Why We Need More Objectivists and Objectivist Intellectuals
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ต.ค. 2024
- by Onkar Ghate
Recorded live as part of AynRandCon Europe 2024 in Amsterdam.
Visit events.aynrand... for more information.
Subscribe to ARI’s TH-cam channel to make sure you never miss a video:
www.youtube.co...
Download or stream free courses on Ayn Rand’s works and ideas with the Ayn Rand University app:
- App Store itunes.apple.c...
- Google Play play.google.co...
ARI is funded by donor contributions. You can support our work by becoming an ARI Member or making a one-time contribution: ari.aynrand.or...
******
Keep in Touch! Sign up to receive email updates from ARI: aynrand.org/si...
Follow ARI on Twitter: / aynrandinst
Follow ARI on Facebook: / aynrandinstitute
Follow ARI on Instagram: / aynrandorg
Subscribe to the ARI Live! podcast: podcasts.apple...
******
Explore these ideas further! ARI's online publication, New Ideal, explores pressing cultural issues from the perspective of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism: newideal.aynra...
Join an upcoming virtual or in-person event: ari.aynrand.or...
Visit ARI’s website for more about our content and programs: ari.aynrand.org/
Thank you for the reminder that life is still good and more than good - better than ever in history. Objectivism IS a positive philosophy.
Rand advocated for the genocide of native Americans. As long as you ignore the horrors she advocated in the name of homesteading, I guess you can pretend that's positive.
Rand used her belief in homesteading to justify the genocide of native Americans. Like any philosophy that does not strictly adhere to pacifism, objectivism ultimately justifies violence against others.
Thank you for the video, Onkar. I have been an Objectivist since 1985. I just taught "Anthem" in a summer program for Kazak and Russian teenagers. The kind of teaching I usually do has been successful in part because Objectivism is the foundation for my career as a teacher, especially its epistemology and ethics. Y'all should study it.
Great talk. Very inspiring and important.
A reminder for some people in the comments:
Objectivism is NOT a form of Conservatism.
Ayn Rand was very clear about that.
No, but the fact the two can even be confused shows how close they are.
@@amibrainwashed no, it shows people's woeful misunderstanding of the two concepts. They are quite far apart.
@@amibrainwashed No, it just shows how ignorant people are.
@@johnwayne6646 ah, is that it, huh?
@@RayceJacobsonI would certainly put the two in separate camps but the two aren't as far apart as people think, that's why the clarification had to even be made. Conservatism is one of the closest political ideologies to Objectivism.
You have their religious traditionalism, generally rooted in Christianity, a religion centered around the concept of Objective Morality. Then there's Liberalism, which is the political system they seek to conserve. Being rooted in individual rights and liberty, I would argue is much closer to Objectivism than Fascism or Communism which both project false expectations on human nature.
Libertarians also might be another political group I might consider close to Objectivism so it's not just Conservatives.
I debated a professional philosopher identifying as a "socialist" at a cinema club 1ce. The movie we debated was "Rope" by Alfred Hitchcock.
He told the audience that the most important idea of the movie was the main character discovering he was gay.
I asked him what he thought of the idea that maybe the reason they killed their friend in the beginning was bc of the bad philosophjy their teacher taught them (that some men had the right to kill others)
He seemed intrigued and asked me where I got this idea from.
I answered that it simply reminded me of a randian theme: man's actions as a consequences of one's philosophical premisces.
He looked at me weirdly and claimed that Ayn Rand was, to his knowledge, a "propagandist advocating white supremacy".
I asked him whether her statement that Jim Crow Laws were "shameful and blatantly inexcusable" looked to him like advocating white supremacy.
He told me that maybe she deserved to be more known in philospohical circles if that was the case. I agreed and we both grabbed a beer
True
The good news is this: Rand’s ideas are accelerating in their spread throughout the culture, in dozens of indirect ways and in applied fields (such as popular psychology). Egoism IS spreading. Reason IS spreading.
Rand is being accepted and used practically but she isn’t being named as the source of the ideas.
Where?
Egoism isn't reason. Objectivists are very confused people.
History of philosophy volume 2 . Peikoff please. Upload
@@afaqjanan7817 I bought it off eBay. Peikoff was equally as entertaining as he was in the first volume. Definitely a must hear 😀
There is s book
35:50 in the mind of a better kind of person.
