Everyones' gods

[Questioner]

Since all theories, philosophies, worldviews, (including Francis Bacon's scientific methology and the various theories and mathematical approximations contained with it) and forth are founded on faith-based axioms, principles, prime truths, and such, presumably built or constructed from mathematics - then ultimately what anyone believes in, or devotes their time to the most, becomes their "God" so to speak.

Even if one has a banal worldview, viewing life as meaningless, or no higher purpose than themselves, or perhaps their immediate family or tribe (e.x. their archaic church predicated on archaic legalism, ancestor worship and the like, rather than an understanding of the law, history, civil rights, and such), their special interest groups), with their favorite TV, radio show, movies, banal and unappreciated job or line of work, or video game being their ultimate focus in life, or other trivialities such as money or ownership of things or objects, even a banal, generic, and ubiquitous view as that, ultimately that becomes their "God" so to speak.

Are all approximations equal? No, one which views life as meaningless, is decidedly inferior to others, for example; as far as comparing and contrasting them, such as some of the archaic views and approximations hailing from the 19th century and not having evolved or matured beyond that, or the roboticism often contained within it, many people, for example, being held and understood by the Law and its founders as having no morals and only conforming to the rules as much as they fear punishment of the law, the state, society and so forth, unlike those thinking men and women who helped to make the law what it is and preserve to begin with due to their superior worldviews and self-scarifices.

 

[jwoodie]

A more concise conclusionary statement would be helpful.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

Since all theories, philosophies, worldviews, (including Francis Bacon's scientific methology and the various theories and mathematical approximations contained with it) and forth are founded on faith-based axioms, principles, prime truths, and such, presumably built or constructed from mathematics - then ultimately what anyone believes in, or devotes their time to the most, becomes their "God" so to speak.

Even if one has a banal worldview, viewing life as meaningless, or no higher purpose than themselves, or perhaps their immediate family or tribe (e.x. their archaic church predicated on archaic legalism, ancestor worship and the like, rather than an understanding of the law, history, civil rights, and such), their special interest groups), with their favorite TV, radio show, movies, banal and unappreciated job or line of work, or video game being their ultimate focus in life, or other trivialities such as money or ownership of things or objects, even a banal, generic, and ubiquitous view as that, ultimately that becomes their "God" so to speak.

Are all approximations equal? No, one which views life as meaningless, is decidedly inferior to others, for example; as far as comparing and contrasting them, such as some of the archaic views and approximations hailing from the 19th century and not having evolved or matured beyond that, or the roboticism often contained within it, many people, for example, being held and understood by the Law and its founders as having no morals and only conforming to the rules as much as they fear punishment of the law, the state, society and so forth, unlike those thinking men and women who helped to make the law what it is and preserve to begin with due to their superior worldviews and self-scarifices.

As long as we can use psychobabble to determine some are less equal than others I suppose we can all pretend we're gods in our very own special way. Rationales abound. Same as it ever was.

 

[Questioner]

Since all theories, philosophies, worldviews, (including Francis Bacon's scientific methology and the various theories and mathematical approximations contained with it) and forth are founded on faith-based axioms, principles, prime truths, and such, presumably built or constructed from mathematics - then ultimately what anyone believes in, or devotes their time to the most, becomes their "God" so to speak.

Even if one has a banal worldview, viewing life as meaningless, or no higher purpose than themselves, or perhaps their immediate family or tribe (e.x. their archaic church predicated on archaic legalism, ancestor worship and the like, rather than an understanding of the law, history, civil rights, and such), their special interest groups), with their favorite TV, radio show, movies, banal and unappreciated job or line of work, or video game being their ultimate focus in life, or other trivialities such as money or ownership of things or objects, even a banal, generic, and ubiquitous view as that, ultimately that becomes their "God" so to speak.

Are all approximations equal? No, one which views life as meaningless, is decidedly inferior to others, for example; as far as comparing and contrasting them, such as some of the archaic views and approximations hailing from the 19th century and not having evolved or matured beyond that, or the roboticism often contained within it, many people, for example, being held and understood by the Law and its founders as having no morals and only conforming to the rules as much as they fear punishment of the law, the state, society and so forth, unlike those thinking men and women who helped to make the law what it is and preserve to begin with due to their superior worldviews and self-scarifices.

