What gives your life meaning?

#1
I have just recently started listening to the Skeptiko podcast, but I have been going through many episodes. I really enjoy them, but there is something that comes up often that I would like to ask about. Alex say's that the atheist/materialist explanation of life states that there is no meaning to life, or perhaps more clearly, that life ultimately has no meaning. His guests say that they give their own lives meaning. But Alex doesn't accept that answer. So, my main question is, "What gives your life meaning?" Other questions connected to this are, "Can you give meaning to your own life? Can meaning only be giving outside of oneself? If meaning ends, is it in fact meaningless? If meaning can't end, does that mean that meaning has to be eternal?

I don't have an opinion on this. However, it seems that there has to be more possibilities than just what I have heard on the podcast. I would really be interested in what you think and what Alex thinks.

Thank you.
 
#2
If this universe ultimately has no purpose - no reason set and it is really is just ticking along by a chance-full balance of luck then why can't somebody make purpose to their own life that end's upon death? Or, continues through the means of someone else continuing that purpose. I don't accept Alex not accepting a person can add meaning to their life without an ultimate reason. Meaning itself is entirely subjective from the get-go. What matters to me and what I fight for could be opposed and upended by others. My meaning could be useless in the eye's of another. What gives my life meaning, honestly, is what I have attached myself to emotionally - loved ones, pets, hobbies - things that fulfill desires within me and are personal and important to me.

I am very curious where this universe is headed and what happens in the end but I do not believe necessarily need to believe in an ultimate reason. Over the years, it appears, I have learned that I am much happier at this junction in my life believing in this finite, ultimately meaningless, intensely personally meaningful, life of mine.
 
#3
For me it is belief that spiritual development is an eternal process and that in the afterlife you go to a place and have things to do that are appropriate for your level of development. So life on the earth is about developing yourself so that your can progress in the afterlife and go to new places and have new things to do. This means learning to be a better person, being more loving, tolerant, forgiving, less selfish, less egotistical because those qualities are what make you fit for a higher level.

During a period in my life when I was an atheist I read that if you treat others badly, if you act like an @#$%^^&*, then you will think of yourself as an @#$%^&*, so to have self respect you should treat others honorably. This had a big influence on me and I still consider it a valuable lesson that I could not have learned without being a materialist. So I think there can be a spiritual purpose in being a materialist. But ultimately that lesson was based on self interest not on concern for others.

Now I find that my knowledge of the afterlife makes a huge difference and it is not really comparable to being a materialist. When you believe the universe is benevolent, that you are loved by God and your spirit friends, that they are rooting for you and helping and guiding you to meet life's challenges, life means something different than if you are just trying to be a good person until you die at which point everything is over. You know there is an eternity in which you can have fun and be happy together with your loved ones so any sacrifices, losses, or unpleasantness in this life are mere bumps in the road, lessons to learn from. Suffering teaches you compassion for others who are suffering. Doing wrong teaches you forgiveness for those who may wrong you. These lessons have value to you throughout eternity. When you are a materialist, every second that is not pleasant is a second you are cheated out of from your short life. When you are a materialist any character development that occurs because of hardship is useless after you die. As a believer in the afterlife, you want do what is right because you understand we are all in this together, some are less advanced some more, you want to help others to be part of the system that brings help to you. You know you will have to live with the knowledge your decisions for eternity. There is also the prospect of a life review where you will experience how you influenced people from their perspective.

My experience is just one data point. However empirical research shows that belief in religion and spirituality do make life more meaningful:

http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2015/03/video-lecture-by-john-lennox-explains.html

Belief in religion and spirituality is beneficial.

Andrew Sims
Andrew Sims, past president of Royal College of Psychiatrists, has said: "The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally. If the findings of the huge volume of research on this topic had gone in the opposite direction and it had been found that religion damages your mental health, it would have been front-page news in every newspaper in the land (from Is Faith Delusion)."

more

In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life; higher self-esteem; better adaptation to bereavement; greater social support and less loneliness; lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide; less anxiety; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; greater marital stability and satisfaction… We concluded that for the vast majority of people the apparent benefits of devout belief and practice probably outweigh the risks.​


Here are some other examples of how religion transforms lives:

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...er-reincarnation-claim.2093/page-8#post-63440
2. How can life have any meaning if we live in a meaningless universe?
...

