SPEAKER_01: 0:23

All right. So before we get started, Jeremy, I just wanted to give a little bit of an update so folks are kinda can expect know what to expect, let's put it that way. So uh as uh as I mentioned before, I was recording these podcasts with uh with Eddie, and uh you know we had a great run, and then Eddie had bigger and better things to do in life, so he uh he he said uh you know see you later. Um having said that, you know, he's still obviously here with us in spirit. And so uh the the hope was that I will continue the podcast. So I recorded the last episode of The Republic, which I just wanted to finish it, and then I kept asking myself, you know, should I record more? What should I do? And then I said, you know what, I like reading, and so I'm gonna continue to read, and then since I'm reading, I'll record. So I went ahead and recorded uh Nicomachian Ethics. I started book one, and I didn't enjoy the experience as much as I thought I would, you know, that's simply because we had said this before. Eddie and I, we we were influenced by Mortimer Adler, and one of the things Mortimer says is that uh you know, reading alone is like drinking alone. So it's not as much fun. And so I was like, yeah, I need to reach out to to other you know, buddies of mine, people I know who think the same way. And the first person who came to mind was you, you know, we've had some very deep conversations, uh Jeremy. And and so as the podcast goes along, I really hope that you know we are able to recreate what I was uh able to create with uh, or Eddie and I were able to create and we can recreate here. I have no doubts we'll be able to do it. You're a deep thinker just like Eddie is. Uh, you're a brilliant human being, and you know, you're beautiful, you have been through life, and you have gained wisdom just by being knocked around by it, just like Eddie and me, and you know, most people are listening to this. And so I'm really excited. And so, what we have done here now is we've decided that uh despite me have having recorded that just the book one, we are going to record it again, uh the bigger, better, beautiful version of it. Uh and so that's the that's the attempt here. So I'm not gonna say anything more. Uh Jeremy, if you want to just introduce yourself just a little bit, a few words, and then we can get going.

SPEAKER_02: 2:44

Sure. I mean, there are big shoes to fill. That I've I've listened to all the podcasts of you and Eddie, and uh it really enjoyed them. And so this is exciting that uh, and you and I have been meeting for over two years now, reading books on philosophy and talking about them. Um, so it's it's really exciting for me. Um as a background, yeah, I actually it's interesting. So the two of you are medical doctors. Um, I'm uh I have a PhD in psychology uh with a focus on executive development and adult development. And so it actually I think fits really nicely into the conversations we're about to have. Um, the application of what this means for us today, um, and how philosophy and thinking thousands of years ago still have application today, and in some ways hasn't changed. Um, we're seeing a lot of commonality. Uh, and so and so there's a lot to talk about. I'm really excited to kind of join in. And and I am no expert in philosophy, so I'll say that going in and knowing that you know we're gonna talk through it, and uh, and I'm excited for it.

SPEAKER_01: 3:51

Absolutely, absolutely. It's the pursuit of wisdom, it's the love of knowledge, a pursuit of wisdom, and there is really no being being an expert in it. You know, this is not armchair philosophy, right? This is about reading someone's words and figuring out, you know, does it apply to your life? And you and the good part about this is you know, you can read someone like Plato and see if you agree with Plato or not. I mean, it's almost like you're having a conversation with Plato, uh, you know, as we did through the Republic. And you come to realize that these there's a reason why these books have stood the test of time. It's because you can come up with an argument, and I have like I used to read a chapter and I should be like, oh, you know, I have this question, and I'm sure that he doesn't have an answer to it. And then right then, the next chapter, there'll be an answer to the exact question that I asked. And and you do it a few times, and then you realize that, okay, he's thought of everything, and there's and there's and there's a reason why that this has withstood the test of time. Written you know, more than 2,000 years ago, still speaks to me like it was written yesterday. It's because I believe that the human condition remains the same. You know, you could dress it up many different ways. You know, we are driving faster cars, or you know, we are living in a place where we don't have to worry about infections. But as long as we have mortality and this temporariness of life, the human condition remains the same. And I think that's the reason why these concepts, especially in the philosophy of ethics, it doesn't change. You still have to know how to deal with your neighbor, with yourself, in a manner that is compressed in time, you know, it's just like a second, just like a very minuscule time point in the in the eternity of what is the universe. And you have and and how do you contend with that as a being that is rational? And so the the questions, if one sits and asks one's oneself, the questions, the questions are the same. Right. You know, am I doing the right thing? Am I a good person? What does it mean to be happy? And and it turns out that there is there is no there is no new wisdom, you know, there's ancient wisdom, and then there is there is modern knowledge. But whatever we are doing right now, you know, the faster way to get from one place to another, a better smartphone, you know, artificial intelligence, it still doesn't answer the the the question of wisdom. The wisdom comes through experience, it comes through time, it comes through 2,000 years of you know talking and being and and acting as a human being. That's all compressed in these pages. So that's right. I underscore your point. Yes, it's relevant, and it will continue to remain so as long as we remain organic beings that have mortality and have a timestamp.

SPEAKER_02: 6:36

That's right. Yep, yeah, exactly. We might be dealing with more complexity now, but but uh at the end of the day, humans are still humans, absolutely still struggling with the same questions, yep.

