Hey everyone, welcome back. Um, there we go. I wasn't sure if Zoom was going to catch up with the sunlight uh that's in front of me. I don't even know if we need this extra. This one's nice to have. That's the sunlight. Uh, I like the natural light. We're not doing daycart today. Sorry. Um, not that natural light. Sorry, my back hurts. Um, but we'll keep it lit just so that there's some consistency. This is one of the last videos you'll see this place. This is a lovely um office that I have. I'm moving into a place with a combined um open floor plan and it's a single family home. So, full facilities, my own place. I'm really excited. I've got a yard for Winchester. Really, really excited and really grateful. Anyway, um I've got to wrap these videos up so I can pack. But that's kind of what I've got going on in my life. Um and some of you are like, "Okay, whatever. Just do Plato." But I think that it's endearing at least to get to connect to a person who's your teacher. Um so that's what I have going on. a real person and I just, you know, I'm sure I'm the same as you. I don't take much for granted. Um, all right. Not sure what you could see just then. You might have been able to see that I was on this page, too. I was seeing um I try to keep things up to date. So, if you're just a someone I don't know, you could go to my website and go to courses and watch these videos in order. Um, I'm going to go back and do a different syllabus video because I've actually completely redone my syllabus for online asynchronous courses and it's much more in line with what you um well, that's just the one I'd want to host online. I think if I have an inerson course, I'd probably run the syllabus with them in person just so everyone gets it while I know they're there in person. um maybe like a day one kind of thing. And there are ways I can overcome that and do that digitally. Some learning management software lets me see which parts of the video you watch and which parts you don't. It's a really cool graph actually. Um and it gives me the completion rate. So that's how I do the videos. But yeah, I prefer to grade you on your work and your activities and your participation and your engagement, making sure that you understand the material. Um, cool. So, we're at the top of book, we're at the end of book three, top of book four, and the top of that page, there's one long paragraph. Well, and a few smaller sentences, sentence paragraphs. Um and I want to cover this and this is book four is pretty much just uh the tripartite soul and the just city. So the question is how does the just city relate to the tripartite soul? Well, one of the reasons Plato does this is because it's hard to look at something um up close and it's especially hard to look at something that may be kind of a single piece. So Plato says the tripartite soul is um tripartite. the parts are related to each other in a connected amalgamated way. So, it's not something that really actually goes against Berg Stone. It's not analytic. It's not compartmentalized. Um, it's not that you're at war with yourself. Um, he uses one of the examples he uses and he uses like arms and legs as an example. We'll read it when we get to it. That might be in the second part of the video. I haven't read this in a few months. Um, quite a few months actually. And uh but the example I remember really well is the top, a spinning top. So he uh distinguishes between two parts in a spinning top. So imagine you have a spindle or a just a toy top like we can look one up. I can show you a visual. Um so I don't even think of this kind. I think of a wooden kind actually. And you know that's how I know that it's kind of like inception. That's how I cuz he has a spindle and inception of spinning top, but only he knows the balance of that spinning top. And so nobody imagines exactly the same spinning top that I imagine. This is kind of getting into the later parts of the Republic in book six. Um with the divided line, there's a fun aphantasia thought experiment we can do at that point. But I think of um mostly I think of like a drreidle. Is there one for a drrele? Yeah, I didn't remember the inscriptions on it, but something that's just kind of heavier on the top and he distinguishes between parts of that. Now the trad I think of isn't the one you think of and really again that's some of the mysticism and some of the religiosity of both uh neoplatanism old platonism too neoplatonism and then Judaism and some of Christianity and Islam as well. Um so excited to teach my first world religions course this fall. Okay. So you can imagine a top like this spinning and the point is that the the part that's spinning will be different than the part that's like staying stationary. Um the top is the head is staying the top is staying stationary and the bottom is spinning Plato describes. And uh yeah you can also think that just like a chord like a a um a chord on a guitar. I have some guitars over here. Um, well, they're not in tune, so I don't think it would be like a super great example. Suppose I could pause the recording and tune them. Yeah, that's not a priority. Um, you can imagine