I've never heard of an anyone saying that materialism, or "scientific ethics" or humanism, transformed their life. But many people who convert to religion do say that it transformed their life for the better. So it seems to me that all the talk about rational ethics is just talk. But when you come to believe God, that is something completely different. It is not theoretical it is something practical that changes your life for the better.

Many people (examples below) find that while believing in materialism and atheism life is bleak, lacks love, and is ultimately selfish. When they come to believe in God life is about love and caring for others not about yourself and that makes people happier. Logically an atheist could believe in unselfishness and love, but it seems that for practical reasons there is something about belief in God that makes it work where mere philosophy doesn't do it.

This is not just a psychological phenomenon. It is evidence that God exists. John Lennox pointed out that it would be strange if beings on a planet without water became thirsty, similarly it would be strange if there was no God for people to be drawn to God.


I never heard of atheism helping anyone to turn their life around the way religion has done for many people.

Neither of professional musician Dan Conway's parents were religious and he was an atheist until he felt his life was going in the wrong direction...

The relevant part of the video starts at 9:38


"In some way's I guess things were going well. As you said I got to perform on Australia's Got Talent. ... I'm no stranger to the music business so ... I had a record deal when I was 16 with Sony and another one sometime later I think with EMI. So I was no stranger to all that. But, I was actually really unhappy. And I was only growing more unhappy. And I wasn't living well. The more time went on the more I was hurting myself and others. It wasn't pretty. I came to a place where I just want to think ... maybe there's something to this God thing and maybe I missed it. So I thought, I want to know. I want to know I don't really want to be into what feels good or what suits me I actaully want to know what's the truth."
This was an from an atheist from birth, born to atheist parents being skeptical about atheism: "I don't really want to be into what feels good or what suits me. I actually want to know what's the truth".

"And so I committed I'm going to figure it out. I'm going to commit to following the evidence wherever it leads. I became a regular debate viewer on line and read books on God and his existence. When I got real radical I'd listen to a sermon or two. All as an atheist. But the most crucial part of that was really when I examined my own heart and did that the very last. But when I saw what was in there and when I considered who Jesus might be that led me to believe in God. Everything changed at that point. I guess I had a really a change of being. Somewhere deep I don't even know where. And that changed my thinking my desires, my outlook, so I guess it was natural that my music changed with it."
"I was actually really unhappy. And I was only growing more unhappy. And I wasn't living well. The more time went on the more I was hurting myself and others. It wasn't pretty."
...
When he came to "...believe in God. Everything changed at that point. I guess I had a really a change of being. Somewhere deep I don't even know where. And that changed my thinking my desires, my outlook"

I've heard and read a lot of stories like this and it is one of the reasons I have a generally favorable opinion of religion. This type of evidence shows that there is something good in religion and rather than rejecting all religion because some of it is bad, we should try to understand what is good in it and figure out how to use that in a practical way to improve people's well being.

"Organized religion: Is it all bad?"

It seems to have helped Lee Strobel.

Strobel is a journalist and his research into the authenticity of the Gospels transformed his life. He started out as an atheist skeptic but when he used his credentials as a reporter to get access to the worlds leading historians, the results of his research made a believer out of him.


"... [believing] began a transformational process for me where over time my philosophy and my attitudes, relationships, parenting, world-view, all of that began to change over time for good. Really for good."

"When Lee became a Christian his whole life started to change to the extent that our five year old daughter who also saw those changes went to her Sunday school teacher and told her that she wanted Jesus to do in her life what He had done in her Daddy's life."​
"... [believing] began a transformational process for me where over time my philosophy and my attitudes, relationships, parenting, world-view, all of that began to change over time for good. Really for good."