SPEAKER_01: 6:50

Absolutely, and as a matter of fact, I would say that uh some of the complexity is probably taken away. We've made our life simpler now. Yeah, you know, because when back in the day, you know, back in the day when these books were being written, when Aristotle was writing and before that Plato was writing, the the person who would participate in discourse like this probably participated in in war. Had both been both on the on the you know receiving end or on the business end of committing acts of violence. And and that adds a whole nother layer to what it is to be human. And they lived at times where the the the the impact of nature, the impact of disease, and all of that was was so much higher. And so folks were you know, lives were cut short very very early, and they could see a lot of death and you know in their loved ones. So in that way, their lives were complex. Yes, our lives are complex because I think we are doing multiple things in multiple different domains. But inside of each of those domains of what it is to be a human, we have we have made our lives so much simpler, right? And it still hasn't helped us be any happier. Like we are happier in the sense from a pleasure standpoint, but we're not happier in the stuff in from the standpoint of being better humans. I I don't believe that's the case. There's still a struggle. It's in me. I don't know, maybe I'm the only one, but I don't think so.

SPEAKER_02: 8:18

No, I think we're all struggling to figure out what is happiness, right?

SPEAKER_01: 8:20

And right, right. And therein underscores this but this the Nicomachian ethics. I think the first chapter, it it's almost like there is no pulling of punches, right? You you enter into the the ring with Aristotle, you know, the bell goes ding ding, and he is just whacking you over the head with, you know, have you asked yourself these questions, man? You know? And very quickly, right? In a couple of pages, it's like, you know, what's happiness? So and in I think we've discussed this. Like my journey, I found myself asking myself that question very early on. I asked myself, but very early on my journey, later in my life, but early in my journey, like, how is it that I can't answer what it is to be happy? How do you define happiness? So, what do you think about that? Have you ever had that kind of a conversation with yourself?

SPEAKER_02: 9:12

Yeah, I have. Um, over the years, uh, and I think actually at a young age, trying to understand happiness by looking at how people spend their time and doing various odd jobs growing up, from cleaning and repairing oriental rugs to hosting in restaurants, to even being a newspaper boy, you know, at 13 years old, but and being miserable, by the way, at it. Uh, but but to look at that and say, all right, well, you spend the majority of your life working in in doing something, producing something, helping someone or people or groups, or and and then in what motivates these people to actually get excited or to to experience happiness. And I think as we get into you know the the Nigamachian ethics here in chapter one, it's well, it's not a moment-to-moment thing, right? So we're not talking about happiness as right now I'm happy because I'm on a you know uh on a zoom with you talking in philosophy, but but it's actually looking at like the longevity of over time, that's where that's where we actually get into happiness. But but I was fascinated that you know, people spend their entire lives. You know, I I would work in a in a psychiatric hospital and I was there for a year. I knew I was there for a year. And so I was coming in, I was like, all right, well, let's observe these people are there, this is their career, right? The the mental health technician, the psychiatrists, the nurses, the admins, spend their life in this hospital. How does that lead to like what is fulfilling for them? If you ask them, they would all potentially have some answers for you. Not everyone, right? But but it might be that they actually feel like they are providing some sort of purpose, um, or they're not happy, right? Right. And in in the job isn't necessarily going to lead to happiness, right? It's it's it's it's deeper than that, it's it's more complex than that.

SPEAKER_01: 11:09

Right. No, right, and and that's the key of of first, just that's the key to the first door of understanding that it's a lot more complex than if I eat something that tastes good, it makes me happy. But if I keep eating that thing every single day or worse, yet there's somebody who dies me to a chair and stuffs my face with the thing that I like to eat, like very quickly, the thing that was pleasurable and made me happy is quickly going to become the the the pinnacle of my pain and my distress. And so pleasure in and of itself is not happiness. I mean, many a rock star will will agree with that, right? And so we so you know, we I think what we could do here is we could probably start at the top and we can get as deep as we can get in this chapter, right? I know happiness features very predominantly in this, but there's some other very nice one-two punches that he delivers as well. Just thought, just just a thing that I want to underscore was he named this the Nicomarchean ethics, Nicomachus being his son. And so it turns out that you know, even of all the things that he wrote, Aristotle is like the father of thought, you know, all the modern thinking all comes from him. The most important thing that he could name, he named after his son in a way. So this is important to him as well. And um, the other thing here is that unlike the republic, which is a dialogue between Socrates and his interlocutors, who are his followers in a way, uh, it it lends itself to many allegories. The the republic does. It's a conversation, it's very rich and deep. And you can get into each page and really get nuggets of out of it. And you have to, as you know, you kind of have to mine for it, you know. If you're not if you're not careful it's and do a very superficial read, you can come away with the themes that people usually do, saying that the republic was written for people to run city-states, when in fact it is a manual for cultivating your rational principle and and forming a s a philosophical republic inside of oneself. The uh the Nicomachian ethics is more of a lecture series. These are series of lectures that Aristotle delivered to the nobility, and these were princes. So Aristotle was the tutor for Alexander the Great. Now, Alexander the Great, unlike Socrates, is not great for the way he was he thought, and he was great for what he did in the sense greatness is goes both ways. It it's not necessarily good or bad acts. And so that the thing to remember here is one could, if one is not careful, one can look at the lectures of Aristotle uh and and not practice what is written down here and still end up committing acts that are not necessarily in line with what he talks about here. But these are the but these are lectures, and so uh it lends itself more to how do I say there's not that much allegory in here, right? It's really on the nose, really. Very straightforward, very straightforward, and so it yeah. So what we can do here is we could read and say we can probably agree or disagree, and then um we can probably have a discussion of whether we can have examples in our lives which which either make or break the case of whether we agree or disagree. Sure, yeah, okay. So we we we started off. I guess the first um uh he he lays down a few ground rules. I don't know if you got a sense of that as you were going through it. There were some ground rules that he that he lays down. He said, if you're going to read this, I expect you to do a few things. Did you did you get a sense of that?

