Literature and Philosophy

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Aesthetics
  3. » Literature and Philosophy

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 03:43 pm
It seems that a lot of great modern literature deals in philosophical themes. From Doestoievsky to James Joyce to Joseph Conrad there are philosophical issues deeply imbedded in many novels and short stories of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

A question that I would raise has nothing to do with philosophical themes in literature, but with the literary or artistic representation of philosophical themes. What I mean is I love to read their finely inter-woven descriptions of action and thought within the characters who are permeated with a philosophical sense. So it's not the philosophical issues per se but the bringing to life of the issues and 'painting' them on the page in the form of words.

So a question to ask is: does it require an organic presentation of vital philosophical questions to render those questions as aesthetically valuable? What does this extra aesthetic dimension of philosophy mean to the philosophic enterprise? Does philosophizing in an organic and artistic sense mean that the questions and the discussiion will be more understandable? Does philosophizing in this artsy, organic method mean that philosophy could have more direct power in life? Is this aesthetic posing of philosophical questions superior to the academic doxa?

And this is probably also why I love Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, because they offer to the reader a sense of living urgency, a philosophy of life. Nietzsche and Shopenhauer are more subjectively oriented and there's nothing more powerful than having something that you've nurtured and developed within your self for a long time come to life and bear natural fruits. I think this is what great literature does to the reader, it fills the inner and subjective world full with excitement, drama, imagery and romance. And of course, Nietzsche and Shopenhauer were great writers as well as important philosophers.

So the finally fully formed question that I can now ask is: What is the connection or inter-play between a philosophical theme and the writing or crafting of a philosophical theme into literature? Is there some subterranean communing involved between the crafting of actual words on the page and the posing of actual questions from the thinking mind? Where does the philosophizing end and the word on the page begin? Am I fingering and twiddling, moving in the thinking of Aristotle when those are the actual words that he wrote that I can now read for myself from that page? Surely I venture with him in his intracacies and ideas, in his foot-paths when I am reading his books. And then I come back to the surface of the text to find that we meet again in this un-canny manner! Surely, there is more going on here, surely the thought does not stop with the word.

My basic position is that pure aesthetic ideas exist in the world and that we find them in a way that is similar to a sculptor who finds his beautiful erotic body within the stone. The subtlety of the thought is reconstructed upon the page as is the persona of the philosopher, the thinker behind the machinations.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 06:42 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean wrote:
It seems that a lot of great modern literature deals in philosophical themes. From Doestoievsky to James Joyce to Joseph Conrad there are philosophical issues deeply imbedded in many novels and short stories of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

A question that I would raise has nothing to do with philosophical themes in literature, but with the literary or artistic representation of philosophical themes. What I mean is I love to read their finely inter-woven descriptions of action and thought within the characters who are permeated with a philosophical sense. So it's not the philosophical issues per se but the bringing to life of the issues and 'painting' them on the page in the form of words.

So a question to ask is: does it require an organic presentation of vital philosophical questions to render those questions as aesthetically valuable? What does this extra aesthetic dimension of philosophy mean to the philosophic enterprise? Does philosophizing in an organic and artistic sense mean that the questions and the discussiion will be more understandable? Does philosophizing in this artsy, organic method mean that philosophy could have more direct power in life? Is this aesthetic posing of philosophical questions superior to the academic doxa?

And this is probably also why I love Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, because they offer to the reader a sense of living urgency, a philosophy of life. Nietzsche and Shopenhauer are more subjectively oriented and there's nothing more powerful than having something that you've nurtured and developed within your self for a long time come to life and bear natural fruits. I think this is what great literature does to the reader, it fills the inner and subjective world full with excitement, drama, imagery and romance. And of course, Nietzsche and Shopenhauer were great writers as well as important philosophers.