As long as we can use psychobabble to determine some are less equal than others I suppose we can all pretend we're gods in our very own special way. Rationales abound. Same as it ever was.

What's wrong with that, and by what God is it so?

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

Since all theories, philosophies, worldviews, (including Francis Bacon's scientific methology and the various theories and mathematical approximations contained with it) and forth are founded on faith-based axioms, principles, prime truths, and such, presumably built or constructed from mathematics - then ultimately what anyone believes in, or devotes their time to the most, becomes their "God" so to speak.

Even if one has a banal worldview, viewing life as meaningless, or no higher purpose than themselves, or perhaps their immediate family or tribe (e.x. their archaic church predicated on archaic legalism, ancestor worship and the like, rather than an understanding of the law, history, civil rights, and such), their special interest groups), with their favorite TV, radio show, movies, banal and unappreciated job or line of work, or video game being their ultimate focus in life, or other trivialities such as money or ownership of things or objects, even a banal, generic, and ubiquitous view as that, ultimately that becomes their "God" so to speak.

Are all approximations equal? No, one which views life as meaningless, is decidedly inferior to others, for example; as far as comparing and contrasting them, such as some of the archaic views and approximations hailing from the 19th century and not having evolved or matured beyond that, or the roboticism often contained within it, many people, for example, being held and understood by the Law and its founders as having no morals and only conforming to the rules as much as they fear punishment of the law, the state, society and so forth, unlike those thinking men and women who helped to make the law what it is and preserve to begin with due to their superior worldviews and self-scarifices.

As long as we can use psychobabble to determine some are less equal than others I suppose we can all pretend we're gods in our very own special way. Rationales abound. Same as it ever was.

What's wrong with that, and by what God is it so?

It has nothing to do with spirituality and you can all make up anything at all. Any god that serves your needs.

 

[Questioner]

Since all theories, philosophies, worldviews, (including Francis Bacon's scientific methology and the various theories and mathematical approximations contained with it) and forth are founded on faith-based axioms, principles, prime truths, and such, presumably built or constructed from mathematics - then ultimately what anyone believes in, or devotes their time to the most, becomes their "God" so to speak.

Even if one has a banal worldview, viewing life as meaningless, or no higher purpose than themselves, or perhaps their immediate family or tribe (e.x. their archaic church predicated on archaic legalism, ancestor worship and the like, rather than an understanding of the law, history, civil rights, and such), their special interest groups), with their favorite TV, radio show, movies, banal and unappreciated job or line of work, or video game being their ultimate focus in life, or other trivialities such as money or ownership of things or objects, even a banal, generic, and ubiquitous view as that, ultimately that becomes their "God" so to speak.

Are all approximations equal? No, one which views life as meaningless, is decidedly inferior to others, for example; as far as comparing and contrasting them, such as some of the archaic views and approximations hailing from the 19th century and not having evolved or matured beyond that, or the roboticism often contained within it, many people, for example, being held and understood by the Law and its founders as having no morals and only conforming to the rules as much as they fear punishment of the law, the state, society and so forth, unlike those thinking men and women who helped to make the law what it is and preserve to begin with due to their superior worldviews and self-scarifices.

As long as we can use psychobabble to determine some are less equal than others I suppose we can all pretend we're gods in our very own special way. Rationales abound. Same as it ever was.

What's wrong with that, and by what God is it so?

It has nothing to do with spirituality and you can all make up anything at all. Any god that serves your needs.

One can make up or mathematically approximate anything indeed, such as scientific or physical theories, and the archaic axioms and systems of thought they are founded on to begin with, yes - so long as they have the intelligence, creativity, and imagination required for such an endeavor; many don't.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

Since all theories, philosophies, worldviews, (including Francis Bacon's scientific methology and the various theories and mathematical approximations contained with it) and forth are founded on faith-based axioms, principles, prime truths, and such, presumably built or constructed from mathematics - then ultimately what anyone believes in, or devotes their time to the most, becomes their "God" so to speak.

Even if one has a banal worldview, viewing life as meaningless, or no higher purpose than themselves, or perhaps their immediate family or tribe (e.x. their archaic church predicated on archaic legalism, ancestor worship and the like, rather than an understanding of the law, history, civil rights, and such), their special interest groups), with their favorite TV, radio show, movies, banal and unappreciated job or line of work, or video game being their ultimate focus in life, or other trivialities such as money or ownership of things or objects, even a banal, generic, and ubiquitous view as that, ultimately that becomes their "God" so to speak.