it. So, when you play a chord like say you play a G chord or um a C or a D or an A is really similar to a D. I make them actually with the same shape. Um, and uh it's that or so an A is on the same fret. A D is split. Just go further over. Um, and then an F. The bar chord B is a really hard bar chord because it's an A with a space. Anyway, if you don't, and then the way the guitar works is that the anywhere on the fret will do because they all bend the string over the metal bar that is the fret. So, when it's fretless, it doesn't have the metal bar. And that um distance from the bridge which is at the bottom of the sound hole is a mathematical resonance um a certain length um and you tune it. So it's it's mathematical only in relation to itself. And as long as the instrument is in tune with itself, you can stretch any string across it and then tune that string um to the instrument because the instrument is the one has the structure that's in tune, which is really interesting. I mean, you could probably think things about the soul here, right? Um if the soul of the ruler is I think that's probably an even better example. Um, so with the instrument, not only does the chord require that the soul be in harmony, but the chord can't be played at all if the strings aren't in tune. And the strings can't be in tune if the instrument is not in tune with itself. So what do I mean by that? Well, the frets need to be consistently mathematically spaced in relation to each other. um it's fractional. So maybe we can look that up too. And this gets to some of the like some of Plato's ideas about mathematics and what mathematics are and why they point towards a world of the forms. Um Platonic mathematicians or mathematic idealists believe that numbers are kind of uh they have a separate existence from reality. They're objectively real things that in some cases even dictate what happens to reality. They're sort of they are the sort of mathematics as the universal language of physics I guess of and therefore metaphysics. Um and logic has a foundation or is the foundation of mathematics. So you could put them together. That's the belief of the rationalists and it was a goal for subtly been improved further and further fields have been understood. Um anyway fractional guitar fretboards diagram. No, that's not what I'm looking for. Um, Well, honestly, I have musician friends that could explain this better than I could. Um, let's try that. So, that's Well, either way, I at least know the guitar has to be in tune with itself. So, you can see here where the notes are. Why don't we look at because really what I'm talking about is musical chords. So the chords themselves have to be a certain mathematical uh frequency of pitch or frequency I guess. And so perhaps it's that the instrument is tuning to some kind of not intrinsic mathematical property but some empirical mathematical harmonization or or tuning with the environment. I mean, pragmatism and empiricism both can adequately account for music. Um, you don't need platonic mathematics to form the backbone of like how music happens. But someone like Nansi um or Jean Luke Nansi writes about mathematic and sorry um music and the auditory realm as being a different a categorically different sensory experience. Um and it provides access to eternity in a way that sight does not or that stasis does not. It's more ephemeral I think is why it depends on depends more heavily on a conscious experience. It's enough prefacing. Um so really when I and and so when I talk about like the reason I got in that rabbit hole I forgot but was just the harmony of the different parts of the soul. um the different the different virtues. Let's let's so there's the parts of the soul, the virtues of the soul and the parts of the city. And again, these parts of the soul are not truly separate parts. They are like different fingers on a hand. Um but the three parts are reason, spirit and desire and excellence or virtuous or oric reason is wisdom and excellent spirit is courage. The virtue of the spirit is courage. Artic spirit is courage. A r e t a iic aric where the Greek arate means excellence. It's where we get virtue from. It's just that human excellence as ethical virtue. So we often just think of virtue meaning human excellence. But it's any object's excellence, right? In chapter in book one, Plato at the end of book one, Plato writes about knives. We talk about knives. I'm not I you know what you um sorry I try to be thorough. I didn't mean to repeat myself. If you've forgotten some of that stuff, please go back and watch the other videos. Um because especially in this format, there's no need for me to repeat myself. multiple saying it multiple times I think really helps people retain the information and pick up on things they didn't understand the first time. Um and I don't like pedagogical models that are a sort of like get it first, hear what I say the first time, listen the first time, follow directions the first time. I think it's super important maybe K through 12, especially elementary um when safety's involved, but for mindful educational settings where it's mostly a difficult