So the finally fully formed question that I can now ask is: What is the connection or inter-play between a philosophical theme and the writing or crafting of a philosophical theme into literature? Is there some subterranean communing involved between the crafting of actual words on the page and the posing of actual questions from the thinking mind? Where does the philosophizing end and the word on the page begin? Am I fingering and twiddling, moving in the thinking of Aristotle when those are the actual words that he wrote that I can now read for myself from that page? Surely I venture with him in his intracacies and ideas, in his foot-paths when I am reading his books. And then I come back to the surface of the text to find that we meet again in this un-canny manner! Surely, there is more going on here, surely the thought does not stop with the word.

My basic position is that pure aesthetic ideas exist in the world and that we find them in a way that is similar to a sculptor who finds his beautiful erotic body within the stone. The subtlety of the thought is reconstructed upon the page as is the persona of the philosopher, the thinker behind the machinations.


You are right. A lot of literature concern issues of philosophy. Dostoievsky on the problem of evil; Henry James on subjectivity and objectivity; and Thomas Hardy on human freedom and fatalism. But, nevertheless, literature and philosophy are very different enterprises. And that is why I despise Nietzche, because he mixes them up. Schopenhauer is different. He doesn't mix them up.
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 11:27 pm
@kennethamy,
You're right, Schopenhauer doesn't mix the two as does Nietzsche. Schopenhauer has a deep respect for science. But still, philosophy has to be written down in non-mathematical language. My question was, what is the relationship between non-mathematical language and reality? Or between the aesthetic meanings of things and the outward appearance of things?

I also wonder what you would say about Plato's writing? Would you consider Plato an artist?-

My basic point was that ideas are seperable from things, which is the opposite of that poet who wrote that there are no ideas but in things. And this means that divinity is possible. Smile



--Pyth
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 12:16 am
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean wrote:
You're right, Schopenhauer doesn't mix the two as does Nietzsche. Schopenhauer has a deep respect for science. But still, philosophy has to be written down in non-mathematical language. My question was, what is the relationship between non-mathematical language and reality? Or between the aesthetic meanings of things and the outward appearance of things?

I also wonder what you would say about Plato's writing? Would you consider Plato an artist?-

My basic point was that ideas are seperable from things, which is the opposite of that poet who wrote that there are no ideas but in things. And this means that divinity is possible. Smile



--Pyth

Lots of deep questions, and unhappily, I am not a deep thinker. I keep being afraid I'll fall out the other side.
Some philosophers use the language of symbolic logic to say more exactly what they might say in English. And, in any case, many philosophers try to use clear and analytical language to express what they think (not feel). They are, after all, trying to say what is true, and they do not have to to express that beautifully. Some of the greatest philosophers insisted on the clear expression of their views, and their arguments for their views. Two of the best stylists in English were David Hume in the 18th century who prose was lucid and devoid of any literary curlicues, and in the 20th century, Bertrand Russell, who wrote in similar fashion, and who won the Nobel Prize for literature. (There is no Nobel Prize for philosophy, so I suppose literature was the nearest thing).

I haven't any idea what anyone would mean by saying that there are ideas in things. Nor how if that were true (and again, I have not the slightest idea what it would even mean to say that there were ideas in things) that would imply the possibility of divinity. But I suppose that anyone who wrote that kind of thing might believe just about anything at all.

Plato was, they say, a great stylist. I can judge only from the translation. In many ways I much prefer Aristotle. I think Aristotle's style is more suitable for philosophy.
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 12:00 pm
@kennethamy,
To say that there are no ideas but in things means that there is no God[s] i.e. material monism.

As far as logic goes it is very beautiful when it is not in the hands of the logicians. I mean look at the consistency and imagine what theoretical geometry meant to those ancient Greek philosophers! Euclid's books are a mode of heaven to philosophers.Smile
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 06:08 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean wrote:
To say that there are no ideas but in things means that there is no God[s] i.e. material monism.

.Smile


Is that what it means. I would never have guessed in a million years.

Euclid Alone Has Looked On Beauty Bare'

Euclid alone has looked on Beauty bare.
Let all who prate of Beauty hold their peace,
And lay them prone upon the earth and cease
To ponder on themselves, the while they stare
At nothing, intricately drawn nowhere
In shapes of shifting lineage; let geese
Gabble and hiss, but heroes seek release
From dusty bondage into luminous air.
O blinding hour, O holy, terrible day,
When first the shaft into his vision shone
Of light anatomized! Euclid alone
Has looked on Beauty bare. Fortunate they
Who, though once only and then but far away,
Have heard her massive sandal set on stone.