SPEAKER_02: 15:10

You know what? I didn't. Why don't you um okay? Tell me more.

SPEAKER_01: 15:14

Also, you know, in in in my in your defense, I've actually read these a few times, so I kind of come back to it. That there's just ordered what he does. So what he does is he says, um, so one of the things I have found is like when we have kind of discussions regarding especially ethics, there's a lot of opinion. And uh it's very hard to have discussions uh in the middle. You know, you have to pick an extreme. And the problem with picking an extreme then is that uh it kind of uh it doesn't lend itself to good argument, good discussion. It uh it usually lends itself to fist fights if you're not careful. Right. And so so Aristotle says, but from the very get-go, that uh wisdom is needed to participate in this. And the wisdom, what it does is it uh it it allows you to seek only as much precision as you can find in that conversation, not anymore, not any less. So once you come to a point in the conversation where you find that further precision is not really getting you to the same goal and or is distracting you from the goal, step away. And he does that a few times. Like if you notice during the in the reading of it, he says, enough of these topics, let's move on. Right? That is his way of saying there's no more precision here, let's move on. Doesn't let itself. That's one thing that he does. The second thing that he does is uh he lays out ground rules saying that who is this targeted to? Who is his ideal student? Says there are those who know, and then there are those who are ignorant but are willing to learn, and then those are those who are ignorant and are unwilling to learn. Says the the worst is the third group. You don't want to be in that one, right? The best is the first group, which you are not in, so you are in that second group now, and so can you uh you know you can you find yourself in that group? And if you do, then great, then these these these uh lectures are for you. And the third thing I found that he says, which I which I have uh which if I would have picked these these books up it when I was younger, I it probably would have made less of uh an impact on me simply because he says that you have to have gone through life and been um and and been buffered around by the winds of life to gain certain aspects of wisdom that comes with doing that. That's if there's some practical wisdom that you gain in order to be able to answer these questions. If you've not had the experiences, you will not be able to understand uh what is at stake here. And so if one is is young in mind, not necessarily age, because one could be young in age and still have had the experience, young in mind, it's not for them. And so I think we are perfectly placed for this. Uh, we've been you know bonked around the head a few times by life, and so we've learned a few things, and that it lends itself to that conversation. So that's the prelude for starting. What do you think about that?

SPEAKER_02: 18:14

Well, I so actually, you know, it jogged my memory, and then I do remember it. I actually wrote some notes around um the there's a story, and I'm gonna butcher it, so I'm not gonna go into the whole thing, but it but it's uh a Passover story if for which is a Jewish holiday, right? And it's um it's about the four questions, and there are four sons, and there's like the curious, the simple, the um the not so wise, you know, that thinks they know everything. Um, and so it kind of actually rang true in terms of well, there's a there's a relation, the you know, similar kind of concept there uh in terms of who's ready and willing and able to do this. And I was thinking also, you know, in terms of, and you'll probably hear me say this lots, but you know, conventional and post-conventional thinking. And you know, I think that the that the the student of of this conversation can be both, um, you know, conventional or post-conventional, as long as they're curious um and open to it. And I think that there's levels of conventional thinking that's not, right? And I think uh we can talk about that you know sometime of you know, where we talk about like vertical development and where people are and in terms of their own evolution, right?

SPEAKER_01: 19:37

Um I think this is a good point for you to introduce vertical development here just a little bit, right? So that folks would get a little familiar. So what do you mean by vertical? And then where is in that vertical development, where are the folks who, according to Aristotle, would be the ideal student? Because there are ones that are not, and then there are those who know that are not a student, they're master, right? So where would that be? What do you believe on the vertical development? Where would they be?

SPEAKER_02: 20:01

Sure. So so vertical development is really like um it's it's the belief that you know as humans we evolve over time, right? Just like um Socrates believes, you know, in terms of like wisdom, um, and you know, talking to someone who's older than him, he would think that that person has some wisdom because of of age and experience, right? Is that is that accurate? That's that's great, absolutely. Um and so it's you know, it it's used often and looked at more in the function of like work life. But the reality is it's how we think about the world, it's what our perspective is. It's it's a shift from I'm really thinking about myself, and maybe almost like a fight or flight type mode, where you're starting kind of like, you know, you're very short term in your thinking. Um, your mindset is really immediate needs, um, versus then and then you move into still self-serving, but um you're kind of like prioritizing, you know, groupthink in how people like, you know, I'm not gonna go against the grain here. So these people aren't necessarily ready for this conversation. Those are, you know, we call those the opportunists and the diplomats. Um, as you kind of expand your perspective and you grow wiser and you have more experiences, you're you're moving into still conventional thinking, but it's called, you know, we call them the experts and the achievers, which are two different kinds of, I wouldn't say levels, they're just you know growth areas. Um you know the experts more kind of rational judgment, but they're starting to see that like I can't do this on my own. They're starting to see that the impact that I have, you know, if I'm if I'm you know gonna if I'm not uh just with you, like I understand the impact of my actions, right? And and the achiever is looking at kind of the larger outcomes, greater responsibility, they have a further kind of they understand that they can focus on something now that will benefit them or others in a year, maybe 18 months, maybe not beyond that, but but they can start to have questions um and they can be curious, and they and you're you're they're at the right kind of point where you can start to to really challenge their thinking. Um maybe they're not open to it at first, but I think that with with experience that that that comes more, and then you get into post post-conventional, which is what we call like redefining and then transforming transformation, and that's where people are curious, they question the rules and challenge assumptions. Um you know, they have more of a longevity in terms of uh the things I do now could impact me two, three years from now. Um, the transformer is someone who really looks at long-term benefits of the world and like the actions that we do now. What's that gonna do five, 10 years from now? Yeah, if I'm not recycling today, what's that gonna do for my children and my children's children? Um, and so that's kind of like conventional and post-conventional thinking.