14:00 Healthcare should be governed by prices. Would make for a great short clip for ARI!
Land appropriation should be governed by prices. Homesteading ignores economics.
I hear it doesn’t pay well
Depends what you consider pay and what your willing to sell your life for.
The talk is really good. Most important part I think was the need for thousands of New Intellectuals ❤❤
We have the silver bullet to change the world, but it’s going at 2mph.
Pitch in if it's not going at your preferred speed.
@@RogerFusselman I am the number 1 contributor to the Yaron Brook Show. Ask him yourself.
Objectivism is a victim of incompetent marketing. Carl Barney contributed millions of dollars to start an Ayn Rand University and it ended up as an "App".
Why can't ARI found an Objectivist philosophy center on a college campus and allow competing professors and guests to participate ?
Why can't ARI print up immitations of religious tracts to reach the common man ?
That’s interesting because I sent and email asking for a job at Ari and I was told they weren’t looking for anybody. So what exactly is the plan and how exactly do you “realistically” expect these people to come from if you aren’t taking in new people to further these ideas?
I guess he was talking about taking jobs at different places (but mainly at universities) and work to further objectivism there.
@@BiznizTrademark if you go online and check the tax papers for Ari under 501c3 returns these guys are taking in millions. Like 10+ million dollars every year for the last 5 years. If anyone is going to be producing objectivist to run around and promote these ideas it should be these guys. They have the means to do it. And im sure the people donating are under the expectation that this is what this money SHOULD be used for.
If they’re not trying to train people to do this where are these people realistically supposed to come from? If not the institution that is the supposedly the fountainhead of this cause. It makes no sense
…. This is so second handed. Go do your work and become a new intellectual. Why would working at ARI ever cross your mind?
@@WhoIsJohnGalttHe mentioned their training at least 75 times during this video
One more try: let's be good instead of evil. Sounds like 'think positive', "be rational". Where's a place for god? Look, this is our western way of thinking. It must re-involve our connection to god, our dependence on him. We can't change our evil nature ourselves.
Awareness is known by awareness alone.
Not objectivism. It is not a positive nor is it a negative. It is about the pursuit of achievement and vision absent of influence or accepted norms. A virtue does not require recognition or a result.
Homesteading is not virtuous.
As I have said repeatedly; religion is fundamentally superior to what is being offered by the secular mainstream; i.e. Nihilism, which was openely and specifically adopted by the "Intelligentsia" in 1958. Don't forget Rand was a big fan of Reverend Ike
When I accepted Objectivism, it was like when Rand came acrosss a certain drawing style. Her words were "This is not 'for me': It IS me". That is what I mean by philosophy is the "human operating system". I have probably forgotten most of the "formal" things I read. There comes a point where the philosophy becomes part of one
When I started using a TRS-80, in '79, which was powered by a Microsoft product, I said "I hope he makes a bundle"
I have said repeatedly that the sense of life of Ojbectivism to be best expressed in the early 1950's "space opera", particularly SPACE PATROL. which STILL has a following (and that is the reason for a project of mine). That all started because of my very early childhood fascination with independent flight
NOw, addressing this topic. If you want more Objectivists, then do what has been successful for millennia. I have no connections with Objectivists in my area. There must be some way we can find each other locally. I could also tell you how to organize the study of it based on the success of religion. The modle I would use is
1 content; in religion, theology, in philosophy, and religion; doctrine
2. hermeneutics (from Hermes; the messenger god) how to interpret the 'messages" in fiction and mythis
3. Apologetics; making the case
4. Hagiagrpahy. the activities of important persons in the movement
5. Escatology; hisoty of the movement
6. Catechesis; presentation of the baisics. For that I would use the "standing on one foot" incident and "The Objectivist Manifest" from the old NBI, with a slight change in point 10. I would use articles from Objectivist essays from the '60's to illustrate that are suitable as introductory material
From the time I read THE ROMANTIC MANIFESTO, I wondered what Rand's sense of life was. In, i think, '77, she spilled the beans (at least so that I could figure it out) when she described things in terms of "christmas lights and tinsel". That was an EXACT portrayal of how I see things. That hit me right between the eyes Iwhich I did not see coming at me with my right one)
Actually, I do not think that stating the things I hold requires bravery and courage. Doing the opposite DOES, I know too well what would happen if I did not. I can't stop thinking and I can't shut up
Objectivism is secular, full stop.