-- Edna St. Vincent Millay
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 08:10 pm
@kennethamy,
I want to thank you for posting that poem. This is the first time I've heard of Edna St. Vincent Millay or read the poem, I'm sorry to say.

It's got to be one of the best poems I've ever read, certainly the best poem I've read recently. The simplicity of it is devastating. Needless to say I'm not going to forget Smile

Thanks again, Kenneth.


--Pyth
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 09:58 am
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean wrote:
I want to thank you for posting that poem. This is the first time I've heard of Edna St. Vincent Millay or read the poem, I'm sorry to say.

It's got to be one of the best poems I've ever read, certainly the best poem I've read recently. The simplicity of it is devastating. Needless to say I'm not going to forget Smile

Thanks again, Kenneth.


--Pyth


Look up Millay on Google. An interesting woman, and you can look up her other poems too. She was very good.
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 06:19 pm
@kennethamy,
In case anyone is interested I have found an archive of the poetry of Edna St. Vincent Millay at everypoet.com. I will post the link here:
Poetry of Edna St. Vincent Millay; full-text poems of Edna St. Vincent Millay, at everypoet.com

They have many of her poems and sonnets there; very nice. Watch out for the pop-ups.

Thank you again Kenneth.
 
Fido
 
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 06:39 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
You are right. A lot of literature concern issues of philosophy. Dostoievsky on the problem of evil; Henry James on subjectivity and objectivity; and Thomas Hardy on human freedom and fatalism. But, nevertheless, literature and philosophy are very different enterprises. And that is why I despise Nietzche, because he mixes them up. Schopenhauer is different. He doesn't mix them up.


Who ever you are you have my vote for dispising Nietzsche. He did not just get it wrong, but confused the issue.
 
Faun147
 
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 05:29 pm
@Pythagorean,
I find it intriguing to pursue, rather than a philosophy of art, an art of philosophy. Philosophical themes in literature provide wonderful capabilities for not merely presentation of thought- but thought itself. Art is not limited to moving emotions, but the intellectual side of the mind as well. This is why studying literature can provide both emotional and intellectual development.

One of the many of these capabilities that we use often in more contemporary literature is character. It is not through philosophy, but art that countless characters have been created. With these characters as our lens, we may explore ideas thoroughly as if we subscribe to them without actually doing so. It provides us with an incredible perspective.

Art, of course, is not limited to thought experimentation. Art can articulate ideas that can not be expressed otherwise. Philosophy has critiqued the power of words for some time now. It is, at this point, not an uncommon conception that words limit thought. What I find fascinating is that art can express things words can not. One can not express the works of a great painter, for example, and meet the same end as actually viewing the painting. What I find even more fascinating, is that literature, being a form of art, has this capability as well. In that sense, literature is art that is made of words that has the capability of moving beyond them. For example, there is no way of achieving the artistic intellectual effects of the works of Dostoevsky, Kafka, Camus, Ken Kesey, Kawabata, Palahniuk, Crane, and Henry James to name very (very) few without actually writing their works. This is because literature does not merely tell us things, it shows us things and reveals them.

Also, it is my experience that if we combine beauty with wisdom, we find that we have even more beauty. Let's face it- philosophy is incredibly powerful, as is art. If we combine the two well (which is something that is far from easy to do), the end is so moving and so powerful that an individual exposed to it can not help but be affected and effected deeply.

