation. We have road speed limits, because speeding can negatively impact orhers. So too can and does, suicide. Is it surprising, that the majority do not support suicide because they wish to.protect themselves from the effects it has? You can say they are selfish. Almost certainly true. Isn't everything ultimately a selfish act? But why is wanting to be alive not rational?

 

[Deleted member 65988]

It's not rational to want to be alive . and much less to want strangers to be alive as it it none of their business what I do in my life.
1. Can you or anyone tell me what is an objective reason to live ? I don't see any objective reason purpose for life. Life is meaningless.

2. Someone might have a subjective reason to want to live but imo that it not objective nor even rational if you do a pros and cons analysis including the horrible things that can happen to any human which are not worth anything.. There are many horrible things that can happen to a human any day, kidnapping torture, accident brain damage, stroke, cancer, parasites, diseases, unfair firing old age ... thousands .Just one example of the many horrible things that can happen to a human:
I think there can be other kinds of pain and suffering most people don't want for example being burned with 3rd degree burns all over your body and remaining alive. Not only is the pain constant and unbearable but added to that is the mental suffering of seeing your whole face and skin burned looking like a monster. This has happened to people. Is eating that sandwich or watching that clickbait youtube video worth this or the worst kind of torture imaginable ? i think most wouldn't want that torture for that "pleasure'" as the pain is much greater. but the thing is humans are taking those risks everyday for no objective purpose so is that rational?

It can happen to any human as in a house or car fire.
I can't stand pain and suffering and can't stand just existing also carrying around and feeding 70 kilograms of trillions of monstrous cells for what purpose?
3. cancer around 40% lifetime chance, . stroke 25%. kidnapping torture? millions disapear every year what is the probability. car accident and remaining alive with brain damage or disability chance? I just mentioned 4 threats but there are many more. why should I risk these threats for what reason?
4. every human and I will die anyway . so why does a stranger want me to stay alive at any cost since i'm going to die anyway and they tell me "well you have to fight to live" and i say "no i choose not to and you can't tell me what to do nor even a valid reason why i have to do anything even live plus i'm going to die anyway so what you are saying is illogical....
I can say all this here but anywhere else i'd be banned and irl if i say this they will call the police and or mental hospital and have me put in a mental ward
Im just touching on this and might try to write a longer post

you've nailed here @pthnrdnojvsc. A lot of what you've listed sums up the reasons I will ctb at some point, all of this isn't worth the effort of sustaining continued existence only to experience a potentially long-drawn out and slow death through illness for example.

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

pthnrdnojvsc, you say,

"It's not rational to want to be alive . and much less to want strangers to be alive as it it none of their business what I do in my life."

Don't you agree that is an entirely personal perspective? Why is someone who enjoys being alive, and wants others to enjoy being alive, being irrational?

I do agree, you can argue your life ( death) is none of their business. But shouldn't one also accept, that ones actions do impact other people to a greater or lesser extent? We don't live in isolation. We have road speed limits, because speeding can negatively impact orhers. So too can and does, suicide. Is it surprising, that the majority do not support suicide because they wish to.protect themselves from the effects it has? You can say they are selfish. Almost certainly true. Isn't everything ultimately a selfish act? But why is wanting to be alive not rational?

It's not rational for me to want to live. 1. The odds are something horrible can happen to me , to any sentient animal . So I should have an objective reason to risk remaining alive under such threats. But there is no objective reason for me to even live much less to put up with all the labor problems suffering of life and even less to risk the extreme torture that is possible.

What is that objective reason to work so hard to exist under such extreme danger?

The extreme torture pain possible is much worse than anything can be good as I provided an example of extreme torture in my previous posts.

2. It's not rational for strangers to want me to remain alive in such danger for no purpose since it doesn't affect them in any way , is none of their business, and I'm going to die anyway.... Many more reasons . Why would a stranger want me to remain in danger and keep suffering?

3. What is the objective reason a human has to work every day for 80 years: u have to work a job , wash clothes , shower, take out trash, etc. Every day for what reason?

I don't know how many times I've said after working a job all day coming home and then cleaning the house, taking out trash, fixing broken things , dealing with problems grocery shopping....etc ... Oh I have to do all this garbage again tomorrow and for what reason?

4 . I never asked to be born. Life is a burdensome dangerous imposition

5. always hungry have to work a lot to feed yourself 3 times a day grocery shop, cook , clean kitchen trash . Most animals including humans are always hungry and have to continously feed many times killing other animals and eating them alive . what for ? that seems like a very ineffecient brutal process evolution created all for no purpose
That's 5 . I have many more

 

[Meditation guide]

It comes down to who owns your body? You? or the government?
And the risks of being alive are considerable. The number of terrible things that can happen to you are in the thousands if you add up all the awful diseases and accidents that are possible.

 

[Meditation guide]

​

Prolifer average time before ban= 11 days.