Would it be better if more scientists studied philosophy?

_{News
November 15, 2021

Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Science

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design
Philosophy
Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Instead of ridiculing it, as Stephen Hawking did?

From a practical standpoint, philosophy requires clear, logical thinking. A person who has a degree in philosophy has therefore shown an ability to think — a useful skill in a world that too often doesn’t seem to do much of it.
Daniel Lehewych, “Is philosophy just a bunch of nonsense?” at BigThink (November 9, 2021)

Remarkably, Lehewych actually notices a key reason many are skeptical of science:

Consider public health messaging during the pandemic, which consisted of a pattern of revelation and back-peddling. Worse, this pattern wasn’t even cohesive among scientists and medical experts: different experts in the same fields were simultaneously saying things about the pandemic that were contradictory and inconsistent. This only served to confuse the public and aggravate hyperpartisanship.
Philosophy, as an activity, can potentially mitigate these deleterious effects. Earning a philosophy degree entails filtering convoluted ideas into plain language. This skill can and ought to be used to aid scientists in pursuing a more scientifically informed public
Daniel Lehewych, “Is philosophy just a bunch of nonsense?” at BigThink (November 9, 2021)

Lehewych interweaves these thoughts with discussion of the anti-philosophy views of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. He suggests that scientists study philosophy so as to avoid sounding like “sanctimonious know-it-alls.”

Maybe. Of course, it would also help to be right more often, as that would at least lead to more consistent messaging.

You may also wish to read: At Evolution News: C. S. Lewis and the argument for theism from reason Jay Richards: Natural selection could conceivably select for survival-enhancing behavior. But it has no tool for selecting only the behaviors caused by true beliefs, and weeding out all the others. So if our reasoning faculties came about as most naturalists assume they have, then we have little reason to assume they are reliable in the sense of giving us true beliefs. And that applies to our belief that naturalism is true.

Comments

KF:
Origenes, that you may wish to fulfill said duties and associated proper ends of your responsible, free rationality is commendable but does not alter them from being oughts.
No, I want to know the truth, not because I ought to want to know the truth, but because I want to know the truth. My decision and my decision alone. I am a free person and no one (Cicero included) tells me what to do.Origenes_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PST}

It should be clear why basic moral and philosophical education is advisable for all, including Scientists . . . the issue in the OP.kairosfocus_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PST}

PPS: For the further record, this is the summary argument that is being dismissed, while appealing to things such as unfounded claims of circular -- question-begging -- argument and declarations that there is no generally acknowledged duty to truth (so, why is you are lying such a strong claim . . . ):
We can readily identify at least seven inescapable . . . first duties of reason: "Inescapable," as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to their legitimate authority; inescapable, so first truths of reason, i.e. they are self-evidently true and binding. Namely, Ciceronian first duties,
1st - to truth, 2nd - to right reason, 3rd - to prudence [including warrant], 4th - to sound conscience, 5th - to neighbour; so also, 6th - to fairness and 7th - to justice [ . . .] xth - etc.
Likewise, we observe again, that objectors to such duties cannot but appeal to them to give their objections rhetorical traction (i.e. s/he must imply or acknowledge what we are, morally governed, duty-bound creatures to gain any persuasive effect). While also those who try to prove such cannot but appeal to the said principles too. So, these principles are a branch on which we all must sit, including objectors and those who imagine they are to be proved and try. That is, these are manifestly first principles of rational, responsible, honest, conscience guided liberty and so too a built-in framework of law; yes, core natural law of human nature. Reason, inescapably, is morally governed. Of course, there is a linked but not equivalent pattern: bounded, error-prone rationality often tied to ill will and stubbornness or even closed mindedness; that’s why the study of right reason has a sub-study on fallacies and errors. That we sometimes seek to evade duties or may make inadvertent errors does not overthrow such first duties of reason, which instead help us to detect and correct errors, as well as to expose our follies. Perhaps, a negative form will help to clarify, for cause we find to be at best hopelessly error-riddled, those who are habitually untruthful, fallacious and/or irrational, imprudent, fail to soundly warrant claims, show a benumbed or dead conscience [i.e. sociopathy and/or highly machiavellian tendencies], dehumanise and abuse others, are unfair and unjust. At worst, such are utterly dangerous, destructive,or even ruthlessly, demonically lawless. Such built-in . . . thus, universal . . . law, then, is not invented by parliaments, kings or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such; they are recognised, often implicitly as an indelible part of our evident nature. Hence, "natural law," coeval with our humanity, famously phrased in terms of "self-evident . . . rights . . . endowed by our Creator" in the US Declaration of Independence, 1776. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice, the pivot of law. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Likewise, Aristotle long since anticipated Pilate's cynical "what is truth?": truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. [Metaphysics, 1011b, C4 BC.] Simple in concept, but hard to establish on the ground; hence -- in key part -- the duties to right reason, prudence, fairness etc. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. The first duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifest our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God, the necessary (so, eternal), maximally great being at the root of reality.
kairosfocus_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PST}