Finally, I would like to brush off the idea that there is a line between philosophy and art. Most certainly, they are different things, but drawing a line where they intertwine is hindering to understanding. It is nothing more than an attempt to classify something into one word or another. Its importance is minimal, so it is nothing more than distraction. (Example: ) It does not matter whether or not Nietzsche was an artist or philosopher, nor is it relevant whether or not he had the right answers (we are philosophers here, not mathematicians or scientists). What is important is what we may understand by reading his works. As understanding increases, the answers often seem more cloudy and perplexing. This is one of the hardships philosophers must face.
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 09:36 pm
@Faun147,
Faun147 wrote:
I find it intriguing to pursue, rather than a philosophy of art, an art of philosophy. Philosophical themes in literature provide wonderful capabilities for not merely presentation of thought- but thought itself. Art is not limited to moving emotions, but the intellectual side of the mind as well. This is why studying literature can provide both emotional and intellectual development.

One of the many of these capabilities that we use often in more contemporary literature is character. It is not through philosophy, but art that countless characters have been created. With these characters as our lens, we may explore ideas thoroughly as if we subscribe to them without actually doing so. It provides us with an incredible perspective.

Art, of course, is not limited to thought experimentation. Art can articulate ideas that can not be expressed otherwise. Philosophy has critiqued the power of words for some time now. It is, at this point, not an uncommon conception that words limit thought. What I find fascinating is that art can express things words can not. One can not express the works of a great painter, for example, and meet the same end as actually viewing the painting. What I find even more fascinating, is that literature, being a form of art, has this capability as well. In that sense, literature is art that is made of words that has the capability of moving beyond them. For example, there is no way of achieving the artistic intellectual effects of the works of Dostoevsky, Kafka, Camus, Ken Kesey, Kawabata, Palahniuk, Crane, and Henry James to name very (very) few without actually writing their works. This is because literature does not merely tell us things, it shows us things and reveals them.

Also, it is my experience that if we combine beauty with wisdom, we find that we have even more beauty. Let's face it- philosophy is incredibly powerful, as is art. If we combine the two well (which is something that is far from easy to do), the end is so moving and so powerful that an individual exposed to it can not help but be affected and effected deeply.

Finally, I would like to brush off the idea that there is a line between philosophy and art. Most certainly, they are different things, but drawing a line where they intertwine is hindering to understanding. It is nothing more than an attempt to classify something into one word or another. Its importance is minimal, so it is nothing more than distraction. (Example: ) It does not matter whether or not Nietzsche was an artist or philosopher, nor is it relevant whether or not he had the right answers (we are philosophers here, not mathematicians or scientists). What is important is what we may understand by reading his works. As understanding increases, the answers often seem more cloudy and perplexing. This is one of the hardships philosophers must face.

Pan; If I may, there is no line between artist and philosopher. And there is no difference between philosophy and math or science, liturature, or history. Philosophy is a rather gteneric term covering all approaches to knowledge. Just as the artist must concieve to create, the philosopher must know to concieve. So the difference is only whether one does or knows with what one concieves, or perhaps, the philosopher knows truth in the form of a rational argument, and the artist reproduces truth with a tactile experiment. To each, some measure of truth is essential. What do you think
 
Faun147
 
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 12:57 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
Pan; If I may, there is no line between artist and philosopher. And there is no difference between philosophy and math or science, liturature, or history. Philosophy is a rather gteneric term covering all approaches to knowledge. Just as the artist must concieve to create, the philosopher must know to concieve. So the difference is only whether one does or knows with what one concieves, or perhaps, the philosopher knows truth in the form of a rational argument, and the artist reproduces truth with a tactile experiment. To each, some measure of truth is essential. What do you think


I agree, in the general sense. I am obliged to disagree with the technicalities of your terms. Philosophy is, literally, the love of wisdom. The philosopher studies all forms of knowledge, but being a philosopher is still different from being a general learner. That is only part of it. It is the philosopher's approach that is unique. With wisdom being the pursuit, the philosopher differs from the mathematician because the philosopher will question mathematics whereas the mathematician will merely perform mathematics. The same applies the science and art. That is why I find it a beautiful moment when a philosopher and an artist (or mathematician or scientist for that matter) are both the same individual. Suddenly; art, math, and science acquire the power and the level of depth of philosophy. This is why I, personally, try to use philosophical thought on everything I study- even computer science!
 
jlance3504
 
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 01:49 pm
@Faun147,
I don't know if it would be beautiful or not to see a philosophizing mathematician. Sounds like a recipe for insanity to me (just a joke).