SPEAKER_01: 23:15

Yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah, that makes sense. So, so what you say, so the the lower, so well, the the earlier stages here, I should say low or high because these are all the stages of being, right? But you go, you can when you say humans evolve over time, this is not evolution from the standpoint of you know, uh yeah, like Cro-Magnan man and yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. This is more inside of uh of a of a human's life during their life, the the the early childhood development stages where everybody is very well known, very well aware of. And then what folks believe, and in my experience is once you become an adult, suddenly everybody expects that you know they're not going to change anymore. You know, whatever you have thought, whatever you whatever you have, ideas wise, stay with you till you die. And it turns out that's not the case. Uh, you know, even as the prefrontal cortex really rewires itself and develops all that by the age of 25, you really start thinking in different domains. And then each stage of life you actually change and morph and develop. And if you're lucky, you you are wiser with each passing decade. Now you'll always find examples of 65-year-olds and 70-year-olds behaving like they're 30-year-olds, and that's unfortunate. But you would but the the the right way to step through life is that you are you're breaking through these levels that you didn't know even know existed. You believe the way you think right now is the way to think, and that's I I've gained all this wisdom, I'm here, now I know. And then suddenly one day you you come upon the secret layer, and you're like, whoa, what's this? And and and that curiosity, after a while, you come to realize that that is in fact development, and you're looking for that. You're looking for the next level, you're not satisfied where you are, or you're not trying to build constructs around you to just to justify the way you think. And I feel that of all of us have probably done that at some point where we have tried, we we come to a way of thinking, uh, and then we try to create constructs around us to buffer that thinking or to hold it up, and it all comes crumbling down, and and one has a moment of crisis when one realizes all these things you built around yourself, be it on, you know, be it a title, be it, be it a zip code, be it a spouse, be it or whatever, you know, all of these things they break down. And that's when you come start questioning yourself as to, you know, what is in fact, what does it mean to be human? What does it mean to be um uh happy? And and that curiosity gets you asking questions. And then here we are, you know, on a on a Sunday evening asking ourselves, you know, what does Aristotle have to say about it? So so that I I I I see what you mean by you come to that middle level where you're in that um that achiever mindset, you know, where you're where these things are probably crumbling around you, and then you go into this post-conventional, and it's not an it's not a voluntary act, it just so happens that you find yourself there sometimes. But sometimes you can be pulled into it as well, especially if you're curious about it. And reading something like this or participating in a conversation like this could could probably be that catalyst that pushes you into that post-conventional space.

SPEAKER_02: 26:15

That's right. So it's in and it's once you're there, it doesn't mean I've arrived and now I'm here for good. There's fallback, right? We all fall back, and you're depending on what environment you're in, you can fall way back, right? And and so it's it's very much um fluid. And and I think the big piece here, and I and I think it plays so well into the Republican and the Negomakian ethics here, is the ability to reflect, right? The idea of like who's the wise man, which we won't, you know, we we could talk an hour or days on that. The one who's you know, those who say I'm not the wise man, how do I know that I'm the wise man, right? The the i the ability to reflect on you know what's going on in my world, what's going on in your world, and then what's going on in our world together allows you to find yourself in post-conventional thinking and gets you there over time, right? And yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_01: 27:09

My my kids are going back and forth through the front door, so keep banging the back door. I don't think he got it. You do it.

SPEAKER_02: 27:13

I don't hear it.

SPEAKER_01: 27:14

You don't okay, good. I'm glad. So then maybe it's not gonna get captured, but anyways. Um, so the so coming back to the Nicomachian ethics, then so so he starts with saying, okay, you know, these are all the folks who should participate, and then he moves on to saying, you know, why do we do things? Why do we act? And um and in that is at the end of the day, philosophy is not about really armchair philosophy, you're not sitting on a chair and asking yourself these questions. You're you you're acting in the world, and you're and one is one should be asking oneself what those acts what those actions are, or a different way to look at it is everything that we do, we do for a certain reason. There's an there's a there's an end to the action. Um now there are certain actions that we do that lead to other actions, and those actions lead to other actions. But the end of all of those actions, if you were to sit and flip and and think back from it, we find that those ends, sometimes all of these actions will start kind of curving to one end, the end of all ends, is a way to think about it. And each step now, each action or each activity can also be an action that leads to another activity, which is an end, which then can lead to another activity that's also an end, which can then lead to an end. But but but that is a logical derivation of figuring out how one plans one's life. One can be aimlessly just walking down a path and not have any goal. But even that person, if they were to sit down and ask themselves why they're doing what they're doing, they would they would they would realize that there's a reason for it. Just that whatever their reason is, they haven't really they haven't really given it as much thought. But once they do, it turns out the aimless wanderer and the really directed individual have similar ends. And and it may so turn out that they actually have the same end. Um so then if that is the case, then each of the activities that you're doing to get to that end take a subordinate role uh to the end, the the universal end. So I wanted to I want to see if you have any thoughts on have I see around myself a lot of folks who get distracted along the way where they they think that the end that they are seeking is the end in and of itself, or they get distracted, they actually have a big, hairy, audacious goal at the end that they were trying to go for. But along the way, they they find that there are these activities that they have to do to get there, and then they get distracted, and they and then they find another goal which was in the back, even though it is subordinate to the big, hairy, audacious goal, they end up satisfied in that space and they say, Well, this is what I was searching for. Have you?