Are all approximations equal? No, one which views life as meaningless, is decidedly inferior to others, for example; as far as comparing and contrasting them, such as some of the archaic views and approximations hailing from the 19th century and not having evolved or matured beyond that, or the roboticism often contained within it, many people, for example, being held and understood by the Law and its founders as having no morals and only conforming to the rules as much as they fear punishment of the law, the state, society and so forth, unlike those thinking men and women who helped to make the law what it is and preserve to begin with due to their superior worldviews and self-scarifices.

As long as we can use psychobabble to determine some are less equal than others I suppose we can all pretend we're gods in our very own special way. Rationales abound. Same as it ever was.

What's wrong with that, and by what God is it so?

It has nothing to do with spirituality and you can all make up anything at all. Any god that serves your needs.

One can make up or mathematically approximate anything indeed, such as scientific or physical theories, and the archaic axioms and systems of thought they are founded on to begin with, yes - so long as they have the intelligence, creativity, and imagination required for such an endeavor; many don't.

Sure, science is all make believe. We all have creative intelligence, there's just always a few assholes who wish to control and manipulative how we user our creative intelligence. So they'll tell you you need someone else, hence your "many don't" bullshit.

 

[Questioner]

Since all theories, philosophies, worldviews, (including Francis Bacon's scientific methology and the various theories and mathematical approximations contained with it) and forth are founded on faith-based axioms, principles, prime truths, and such, presumably built or constructed from mathematics - then ultimately what anyone believes in, or devotes their time to the most, becomes their "God" so to speak.

Even if one has a banal worldview, viewing life as meaningless, or no higher purpose than themselves, or perhaps their immediate family or tribe (e.x. their archaic church predicated on archaic legalism, ancestor worship and the like, rather than an understanding of the law, history, civil rights, and such), their special interest groups), with their favorite TV, radio show, movies, banal and unappreciated job or line of work, or video game being their ultimate focus in life, or other trivialities such as money or ownership of things or objects, even a banal, generic, and ubiquitous view as that, ultimately that becomes their "God" so to speak.

Are all approximations equal? No, one which views life as meaningless, is decidedly inferior to others, for example; as far as comparing and contrasting them, such as some of the archaic views and approximations hailing from the 19th century and not having evolved or matured beyond that, or the roboticism often contained within it, many people, for example, being held and understood by the Law and its founders as having no morals and only conforming to the rules as much as they fear punishment of the law, the state, society and so forth, unlike those thinking men and women who helped to make the law what it is and preserve to begin with due to their superior worldviews and self-scarifices.

As long as we can use psychobabble to determine some are less equal than others I suppose we can all pretend we're gods in our very own special way. Rationales abound. Same as it ever was.

What's wrong with that, and by what God is it so?

It has nothing to do with spirituality and you can all make up anything at all. Any god that serves your needs.

One can make up or mathematically approximate anything indeed, such as scientific or physical theories, and the archaic axioms and systems of thought they are founded on to begin with, yes - so long as they have the intelligence, creativity, and imagination required for such an endeavor; many don't.

Sure, science is all make believe.

The theories are created or approximated from mathematics, which is why the natural sciences as a whole will never be "pure" in the sense that mathematics is to begin with, mathematics having been around since ancient cultures, while natural sciences, as per Bacon's method having only been invented and around since the 1500-1600 hundreds, and just as likely to be short lived.

The information which the scientific theories or informational facts which the theories are based on, such as planetary orbitation, are presumably not "made up", or constructed, unlike the theories themselves.

We all have creative intelligence, there's just always a few assholes who wish to control and manipulative how we user our creative intelligence. So they'll tell you you need someone else, hence your "many don't" bullshit.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

As long as we can use psychobabble to determine some are less equal than others I suppose we can all pretend we're gods in our very own special way. Rationales abound. Same as it ever was.

What's wrong with that, and by what God is it so?

It has nothing to do with spirituality and you can all make up anything at all. Any god that serves your needs.

One can make up or mathematically approximate anything indeed, such as scientific or physical theories, and the archaic axioms and systems of thought they are founded on to begin with, yes - so long as they have the intelligence, creativity, and imagination required for such an endeavor; many don't.