JS, attempted gaslighting, in addition. KF PS: FYI, the Ciceronian first duties -- duties of the civil peace of justice -- literally built civilisation and particularly contributed to the rise of modern constitutional democracy. Just for record, here is Locke, citing Hooker in his 2nd essay on civil gov't:
[2nd Treatise on Civil Gov't, Ch 2 sec. 5, citing "the judicious [Anglican Canon, Richard] Hooker":] . . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [This directly echoes St. Paul in Rom 2: "14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . " and 13: "9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law . . . " Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity ,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.] [Augmented citation, Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Ch 2 Sect. 5. ]
Then, Aquinas:
[Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part, Question 91, article 1, on eternal law: As stated above (I-II:90:1 ad 2; I-II:91:3-4), a law is nothing else but a dictate of practical reason emanating from the ruler who governs a perfect community. Now it is evident, granted that the world is ruled by Divine Providence, as was stated in I:22:1 and I:22:2, that the whole community of the universe is governed by Divine Reason. Wherefore the very Idea of the government of things in God the Ruler of the universe, has the nature of a law. And since the Divine Reason's conception of things is not subject to time but is eternal, according to Proverbs 8:23, therefore it is that this kind of law must be called eternal . . . . Next, article 2 following, on natural law: As stated above (I-II:90:1 ad 1), law, being a rule and measure, can be in a person in two ways: in one way, as in him that rules and measures; in another way, as in that which is ruled and measured, since a thing is ruled and measured, in so far as it partakes of the rule or measure. Wherefore, since all things subject to Divine providence are ruled and measured by the eternal law, as was stated above (Article 1); it is evident that all things partake somewhat of the eternal law, in so far as, namely, from its being imprinted on them, they derive their respective inclinations to their proper acts and ends. Now among all others, the rational creature is subject to Divine providence in the most excellent way, in so far as it partakes of a share of providence, by being provident both for itself and for others. Wherefore it has a share of the Eternal Reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act and end: and this participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law. Hence the Psalmist after saying (Psalm 4:6): "Offer up the sacrifice of justice," as though someone asked what the works of justice are, adds: "Many say, Who showeth us good things?" in answer to which question he says: "The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us": thus implying that the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the Divine light. It is therefore evident that the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature's participation of the eternal law.
And here, again is Cicero in De Legibus, more fully cited:
—Marcus [in de Legibus, introductory remarks,. C1 BC, being Cicero himself]: . . . the subject of our present discussion . . . comprehends the universal principles of equity and law. In such a discussion therefore on the great moral law of nature, the practice of the civil law can occupy but an insignificant and subordinate station. For according to our idea, we shall have to explain the true nature of moral justice, which is congenial and correspondent [36]with the true nature of man.
[--> Note, how justice and our built in nature as a morally governed class of creatures are highlighted; thus framing the natural law frame: recognising built-in law that we do not create nor can we repeal, which then frames a sound understanding of justice. Without such an anchor, law inevitably reduces to the sort of ruthless, nihilistic might- and- manipulation- make- "right,"- "truth,"- "knowledge,"- "law"- and- "justice"- etc power struggle and chaos Plato warned against in The Laws Bk X.]
We shall have to examine those principles of legislation by which all political states should be governed. And last of all, shall we have to speak of those laws and customs which are framed for the use and convenience of particular peoples, which regulate the civic and municipal affairs of the citizens, and which are known by the title of civil laws. Quintus [his real-life brother]. —You take a noble view of the subject, my brother, and go to the fountain–head of moral truth, in order to throw light on the whole science of jurisprudence: while those who confine their legal studies to the civil law too often grow less familiar with the arts of justice than with those of litigation. Marcus. —Your observation, my Quintus, is not quite correct. It is not so much the science of law that produces litigation, as the ignorance of it, (potius ignoratio juris litigiosa est quam scientia) . . . . With respect to the true principle of justice, many learned men have maintained that it springs from Law. I hardly know if their opinion be not correct, at least, according to their own definition; for “Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary.” This, they think, is apparent from the converse of the proposition; because this same reason, when it [37]is confirmed and established in men’s minds, is the law of all their actions. They therefore conceive that the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law, whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones. They think, too, that the Greek name for law (NOMOS), which is derived from NEMO, to distribute, implies the very nature of the thing, that is, to give every man his due. [--> this implies a definition of justice as the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities] For my part, I imagine that the moral essence of law is better expressed by its Latin name, (lex), which conveys the idea of selection or discrimination. According to the Greeks, therefore, the name of law implies an equitable distribution of goods: according to the Romans, an equitable discrimination between good and evil. The true definition of law should, however, include both these characteristics. And this being granted as an almost self–evident proposition, the origin of justice is to be sought in the divine law of eternal and immutable morality. This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.
At this point, these are notes for record.kairosfocus_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PST}