SPEAKER_02: 30:20

Have you had that experience or have it's interesting because I was I was actually gonna go a different route with that, which is um let's say you reach that big hairy goal. Are you satisfied then? Or or is it what's next? Is it to your point the end is you know, so you reach the end and then that goes to something another end, right? So it's it's it's continuous, right? So you don't I I guess you know, I would I would say I don't know if I've ever reached you know, I you of course we all reach reach goals and have accomplishments, and um, but what are those what is the result of that? Like the result of that isn't um I have arrived, I'm satisfied. Right. Um, and maybe for some it is though. Maybe it is uh the wanderer, maybe it's um I choose to wander into the you know for the next six months I'm going in this direction, I'm going east. And uh eventually I've arrived somewhere and I've decided that this is it. I've arrived and I'm satisfied with where I'm at. And then we're what about tomorrow? Right. Uh yeah.

SPEAKER_01: 31:39

Right? Yeah, so to so to your point, there are goals that we set for ourselves and they become all-consuming goals. Like uh, and I could say for myself, it was you know getting into medical school. You get in medical school, it's the end of all ends in your mind as you're doing it. But once you get in, you realize the the the day you walk in, you realize that that goal is behind you now. Right. So that was only the beginning.

SPEAKER_02: 32:02

Yeah, that was only the beginning.

SPEAKER_01: 32:04

Yeah, that's right. That was an activity that you did to word this other activity. Yeah. And so the the the end of all ends is um may not be something that you reach, but it's something that you walk toward, like like the like the wanderer. You keep aiming in that direction. But I do find that folks step off that path. So give an example, um, which would, you know, which may be which may seem like a very lowbrow example, but uh so say there's an organization that wants to solve for poverty in in say in Africa, and they start on that goal, but somewhere along the way, they have to fundraise enough to get there, right? And then there are certain activities that they have to do to fundraise, and then those activities and those connections and the fundraising ends up becoming the goal, and one can raise a lot of money and still not achieve what is meant to be achieved, because the process then becomes its own beast, it becomes a goal in of itself. Like once you take the money and you go someplace and you deposit that money and you create whatever you set out to create, what do you do next? Right? Uh so they end up getting it. So because you can the question is you can never raise enough funds to solve for a prop for the problem of poverty in Africa. So then it becomes a problem about raising funds as opposed to actually doing the good. Now, this is this is a lowbrow example.

SPEAKER_02: 33:38

Um but if you spend your life with the intent of doing that, yeah, still a bit of at the end of your life, you haven't arrived, but you were in acts of intentionally uh purpose and good throughout the course of it with lots of little successes uh along the way.

SPEAKER_01: 34:05

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. But uh the the the the trick though is to not trick, but the the the the real the journey, the one that would get you to that state is if you don't take the eye off the ball. You see what I mean? At some point, I think even politicians probably start out with some good in mind, and then it gets to you know campaign funding. At some point, they step away, and then the good starts looking very murky. Yeah, you see. I think many of you know, there's the like they said, the the road to hell is paved with many good intentions, right? Like that's and and you and one has to be careful of that. So the end of all ends, but he says, like in in Aristotle's mind, unlike unlike Plato, where where you you you develop a little bit of a dichotomy, first of all, uh Aristotle was a student of Plato who who then left the academy and uh famously criticized Plato a lot. You know, he he took a step uh away in the opposite direction. I think the reason was Plato did not choose him to lead the academy uh as his successor. So he he he felt slighted by that. Uh and by the way, here's the other thing about both. So both Plato and Aristotle were academicians, they weren't they were philosophers, but not in the same way as Socrates was. You see, Socrates walked the walk and talked the talk. And you know, if if there's somebody that you and me should be looking at as an example or paragon, it has to be Socrates, not necessarily Aristotle. I mean, they were as human as you and me. But the other thing about it is they were as human as you and me. So, you know, we get to see what it looks like. You know, they're not some you know uh uh being like uh Socrates who uh is very hard to emulate. But but he says that in accordance to to Plato, the end of all ends was this ideal human, like um the pinnacle of it, which is socks, which is Socratic, you know, is the philosop the philosophical constitution. It's a it's an individual pursuit of excellence, it's the ubermensch of uh of um um uh what's the philosopher's name? I'll come to me. But so it that's the superman, you know. So uh Nietzsche, Nietzsche's Ubermensch, Superman, it's like that, right? Um now, but for for um Aristotle, he was a lot more practical. For him, the end of all ends was was a politics. He felt that yes, you could build inside of you this perfect human, right? The the the the philosophical the philosopher king, but wouldn't it be better if you could do the same for a city-state? So then it becomes the city-state, then becomes the the ultimate a happiness of the city, and that is where one starts like falling into these traps because happiness for a city-state is very hard to develop because there's so many different opinions around it, right? It's hard to do. And so then that's where rhetoric comes in, that's where you know, where you're talking both sides of your mouth and all of that, right, to keep everybody happy. Um, so uh the but he also agrees though, like Plato, just you know, there's certain truths that you cannot step away from. One of the things he says is that there are three ways of living. In and I think this actually lends itself really well to the vertical development here. Just bear with me, and you can correct me if I'm wrong. But there's a there's a a life of pleasure, there's a life of politics or honor, and then there's there's a life of wisdom uh or or knowledge. And and so, you know, it it as you can imagine, if you're in the earlier stages of development, you know, it's more about pleasure, it's more about the individual accomplishments and the things that you can get, the accroutements of life. Yes, then it becomes about honor where you're expecting to get uh someone of the width that you believe is honorable to tell you that you're honorable. And then the third then is the pursuit of wisdom or or knowledge. And so he does agree that the contemplative life supersedes that of the political or the honor-seeking life. Uh, but he does agree that politics trumps um the uh the other forms of you know ends, the ends in and of itself. I don't know. I don't know what you thought of that.