@@Justin_Beaver564 Obviously; or I would not have adopted it as my philosophy. More than that, it is atheistic, rejecting the claim of the existience of God(s) as a consequence of the rejection of Supernaturalism in Metaphysics and supporting only Reason in Epistemology. So now what: Where are we going?
If you want more objectivists you have to justify homesteading to all the people who don't find it justifiable. Best of luck to you.
I was part of an objectivist club 20 odd years ago in school, and honestly the movement seems to have been dead since Peikoff handed it off. I try to watch Yaron once in a while but really the ideas from objectivists have been stale and stuck with early 2000s talking points. You guys really had a chance to gain traction but always seem to default to the establishment narrative, and when it turns out you might have been wrong you shrug it off and don't talk about it. From what I gather you guys seemed to be on the wrong side of Covid and the reaction to Covid... You obsess over Trump while brushing off woke ideology and child mutilation... and instead of addressing any of it - I just see it shrugged off and not even looked at.
All this seems to stem from an idea that Rand / Peikoff tossed around that the next step into a new dark age would be a religious dictatorship basically in America... and you guys really run with this by how you frame Trump. Ok... But you barely talk about what this new right is a reaction too. And you guys never look at education like Eric Weinstein does and how it is just being totally destroyed in front of our eyes.
Also I understand why you don't get along with Libertarians or AnCaps... Fine - but you offer no coherent way to actually fight the decline of western civilization other than some magical time in the far future when more people are educated.
This doesn't even make sense from a perspective of history - because if I remember right only 20% of the colonists supported the revolutionary war.
Anyway if you wanted more members and "intellectuals" - maybe do some serious self reflecting on what you are not able to attract those minds.
Yet another.person who ignores the FREQUENT criticisms of the left as well as the achievements made in recent years.
Well stated 🔥
This is not the kind of shrugging that Rand and Peikoff seemingly aimed for.
@@Brian0wns I’ve seen ARI discuss all of these. What are you talking about?
@@sybo59 Just looking at the video list from the ARI youtube channel - in the last month or so you will find videos attacking Trump / Right wing ideology, How the assassination attempt is "fueling right wing fantasy", Milton Friedman is amoral, while being peppered with real Ayn Rand videos.
Anything else seem missing from this to you or a bit detached?
On top of just brushing off the potential assassination - you have a total shake up in politics with Biden and how he totally fell apart. You have an actual Marxist by all accounts (Kamala) about to take power and she did not go through any of the proper channels for this. You have a media that went from Biden is fine and it is a conspiracy to say otherwise - to over night correcting course. And instead of looking deeper into divisions of the population that caused a potential assassination - you are talking about how this is "fueling right wing fantasy".
This is tone deaf detached garbage.
Ayns view that those with the money produce the money is inaccurate many of those with the money actually siphon it away from those producing the value or profit from the liquidation of worthwhile business enterprises. Money laundering and financial manipulation produces nothing and only benefits a tiny per cent of what are basically a criminal class
Why does she then consider those things crimes and immoral?
@@Mr.Witness She doesn't consider homesteading immoral. She wouldn't call it rent seeking to kick native Americans off their land and then charge them to come back on it.
@@someonenotnoone why?
@@Mr.Witness Because of her opinions that homesteading is justified and is justifiably defended with violence. Furthermore, than because native Americans didn't accept homesteading, they were like mere animals.
@@someonenotnoone Give me an example of a situation you think she would think is legitimate because I’m not sure what you mean by homesteading
slideshow during speaking is distracting
Feel free to reach out to me if you change your mind. Tom Ho
Why? Who would turn to YOU? FOR WHAT?
Someone suffering from TDS considering himself an objectivist is the biggest joke here.
Oh look, another conserva-jectivist who thinks his opinion is valid.
@@RayceJacobson Oh look, another Obleftivist who thinks his opinion is valid.
@@YashArya01 they're popping up like weeds.
@@RayceJacobson You voted for Biden?? LOOOLL!
@@nrqed No. That's exactly the bs I'm talking about. I've never voted for biden and never will, but of course you assume I did because of your tribalist baggage
objective nor objectivist. it is like the difference between liberals and libertarians.