Seriously; I think art and literature are important because they cause different reactions in different people. A painting ceases to be owned, in a sense, by the artist, as soon as it has been displayed. It belongs then to the viewer, who infers what he/she wants. The same can be said for a poem, a book, or a short story. Whatever message that the creator intends is not always the message that is received, nor does it have to be. I think of a philosopher as someone who takes a more deliberate approach to ensure that his/her message is received intact.

You write very passionately about art. I like you already.

Hope to talk again.

-JL
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 10:44 pm
@jlance3504,
jlance3504 wrote:
I don't know if it would be beautiful or not to see a philosophizing mathematician. Sounds like a recipe for insanity to me (just a joke).

Seriously; I think art and literature are important because they cause different reactions in different people. A painting ceases to be owned, in a sense, by the artist, as soon as it has been displayed. It belongs then to the viewer, who infers what he/she wants. The same can be said for a poem, a book, or a short story. Whatever message that the creator intends is not always the message that is received, nor does it have to be. I think of a philosopher as someone who takes a more deliberate approach to ensure that his/her message is received intact.

You write very passionately about art. I like you already.

Hope to talk again.

-JL

won thing I isn't is likable. Irracible, yes. Likable, no. Math is a branch of philosophy, as is liturature. Each demands some logic, and logic is a characteristic of philosophy. Each tries to model the world of reality in abstraction, and I would say each values truth. Math may not be your thing, and I would guess it isn't much mine. It is hard to avoid. And yet, if some would say knowledge is virtue, I would bet the Mathematicians would agree that knowledge is power. Which makes them wrong, in my opinion, because the only power worth a value is power over self, self control.
If Art has a value, it is because it plays out the whole dynamic before our eyes of object, perception, conception, and execution; and if all of these are present, then good art is the likely result. How good is the artists conception of reality? How truthful? If he concieves correctly he can, with enough skill, reproduce what he knows in art. The same is true of a house builder. If he concieves of a house truely his art will produce a house that is true to his conception. Truth is a measure of our concepts against reality. If they fit they are true. Fauna; I would not get too hung up on words like knowledge or wisdom in regard to philosophy. A good insight or a wild imagination is better than a lot of knowledge. The essential word in philosophy is philo, love. Too many try to do philosophy without love, and it is wicked cruel and nearly meaningless. Yet, love is wisdom, and understanding, and true knowledge. It is a shame that so many start out their lives knowing all that is important, and all that makes one human only to be taught that it is child's play, and unmanly. No philosophy is correct, or true, of complete if it does not lead us to a greater love of human kind and our particular struggles.

The different reaction you speak of is important, though I would say, if a piece of art causes different reactions in each, then it has failed. There is no way each reaction will not be different, subjectively; and so an art, like music, which subjectively affects all differently cannot be considered as all other art in my opinion. With music, we do not usually know what reality is being expressed. In most art; I would say that should be obvious. So, our reactions should not be so far different. In another sense, art represents a moral reality, while math represents a physical reality, but when art makes us feel differently than before we see it, it offers us a key to the working of knowledge. Whether the truth we experience is physical and revealed by math, or is moral, and revealed by art; each should make us feel differently after the experience, and emotion is the key to changing people and making them think and behave differently. Reason has a lot of value to philosophers, but it only goes so far since we feel our ways through life, and most reality is moral rather than physical, especially human reality. We may be what we think, but who we are is what we feel. What do you think
 
jlance3504
 
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 12:51 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
We may be what we think, but who we are is what we feel.


I agree with some of the assertions from what you said, but especially the quote above. If we were all what we thought, we would definately be in trouble, as horrible thoughts most assuradly incumber everyone's mind from time to time. The way we feel, however, shows a more accurate picture of who we are. I like your statement very much.

On another point you made, however, I would be less inclined to agree. I believe knowledge is a precursor to self-control. Those who exhibit self-control without knowledge are actually being controlled by an imaginary line that has been established for them (laws, rules, etc...). Those with knowledge establish self-control from their own reason and don't neccesarily need those imaginary lines.