SPEAKER_02: 38:26

Yeah, well, one, I think it's an excellent example of vertical, right? Um, and two, I was actually, I I was gonna ask you, do you agree with that? What what are your thoughts on on that? His view there. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01: 38:38

Yeah, I so I would say that uh I can say from my own personal example that that holds true. I uh however, I and I and and also like what you just said, right? That these stages are not stages that you inhabit and you don't inhabit the other stages. Even when I'm in the pursuit of wisdom, I would like to call myself like the pursuit of wisdom. I'm still worry about pleasures. Like I do want to have a full belly and I do want to be able to have a, you know, I want to have uh the accruments of life. I don't want to live in privation. Um, and I also want to be considered to be somebody who is a good human being, right? Um like so Aristotle, so so so in the republic, Socrates says that uh a just man would be happy even if the if the entire world considers him to be unjust, but he's in fact just inside, right? And but at the end of the republic, he says, I created this argument just to show that even if the world considers the person unjust, the person would would still be happy. But let's try not to think on those lines. Let's give me back what you know what you you owe me, that the just man would be considered just by people around him, and so we'll also have that double happiness. And I'm hoping that that is true because I don't want to live in privation and you know be just for like you know, like but everybody cannot be Nelson Mandela or or Mahma Gandhi, you know what I mean? Like we have to I I I want certain good things. So I I do believe that I carry all three stages with me. What do you think?

SPEAKER_02: 40:13

I I think it's rare that someone can give up all personal pleasures and and drive and striving for more and better, maybe partially of that, you know, part part of that is the society in which we live in, and right where we have the choice to do that. And and part of that could be our you know, the privilege that we we potentially have, you know, that allows us to do that, right? But but Socrates made a choice. He did. Mahatma Gandhi made a choice that was um and in and to truly get there where they were, uh I you know, I think it's it's a lot for any person to truly come to terms with, right? And and at the end of the day, and there's plenty of examples of folks who are put on a pedestal like that, who maybe you know are just human like the rest of us and have their personal pleasures, and their you know, tower comes crumbling down at some point because we expected better of them and they're just like you and me.

SPEAKER_01: 41:24

Yeah, yeah. Yeah, which again, you know, we shouldn't fault them for it, right? Like I do agree that you do you need to have that clean a nose in order to participate in politics? I don't know. You know, if you haven't, if you haven't lived and loved and and aired as a human being, do you have the ability to make those decisions you know that that that humanize you? Even Nelson Mandela made you know from made personal decisions with you know people in his lives that you know they that he was not proud of.

SPEAKER_00: 41:57

Right.

SPEAKER_01: 41:58

Um, and so on and so forth. And he had his political enemies and so on and so forth. So did Martha Gandhi. There are a lot of things, you know, that so these are things that that that do humanize him. But you're right, at some point they did make a choice to forego the the things of comfort to take that next step. So there are levels to this, there are levels to this, right? And then and and that's right. And and you can imagine, you really hope that if one is at if there are levels to this and someone is at that level, you hope that that their happiness is is of a of a finer quality, of a of a better quality, a better essence than someone who's not at that level. Right? So then even in in that, the end of all ends, or the or the achievement of it, or the state that you are in, that state has a has a different quality. So the the more you put into it, um, despite his privations, Nelson Mandela was probably was probably towards the end of his life a happier man than I can choose to be, you know. If I so um that that's what I meant to say. I don't know if that's true or not. I'll find out as time goes on. You can never know. And I and honestly, I don't know what was going on in Nelson Mandela's mind when he passed, but but I have to say that the fact that he chose to step away from power, right, in a democratic fashion, goes to show that he had equanimity within. You know, he had the he was a philosophical king, the philosopher king inside. So very few people have stepped away from power like that. Right, right.

SPEAKER_02: 43:37

You know, it it's my understanding, and I could be wrong here, but I you know, I I was in the Netherlands uh a few years ago, and um, you know, getting a tour with you know a gentleman who um who lived there for many years, and he was explaining to me how you know politicians are there for for two years to do their job and then they're done. And and in that sense, if that's if that works, you you're there for the greater good.

SPEAKER_00: 44:09

Right.