understanding that you're trying to parse and you have students who want to be there and want to learn. Um then yeah, there's no there's no need to insist on a first time model. Anyway, um some people say efficiency, but it's just not how learning happens. Maybe some classroom things are efficiency like if you're being disrespectful and I tell you to in like a inerson class and I tell you to cut it out then and you don't cut it out the first time, I'll say it again a second time, but the third time I'll ask you to leave because it's just not happening. We've got to keep moving. Um so there are limits reasonably but again those are safety because really the concern there is that after asking a student for their time to to be respectful and calm down they might become physical or something like that. Um anyway, so we were talking about excellence in the different parts of the soul and I got distracted. um kind of repeating what Ratt meant and then I also got distracted explaining my pedagogical stance on um the number of times I want to give directions and the moments where safety prioritizes having little less very little tolerance for that lower tolerance policies. Okay. So the final place um the final part of the soul that we haven't talked about the excellence for and we'll run back through all of them again in that repetit in that like intentionally repetitive format. I I did this on purpose so that we could repeat. Um the desiring part of the soul, its form of excellence is moderation. And Plato really says that this is why the charts are inadequate and you really need to read the dialectical version in the text but and we will but um Plato says that um craftsmen and merchants in a just city. Desire, people that regulate like general desire and happiness, pleasure, indulgence, um bodily things usually kind of denigrates it. Um, I don't read it that denigrative. Not I think as much as Plato makes it out to be. Anyway, um, in an unjust city, the craftsmen and merchants are not moderate at all. No one is. And in a just city, everyone is moderate. So the place that he uh finds for um moderation or the virtue of moderation exhibited in the city. I guess this is the other point is that excellent the the four excellent virtues the three that make up justice. Um wisdom, spirit, and moderation. Those are the three kind of core virtues. And then those excellences constitute when they're in their proper order, they find that they constitute justice. Those four things are the different excellences. Um, that's that harmony of the spinning top, the harmony of the soul, um, the harmony of the instrument, the harmony of the mathematics, the instrument in tune with itself, the instrument in tune with the natural mathematics of the physics of reality, which is more of an empirical and pragmatist view than a platonic or rationalist pure language view. Okay, we've been talking about a lot here, right? Um, wow. I blinked again. But, uh, so yeah, they're the parts of the soul. Um, the excellences, they should be able to see it better in in the bigger form than in the smaller form. The soul which is of a single top that cannot be taken apart versus the city which is of multiple parts and can easily be separated um in different mixtures and different cities with different mixtures with different successes or flounderings. Uh and but because excellence is excellence, the form of excellence should hold for each thing. And this is where the forms come into play, but the idea is that there's some kind of separately existing realm, which gets super metaphysical. And I'm not sure if that's really just like a misreading of Plato, honestly. Um I really want to be charitable and and think that all the great masters like Brixton said came to the same um experience of truth and formulated it in different ways with different weaknesses that got misinterpreted and led to different dogmas in their traditions. Um so you can say like Plato was idealistic and Aristotle was very materialistic. Um or you can try to be more charitable than that. Anyway, courage also sides uh with wisdom. Spirit sides with reason. The soldiers side with um w the ruler. And I say the ruler, but the philosopher, queen or king is the ruler, the one in charge. And the rest of the guardians or the ruling class in Plato's city and the soul um are uh they always side with that person, whoever is in charge. So they're forceful like desire but unlike desire they're not unruly they don't go too far um they are never immodderate never in tempmperate and uh in the soul what spirit does and what courage does I may have said spirit and wisdom earlier courage and wisdom spirit and reason Um what spirit does is it maintains habits learned through fear of desire. So desire goes through like I said before desire experiments. It just pursues it has its desires. This is very Buddhist has its desires and these desires are neutralized through suffering. Um they're realizing they don't produce what you want. What's left is a desire for justice, a desire for excellence, a desire for life, for peace, for stability, for friends, for good things that nourish, nourish the