"When Lee became a Christian his whole life started to change to the extent that our five year old daughter who also saw those changes went to her Sunday school teacher and told her that she wanted Jesus to do in her life what He had done in her Daddy's life."
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/goto/post?id=63451#post-63451

I think the difference is like the difference between book learning and experience. You can't really internalize spiritual love without feeling that the universe is ultimately benevolent and that you are loved. The atheists can say what they like about meaning but unless they've had the experience they don't know what they are missing. Giving up a bad religion and becoming an atheist is not equivalent to finding a good religion and giving up atheism. And religion doesn't necessarily guarantee this experience. Some people go through the motions of religion out of habit but it doesn't mean much to them in daily life. It's a sad fact that bad religion drives many people to atheism. But some people do have an experience, either by learning about religion or from a personal experience like an NDE, where they recognize that God exists, loves us even though we may be flawed, and God is for us not against us, and they live with that understanding every day and that seems to be central to this type of transformation. If we are made in God's image or if the stuff of our soul is the stuff of God, then if you don't love God you don't love yourself. Recognizing that God loves us releases something inside us, it helps to rid one of feelings of fear, self-hate, anger, and guilt. It's like having a great weight lifted off your shoulders, it is liberating. The truth sets you free, free to be happy and loving. You don't get that from ethical humanism. This is why organized religion, done right, can be beneficial - besides teaching about God, being able to go to the right kind of church once a week, being surrounded by like minded people, helps a person to maintain this understanding in the face of the many messages we are bombarded with many times a day encouraging us to be selfish. I know many people get this from some Christian churches, I know from my own experience you can also get this from some Spiritualist churches.
 
Last edited:
#4
Without offering my own answer, I'd like to comment.

The very question and its answer don't seem to carry the same weight for everyone. People are different. For some it might be akin to discussing their stamp collection, while for others it is more like the need to find a crust of bread and a drop of water in order to remain alive for one more day. Thus the answers given are not entirely equivalent, since they come from different places, different life-situations if you will. Here I'm not giving any value-judgement as to what is right or wrong, better or worse, merely making an observation.
 
#5
If this universe ultimately has no purpose - no reason set and it is really is just ticking along by a chance-full balance of luck then why can't somebody make purpose to their own life that end's upon death? Or, continues through the means of someone else continuing that purpose. I don't accept Alex not accepting a person can add meaning to their life without an ultimate reason. Meaning itself is entirely subjective from the get-go. What matters to me and what I fight for could be opposed and upended by others. My meaning could be useless in the eye's of another. What gives my life meaning, honestly, is what I have attached myself to emotionally - loved ones, pets, hobbies - things that fulfill desires within me and are personal and important to me.

I am very curious where this universe is headed and what happens in the end but I do not believe necessarily need to believe in an ultimate reason. Over the years, it appears, I have learned that I am much happier at this junction in my life believing in this finite, ultimately meaningless, intensely personally meaningful, life of mine.
Thanks. I think that is possible too. Whether I give meaning to my life directly, or believe that something else gives me meaning, it is still "my" belief that makes that meaning possible.
 
#6
I would really be interested in what you think and what Alex thinks.

Thank you.
While I agree with Alex on many things this is one f those in which I hold a different view. All life has value, worth and meaning. Period. Whether an individual is objectively aware of it or not doesn't change that. To spell that out fully - the life of a person who thinks their, and even all life, has no meaning still has intrinsic value, worth and meaning. That value, worth and meaning exists (in linear time terms) before and after physical existence. It is a fundamental of primary consciousness.

That said, for many people the idea of meaning is one they place physical and societal clothing on. Wearing that garb they may think that the life of say Mandela has more meaning than that of the mugger down the street. It doesn't. Not on the intrinsic level.
 
#7
For me it is belief that spiritual development is an eternal process and that in the afterlife you go to a place and have things to do that are appropriate for your level of development. So life on the earth is about developing yourself so that your can progress in the afterlife and go to new places and have new things to do.
I agree. This belief gives meaning to my life as well. Efforts to improve myself are not futile. If I can develop for example my strength and courage, these qualities will be stored eternally in my soul.
 
#8
I have just recently started listening to the Skeptiko podcast, but I have been going through many episodes. I really enjoy them, but there is something that comes up often that I would like to ask about. Alex say's that the atheist/materialist explanation of life states that there is no meaning to life, or perhaps more clearly, that life ultimately has no meaning. His guests say that they give their own lives meaning. But Alex doesn't accept that answer. So, my main question is, "What gives your life meaning?"
Welcome to the forum! It is always encouraging when newcomers start by making an interesting contribution - such as yours.