Sure, science is all make believe.

The theories are created or approximated from mathematics, which is why the natural sciences as a whole will never be "pure" in the sense that mathematics is to begin with, mathematics having been around since ancient cultures, while natural sciences, as per Bacon's method having only been invented and around since the 1500-1600 hundreds, and just as likely to be short lived.

The information which the scientific theories or informational facts which the theories are based on, such as planetary orbitation, are presumably not "made up", or constructed, unlike the theories themselves.

We all have creative intelligence, there's just always a few assholes who wish to control and manipulative how we user our creative intelligence. So they'll tell you you need someone else, hence your "many don't" bullshit.

You can go envision anything you like, as I said.

 

[ding]

Since all theories, philosophies, worldviews, (including Francis Bacon's scientific methology and the various theories and mathematical approximations contained with it) and forth are founded on faith-based axioms, principles, prime truths, and such, presumably built or constructed from mathematics - then ultimately what anyone believes in, or devotes their time to the most, becomes their "God" so to speak.

Even if one has a banal worldview, viewing life as meaningless, or no higher purpose than themselves, or perhaps their immediate family or tribe (e.x. their archaic church predicated on archaic legalism, ancestor worship and the like, rather than an understanding of the law, history, civil rights, and such), their special interest groups), with their favorite TV, radio show, movies, banal and unappreciated job or line of work, or video game being their ultimate focus in life, or other trivialities such as money or ownership of things or objects, even a banal, generic, and ubiquitous view as that, ultimately that becomes their "God" so to speak.

Are all approximations equal? No, one which views life as meaningless, is decidedly inferior to others, for example; as far as comparing and contrasting them, such as some of the archaic views and approximations hailing from the 19th century and not having evolved or matured beyond that, or the roboticism often contained within it, many people, for example, being held and understood by the Law and its founders as having no morals and only conforming to the rules as much as they fear punishment of the law, the state, society and so forth, unlike those thinking men and women who helped to make the law what it is and preserve to begin with due to their superior worldviews and self-scarifices.

As long as we can use psychobabble to determine some are less equal than others I suppose we can all pretend we're gods in our very own special way. Rationales abound. Same as it ever was.

What's wrong with that, and by what God is it so?

It denies reality.

 

[Questioner]

Since all theories, philosophies, worldviews, (including Francis Bacon's scientific methology and the various theories and mathematical approximations contained with it) and forth are founded on faith-based axioms, principles, prime truths, and such, presumably built or constructed from mathematics - then ultimately what anyone believes in, or devotes their time to the most, becomes their "God" so to speak.

Even if one has a banal worldview, viewing life as meaningless, or no higher purpose than themselves, or perhaps their immediate family or tribe (e.x. their archaic church predicated on archaic legalism, ancestor worship and the like, rather than an understanding of the law, history, civil rights, and such), their special interest groups), with their favorite TV, radio show, movies, banal and unappreciated job or line of work, or video game being their ultimate focus in life, or other trivialities such as money or ownership of things or objects, even a banal, generic, and ubiquitous view as that, ultimately that becomes their "God" so to speak.

Are all approximations equal? No, one which views life as meaningless, is decidedly inferior to others, for example; as far as comparing and contrasting them, such as some of the archaic views and approximations hailing from the 19th century and not having evolved or matured beyond that, or the roboticism often contained within it, many people, for example, being held and understood by the Law and its founders as having no morals and only conforming to the rules as much as they fear punishment of the law, the state, society and so forth, unlike those thinking men and women who helped to make the law what it is and preserve to begin with due to their superior worldviews and self-scarifices.

As long as we can use psychobabble to determine some are less equal than others I suppose we can all pretend we're gods in our very own special way. Rationales abound. Same as it ever was.

What's wrong with that, and by what God is it so?

It denies reality.

Nay, it does not - you're conflating reality with Bacon's mathematical approxmations of reality, which aren't the entirety of reality to begin with, nor the only approximations or potential approximations.