What?
Wrong about abortion: I am an athiest (not religious) but I still think murder is not a good thing. Science tells us that once you have a complete set of DNA (at conception) you are a unique individual with a future unless someone takes it away.. Murder isn't illegal because it hurts when you do it, it's because it takes away your future - it's the same with abortion. The time to choose is before pregnancy. You are not viable on your own until adulthood so that is not an argument. Oh, rape and incest? - it's not the child's fault. Yes, it's bad but so is any other intentional injury. Punish the perpetrator, not the child. The only valid reason for abortion is when the mother's life is in danger. Even then, which person should die? - the mother deserves consideration for her loss of future but the child looses even more of it's future. Should abortion be illegal? Yes, if we believe murder is illegal. I'm glad you and Ayn were not aborted.
You’re clearly not familiar with Rand’s reasoning for supporting the right to abortion. The prime question you deflect is why the life of a living woman is less important than an unborn clump of cells. Because in your mind killing of those cells is murder.
The real objective standard on what constitutes an individual is by looking at the time for which it is possible for a fetus to survive outside the womb with help from humans.
Rand was wrong. Also, you're setting up a false dichotomy by forcing the choice of either the woman's life OR the child's. You won't meet many pro-lifers who won't be in favor of abortion in the event the woman's life is threatened.
Also, as OP suggested, the objective standard is to consider the individual at conception. It is at that point the person has been made. It will not become anything other than what their DNA constitutes it to be. Reproduction cannot happen spontaneously. Your viability argument opens the door for quite a bit of subjectivity.
@@ab_c4429 As pertaining to the dreaded abortion issue, permit me to perhaps share with you an insight that might further the conversation. The whole technical argument as well as Rand's reasoning and conclusions aside. Try, if you wish, for the sake of intellectual honesty and truth-seeking, to instead wrap your head around this perspective for a thought experiment and see what you can come up with as a counter. Admittedly it's a fairly simplistic argument but it illustrates the point rather well as i think it is logically consistent and sheds light upon a problematic contradiction that i think is in dire need of being resolved if Objectivism aims to be the last one standing in the realm of philosophy.
It starts off with a basic universal ethical principle, which is that in order to propose a valid ethic for humans, one of its obvious requirements is to ensure (at least in theory) the survival of mankind. This principle can be derived from the observation that only humans can argue about and communicate ethical theories that apply to humans and from this discovery we can conclude that without humans there would be no human ethics to speak of.
Thus for any human ethical position to be viewed as objectively true, logically consistent and universally applicable in practice, it would first have to be, in theory, able to ensure the survival of the human species as a criteria. Now if we are to propose an ethic which, in theory, allows for the unborn potentiality to never actualize itself, then in effect, we are not only proposing an anti-life but also an anti-human position since if this position were to be universally applied, mankind could cease to exist since no human life would be possible without birth.
Given this theoretical possibility that is allowed to exist within this ethic. What would then be the legal recourse that an Objectivist can appeal to under a legal theory that holds that abortion is permissible, when all future potential mothers-to-be could collectively come to decide to make use of their right to abort? Are we to permit the extinction of mankind or do we see the error in our logic and correct it?
I do realize that a similar argument can be posited by legally permitting the act of suicide and that the outcome would be the same as in the abortion example (though it would be a volitional choice in this scenario) so in that sense it may seem a bit unfair, but nevertheless, it is a problem for Objectivism to sort out seeing how it claims to objectively promote human flourishing and holds life as the standard of value. This is a contradiction if you look at it from this perspective. I see only one way to correct the contradiction and that is to propose the negation which is the pro-life and pro-human position, which would be compatible with the Objectivist ethics and be free from any contradictions.
Feel free to let me know what you think!
@@ab_c4429
Hello ab_c4429.
Is it your belief that Objectivism says that it is OK to abort a baby when that baby is still inside the womb, and it is not OK to abort a baby after it leaves the womb?
For example, we can imagine a baby is born on Wednesday. Are you thinking that Objectivism says that it's OK to kill the baby on Tuesday and it's not OK to kill the baby on Thursday?
An egg is a potential human. A sperm is a potential person. Once combined it IS a person. Just as the newly created human is clump of cells, so are we. I agree with the above statement of truth. Ayn Rand was wrong about Abortion and unfortunately got sucked up in the politics of the matter.