soul, harmonious ways to spend your time, healthy ways to spend your time. Now, it's not too much relaxation. There's a udemonic middle ground, a mean, as Aristotle shows us. Um, requires some engagement. It's not all rest. It's not all harmony. Even were alcohol not to have um uh negative side effects or even were overeating not to be possible. Um it wouldn't just be pure bliss. There might still be some kind of back and forth. Dewey talks about this too. Uh that aesthetic experience requires some kind of strife or self-overcoming. It's kind of nichian but um says there's rarely an aesthetic gratification that or commensuration. Um I may be using the wrong word there. I don't think I there's really one of those positive reconciliations of aesthetic meaning and aesthetic perception of consciousness. without a great deal of suffering. Um because it is that suffering that actually has to be reconciled. The greater strife, the greater discord, the better the resolution. But through that process and that's the neutralization process of desire in the soul and um it produces fear and habit and kind of daily things, things your parents taught you, things my parents taught me um that usually still have to be learned the hard way um in order for that desire to actually organically transform the wisdom. But if you want to never be a philosopher or you want to lead in the city, lead a life in the city like the merchants or the craftsmen or the soldiers where you don't need as much of that personal wisdom and you can just follow the rules. If you want to just follow more basically you need to follow more rules if you don't want if you don't go through the suffering yourself. You'll have to trust the habits that people give you until you fail and learn it for yourself. And this is kind of contient too. What is enlightenment? Answer the question what is enlightenment. Enlightenment is the emergence from man's self-imposed immaturity, self-imposed whenever uh comes not from lack of understanding but a lack of courage or um willingness to use one's understanding and to make good on it to face the consequences of one's actions to commit to a course of action and just get going. Um, immaturity is that unwillingness to use your own reason, self-imposed because it's just not because you don't know, not because you don't have the reason. That's what he says. Um, okay. I want to read for a little while. Water hydrate. After that, I'll write back. Sorry. I'll run and grab dinner. Come back. Finish out book four. Get this place backed up. Scary. All right. Consider then whether or not they should live in some such way as this. If they're to be the kind of men we described, first none of them should possess any private property beyond what is wholly necessary. Second, none of them should have a house or storeroom that isn't open for all to enter at will. Third, whatever sustenance moderate and courageous warrior athletes require in order to have neither shortfall nor surplus in a given year, they'll receive by taxation on the other citizens as a salary for their guardianship. Fourth, they'll have common messes and live together like soldiers in a camp. We'll tell them that they always have gold and silver of a divine sort in their souls as a gift from the gods and so have no further need of human gold. Indeed, we'll tell them that it's impious for them to defile this divine possession by any ad mixture of such gold. Because many impious deeds have been done that involve the currency used by an ordinary people while their own is pure. Hence for them alone among the city's population it is unlawful to touch or handle gold or silver. This kind of reminds me of a strange labor and marks as well. Um when you study or spend your labor on your soul it's never strange from you. They mustn't be under the same roof as it, where it is jewelry, or drink from gold or silver goblets. In this way, they'd save both themselves and the city. But if they acquire private land, houses, and currency themselves, they'll be household managers and farmers instead of guardians, hostile masters of the other citizens instead of their allies. They'll spend their whole lives hating and being hated, plotting, and being plotted against, more afraid of internal than of external enemies. and they'll hasten both themselves and the whole city to almost immediate ruin. For all these reasons, let's say that the guardians must be provided with housing and the rest in this way and establish this as a law. Or don't you agree? I certainly do, Glad said. All right, book four. And Adamantis interrupted. How would you defend yourself, Socrates, he said, if someone told you that you aren't making these men very happy and that it's their own fault? The city really belongs to them, yet they derive no good from it. Others own land, build fine big houses, acquire furnishings to go along with them, make their own private sacrifices to the gods, entertain guests, and also, of course, possess what you were talking about just now, gold and silver, and all the things that are thought to belong to people who are blessedly happy. But one might well say that your guardians