SPEAKER_04: 0:22

All right, well, welcome everybody to our the second episode with Jeremy. Now we've had uh the first one which uh had some extraneous background noises, which uh uh fortunately I had a very busy house that day, and there was a lot of uh work going on in the background, and so we could pick that up and we apologize for that. But uh it was a great first conversation, uh Jeremy. Uh in you know, your worthy um adversary, if I should say not adversary necessarily, but uh a worthy partner here in uh in our conversations, and I thought that went really well. I'm really excited about finishing off book one today with you. And uh I think the the the the way we decided this one would be that uh you know, Jeremy, you had taken down a few notes and uh made some observations yourself on on book one, and so I would like you to kind of start off the conversation and I'll just fill in the gaps as we go along. So whenever you're ready.

SPEAKER_00: 1:24

All right, yeah, that sounds good. Um so I thought we could start, you know, last time we talked more high-level about a lot of the concepts, I think, within book one. But um, but to frame book one, I thought we could start with, you know, what Aristotle is really beginning with, um, in my understanding and interpretation here is that he's really asking, you know, what is the ultimate purpose of life? Um you know, he's observing everything that we do, you know, from working to going to school to spending time with our families. Um it all is aimed at something, right? And so what is that what is that something? Um and he he you know thinks that there must be like a higher, like our what's our highest goal in terms of you know, what are we seeking? And is it and is that good? Is that what we are seeking? Um you know, and so my interpretation is that you know, he's saying that the highest goal is happiness. So if if our ultimate purpose in life uh to according to Aristotle, is happiness, and then I think from there we get into defining it. But how how do you um how do you think of that? And and how did you interpret kind of his bigger picture thinking?

SPEAKER_04: 2:45

Yeah, I I see uh his he starts off with like you know, a uh almost um uh not not a I should say not a very practical way of getting around the question of why we do everything, because saying that we do everything for happiness, before you get there, you have to kind of lay some ground rules down as to what we mean by that. And he that this is not a this is not really a uh a dialogue between us and Aristotle. This is Aristotle's thoughts on it, right? And so it's hard to critique any of this. Like one of the things to do is to have to just accept the author's views and then in in your mind decide whether you agree with it or not agree with it. The thing about it is that this is Aristotle, like that that man is genius, you know. I don't know what his IQ was, but it was obviously the smartest, most intelligent men on the planet ever. And so it's very hard to then argue with Aristotle. He says this and arguing back with him would have um not been a very good thing to do back in the day, because he raised down some ground rules. He says, if you're somebody who's not willing to learn, then you shouldn't be participating in this conversation. And he sets some ground, he says he knows, and then the person who is willing to participate in this conversation is somebody who knows they don't know and are willing to learn from somebody who knows. And so um I think but having said that, I try to argue with this, saying, you know, is it in fact happiness that we are all seeking? And uh I played that game of the wise with everything one does, no matter how um how narrow the uh uh the expression of the action is in one's life. If one asks why one did it, uh, even if that action for a momentary period led to discomfort, you would still say there was something that you wanted to get out of that. And whatever you wanted to get out of that is a good in one's mind, and that's why one does these things. And obviously, all of this is predicated upon the fact that we are rational beings, that means we can differentiate between good and bad, and that we are acting on our own volition because one can be forced to do the to do things, either good or bad things, and those are not necessarily uh goods that one is one is trying to do. Um, and you know, so this is if acting if out of free will, rational thought, and then going ahead and performing an activity, most likely what you're trying to achieve, that that goal is a good, uh, and it's a small g good. And and then the way you achieved it is an activity, and that activity itself is subservient to what you were trying to achieve. But if you do one thing to get to the other thing, that in that other thing, even if it's an activity, even that activity can be a good. So goods can be activities, goods can be things that come out of activities, but activities lead to goals, goals lead to bigger goals, and then there's a hierarchical nature of good. And and the capital G good is a universal he argues against Plato. Plato says that there's a there is a good that that one does for no other reason, but only for itself. That good doesn't lead to any other good, it's only done for itself. Plato uh uh sorry, Aristotle argues against the that good, not so much for any other reason, but saying that that good is kind of an impractical good. What good is that to a physician practicing medicine? Because having an idea of what the good is doesn't necessarily help you participate in your day-to-day life. But I but I feel that there's a there's an importance to have an eye toward that good. And even he says that, like you should aim toward that good, and that good from a practical perspective, uh, not not from the universe's perspective, but from a from an from a rational being's perspective, that good, the thing that you do capital G good, that you do only for itself, for no other reason but for itself, is happiness. So that is why Aristotle believes that happiness is the is the the the be all or end all the good that we are trying to seek. But if you want to critique it, Plato would say that that is all well and good inside the narrow framework of a rational being, a temporary being, um, from a from a universal scale, happiness at an individual level is of no bearing. Is what is of no bearing, it really makes no sense. Yeah, I mean, you know, uh the universe existed for millennia before humans ever existed, and it's gonna continue to exist for millennia. And so if uh the good that that that you and me are seeking, we call it capital G good and it is happiness or flourishing or whatever, it is just a f a fig a figment, a fragment of time, like you know, mere like drops in an endless ocean of time. And he is, and so that is, I think, the a little bit of a dichotomy between Plato and Aristotle. But for the for our purposes, you know, for for from a day-to-day persp perspective, I agree with you, and similarly, I agree with Aristotle, which you know, I'm in no position to disagree with that that happiness turns out to be that thing that I cannot tell if I keep asking myself why why do I want to do something, and if finally I reach I because I want to be happy, if I ask myself why do I want to be happy, I really don't get a good answer. I do it because I want to be happy, and so it becomes an end in and of itself.

