|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
23rd November 2012, 09:38 PM | #1 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 441
|
C.S. Lewis Absurdity
Hopefully this post is as fun as the title makes it seem. I had some masochistic urge to explore why this C.S. Lewis's quotation is absurd: "God is not merely good, but goodness; goodness is not merely divine, but God." I produced a syllogism that takes into account this idea that God and goodness are identical, but it committed the fallacy of division so I want to forget that dark time in my life. I made a new one, and an analog, but I want to be sure the shadow of fallacy isn't stalking me, which is where you come in (I hope!)
Here's the analog first, and then the relevant one I based it off of: David is fluent in Tagalog. Dave is David. ∴ Dave is fluent in Tagalog. God is fluent in Mandarin. Goodness is God. ∴ Goodness is fluent in Mandarin. If there's no fallacy, then the syllogisms are both valid. And since of course goodness doesn't have vocal cords or hands, the conclusion of the second syllogism is false, making it unsound. But which premise made it false? I doubt an average theist would say God is not fluent in Mandarin, so maybe it's the second one? If so it goes without saying that this syllogism negates the second half of Lewis's quotation. The next question is merely about how a defender of Lewis's idea will simultaneously explain, and be convinced, that moral excellence is in fact able to speak or write smoothly in Mandarin, which is where the masochism comes in. |
__________________
Personal weblog, both green and black. |
|
23rd November 2012, 10:06 PM | #2 |
The Infinitely Prolonged
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,612
|
I think the basic fallacy C.S. Lewis is making is called an equivocation.
|
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!! |
|
23rd November 2012, 10:25 PM | #3 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 15,892
|
"Goodness is God" is just word games. Totally useless in any intellectual pursuit. I would also add that it's useless in theological pursuit too, but then theological validity depends entirely on the desires of the arguer.
|
23rd November 2012, 10:59 PM | #4 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 441
|
|
__________________
Personal weblog, both green and black. |
|
23rd November 2012, 11:17 PM | #5 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,222
|
Ever since Charles I of Spain (Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire), everyone knows that Spanish is God's native language. There is your fallacy, the hilited false premise.
Charles said: ''I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men and German to my horse.'' |
__________________
And although I'm not often ''amazed'' these days, I am frequently appalled, but that may be simply because reality keeps upping the ante.- ''The Word Detective'', Evan Morris. |
|
24th November 2012, 03:17 AM | #6 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,580
|
The difficulty is your assumption (or what might have been a definition, except you didn't give one) that fluency in Mandarin presupposes possessing hands and vocal cords.
Putting to one side that C.S. Lewis's God does have both (Lewis was a Nicene Christian, and so confessed that Jesus, a chatty one-time manual laborer, is God), your first premise God is fluent in Mandarin is incompatible with your unstated premises, Fluency in Mandarin requires hands and vocal cords and God lacks hands and vocal cords So, from any contradictory premises, every proposition follows, without exception. Your second stated premise, then, could be replaced by its negation, with no effect on the conclusion. Hope that helps. |
24th November 2012, 04:08 AM | #7 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
@Dog Breakfast:
I think the problem you're looking at is that it's nonsense, since God is an entity, while Goodness is essentially an attribute or a state. As such it's not even a syllogism, it's just a stupid word game. (Which is pretty redundant once you said it's from C.S.Lewis) There isn't even any real logical argument in what you quoted, since it lacks a third term. It's just a nonsensical declaration of identity, for which you need a reification to even have the same type of thing on both sides. The chief problem is the word "is". In English it can mean identity (e.g., "Abdul Al Hazred is the Mad Arab."), or it can mean belonging to a set (e.g., "Abdul Al Hazred is one of the victims of Lovecraftian demons"), or having an attribute (e.g., "Abdul Al Hazred is mad"), or just a way introducing a metaphor or a synecdoche ("I AM the state" or "The Necronomicon is madness.") The meaning of "is" in "God is goodness" is exactly the synecdoche meaning of "is", just like in "The Necronomicon is madness." It's using the name of the whole concept of Madness or Goodness to mean one instance of an idea being crazy in some particular way, or God being arguably good in some particular ways. And he's equivocating from that to the identity meaning. NB: I AM splitting hairs for the sake of making it clear, since there is no real border between a state, an attribute and belonging to a set which is defined by having that attribute. There is however a fundamental difference between any of those and identity, and from any of them to the synecdoche meaning, and that's where the equivocation happens. Though I'm not sure I'd even call it an equivocation per se, since a synecdoche or more generally a metaphor can be fitted as a substitute for the actual entity in any other construct. So more properly it's just a piece of complete nonsense. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
24th November 2012, 04:29 AM | #8 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 332
|
|
24th November 2012, 05:58 AM | #9 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,911
|
For a few years now, I've been using a Sharpie to make the motto on my money "IN GOOD WE TRUST".
|
24th November 2012, 06:58 AM | #10 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: St. Louis, Mo.