are simply settled in the city like mercenaries and that all they do is watch over it. Yes, I said and that and what's more, they work simply for their keep and get no extra wages as the others do. Hence, if they want to take a private trip away from the city, they won't be able to. They'll have nothing to give to their mistresses, nothing to spend in whatever other ways they wish, as people do who are considered happy. You've amended these and a host of other similar facts from your charge. Well, let them be added to the charge as well. Then, are you asking how we should defend ourselves? Yes. I think we'll discover what to say if we follow the same path as before. We'll say that it wouldn't be surprising if these people were happiest just as they are, but that in establishing our city, we aren't aiming to make any one group outstandingly happy, but to make the whole city so as far as possible. We thought that we'd find justice most easily in such a city and injustice by contrast in the one that is governed worst. And that by observing both cities, we'd be able to judge the question we've been inquiring on into for so long. We take ourselves then to be fashioning the happy city, not picking out a few people and putting them in it, but making the whole city happy. We'll look at the opposite city soon. And that happens at book eight. 445C might be in book seven. We'll see. Or maybe it's in book four. Um or five. I'm not sure. Again, I haven't read all parts of the Republic. Um I've just studied these certain parts kind of deeper more times. probably best at some point to branch out and just um for breadth instead of depth. You could think of it as depth um or you can think of it as building up. It's more like constructing. It's uh it's intensification of one direction or another. Okay. Suppose then that someone came up to us while we were painting a statue and objected that because we had painted the eyes, which are the most beautiful part, black rather than purple, we had not applied the most beautiful colors to the most beautiful parts of the statue. We think it reasonable to offer the following defense. You mustn't expect us to paint the eyes so beautifully that they no longer appear to be eyes at all. And the same with the other parts. Rather, you must look to see whether by dealing with each part appropriately, we are making the whole statue beautiful. Similarly, you must enforce us to give our guardians the kind of happiness that would make them something other than guardians. We know how to clothe the farmers in purple robes, foon them with gold jewelry, and tell them to work the land wherever they please, or whenever they please. We know how to settle our potters on couches by the fire, feasting and passing the wine around with their wheel beside them for whatever they want to make pots. And we can make all the others happy in the same way, so that the whole city is happy. Don't urge us to do this, however, for if we do, a farmer wouldn't be a farmer, nor a potter a potter, and none of the others would keep to the patterns of work that give rise to a city. Now, if cobblers become inferior and corrupt and claim to be what they are not, that won't do much harm to the city. Hence, as far as they and the others like them are concerned, our argument carries less weight. But if the guardians of our laws and city are merely believed to be guardians, but are not, you surely see that uh but are not actually guardians, you surely see that they'll destroy the city utterly, just as they alone have the opportunity to govern it well and make it happy. If we are making true guardians then who are least likely to do evil to the city and if the one who brought the charge is talking about farmers and banqueters who are happy as they would be at a festival rather than in a city then he isn't talking about a city at all but about something else. With this in mind we should consider whether in setting up our guardians we are aiming to give them the greatest happiness or whether since our aim is to see the city as a whole has the greatest happiness. We must compel and persuade the auxiliaries uh the soldiers and the spirit and the guardians to follow our other policy and be the best possible craftsmen at their own work. And the same with all the others. In this way, with the whole city developing and being governed well, we must leave it to nature to provide each group with its share of happiness. I think he put that very well, he said. So I think at this point in in book three, I think the guardians maybe in book two too. I'm not sure when they come up first. The guardians are also the auxiliaries, but by this point in book three or some point in book three and by this point in book four, at the beginning of book four, uh they've disambiguated between two types of guardians. The ruler guardians or the decision-making guardians or the wisdom guardians and the courage guardians, the reason guardians and the spirit guardians. Both are on the side. Both are guardians on the side of the ruling class or the rulers. Plato uses the phrase the rulers and the rules which means um the guardians and the auxiliaries