Perspective can never be truth. Trying out new perspectives is never a virtue. Seeking Truth that never changes is virtue.
You have a problem with concepts you use, i think. But this is my perspective, so, you have to ignore it in your search for truth, lol.
@@tennoio1392 I have no problems with anything but ok 👍
Some perspectives lead one to truth while others lead away from it. So perspective is essential contrary to what you implied.
Also "Seeking truth that never changes is virtue" is a perspective, in fact one that contradicts your whole formulation. How would a child ever come to your perspective other than trying out new perspectives to find the one that is in correspondence with truth? So change is not necessarily a bad thing contrary to what you implied. Making mistakes and changing to correct oneself is a virtue.
@@gabrielduran291
>>You’re equivocating generic offspring with personhood.>they are not the same thing>while it is true to say that a zygote, an embryo or fetus is offspring it is not true to say they are actually human beings>A precondition of being an actual human being is being an organism and organisms have physiologically individuated bodies>that work as a unit separate from the bodies of other organisms>All human beings have physiology. A fetus does not have a physiology yet>…as well as the process of pregnancy which aids in building out the progress of the organism>it has everything with (sic) birth>Birth is the termination of the individuation process when an actual organism can act on its own
@@gabrielduran291 that's so dumb... there are 8 billion perspectives and all of them are false. To seek Truth that never changes is not a perspective, it's a measurement tool of intelligence instead of holding on to your own perspectives which are of the imagination... what are you smoking?
My observations ...
We can see the expressed perspectives & ideas coming from Onkar and coming from other representatives of the Ayn Rand Institute regarding a number of relevant issues and popular issues. I think that it is fair to say that :
1) They are (ironically) in favor of enlarged government and additional coercive force being initiated by govt.
2) They are (ironically) against the full and accurate review of facts and truth via thorough study of topics in the light of day. They often express careless beliefs in the absence of objective verification.
3) They are (ironically) in favor of promoting faulty premises and logical fallacies ... and then inserting these into their presentations as if these premises & fallacies ought to be blindly accepted by their audience without challenge, without verification, and without questioning.
You’ll need to give some examples, especially for number 1, which is a particularly ludicrous accusation.
That's been my issue with ARI as well but you have stated it much more eloquently than I could... appreciate the analysis 👍
@@glennjohn3824what analysis? These are just baseless accusations.
@@sybo59
Some examples that come to mind in my initial recall...
Using larger govt to force (fraud/manipulate) people to think that a non-existent "virus particle" can somehow exist just because someone is claiming that it is so (still no evidence nor demonstration yet provided to verify this claim). Then using more govt coercive force to fraud/manipulate people to sacrifice their liberty as a response to the first govt force. ARI endorsed the fraud without first verifying it.
Using larger govt to force (fraud/manipulate) people to think that a non-existent transmission/contagion of a non-existent "virus particle" is happening just because someone is claiming that it is so. (still no evidence nor demonstration yet provided to verify this claim). Then using more govt coercive force to fraud/manipulate people to sacrifice their liberty as a response to the first govt force. ARI endorsed the fraud without first verifying it.
(same for PCR test, which provides no relevant information, has no validation, and has no standard ... ARI endorsed this fraud, which enlarged govt size and govt coercive force)
Enlarging govt to steal $ (property) from people and then launder that $ thru Ukraine projects for favor-trading. ARI endorsed.
Enlarging govt to steal $ (property) from people and then launder that $ thru Israel projects for favor-trading. ARI endorsed.
ARI championing Louis Pasteur whose entire "career" was facilitated by enlarging govt coercive force (while his projects never produced any scientifically verified value/benefit while he was also destroying thousands of people and animals). ARI endorsed.
There are more examples. If you actually have an interest in this topic it will not be too difficult for you to locate them.
@@ominousparallel3854 baseless accusations?... lol. Their points were pretty accurate to me perhaps you're feeling some tribal attachment and political bias? Maybe you should make a point to counter instead.
ARI: Zionists first, Objectivism 3rd or 4th. And no, an evil mr mustache man didn't type that.
No we don't. But honestly I am not worried about that ever happening.
This is a sign that you need new members? Are you a dying group.
All groups need new members , right?