Posts: 13,231
|
Later on, they modified this into the ubiquitous "God is Love". I even heard a couple of Jesuit astronomers drop that one...
How did they come to that conclusion? Why..."God made the universe for us." Wow. Profound. What if God made the universe for say, the guys out near Antares, and we were just an accident? |
24th November 2012, 09:37 AM | #11 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 441
|
My thing about vocal cords and hands wasn't that God doesn't have them, it was that goodness doesn't have them, because goodness is abstract, and abstract things don't have body parts necessary for fluency, only concrete things do. There's another syllogism in the works: God has hands and vocal cords, Goodness is God, ∴ goodness has hands and vocal cords. That's the very same type of nonsense, I believe.
If God created the universe, he certainly didn't create the Northern Local Supervoid for us. Maybe for the nightgaunts, but not for us. Try this on for size: Love is never having to say you're sorry. God is love. ∴ God is never having to say you're sorry. |
__________________
Personal weblog, both green and black. |
|
24th November 2012, 09:41 AM | #12 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 441
|
|
__________________
Personal weblog, both green and black. |
|
24th November 2012, 10:24 AM | #13 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,909
|
Of course the problem with the whole "God is ultimate goodness" argument is that its proponents have to come up with explanations for why their God often seem to misbehave. A bit like a parent arguing that their little Timmy is perfect in every way while Timmy is in the middle of setting the cat on fire.
|
__________________
A quick reminder to all participants that although incomprehensibility is not against the Membership Agreement, incivility is. Please try and remember this, and keep your exchanges polite and respectful. -arthwollipot |
|
24th November 2012, 02:09 PM | #14 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,962
|
|
24th November 2012, 07:47 PM | #15 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 441
|
Is that what you believe, or are you just saying that's what they'll say?
I guess for those who believe in dead people coming back to life and monsters from another dimension whispering in our ears to trick us into masturbating, the belief that an abstract quality like goodness is able to speak and write probably wouldn't take a huge leap of faith. Ouch. There's gotta be something... Maybe this: God was born in southeast Asia Goodness is God ∴ Goodness was born in southeast Asia I can kind of see how an apologist could wiggle into the idea that fluency in Mandarin is a part of what goodness is (though not moral goodness, which seems totally irrelevant to language skills), but it seems like it ought to be much harder to wiggle into the idea that something as neutral and incidental as being born in southeast Asia is a part of what goodness is in anything like the same (exact identical interchangable) way that charity is a part of what goodness is. Though apologists are very good at wiggling. |
__________________
Personal weblog, both green and black. |
|
24th November 2012, 08:37 PM | #16 |
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 8,004
|
I dunno. I always thought that what he meant was that if God declared murder and mayhem to be moral it would be. This seems more like a way around the 'how could God allow evil to exist?' paradox. The notion of God doing evil is a flaw in our thinking, actually a kind of blasphemy, because if God does it it must be good because God IS good. We think it was evil because we can't fully understand the mind of God. But if we could we would see that all the evil was really good. Oops.