I agree with a lot of Alex's ideas, and I would put it this way. Almost everyone has aspects of this life that make it meaningful - children, friends, cats, other animals, ideas, etc. There would not be a problem if it were not for conventional science which tells you that all of these are collections of fundamental particles following equations (except perhaps ideas, which are stored in brains that are made of fundamental particles....).

Many scientists are happy to fudge this, but the most fundamentalist materialists like to say that life is fundamentally meaningless. Alex's point, is how can you get meaning out of collections of things that are individually totally meaningless? If nothing individually matters, it is damn hard to see why collections of stuff should matter! This feels closely related to the other big question - if matter simply evolves according to rules, why should the collections of matter we call brains experience stuff? This means that fundamentalist materialists can't really talk about "giving their lives meaning", because that translates into one set of meaningless particles giving their temporary assembly, a meaning!

I think Alex suspects that fundamentalist materialists simply live with an inconsistent set of ideas (nothing has meaning + my family gives me meaning) - they should maybe contemplate the fact that inconsistent sets of ideas can spawn anything!
Other questions connected to this are, "Can you give meaning to your own life? Can meaning only be giving outside of oneself? If meaning ends, is it in fact meaningless? If meaning can't end, does that mean that meaning has to be eternal?
Personally I am not religiously inclined, but I would not be surprised if my life on earth is just part of some bigger enterprise. If that is true, life simply can't be meaningless.
 
Last edited:
#9
Welcome to the forum! It is always encouraging when newcomers start by making an interesting contribution - such as yours.

I agree with a lot of Alex's ideas, and I would put it this way. Almost everyone has aspects of this life that make it meaningful - children, friends, cats, other animals, ideas, etc. There would not be a problem if it were not for conventional science which tells you that all of these are collections of fundamental particles following equations (except perhaps ideas, which are stored in brains that are made of fundamental particles....).

Many scientists are happy to fudge this, but the most fundamentalist materialists like to say that life is fundamentally meaningless. Alex's point, is how can you get meaning out of collections of things that are individually totally meaningless? If nothing individually matters, it is damn hard to see why collections of stuff should matter! This feels closely related to the other big question - if matter simply evolves according to rules, why should the collections of matter we call brains experience stuff? This means that fundamentalist materialists can't really talk about "giving their lives meaning", because that translates into one set of meaningless particles giving their temporary assembly, a meaning!

I think Alex suspects that fundamentalist materialists simply live with an inconsistent set of ideas (nothing has meaning + my family gives me meaning) - they should maybe contemplate the fact that inconsistent sets of ideas can spawn anything!

Personally I am not religiously inclined, but I would not be surprised if my life on earth is just part of some bigger enterprise. If that is true, life simply can't be meaningless.
I think you're simply mixing a vague greater spiritual "meaning" with just trying to enjoy life.

Nobody has to accept the first to achieve the second.
 
#10
I think you're simply mixing a vague greater spiritual "meaning" with just trying to enjoy life.

.
Well let's think about enjoyment. Clearly it is absurd to think of individual elementary particles enjoying themselves. If we are just collections of such particles - obeying the relevant equation of motion, why should we enjoy anything. It is like attributing enjoyment to the movement of a pendulum clock!

This is exactly the absurdity of the fundamentalist materialist position that Alex is objecting to.

David
 
Last edited:
#11
Well let's think about enjoyment. Clearly it is absurd to think of individual elementary particles enjoying themselves. If we are just collections of such particles - obeying the relevant equation of motion, why should we enjoy anything. It is like attributing enjoyment to the movement of a pendulum clock!

This is exactly the absurdity of the fundamentalist materialist position that Alex is objecting to.

David
Your incredulity on this matter is well known. Others remain more open minded towards brain based emotions.

Either way, this seems a different argument and it provides no pointers towards "meaning"... Unless you think just shifting everything up a level is anything more than a hand waving exercise?
 
#12
Your incredulity on this matter is well known. Others remain more open minded towards brain based emotions.

Either way, this seems a different argument and it provides no pointers towards "meaning"... Unless you think just shifting everything up a level is anything more than a hand waving exercise?
Don't forget this isn't about some failing of mine, the philosopher David Chalmers identified exactly the same problem - which he called the "Hard Problem".