JS, your pretence to moral outrage has no credibility
You are mistaken if you think there is any moral outrage.
given that you have dismissed the duties on which it rests.
The only thing being dismissed is your arguments for first duties.
As well as, shown contempt to civilisation.
There may be some contempt, but it is not being aimed at civilization.Joe Schooner_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PST}

This may be true but the “OUGHTs” derived in an attempt to meet these objective may differ from one society to another.
I believe I said that. The objectives and duties are universal to the human race P=> q; q - objectives of humans that are built in - survival; and thriving/flourishing. p - actions/behaviors that lead to q; p - the actions/behaviors are then called duties because they are necessary.jerry_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PST}

There are common objectives across all human societies.
This may be true but the “OUGHTs” derived in an attempt to meet these objective may differ from one society to another.Joe Schooner_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PST}

JS, your pretence to moral outrage has no credibility, given that you have dismissed the duties on which it rests. As well as, shown contempt to civilisation. KFkairosfocus_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PST}

You have just excluded yourself from the circle of civil rational, responsible discussion. These days, sadly, not uncommon. I have no reason going forward to give you credit as acting in good faith, towards truth or right, as reasoning responsibly or prudently and you have further given cause to be concerned that we are here dealing with sociopathy. As for fairness or justice forget it.
If you choose to dismiss someone on a trumped up accusation rather that discuss the issues, that is your right.Joe Schooner_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PST}

There are common objectives across all human societies. One objective is survival of the individual and the group the individual finds himself/herself in. Actions/behaviors required to reach this objective of survival are found in all these societies. Without these actions/behaviors the individual dies or the group disappears from existence. These actions then become duties of the individual. Without these actions the individual or group disappears. Does this mean all actions are duties. Hardly, but if an action thwarts a duty then the chances of achieving the objectives is lessened. So when someone says these required behaviors are not duties, they are saying they no longer want to exist or want the group to exist. It’s not hard to understand and nearly all humanity has understood this since the beginning of the species. There are other objectives besides survival that are common to humans. A similar argument can be made for the behaviors required to achieve these objectives. Since they are common to all humans, the objectives are built into the nature of humans. The objectives are not arbitrary but the specific actions to reach these objectives can vary substantially across societies.jerry_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PST}