Tell me more about these monsters that would help me masturbate though. |
25th November 2012, 01:04 AM | #17 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,580
|
Quote:
It doesn't matter what the contradiction is. If "apparatus is needed for fluency" is secure, and the problem isn't that God lacks apparatus, then the problem that Goodness lacks apparatus will do just as well. But either way, you have only shown that either Lewis disagrees with about the nature of Goodness (formerly about the nature of God), or about the need for apparatus after all, or he simply didn't mean it literally. If the last, then the whole exercise is strawmanning. Worse, Lewis does disagree with you about the nature of God. I'll bet he disagrees with you about the nature of Goodness, too. And, I don't know how literalist he was, but God the Father (one of the persons without the apparatus) is depicted in the canonical Bible as writing (the stone tablets) and speaking (dictating to Moses the specifications of the Temple). So, Lewis may disagree with you about the need for vocal cords and hands to attain fluency. BTW, so did Alan Turing. However, since the possibility of strawmanning is so obvious, and if true, then utterly devastating to reasoned argument, I hunted down the source. The location that comes up for "God is not merely good, but goodness; goodness is not merely divine, but God." is the 21st paragraph of "The Poison of Subjectivism" (1943). Well, there is some irony about the quote and the title, isn't there? Anyway... As the date suggests, it was an anti-Fascist (and despite the alliance structure, anti-Communist) propaganda essay. That's a bad sign for insisting on literalism, since the subject of the sentence is God, but the clear intent of the piece is political, and the peculiar circumstances of war. So, anyway, I count my way down to paragraph 21, and sure enough, your quote is the summation sentence of this gem of English-Latin prose, the paragraph entire. I have taken the liberty of breaking it up, so that it isn't just a wall of words. Sorry, Clive. The only parts I'll discuss are the last two pseudo-paragraphs, in case you want to cut to the chase. Or, you fear that your eyes will have glazed over before you glimpse the Promised Land.
Quote:
You may object that Lewis said this only in Latin (I busy myself with things that are above me, on the model of Psalm 131: 1, in which David asserts the contrary about himself), but you cannot pretend that Lewis did not say it, on pain of strawmanning him. |
25th November 2012, 08:29 AM | #18 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
But it is probably just here that our categories betray us. It would be idle, with our merely mortal resources, to attempt a positive correction of our categories - ambulavi in mirabilibus supra me. But it might be permissible to lay down two negations: that God neither obeys nor creates the moral law. The good is uncreated; it never could have been otherwise; it has in it no shadow of contingency; it lies, as Plato said, on the other side of existence. It is the Rita of the Hindus by which the gods themselves are divine, the Tao of the Chinese from which all realities proceed.
A long winded way of saying 'god works in mysterious ways'. |
25th November 2012, 09:14 AM | #19 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 28,766
|
You have some problem with Timmy setting the cat on fire?
Back to the OP. C.S.Lewis was either a twit, or someone doing a good imitation of one, at least on the subject of religion. Religion is just wrong. All religion. When a fool attempts to justify the arguments of religion, he remains a fool. When an intelligent and highly educated academic does so, he becomes one. |
25th November 2012, 09:28 AM | #20 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,962
|
Dear Dog Breakfast,
I speak here to the Catholic perspective. There is nothing wrong with saying Goodness was born in southeast Asia, given that Christ is the paradigm of goodness and is said to have been born thereabouts. (Unless someone highlights the NT verse where Christ says, "None is good except the Father" in which case I'm beat.) Cpl Ferro |
25th November 2012, 11:34 AM | #21 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,800
|
In an attempt to clarify the discussion, can I unintentionally complicate things further by pulling in Dungeons and Dragons?
Lewis's argument would make sense in a D&D context, where Good and Evil both exist as real, inchoate but positively existing, entities. You can cast Detect Evil and know with absolute certitude whether or not you are looking at Evil. A god that is Good is itself Good, and doing Good will put you in good with that god. Notice the capitalization, though. Good is not always good. Healing is always Good, for instance, so (depending on how literal a DM you have) healing someone with a painful, terminal illness just to keep them suffering is a Good act, but not a good one. Similarly raising the dead is always Evil, even if it happens to be the body of an honored ancestor and treated with utmost respect as one of your tribe's quirky culture things. Given this, I'd say the root problem with Lewis's statement applied to the real world is that "goodness" is not an objective concept, and even if it were it would be Goodness, which would not be necessarily good. |
25th November 2012, 12:27 PM | #22 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 441
|
I guess the ultimate issue is whether it's nonsense to say a quality such as goodness can be born and can speak. If it isn't nonsense, then there's nothing wrong, at least categorically, with saying that qualities such as wetness could be born in the Phillippines, or ripeness could speak Choctaw.
My assumption was that most people, if I demonstrated what it would mean for a quality to have attributes like that, would agree with me that such propositions are nonsense (and that nonsense isn't a good way around the Euthyphro dilemma). Most people, hopefully, but not all, I suppose! |
__________________
Personal weblog, both green and black. |
|
25th November 2012, 05:54 PM | #23 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
I still think the chief problem there is with treating the "is" as being reflexive. The problem is that only one kind of "is", actually is reflexive, and that's the identity one.