@Mr.Witness but the reality we have here is your group has had economic power and it lead up to bubble markets and collapses. That is why you can't convince new members.
You're going to have a hard time getting more objectivist intellectuals. There's only so much money for philosophy PhDs who can't do anything useful but promote Ayn Rands values. Most of the rest of the intellectuals are expected to actually accomplish things in the real world.
Abortion was never a constitutional right in America wtf are you talking about?
It is by implication of individual rights that it is a constitutional right to get one. Read more on Ayn Rand's analysis of abortion. As for the video, listen to its essential points.
@@RogerFusselman individual rights do not come from government. The United States constitution does not give rights it is a check on government power and says what rights the government "shall not infringe" upon... furthermore, murder is against the law so you would have to explain why abortion is not murder before you claim a right to legalize it. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right or good. Not sure why you elevated Rand as your standard of morality but I guess that's all atheists can come up with...
@@glennjohn3824 as i said in another thread, a fetus has no rights because it is not individuated from the mother. Only individuals have rights.
@@hyperreal that's purely an anti-human perspective of satanic and atheistic people. Utterly ridiculous considering that people who murder pregnant women are charged with double murder. Once conceived a child has its own DNA which makes it an individual... objectively speaking.
Your body is your property. Therefore abortion rights are a form of property rights.
Never been as good economically, sure, but we've never had less privacy and less freedom from government and corporate control either... cashless society is not freedom.
He talks about self-esteem and happiness which is completely egotistically based... fluffing your ego is an empty virtue. So far this is Satanism without the devil.
Thanks for the summary! From the Objectivist perspective, at least the way i understand it to be, the (false) dichotomy often seems to be presented as either morality being derived as objective (based on a subjectively chosen standard!), or it is instead perceived as mind-dependent by non-Objectivists, the rest of moral philosophy is just decoration masqueraded as a unique selling point to a particular worldview. Either way, i can't get myself to listen to Onkar and find out what it is he has to say, in my highly subjective opinion, he can't capture my attention for anything over 5-10 minutes, I'm sure the blame falls entirely onto me. When it comes to ARI i can really only listen to Peikoff and Bingswanger.
@@maurices5954 I agree with you and appreciate your well written general analysis. As someone who has been involved in satanic philosophy and read the satanic bible innumerable times and carried it everywhere for several years in my twenties, this version of objectivism does not separate itself from satanic philosophies very much. It seems almost entirely subjective and is egocentric in almost every way. I'm older and wiser now and have a solid understanding of egotistical attachments and the the self-centered pursuit of self-esteem and "happiness" in lieu of peace. The hatred of religion, particularly hypocritical Christians, pushed me to seek Truth above all else which led me to satanic philosophy and the exploration of several "spiritual" ideologies along the way. I find objectivism to be a wonderful tool to assist in navigation of politics and business and social governance but it is completely hollow for spiritual development and individual growth, especially as practiced today. Hypocrisy knows no boundaries and objectivists are not immune from it. It undermines their efforts to expand their cause.
What works from Rand or other Objectivists have you read? @@glennjohn3824
So to me what bothers me about what you said is "fluffing your ego" the entire point of pride in objectivism is to understand that in reality you are good, there is no inflated ego if its actually an accurate understanding of yourself. Which is why in the objectivist philosophy the way to an ego isnt to listen to a bunch of pumped up music and think highly of yourself but to actually improve yourself in reality. And then after that to actually understand your REAL good. there is no fluffing your ego, there is growing it- but your ego and pride is purely an understanding of yourself, ego is who you are, pride is recognizing the good in yourself. Its hard to understand objectivism because they have different and in my view clearer meanings for specific words like ego and pride, but if you havent fully understood their view on those its a bit confusing.
@@jonathanbauer2988 Yes, i have on occasion run into that problem myself when applying Objectivism, as well as other philosophical theories to real life events. It's nearly impossible to be understood by those who are not schooled in philosophical jargon, in my head I'm always thinking in these terms and definitions and this is perfectly fine for online discourse such as what we're doing here in this comment section, but it translates rather poorly within our day to day interactions with those who are not versed in philosophical principles. The problem with non-tangible concepts that have no physical presence in reality is that they are incredibly prone to multiple varying conflating definitions. Which leads to poor communication, even among ourselves if we are to take certain definitions for granted without properly defining them first.