SPEAKER_00: 9:02

Well, I think it's both ends, right? I mean, I think that um they're both right. There is this larger good, larger happiness with an end in you know, that maybe you can never truly measure or or track. And then there's these, you know, day-to-day moment-to-moment that over time also build uh into you know uh a moment of happiness now or doing good now, right? And you do that over the course of your lifetime, it it that then creates like a bigger sense of um of what happiness is or what lead maybe what leading a good life is.

SPEAKER_02: 9:50

Yeah.

SPEAKER_04: 9:52

We we have to try to limit Aristotle's discussions to a very practical lens, right? And try not to get metaphysical with it. And so from a practical perspective, I don't find any disagreement in what he has to say.

SPEAKER_00: 10:15

Right. And now if if we're defining how how Aristotle is defining like true happiness, you know, is that so it's living a life of moral and intellectual excellence? Is that how you are you do you see it?

SPEAKER_04: 10:33

Yeah, I think what he says is this division of goods is also comes from divisions of different types of lives, right? And we discussed a little bit of this in that in our prior episode, where uh uh the there is stages of evolution of a human being, and uh one can be caught in a very juvenile state of being where one believes that uh happiness is the fulfillment of desire of pleasures, I should say. So the pleasure-seeking uh soul is a soul that is in pursuit of pleasure, and when pleasure is fulfilled, they see it seeks more pleasure, and it believes that happiness is the accumulation of these small age happinesses each with fulfillment of a bit of pleasure. But the the the happiness that one can get by living a life enslaved to pleasure seeking what I call like the rock star life, right? Sure, is the happiness pales in comparison to the honor-seeking life. And that is, I find most people that I have come in contact with, including myself, I would say we are in that honor-seeking stage. But we had discussed this that you know, in that just you it's not that pleasure seeking is something that you completely give up in honors in seeking honor. You seek pleasure and seek honor. Um, and so you you you you bring that pleasure-seeking part with you as you transition into this honor-seeking role. And the and the thing with honor is honor and and an accumulation of wealth is is a form of um honor seeking. You one doesn't acquire want to acquire money just for money's sake. Money buys things, buys power, influence, status. And so honor seeking is also money, but even within that realm, there is seeking wealth and seeking honor through acts and deeds that one would believe gets someone a higher merit in society. You know, usually these are in in service of the multitude, you know, either generous acts or political acts and so on and so forth. But but honor in that sense, one is not trying to get honor, seek honor from dishonorable people, you're seeking it from honorable people. And when when we believe someone is honorable, we are actually believing that they have virtue. It is virtue that one is trying to um that because they have that virtue, they're honorable, and one is hoping to get honor from those folks that so that that gives you a sense of um what is that word? It uh it it uh makes you believe that you are actually worth something because you got honor from somebody who was honorable. Um, and so uh but but what you one is seeking if one actually looks deep down in honor-seeking life, is in fact virtue. So, you know, one is trying to build the virtues and be up uh uh be applauded for the fact that one has virtue, but then there is a next step in this process, and I think when one gets into that step, one could one could step away from the pleasure-seeking and the honor-seeking life and step into this contemplative life. And now one could be in the early stages of that contemplative life and still carry the pleasure-seeking and the honor-seeking with them, but there are those who completely transition into this threshold of a contemplative life where they let go of pleasures and honor, and now they're in the pursuit of wisdom, which is the highest level of pleasure that one can get for their soul. Um, a sort of pleasure for the soul, it's the highest level of happiness that one can get, one can one gets from a contemplative life. So there is this small goods that one has to acquire through life, then they transform into bigger goods, and then those goods can transform into a capital G good. Um but the the further along you are in the spectrum towards a contemplative life, the higher the rewards there are.