Origenes, that you may wish to fulfill said duties and associated proper ends of your responsible, free rationality is commendable but does not alter them from being oughts. KFkairosfocus_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PST}

JS, do you realise what your refusal self-categorises you as, and what it does to your credibility? Let me put the negative form of the first duties, "for cause . . ":
we find to be at best hopelessly error-riddled, those who are habitually untruthful, fallacious and/or irrational, imprudent, fail to soundly warrant claims, show a benumbed or dead conscience [i.e. sociopathy and/or highly machiavellian tendencies], dehumanise and abuse others, are unfair and unjust. At worst, such are utterly dangerous, destructive,or even ruthlessly, demonically lawless.
You have just excluded yourself from the circle of civil rational, responsible discussion. These days, sadly, not uncommon. I have no reason going forward to give you credit as acting in good faith, towards truth or right, as reasoning responsibly or prudently and you have further given cause to be concerned that we are here dealing with sociopathy. As for fairness or justice forget it. Own goal, on steroids. KFkairosfocus_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PST}

Ram & Origenes, I'm going to carry on that conversation there so we don't bogart this thread.William J Murray_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
02:35 AM
2
02
35
AM
PST}

Origenes, Why is that a "problem?" --Ramram_{November 18, 2021
November
11
Nov
18
18
2021
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PST}

WJMurray @72 Thank you for providing links to MRT articles. A very interesting read, however I see a problem.Origenes_{November 18, 2021
November
11
Nov
18
18
2021
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PST}

JS, do you not see how your attempted dismissive argument reeks with appeals to duty to truth, right reason and more? I just note for record at this point. KF
No. And neither does anyone else.Joe Schooner_{November 18, 2021
November
11
Nov
18
18
2021
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PST}

I want to find the truth. It is not imposed on me by anyone. It is what I want, not a duty, not what ought to be done.Origenes_{November 18, 2021
November
11
Nov
18
18
2021
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PST}

Origines, being willingly compliant with duty does not change it from being duty, what ought to be done. KFkairosfocus_{November 18, 2021
November
11
Nov
18
18
2021
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PST}

JS, do you not see how your attempted dismissive argument reeks with appeals to duty to truth, right reason and more? I just note for record at this point. KFkairosfocus_{November 18, 2021
November
11
Nov
18
18
2021
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PST}

Joe Schooner @110:
When discussing something with others there is an expectation that everyone is doing so honestly.
And IMO that expectation is based upon the assumption that everyone is interested in finding the truth — as opposed to the expectation being tied to duty.
That expectation is not an imposed duty on anyone unless they impose it on themselves.
Exactly. If someone hates the truth, desperately does not want to discuss things honestly, but does so nevertheless because (for some reason) it his "duty", then KF has a point. Given that scenario it makes sense to talk about duties. But if someone wants to find the truth and discusses things honestly in order to reach his goal, then no duty is involved.Origenes_{November 18, 2021
November
11
Nov
18
18
2021
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PST}

meanwhile, such is an appeal to duty to right reason, demonstrating the point that the first duties govern reason-based, responsible freedom. KF
Logic and reason govern the ability to accurately model/explain an observation. There is no 1st duty involved. When discussing something with others there is an expectation that everyone is doing so honestly. That expectation is not an imposed duty on anyone unless they impose it on themselves.Joe Schooner_{November 18, 2021
November
11
Nov
18
18
2021
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PST}

Origenes, the first duty is to truth, something attested by sound conscience. Truth, not a means thereto. Truth, as it is accurately descriptive of reality thus to lose contact with truth is to slip into folly, chaos, injustice and worse. Will to find truth is not an arbitrary or advantageous decision, truth is often a threat to power and survival is to flow with the stream of the false. That is a truth of sobering history. Equally, those who sacrifice truth to expediency suffer breakdown of integrity and dehumanise themselves, for they know the duty to truth. Havel's greengrocer in his power of the powerless is a classic discussion, one that materially helped erode the iron curtain. There is more, but you need to ask yourself why you find yourself so stoutly resistant to self-evident, manifest readily confirmed truth about the duties that govern our rational, responsible freedom. For, that is a signature of deep programming serving an agenda. I speak here as an experienced breaker of such programming. KFkairosfocus_{November 18, 2021
November
11
Nov
18
18
2021
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PST}