which are reason and spirit or the philosopher queen/king and soldiers. Um then the ruled which are everything else merchants desire in the book 10 in book 10 uh it's really matter in a way material multiplicity um if there's a unity between the two parts the dual a unity a dualistic unity um a unity of difference so to speak of differentials a differentiation process which has to respect practice on it. Sort of a yin-yang. Um, if that's what reason and spirit are, then desire is infinity itself. So in book 10, book nine or 10. nine. Um, yeah, I'm not going to show you all the AI response. I should learn how to I think if I do mine as AI, it won't give me an AI answer, which is better because then I can like look through everything. Um, the way that AI scrapes different sites for information is helpful, but also uh wasteful of resources, wasteful of water, and wasteful of um kind of wasteful of consciousness. It's better to have more experience. Book nine, uh, reason is depicted as a human. Spirit is depicted as a lion and desire is depicted as a multi-headed beast. Just thousands of heads. I don't know if play is thousands. I'm going to say thousands because that's how many desires there are. That's how many directions you can go. That's how crazy the world can get. That's how rampant things. If you start to see the multiplicity, it will eat your brain alive. You cannot make sense of the complexity of this world. I can't. We simplify it so often without realizing it. Um, but that's the soul, that's consciousness, that's the city, that's all of it. It really is holistically all three parts. Um, I I didn't mean to get distracted again. I wanted to get through some more of the text. So we must compel and persuade the auxiliaries and guardians to follow our other policy and be the best possible craftsman at their own work. And the same with all the others. Um in this way with the whole city developing and being governed well, we must leave it to nature to provide each group with its share of happiness. I think you put that very well. You said I already finished that. I'm just Yeah. Will you also think that I'm putting things well when I make the next point which is closely akin to this one? Which one exactly? Consider whether or not the following things corrupt the other workers so that they become bad. What things? Wealth and poverty. How do they corrupt the other workers? Like this. Do you think that a potter who has become wealthy will still be willing to pay attention to his craft? Not at all. Won't he become more idle and careless than he was? Much more. Then he won't become a worse potter. Far worse. So I think that humans would just enjoy making things. And surely if poverty prevents him from having tools or any of the other things he needs for his craft for his craft, he'll produce poor work and will teach his sons or anyone else he teaches to be worse craftsman. Of course. So poverty and wealth are two extremes. It's very u arisatilian mean virtue ethics. So poverty and wealth uh make a craftsman products worth. Apparently, it seems then that we found other things that our guardians must guard against in every way to prevent them from slipping into the city unnoticed. What are they? Both poverty and wealth. The former makes for luxury, idleness, and revolution. The latter for slavishness, bad work, and revolution as well. That's certainly true. But consider this, Socrates. If our city hasn't got any money, how will it be able to fight a war? I think what's interesting here is slavishness kind of means like laziness in our current parliament. But uh I I think the way that actually makes sense for it to be caused by poverty I was just thinking about this while I was reading it. What makes sense for it to be caused poverty is um a state of destitution or wretchedness more so like what nonse or uh France phenomenon would write about in decolonial or anti-colonial theory and in just kind of the horror of the 21st century with Nazi although he was still writing the 20th century destitution. Sorry if I'm mumbling I'll try to speak more clearly. I need to go food. Um, okay. So, if our city hasn't got any money, how will it be able to fight a war? Especially if it has to fight against a great wealthy city. Obviously, it will be harder to fight one such city and easier to fight two. How do you mean? First of all, if our city has to fight a city of the sort you mentioned, won't it be a case of warrior athletes fighting against rich men? Yes, as far as that goes. Well then, Adamantis, don't you think that one boxer who has had the best possible training could easily fight two rich and fat nonboxers? So, the just city is just going to be better. Maybe not at the same time. Not even by escaping from them and then turning and hitting the one who caught up with him first and doing this repeatedly and stifling heat and sun. Wouldn't he in his condition be able to handle even more than two such people? That certainly wouldn't be surprising. And don't you think that the rich have more knowledge and experience of boxing than of how to fight a war? I do. That in all likelihood, our athletes will easily