SPEAKER_02: 44:10

Go in with a purpose. Yeah, and he was very clear, if they don't work for the people, they're out, just like that. Uh they they're only there for two years. Um, I don't know how you know I would I don't know how much of that's accurate, but I don't know. Um but it's but it's interesting, it's an interesting thought of you know, if that's the greater good, right? If that's what we're working towards, of politics being that, yeah, you know, thinking about how can we lead you know a city to happiness. Um there are there are probably systems out there that exist that actually still focus on that, yeah.

SPEAKER_01: 44:50

Yeah, but see, that is that is a law that this is a great point, it's a good segue to this, right? So so he then he talks about this, he talks about uh so the end of all ends. What is that end? Is that it so he's saying that which which I believe is is the case, uh, that whatever we desire as the end of our action is in our mind a good, a good thing to have. And in in these goods, all these good things to have, there is a hierarchy similar to the hierarchy that exists in humans, where there are pleasure seeking, honor seeking, and wisdom seeking, where these goods are in the same level. So uh you know, a cake that tastes great is a good, but it's not the same as a degree in psychology or you know, things like that. So you gotta so there are goods that that surpass other goods. We say, why do you want to eat a cake? Well, you know, because cake tastes good. Why do you want to eat things that taste good? Because, well, it makes me feel good. And why do you want to, you know, why do you want to feel good? Because it makes me happy. Now, happiness is a term that we use in in the English language, it's a very practical language, and really there isn't um there are not that many ways to dis to to have happiness. So I'm sure there's a word in your mind and my mind for happiness that comes with eating good food, which is different from happiness that comes with watching your your favorite team win. But at the end of the day, we use the same word for it, it's the same kind of feeling, right? Happiness. And so the the the end of all the whys, the why we do certain things, we keep following the chain, we keep asking ourselves, we will all come to a some form of what is of happiness. Um now, but but what he's trying to say is that there's only that much cake that you can eat before you get to happiness.

SPEAKER_00: 46:54

Right.

SPEAKER_01: 46:54

Right? If you keep stuffing your mouth with cake, the example that I gave, someone ties you to a chair and keeps stuffing your mouth with cake, like you go from pleasure to pain very quickly. And the same thing gets is true of other things like honor and money as well. The more you're seeking honor for it, you know, not for its for anything else, but for its own sake, the more you start doing things that could eventually come and it'll probably bite you in the in the behind. Like these are this is what happens for people who stray from the path. Because there are acts that you do because they lead to a good, or acts that you do because you want to get something out of it. And if you're trying to get something out of it, you're straight with stepping away from the good. So similarly, wealth, too much of wealth creates problems, right? It's just like uh like more money, more problems, right? I think those are biggie smalls, I don't know who said it, but yeah, I think so. And and it turns out to be true, and then and then seeking wealth for itself, right? As wealth being the good, the I do everything I do so that I make more money, um, that that is also straying away from the path of good. But doing all of these things so that you are actually achieving um a certain state of being, which for you know, they they he uses the word soul, which comes S O U L Soul, soul that that comes from the the Republic, which I don't know if what what is the Greek translation for it, but I I don't I don't believe that they're talking about soul in the sense the way we in common parlance talk about soul. I think what they're talking about is this state of mind that uh is in pursuit of the next biggest thing that you identify with. You know, that is your mind, you as Jeremy, me as a niche. There's a there is a there's a purification of that essence in our in our brains that that says this is a niche and this is Jeremy, and and that that is the highest order of that, those group of neurons is the is the is the soul, right? That is uh that is actually an an anatomized, individualized to you and me, and it's in our minds. And when we say I am a good person, but I mean what we are saying is that epitomized part of our neuronal cluster that identifies as you or me is a good person, and that is the soul. So it says the and that soul can be a soul that is enslaved to passion or enslaved to honor, or it could be a put in the pursuit of wisdom. If it is in the pursuit of wisdom, it is the contemplative soul, and and the and the actions of that soul if uh and and the goods that it is trying to achieve and the happiness that it is trying to achieve is of a higher magnitude than the than the soul that is um um that is uh in the pursuit of eating the next best tasting cake. Right. So um what what do you what do you think about that?

SPEAKER_02: 49:57

Well, I I think so. My understanding of that is um it's all about balancing extremes. You know, too much of anything isn't a good thing, right? And and so, you know, and I think there are real world examples of that. I know that there's an article a few years ago that came out, and I know that this has changed probably dramatically in the last five, five, six years, but you know, it basically said that you know those who have who earn X amount of money a year are are found to be the happiest. Um they have what they need, uh, they feel like they're they have purpose, but they're not struggling financially, but they're also not, you know, extremely wealthy. And um, you know, it was actually like you know, it was under 100,000 a year at the time. So you know, I think that that's old, but but the reality of like you know, somewhere in the middle there is where people find happiness. Um and in this idea of the soul, I I think um, one of the concepts I love to that I I thought really played plays out here in in this chapter in book one is this idea of intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation, which you know it's pretty funny that you know these are concepts at bestseller airport airport books these days, same stuff, just different wording, right? But but the the extrinsic uh motivators, um which could be a lot of cake or money or bonus, or you know, these little things are short-lived, they they bring joy um or happiness, uh, however, how we decide determine how to define happiness, right? But but they're short-lived, but you still need those. You need those in kind of the bigger picture of building a path of happiness in in your, you know. Um, but then you also need that intrinsic motivation, which is really what what drives people, what drives people at work, which is you know, having a purpose, understanding the why, knowing what you're doing and what what what path you're on, um, having it defined in some way, so that you know that you're providing some type of value to yourself or others in the world around you. Um so that's then that that was where I was thinking what when you're you know we started talking about these these extremes of having too much or having too little. Um yeah, what what do you think about that?

