May be I am playing with definitions, so I apologize if you think so although I think I have reasons for my thinking. Here's my logic: may be someone hates x, b

May be I am playing with definitions, so I apologize if you think so although I think I have reasons for my thinking. Here's my logic: may be someone hates x, but not doing x has adverse consquences, so they don't stop x. That, to me, sounds like a decision, that isn't "unsure", that's doing x even though you hate it because you don't want to lose out on y,z,\omega. The thing is that still is a decision to me. In a similar sense, doing x for a period of time until you can quit and never do it again is also a decision, and it has its own circumstance, but it is also a sure decision. What I read what they said, is I don't like x, but I have reasons y,z,\omega, so should I stop x? That is what I call "unsure", even if you don't like x. The reason I think so, is because you're still open to keeping x, even though you hate x, and you have the ability to say no to x. Then, why say no to x, and lose y,z,\omega anyway? Which is worse? x or not y,z,\omega? I guess the reason is especially in Western culture, we put way too much stock in internal motivations, and all of psychology and history teaches us that internal motivations often end up being BS, fancy stories we tell ourselves anyway. Often times, material context matters a lot more than internal reasons. It's not moods don't matter at all, and I'm not saying we're just machines, but people seem to seriously discount one's context these days.