Your silly posts here, for example, don't fit into the scope of what's contained within Bacon's archaic 15-16th century methods anyway, so by that same logic, you and your posts "don't exist", or people are under some inherent, superstitious contract, agreement, obligation, and so on, and the outdated false dictomies which this silly and archaic synopsis will be inevitably followed up with - based on some axiom, "prime truth", or whatnot which in itself is outside the scope of Bacon's method, by which you contradictorily assert that reality should be viewed solely through the archaic lenses of Bacon's method and its approximations, which is rather silly, naïve, childish, archaic, uneducated, and so forth, as more or less any thinking man or woman of the 21st century already, no as opposed to outdated, rudimentary 19th century knowledge, axioms and so forth, and archaic, inept and ineffectual methods of thinking and though, such as the reactive "system 1" thinking documented by experts on thought, forecasting, and such, such as Phillip Tetlock which your judgment above was based on, due to the limited intelligence and thought capacity which is was, of course based on to begin with.

What you're of course doing, is simply attempting to summarize knowledge, statements, and information in a childish way which helps simpler people and simpler mind "make sense" of things, in a horribly myopic, incorrect, and outdated, anti-intellectual way, not because it's "true" or a good approximation of reality in any ultimate, inherent sence outside of its limited and archaic axioms and methodologies, as that would require more mental effort than simpler people and simpler minds are able and willing to engage it, it would require challenging past convictions, falsehoods, and simple, regurgitated mantras which the undercass take for granted due to their limited, if not outright stunted mental capacity, barely being capable of anything beyond, perhaps rote memorization and simplistic or ritualistic regurgitation.

At times, it might almost be cute, like a parent's naïve view of a simple child stuck on the simplest baby steps imaginable, not yet capable or refined in more civil, adult behaviors or manners either, but more often than not, such arrested development in the case of a barely-functional and civilizational maladjusted adult, to quote Freud and other great names within the industries of child psychology or psychiatry, having barely any, if not so little capacity for anything but that, let alone the thought of anything resembling a successful, antifeminist marriage that won't inevitably just end in the wife having a much sympathized with affair, or the inevitable domestic abuse which will naturally follow the adult child's intellectual and sexual ineptitude, and yet somehow still able to meet the basic, ugly survivalistic needs, such as feeding, potty training oneself, and so forth, ugly as "survivalistic" needs are to begin with, and how they're only priorities in life to begin with to the archaic, undereducated underclass and those other lowbrow individuals and civilizationary maladapts, easily replacable "workmen" and "workhorses" and so forth, to whom they sadly have to be reduced to the first priority, rather than the higher desires, achievements, and successful ambitions of better thinking and more civilized men and women, to whom those ugly survivalistic things are so rote-memorized and mastered already and to begin with, that they barely have to think about them at all, while able to free up their times and minds for more creative endeavors, whether scientific, higher educational, artistic, entrepreneurial, or creative.

 

[ding]

Since all theories, philosophies, worldviews, (including Francis Bacon's scientific methology and the various theories and mathematical approximations contained with it) and forth are founded on faith-based axioms, principles, prime truths, and such, presumably built or constructed from mathematics - then ultimately what anyone believes in, or devotes their time to the most, becomes their "God" so to speak.

Even if one has a banal worldview, viewing life as meaningless, or no higher purpose than themselves, or perhaps their immediate family or tribe (e.x. their archaic church predicated on archaic legalism, ancestor worship and the like, rather than an understanding of the law, history, civil rights, and such), their special interest groups), with their favorite TV, radio show, movies, banal and unappreciated job or line of work, or video game being their ultimate focus in life, or other trivialities such as money or ownership of things or objects, even a banal, generic, and ubiquitous view as that, ultimately that becomes their "God" so to speak.

Are all approximations equal? No, one which views life as meaningless, is decidedly inferior to others, for example; as far as comparing and contrasting them, such as some of the archaic views and approximations hailing from the 19th century and not having evolved or matured beyond that, or the roboticism often contained within it, many people, for example, being held and understood by the Law and its founders as having no morals and only conforming to the rules as much as they fear punishment of the law, the state, society and so forth, unlike those thinking men and women who helped to make the law what it is and preserve to begin with due to their superior worldviews and self-scarifices.

As long as we can use psychobabble to determine some are less equal than others I suppose we can all pretend we're gods in our very own special way. Rationales abound. Same as it ever was.

What's wrong with that, and by what God is it so?

It denies reality.

Nay, it does not - you're conflating reality with Bacon's mathematical approxmations of reality, which aren't the entirety of reality to begin with, nor the only approximations or potential approximations.