I feel as though I definately learned something by reading your post. Thank You.

-JL
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 01:36 am
@Pythagorean,
Quote:
So a question to ask is: does it require an organic presentation of vital philosophical questions to render those questions as aesthetically valuable? What does this extra aesthetic dimension of philosophy mean to the philosophic enterprise? Does philosophizing in an organic and artistic sense mean that the questions and the discussiion will be more understandable? Does philosophizing in this artsy, organic method mean that philosophy could have more direct power in life? Is this aesthetic posing of philosophical questions superior to the academic doxa?



1) Many authors, even the greats, may not be purposely addressing the philosophical subjects we see in their stories. Philosophy and its questions come from the basic quest to understand the human condition and how humanity interacts with its physical surroundings. Writing any meaningful story is going to somehow explore these philosophical questions.

2) These philosophical questions are the same ones we ourselves struggle with. Although most people do not put their concerns into abstracted dialogs, they do struggle with them consciously in their own way, and like Jesus or Confucius teaching a parable in narrative authors relate these things in an empathetic format. We form a relationship with the characters and begin to understand through them the journey to understanding our own philosophical questions.

3) So in a way it is a superior vehicle for philosophical exploration, as it tends to reach a broader base and tough a more primal nerve, yet it will never reach past the emotion it mecessarily generates to see these philosophical problems objectively.
 
Fido
 
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 10:53 pm
@jlance3504,
jlance3504 wrote:
I agree with some of the assertions from what you said, but especially the quote above. If we were all what we thought, we would definately be in trouble, as horrible thoughts most assuradly incumber everyone's mind from time to time. The way we feel, however, shows a more accurate picture of who we are. I like your statement very much.

On another point you made, however, I would be less inclined to agree. I believe knowledge is a precursor to self-control. Those who exhibit self-control without knowledge are actually being controlled by an imaginary line that has been established for them (laws, rules, etc...). Those with knowledge establish self-control from their own reason and don't neccesarily need those imaginary lines.

I feel as though I definately learned something by reading your post. Thank You.

-JL

First of all. Thanks. Second of all; I hold with Socrates that knowledge is virtue, because if we are honest, and do only that which we know will result in good, we would do quite little; and we should do more of that. Yet; morality, and ethics is at heart a result of an emotional connectedness with people, and there is no substitute for sympathy, and pity when it comes to doing good, because if you feel for people you do not judge them before feeding them or binding their wounds. You do not ask: will this person benefit morally from the good that I do to them. Or, if a person is bound to die, you do not triage them, and leave them and go off to try to save another. So often we try to think rationally about the good we do, and I try to do the opposite; but I know I am in as much trouble when I try to justify doing harm, as when I try to justify not doing good.

There are so many of us who have been drained, morally and physically by the sytem we live with, that lives off us, that there is no way we can help them all. I have my charity, and I am proud of doing good, and I deduct it on my income tax so that the government helps me do good. But this is the real good I do, and I do it deliberately in the most fragile fashion just because a few kind, or well placed words if touching enough souls may work some greater magic than I can by putting clothing on Indians. I think neither that my ideas are enough my own to take credit, or that credit is needed. I don't want credit for a certain insight as much as I want a slight change of human behavior that can only come about with people percieving life differently, and I know this is possible, because it has happened to me. If you like something I say then take it as a gift from some one who has nothing better to give who has recieved nothing better from life. We all only get one life, so make it the best.

So no. I don't believe people should be controlled, other than by self. No person is fit for self government without self control. But rather than self controlled, I think people should be actively good, and not passive in any sense because that is like some sort of spiritual death. Something else attributed to Socrates I liked very much, I will share. When asked: When will there be Justice in Athens he is said to have replied. There will be Justice in Athens when those not injured by injustice are as indignant as those who are. We should all be indignant at injustice. Injustice thrives because we see as spectacle the injury of others when we should feel their hurt and take up their cause. Thanks again.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Aesthetics
  3. » Literature and Philosophy
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 05/31/2020 at 08:47:41