Jerry:
The truth is the duty.
No, the truth is what I want. What I want is not a duty. Duties are imposed on me irrespective of my will. KF:
the key principles are about duties. Distinct identity and corollaries are self-evidently so but without acknowledged duty to truth and warrant, they have no power to move us.
O:
the key principles are tools for finding the truth. Distinct identity and corollaries are self-evidently so, but without our will to find truth, they have no power to move us.
Origenes_{November 18, 2021
November
11
Nov
18
18
2021
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PST}

Ironical, about those inclined to boast of brilliance, rationality and the like.kairosfocus_{November 18, 2021
November
11
Nov
18
18
2021
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PST}

Origenes, the key principles are about duties. Distinct identity and corollaries are self-evidently so but without acknowledged duty to truth and warrant, they have no power to move us. Likewise, claims about fallacies are inert absent our awareness of and willing acceptance of duties to truth and to use reasoning approaches that help us move towards truth reliably; translated, soundness of conscience counts for a lot. And more. I already pointed out this morning something I have not highlighted for a long time, the significance of the active voice of conscience and what would flow from denigrating it. I am more and more inclined to point to Paul's warning:
Eph 4: 17 Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. 19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self,6 which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. 25 Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another.
If our consciences are unmoved, that is not a good sign. KF PS: There is need to ponder on sociopathy. What happens when a community begins to be dominated by damaged, warped, benumbed consciences?kairosfocus_{November 18, 2021
November
11
Nov
18
18
2021
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PST}

Jerry, did you notice that your own arguments just now appeal to first duties? That is a point of actual observation on the pervasiveness of the first principles, which involve duties. KFkairosfocus_{November 18, 2021
November
11
Nov
18
18
2021
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PST}

@KF : WJM admitted that pleasure is his highest value and if morality stays in his way he will ignore it therefore from the start we can say with confidence that everything WJM communicate is not trustworthy. MRT is his ridiculous attempt to evade morality ,to escape the voice of conscience(voice of God that fight the voice of our "narcissist"ego ).
Jerry That you use this supercilious argument just means you are obstructing not contributing.
BullseyeLieutenant Commander Data_{November 18, 2021
November
11
Nov
18
18
2021
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PST}

Jerry, pardon but the matter is one of direct observation which settled the matter, I am simply refusing to allow dismissive words to bury observable facts on how arguments are appealing.
Pardon. For example, how many times have you brought up Cicero. You keep on repeating the same things. Relevant but still the same things. You are as guilty as the critics with their false arguments by repeating over and over again. I would go into right reasoning which is quite simple but I am off traveling. I never heard the term till you brought it up and for that I t hank you. But had to go elsewhere to understand it. Nothing you said helped me. You fail to see that little you say is helpful because of your style of rhetoric. That is why you are constantly attacked. The attackers only know they don't like what you are saying so make up nonsense to contradict it.jerry_{November 18, 2021
November
11
Nov
18
18
2021
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PST}

The first principles of reason are not duties. Logic is not a duty, like a hammer is not a duty. Logic is a tool one uses to get to the truth.
Another self refuting comment. The truth is the duty. What you use to get there are just the tools. That you use this supercilious argument just means you are obstructing not contributing.jerry_{November 18, 2021
November
11
Nov
18
18
2021
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PST}

According to Jerry, if you were a law-abiding citizen, paid your taxes, held a job, bought goods from local merchants, were friendly, helpful, kept your property cleaned up, never cheated anyone, but you did all that because it served your own self-interest, well those good old-fashioned utopian communities would run you right out of town!! Because they didn’t like that attitude!!
Never said that!! Or even close. That you say this is an example of the nonsense you keep issuing. Off to see the wizard. Traveling 9 hours in the next 24.jerry_{November 18, 2021
November
11
Nov
18
18
2021
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PST}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 6 Next