Your silly posts here, for example, don't fit into the scope of what's contained within Bacon's archaic 15-16th century methods anyway, so by that same logic, you and your posts "don't exist", or people are under some inherent, superstitious contract, agreement, obligation, and so on, and the outdated false dictomies which this silly and archaic synopsis will be inevitably followed up with - based on some axiom, "prime truth", or whatnot which in itself is outside the scope of Bacon's method, by which you contradictorily assert that reality should be viewed solely through the archaic lenses of Bacon's method and its approximations, which is rather silly, naïve, childish, archaic, uneducated, and so forth, as more or less any thinking man or woman of the 21st century already, no as opposed to outdated, rudimentary 19th century knowledge, axioms and so forth, and archaic, inept and ineffectual methods of thinking and though, such as the reactive "system 1" thinking documented by experts on thought, forecasting, and such, such as Phillip Tetlock which your judgment above was based on, due to the limited intelligence and thought capacity which is was, of course based on to begin with.

What you're of course doing, is simply attempting to summarize knowledge, statements, and information in a childish way which helps simpler people and simpler mind "make sense" of things, in a horribly myopic, incorrect, and outdated, anti-intellectual way, not because it's "true" or a good approximation of reality in any ultimate, inherent sence outside of its limited and archaic axioms and methodologies, as that would require more mental effort than simpler people and simpler minds are able and willing to engage it, it would require challenging past convictions, falsehoods, and simple, regurgitated mantras which the undercass take for granted due to their limited, if not outright stunted mental capacity, barely being capable of anything beyond, perhaps rote memorization and simplistic or ritualistic regurgitation.

At times, it might almost be cute, like a parent's naïve view of a simple child stuck on the simplest baby steps imaginable, not yet capable or refined in more civil, adult behaviors or manners either, but more often than not, such arrested development in the case of a barely-functional and civilizational maladjusted adult, to quote Freud and other great names within the industries of child psychology or psychiatry, having barely any, if not so little capacity for anything but that, let alone the thought of anything resembling a successful, antifeminist marriage that won't inevitably just end in the wife having a much sympathized with affair, or the inevitable domestic abuse which will naturally follow the adult child's intellectual and sexual ineptitude, and yet somehow still able to meet the basic, ugly survivalistic needs, such as feeding, potty training oneself, and so forth, ugly as "survivalistic" needs are to begin with, and how they're only priorities in life to begin with to the archaic, undereducated underclass and those other lowbrow individuals and civilizationary maladapts, easily replacable "workmen" and "workhorses" and so forth, to whom they sadly have to be reduced to the first priority, rather than the higher desires, achievements, and successful ambitions of better thinking and more civilized men and women, to whom those ugly survivalistic things are so rote-memorized and mastered already and to begin with, that they barely have to think about them at all, while able to free up their times and minds for more creative endeavors, whether scientific, higher educational, artistic, entrepreneurial, or creative.

Cool story, bro, but objective truth is reality. Everything else is perception of truth.

As for science, science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature.

Imperfect men can reach imperfect conclusions but nature is what nature is despite what someone else believes it is.

 

[ding]

Even if one has a banal worldview, viewing life as meaningless, or no higher purpose than themselves, or perhaps their immediate family or tribe (e.x. their archaic church predicated on archaic legalism, ancestor worship and the like, rather than an understanding of the law, history, civil rights, and such), their special interest groups), with their favorite TV, radio show, movies, banal and unappreciated job or line of work, or video game being their ultimate focus in life, or other trivialities such as money or ownership of things or objects, even a banal, generic, and ubiquitous view as that, ultimately that becomes their "God" so to speak.

You can tell what someone worships through their actions.

Man’s happiness is predicated by his choice to worship the creator rather than created things.

We are free to pursue fame, fortune, pleasure and power but those are created things which in the end will not satisfy us because we were made for more.

 

[ding]

Are all approximations equal? No, one which views life as meaningless, is decidedly inferior to others,

Not all behaviors have equal outcomes. Some behaviors have better outcomes than others and some behaviors have worse outcomes than others. Everyone should be able to understand and accept this. People who lie, cheat and steal will always have worse relationships with others than those who are honest and fair. So it shouldn’t be a surprise that people who find meaning and purpose in life will have a richer and more balanced view of life.