be able to fight twice or three times their own numbers in a war. I agree, sir. I think what you say is right. What if they sent envoys to another city and told them the following truth? We have no use for gold or silver and it isn't lawful for us to possess them. So join us in this war and you can take the property of those who oppose us for yourselves. Do you think that anyone hearing this would choose to fight hard lean dogs rather than to join them in fighting fat and tender sheep? No, I don't. But if the wealth of all the cities came to be gathered in a single one, watch out that it doesn't endanger your non-wealthy city. You're happily innocent if you think that anything other than the kind of city you're founding deserves to be called a city. What do you mean? We'll have to find a greater title for the others because each of them is a great many cities, not a city, as they say in the game. At any rate, each of them consists of two cities at war with one another. That of the poor and that of the rich. And each of these contains a great many. If you approach them as one city, you'll be making a big mistake. But if you approach them as many and offer to give to the one city the money, power, and indeed the very inhabitants of the other, you'll always find many allies and few enemies. And as long as your own city is moderately governed in the way that we've just arranged, it will, even if it has only a thousand men to fight for it, be the greatest. Not in reputation, I don't mean that, but the greatest in fact. Indeed, you won't find a city as great as this one among either Greeks or barbarians. Although many that are many times in size may seem to be as great. Do you disagree? No, I certainly don't. There is some implicit hierarchy here. Greeks are barbarians. Um as if Greek society was better than barbarians. I think uh the just city is better than both of them. So it doesn't matter. No, I certainly don't. Then this would also be the best limit for our guardians to put on the size of the city. And they should mark off enough land for a city that size and let the rest go. What limit is that? I suppose the following one. As long as it is willing to remain one city, it may continue to grow. But it cannot grow beyond that point. That is a good limit. Then we'll give our guardians this further order, namely to guard in every way against the cities being either small or great in reputation instead of being sufficient in size and wanted number. At any rate, that order will be very uh fairly easy for them to follow. And the one we mentioned earlier is even easier when we said that if an offspring of the guardians is inferior, he must be sent off to join the other citizens. and that if the others have an able offspring, he must join the guardians. This was meant to make clear that each of the other citizens is to be directed to what he is naturally suited for, so that doing the one work that is his own, he will become not one many but one. And the whole city will itself be naturally one, not many. That is easier than the other. All right? So that actually goes to show the the relationship between the one and the many and how the the many are expected to operate as a unit. Um it just depends on what perspective you take, right? Because you can still operate as a unit while respecting difference and you can encourage diversity um while still operating as a unit. It doesn't need to be disruptive diversity or disruptive complexity. Um the the more powerful nation or city will be the one that has justly moderate citizens who can tolerate different cultures and peoples um and that can harmonize with more increasingly complex synergies. um that is excellence in our and value and wealth. So when you have something like the stock market or the the weight of a dollar or the value of the dollar, I think of those as measures of excellence, but oftentimes not accurate measures and they can become inflated. Um, and they often get pumped, crash. Um, but they're meant to try to account for genuine labor value, where labor where or labor value. Um, let's say this, where labor is the enactment of excellence and labor value is the utilitarian universalization of some calculation that you could try to harmonize. But again, um different different experiences have different pleasures and I'm not sure that you could technically bring about a balance sheet which which neutralizes all books so to speak. I think only the individual can do that for themselves and a sort of respect. Um, okay. All right, we're probably hitting like 50 minutes, 55 minutes. Um, I need some water and some dinner and I'll be back to record some more later. And thanks guys for being here. Um, I don't think we're going to get to I was looking to see ahead if there's a stopping point. We are stopping at the middle of page and we stopped right here in the middle of 423D which is on page 1056 in the complete works of Plato that I have. That's on page 38 of the PDF. Um, sorry, I'm gonna mute because I'm going to whistle. Thanks, guys. Um, oh yeah, I'm taking for a walk, too. I'll see you in an hour. Bye. Hope you're having a good day, good week.