If it's used to mean identity, then, yes, "A=B" is the same thing as "B=A". You can flip it around at will. "Abdul Al Hazred is the mad Arab" is the same thing as "The mad Arab is Abdul Al Hazred". It doesn't work when it's just introducing a metaphor, nor when it denotes belonging to some set or having some property, nor really in any other situation than identity. E.g., one can't flip Shakespeare's "All the world is a stage" around and expect the same meaning in "A stage is all the world." (At least not if you take 'a stage' as the subject.) So even if Lewis had an entity on both sides, he still wouldn't be allowed to flip a metaphor around. Furthermore there is generally a problem with arguments based on analogies or metaphors (the synecdoche is, after all, just a kind of metaphor). You have to be careful (and able to support) that what you take from context A to context B is indeed the relevant common part, and not something spurious. E.g., one could run off with "all the world is a stage" and try to argue that the world therefore is made of wooden planks, or that the world has a curtain hanging in front of it. Or viceversa, that a stage is mostly covered in water and has trees growing on it. So generally any metaphors or analogies should be restricted to illustrating something, rather than supporting it. Any argument that rests on an analogy (as opposed to being just illustrated via one) can be safely discarded, and one resting on a metaphor doubly so. Which by itself takes care of Lewis's absurdity. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
26th November 2012, 01:41 AM | #24 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,580
|
Lewis' sentence is not an analogy or metaphor, but it is figurative. It is some kind of personification, if we really need to classify the figure. But to refute it, like refuting Hamlet's "Frailty, thy name is woman," is simply to miss its point. Hamlet is disappointed in his mother's choice of mate; Lewis is satisfied with his God's deportment. That's all there is to discuss.
That either statement takes the form it does shows that it is offered for its effect, not its literal truth. The form amplifies or heightens the emotion surrounding an underlying fact claim (Mom is sleeping with Dad's killer; God blesses good people like us), it does not explain or argue for the claim. As I said in my post, Lewis is in fact engaging in wartime propaganda, with some religious decoration.Gott mit uns was already taken by the other guys. So, he adapts. You either like his poetry or you don't. Regardless, Lewis is writing a psalm or hymn here, not making an argument. "My God, thy name is Goodness. Goodness, thy name is my God." Add some drums and a guitar and Hamlet can dance to it. The only "argument" made here is that Nazis aren't the personification of Goodness, and neither are Communists. Apparently, Lewis didn't feel the need to back that up too rigorously. Perhaps he was confident of the sympathy of his original audience, and their patience with those who whisper sweet nothings in God's ear. |
26th November 2012, 02:20 AM | #25 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
Well, a metaphor is one of the figures of speech. In your Shakespeare example it's a reification from a logic standpoint, or from a literary standpoint that particular one is called an apostrophe. Same idea.
That said, I think I CAN refute it, bearing in mind I'm not refuting someone's right to use a figure of speech, but I CAN refute the validity of their implicit claim or message. If he's trying to tell something to the reader, I can jolly well say that that's false or a complete nonsense. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
26th November 2012, 07:54 AM | #26 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
|
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
27th November 2012, 10:25 AM | #27 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,962
|
|
27th November 2012, 01:19 PM | #28 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 441
|
It looks like I was wrong that you can infer that wetness might be able to be born from the conclusion that goodness can be born just because they're both qualities.
However it still seems like the conclusion implies that one can't rule out the possibility that wetness can be born solely on the basis that it is a quality, because being a quality doesn't automatically exclude something from the category of 'things that can be born.' But I can't think of another basis to exclude wetness from the category of 'things that can be born.' Can you? I wonder if the way you concluded that wetness was not born was the unconscious use of this (completely sound u.i.m.) syllogism: Wetness is a quality. No qualities were born. ∴ Wetness was not born. Which contradicts this syllogism: Goodness was born. Goodness is a quality. ∴Some qualities were born. Is that first syllogism how you concluded that wetness was not born? If not, how did you conclude that wetness was not born? |
__________________
Personal weblog, both green and black. |
|
27th November 2012, 06:14 PM | #29 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,962
|
Dear Dog Breakfast,
I think you and I are using the term "Goodness" in different ways. I'm speaking from a Catholic position wherein Goodness is a quality that has been raised to entity status. Any other qualities so raised likewise inhere in God. As to anything else, I question what it would mean for wetness to be born, as contrasted to what Catholics know it means for Goodness to be born. Cpl Ferro |
27th November 2012, 07:31 PM | #30 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 441
|
With your new detail that "goodness is a quality that has been raised to entity status," I guess I'll have to throw in the towel on this one. However I'll add to my concession speech that I think if you can understand what it means for one quality to be raised to entity status, you ought to be able to at the very least concieve what it would mean for any other quality to be raised to entity status. I myself have no clue as to what it would mean for a quality to be raised to entity status, and I have a feeling that that's because the idea is absurd.