Maybe an analogy might get through to you. Suppose you have a kid who becomes tremendously fond of LEGO bricks - the traditional kind which are simply plastic snap together units. You both begin building larger and larger things with the bricks - houses, trucks, ships. He then notices that the trucks and cars actually roll along - so then your son suggests you should build a working radio!

You don't need to try to build a working radio with the bricks - you simply know it is impossible, because the bricks don't have any relevant electrical properties. However complex a structure you make out of those bricks, it will never act as a radio.

This is the problem with fundamentalist materialism. You can think of the elementary particles as the bricks, or think of molecules if you prefer. These things undergo a series of interactions, but none of them relate to sensation, emotion, feeling - at least if they do, we have left the realm of fundamentalist materialism - remember, if you attribute any awareness to an inanimate object you are typically looked upon with condescension! There isn't any place in standard physics to start to build emotions or feelings into any structure.

In truth, I think most scientists who have thought about this, know there is a problem here. They may try to deny it, but they damn well know there is a problem. That is why theoretical physicists sometimes take on the problem of consciousness - Roger Penrose, Paul Daives, and several of the original quantum physicists - they can see better than anyone that matter as we think we know it shouldn't be conscious!

David
 
#13
Don't forget this isn't about some failing of mine, the philosopher David Chalmers identified exactly the same problem - which he called the "Hard Problem".

Maybe an analogy might get through to you. Suppose you have a kid who becomes tremendously fond of LEGO bricks - the traditional kind which are simply plastic snap together units. You both begin building larger and larger things with the bricks - houses, trucks, ships. He then notices that the trucks and cars actually roll along - so then your son suggests you should build a working radio!

You don't need to try to build a working radio with the bricks - you simply know it is impossible, because the bricks don't have any relevant electrical properties. However complex a structure you make out of those bricks, it will never act as a radio.

This is the problem with fundamentalist materialism. You can think of the elementary particles as the bricks, or think of molecules if you prefer. These things undergo a series of interactions, but none of them relate to sensation, emotion, feeling - at least if they do, we have left the realm of fundamentalist materialism - remember, if you attribute any awareness to an inanimate object you are typically looked upon with condescension! There isn't any place in standard physics to start to build emotions or feelings into any structure.

In truth, I think most scientists who have thought about this, know there is a problem here. They may try to deny it, but they damn well know there is a problem. That is why theoretical physicists sometimes take on the problem of consciousness - Roger Penrose, Paul Daives, and several of the original quantum physicists - they can see better than anyone that matter as we think we know it shouldn't be conscious!

David
Nothing you have written here has anything to do with "meaning"... This is the standard proponent misdirection we endure when pushed on "meaning".
 
#14
Nothing you have written here has anything to do with "meaning"... This is the standard proponent misdirection we endure when pushed on "meaning".
Well all questions of meaning ultimately come down to sentient beings. You wanted to discuss enjoyment of life - which is fine, but that takes for granted that you and others can feel things and experience things - experience qualia.

If you want to talk about creating meaning in a meaningless world, you have to look at yourself as well as others and the rest of the universe as meaningless collections of particles (analogous to LEGO bricks).

What does it mean to say that as a whole those particles are moving about meaninglessly - simply under the action of the various forces - and yet subsets of them can create meaning out of it all? My point is that any talk of 'meaning' has to start with actual qualia, and the whole thing breaks down right there.

David
 
#15
I have just recently started listening to the Skeptiko podcast, but I have been going through many episodes. I really enjoy them, but there is something that comes up often that I would like to ask about. Alex say's that the atheist/materialist explanation of life states that there is no meaning to life, or perhaps more clearly, that life ultimately has no meaning. His guests say that they give their own lives meaning. But Alex doesn't accept that answer. So, my main question is, "What gives your life meaning?" Other questions connected to this are, "Can you give meaning to your own life? Can meaning only be giving outside of oneself? If meaning ends, is it in fact meaningless? If meaning can't end, does that mean that meaning has to be eternal?

I don't have an opinion on this. However, it seems that there has to be more possibilities than just what I have heard on the podcast. I would really be interested in what you think and what Alex thinks.