SPEAKER_01: 52:36

Yeah, I mean, I I I see what you mean by I think this is about catting all of those things together. But in in order, again, in order to synthesize what happiness would be, it it is important to note that there is a difference in the happiness that one would get from something like an external motivator than some than one would get from an internal motivator. And that if there is a happiness that you get from an internal motivator, that that if you add eating a cake while discussing philosophy and it makes you a bit happier, well, it turns out that that is not the happiness that you got from discussing philosophy is not the be-all end all. Essentially, what it means to say is that if there is a certain amount of happiness to me, and now we have to start talking, you know, trying to get precise without trying to get too precise, you know, in Aristotle's terms, otherwise, you know, we have lost the conversation. But he's saying that if if you can think of happiness, but now you add a little bit of an external happiness to it, not becomes more, that means that it wasn't the ultimate happiness that you are looking for. Because the ultimate happiness, the happiness with a capital H is one in which nothing more can be added to make it any better. Because if you keep adding to it, then there is the next stage of it and it will go on to infinity. And we would like to believe that that is not the case, that there is a capital H happiness that one can achieve that is self-sufficient, self-sufficient. That means it doesn't need any more to be any better, right? So it it makes for a life that is that is um that is desirable and lacking in nothing. Now, now uh that means it has, like you said, this is a great point that you made, it has all the intrinsic stuff in it, plus all the extrinsic stuff in it, in such a way that you cannot add any more to it to make it any better. Now, ask yourself, you know, that's the problem that that's the reason why Aristotle gets gets labeled as an elitist. Because you can imagine you can step off this path to capital H happiness because of many things that can happen to you which are not in your control. Like just give an example someone loses an eye, they step off that path. Right? Because an addition of the eye suddenly adds to their cap that to their happiness that they can achieve. You see what I mean? So now that that is that's obviously an example, but but you know, the the way Aristotle, when he talks about this capital H happiness, which again, like I'm not saying that what he's what he's not trying to get at the fact that capital H happiness is available for for all of us. It is an aim, it's it's a goal that we can keep walking toward. You know, it's you're not going to achieve it because um because of acts of God in His, you know, in His way of thinking, in our way of thinking, it's just again this chance, right? Things can happen that step your way, or you one one doesn't choose where one is born. Right, you know, one could be born in a malaria swamp in in Africa, and then you know, that yes, can you still achieve happiness? Yes, 100% you can. But the person who was born in um you know in the lap of luxury in somewhere else, and uh now even that person can have a pretty painful life. So there are a lot of things that can happen that doesn't get you there, but you want but one can step off that path very very quickly. But yes, you're right. You need both the extrinsic and the intrinsic in a way that makes it self-sufficient. What do you think?

SPEAKER_02: 56:30

Yes, I I absolutely agree. And and in some ways, I also think then maybe happiness is easier achieved by the simple the people who aren't thinking about it as much.

SPEAKER_01: 56:44

Yes, so then this brings uh to the question of you know who who would one rather be a happy pig or a sad Socrates? Right. Yes, right? Yeah, now so the the the the counter to what you just said is that there is, if we agree to the first premise that there is a there is happiness that derived from a life of pleasure, a happiness that's derived from a life of honor, and a happiness that's derived from a life of contemplation, and that the life of contemplation, the happiness of the contemplation is supersedes the happiness of honor and pleasure, then that may not necessarily be the case. I do understand what you're saying though, that sometimes thinking about it too much can make you feel unhappy. So aren't you better off just eating the cake and smiling while doing it rather than worrying about the you know the nature of life and happiness? So that's a good question.

SPEAKER_02: 57:39

And you know, um yeah, and this might be another question for you too. I don't know if we have time to answer it today, but um do you truly know that you've arrived at happiness at any point in time? Or are you on your deathbed and you're reflecting on your life and you end saying I lived a happy life?

SPEAKER_01: 58:12

It's a fantastic question, and I think it really lends itself very well to the next discussion, uh Jeremy. That'd be a great way to actually close uh book one, because I think that's what he gets to as well. I think it's an important conversation for us to have. Any final thoughts that you have?

SPEAKER_02: 58:31

Uh I thought this is a lot of fun, Anisha. You know, this is our first time. Um, you know, and I think that uh I think we just touched on you know the chapter. I mean, I think in a in a rich conversation. So uh this is really um, you know, I I hope that uh I hope others find it interesting as well.

SPEAKER_01: 58:50

I'll tell you what, the best hour I've spent in a long time. I think it's more than an hour. I don't know, I don't know how long this was, but boy, like I've been smiling this whole time, both inside and out, man. I've absolutely loved it. The thing, Jeremy, is that the uh the music for the podcast and all that is still uh from the from the version one of this. So um, you know, just to all our viewers, yeah, you know, we I miss Eddie and you know Eddie's voices in there, but eventually we may record one for ourselves, you know, with a with an introduction. Uh and uh and we will put uh Jeremy's touches all over it as well. So um looking forward to the next one. Uh I think we can probably just continue with uh a little bit of this of of book one and then we can probably segue into book two. We'll we'll discuss it for the week and decide how how that goes. Great.

SPEAKER_02: 59:39

Yeah, I'm gonna uh let's see. Uh stopping here.