|
__________________
Personal weblog, both green and black. |
|
28th November 2012, 07:13 AM | #31 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
Raising an abstract quality to the rank of a concrete entity, is pretty much the most thoroughly insane way to commit the reification fallacy. I mean, just treating an abstract thing as concrete would already suffice, but the added nonsense of just decreeing an attribute to be an entity (sorta like proclaiming a smell to be a shape) is that extra insanity touch.
So it seems to me like we're back to it being not very logical. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
28th November 2012, 07:39 AM | #32 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,024
|
So is Lewis's error amphiboly or amphigory? The answer probably depends on whether or not the reader is feeling charitable and attributes no intentional deceit.
I have read most of Lewis's work, and I find it hard to believe that he didn't know exactly what he was doing: using words in an ambiguous or misleading way in order to provide sound bites for his readers to use in arguments. To someone who hasn't studied logic, his arguments sound lofty and compelling. |
28th November 2012, 08:53 AM | #33 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,962
|
|
28th November 2012, 09:41 AM | #34 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
Actually, no, there still is a difference between an entity and merely a noun. You can have nouns for attributes or even actions (e.g., "the rising of Cthulhu"), but that doesn't make them entities.
An entity is basically a thing or a being. Not necessarily tangible or existing or concrete, but still. A computer is an entity. A corporation is an entity. My invisible cat is an entity. An attribute on the other hand is a property of an entity. and an action is something an entity does. You can't turn either into an entity by just using an artifact of one particular language. So as Dog Breakfast says, it's still nonsense to make an entity out of an attribute. Just that it's possible to make a noun out of something in English just makes it a word-play not a valid way to have an entity. ETA: in fact, to be specific, the word-play there is metonymy. You haven't actually made ripeness and wetness into entities, you used the name of two of its attributes to refer to an entity. That's a metonymy. Plus, you still haven't addressed my reification objection. Even if you could actually call that noun an entity, "goodness" is an abstract thing. You can't point at something and say "that's goodness sitting over there picking its nose." The moment Lewis turns it into God, while thinking God exists, then he's transformed an abstract concept into a real thing. That's the reification fallacy by definition. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
28th November 2012, 01:34 PM | #35 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 441
|
|
__________________
Personal weblog, both green and black. |
|
28th November 2012, 02:31 PM | #36 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,962
|
|
28th November 2012, 05:12 PM | #37 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
Reification is a fallacy only in as much as anything supported by that turning an abstract concept into something concrete, is resting on something false. Hence any argument including it is automatically unsound. It's resting on something being concrete, but it's not. You can't get a true conclusion from false premises.
Now if you can actually show first -- and not by just postulating -- that Goodness is a concrete entity sitting over there... well, reification would still be a fallacy, but by definition your argument wouldn't be committing it. If you can show that it actually is a concrete entity, then of course any argument that uses that as a premise is entirely ok. And as you undoubtedly know already, what matters isn't really what could or can't be so, but only what IS SO and can be supported as an IS SO. Hence it doesn't really matter if Goodness or Justice could be sitting over there, but only if they ARE. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
29th November 2012, 11:11 AM | #38 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,962
|
|
29th November 2012, 01:10 PM | #39 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
Hmm, well, I'm not sure what you mean by that. The material in that case is just elementary logic and a knowledge of the main types of fallacies. You already know they're not hard to find (even fundies sites like Answers In Genesis actually have lists of fallacies, much as they only call a fallacy as a strawman or red herring). So you already know where to get the materials.
I dunno, I guess I just try to stay on the logically sound path. I suppose it could explain what exactly you see different there. To me nothing looks abnormal, but, you know, nobody is good at evaluating themselves, so I'm probably in my own blind spot, so to speak. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|