Thank you.
Well i define my own meaning by setting myself goals and all that stuff. So, independent of the question if there is a greater meaning or not i do believe that we all create meaning for ourselves all the time. If i set myself a goal that i want to achieve than this will be meaningful for me. It doesnt have to for others. That obviously works between humans aswell - we can create meaning for others aswell by motivating them and all those things.
I would separate meaning in 2 groups though. The first one would be personal meaning - i just wrote about that. The second one would be meaning in relation to the universe and all the things arround us. That does not imply that theres a higher entity or anything like that. But everything got its value in relation to other things out there. I'd even go that far that i would say that everything that exists is meaningful, otherwise it wouldnt exist. Meaning is for me personally connected to purpose and since everything is here for some sort of reason (god, physical processes, whatever you want to believe in) everything is meaningful. But thats my own little fantasy here.
 
#16
I've pulled a post from another thread because it gets at something I'm trying to understand.

I've seen many a materialist make this same exact claim...and frankly it's an utterly astonishing, as well as completely befudding, claim. We are likely the only intelligent technological species within 100,000,000+ light years, having created an immense number of accomplishments covering an almost unimaginable span of disciplines and arts (and yes a lot of suffering and cruelty in the process, to be sure), yet somehow that all adds up to "nothing special."

I can grok some of the materialist creed, even if I don't agree with it (anymore, yes another reformed one here). But something like the above--man, words cannot express my utter disbelief that any human being could make such an outlandish statement in the face of everything we as a species have devised.
I get that humans are heavily invested in their own specialness. I think we are agreed that our accomplishments are special to humans (and those creatures who are affected by our actions). But other than a net increase in entropy (maybe?), what is special to a universe with intelligent life vs. one without? I get that a universe without intent is unpalatable. Is a universe without intent utterly inconceivable?

Linda
 
Last edited:
#17
Well all questions of meaning ultimately come down to sentient beings. You wanted to discuss enjoyment of life - which is fine, but that takes for granted that you and others can feel things and experience things - experience qualia.

If you want to talk about creating meaning in a meaningless world, you have to look at yourself as well as others and the rest of the universe as meaningless collections of particles (analogous to LEGO bricks).

What does it mean to say that as a whole those particles are moving about meaninglessly - simply under the action of the various forces - and yet subsets of them can create meaning out of it all? My point is that any talk of 'meaning' has to start with actual qualia, and the whole thing breaks down right there.

David
Well let's run with your naive view that the physical = LEGO blocks. You are suggestng that meaning can exist outside these blocks and (despite the arbitrary limitations you have bestowed upon these blocks) they are able to interface with this non-physical source of "meaning" (and emotions, and "the redness of red" etc etc)

I'm not saying it's impossible, but that is some incredible LEGO you have there.
 
#18
Well let's run with your naive view that the physical = LEGO blocks.
Scoffing at an my analogy isn't explaining much.
You are suggestng that meaning can exist outside these blocks and (despite the arbitrary limitations you have bestowed upon these blocks) they are able to interface with this non-physical source of "meaning" (and emotions, and "the redness of red" etc etc)

I'm not saying it's impossible, but that is some incredible LEGO you have there.
I guess you don't get it. If you follow strict materialism, all you have are particles moving and interacting according to the laws of physics - by analogy with the LEGO blocks where all you have are bricks that can click together to form structures. Just as the LEGO blocks are limited in what they can do, so are explanations based on physical matter.

I guess analogies are wasted on you.

David
 
#19
I guess you don't get it. If you follow strict materialism, all you have are particles moving and interacting according to the laws of physics - by analogy with the LEGO blocks where all

I guess analogies are wasted on you.
I get the analogy. If you reread what I wrote, I am being specific about where it breaks down.

You are claiming that the blocks can access non-physical "meaning". This is LEGO that can perform miracles!
 
#20
I get the analogy. If you reread what I wrote, I am being specific about where it breaks down.

You are claiming that the blocks can access non-physical "meaning". This is LEGO that can perform miracles!
Bullshit The physics as we know it now leaves no room for the experience and meaning, but they exist, so or reductionism is false or panpsychism is true. The first states that the high levels have irreducible properties to microphysical levels, while the latter states that experience and meaning are already in the microphysical level, albeit primitive. As there is no evidence to the last, I lean towards the former...
 
Last edited:
Top