SPEAKER_00: 15:27

Yeah, and and I agree. I think that um I think the how we define pleasure over our lifetime changes, right? From the rock star life in your early 20s, where you also might be thrill-seeking and in what that looks like versus you know the ability to be more contemplative over time and how pleasure comes in different ways, and doing good comes in different ways, is that evolution um in a shift in how one looks at um potentially what is virtuous, right? Like virtue, I I was looking at as like a muscle that needs to be you know practiced, and it needs to be exercised. Um, and that that that changes and evolves over time too. What is you know practicing um good habits in over time will continue to do as you're saying, it it it builds on each other. Um I agree with that. All right, so if we define let's say we're so we're defining virtue as doing the right thing.

SPEAKER_04: 16:48

Yeah, so yeah, and so yeah, I I see what you mean. Is virtue then doing the right thing? I think that is a that is ethics, is probably what that is. Um how it's prudence. Doing the right thing is actually prudence. Prudence is a virtue, prudence is a virtue, and there are many such virtues, and I think the the the Greeks they narrowed virtues down to what's called the four cardinal virtues. Now, you know, the term virtue has become has a has a little bit of a religious tint to it, especially Christianity. I think there's some reason. So they were so Thomas Aquinas, who read a lot of Aristotle, uh, has uh has diff describes all of these virtues, and there's several, and even Aristotle later on in Nicomachian ethics describes all of these different virtues, but one could narrow those virtues down to four cardinal ones, and that's justice, temperance, courage, and wisdom, and these show up in Platonic dialogues as the four cardinal virtues, and so Aristotle carries them forward. So that is when he says honor-seeking life, one is trying to exercise, like you said, the virtue muscle. So one is trying to become temperate, trying to be courageous, trying to be just, trying to achieve wisdom. And that is what the re a lot of the Nicomachian ethics is about what are these virtues? How do you what is does it mean to be courageous? What does it mean to not be courageous? What are the extremes of this? So what is the middle ground of this? It's a very practical uh manual, if you may. Practical manual, they kind of cancel each other out, but it's a manual in a way to figure out how one can become courageous, how one can become just and temperate and and uh wise, and what are the pitfalls along the way. The Platonic dialogues introduce us to the virtue, but it never gets defined. The conversation that Socrates has around these virtues, it shows you what is who is a courageous person, who is a just person, and who is a wise person, but doesn't exactly define what they are. And Aristotle, being as practical a person he is, he's trying to get to a definition, he's trying to pinpoint it. And we'll in later on we'll as we start conversing about this, we'll we'll figure out how successful he got in that in pinpointing it for ourselves. But he he lays a he lays a very good plan. The other thing about virtue is that virtue is a direction, uh, it is not something that one achieves, it is a direction in what's one way in what in which one travels. And while you are on the path of virtue, you are somebody who has the potential to become virtuous, as opposed to somebody who's not on the path of virtue. But it's not a destination, you can never be wise and temperate and just and courageous. Just you get there, you don't get there, you just keep walking along the path, right?

SPEAKER_00: 20:29

And walking that path uh of virtue is also making choices in terms of potentially the difference of extremes, right? So virtue is somewhere probably in the middle of your path, uh, in terms of you know, um example could be like courage. You mentioned like the four cardinal virtues. So, courage, right? So what are the two opposites then? The extremes of courage. Um, recklessness would be one. Umardice, right? Would be on the other side of that. Is that absolutely, yeah, absolutely, yeah.

SPEAKER_04: 21:12

And that is so so that's why the app the it's not the middle, but it's the middle ground where courage comes in. You see, this is great, as a matter of fact. Yeah, you brought up a very good example. Courage is easy to define in these extremes, yeah. Um the other thing about courage that one has to realize is that that a courageous person may appear reckless to some, but a courageous person may appear fearful to someone. So courage is not necessarily what other folks think about you while they see your performance, what you believe on the inside that that you are able to achieve. So having a sense of fear is is part of being courageous. You see, but inaction because of fear is not courageous. You see, in action without fear is not courageous action either.

SPEAKER_00: 22:23

A sense of yeah, so go ahead. Okay, well then that's uh the idea of like recklessness, right?

SPEAKER_04: 22:28

That's the idea of recklessness being brash. You see foolhardy people, you know, just having no care, no f if you have no care, you have no idea of the price that has to be paid, then the act is not an act that is worthy of lording. Uh if uh you know if you just walk into tall grass because you have never heard of a tiger, right? That and turns out there was no tiger that day, right? You may appear to somebody and you know you're just confidently walking through it. You are blissfully unaware of the dangers. It's like you are in a you're on a raft in the Amazon and you decide to suddenly take a nice plunge in the water because the water is inviting and there are piranhas everywhere, and everybody else is looking at you thinking, Oh my gosh, this person is this brave. You weren't, you were just ignorant, right? Ignorant, yeah. Right. But now, if you know there are piranhas in the water and someone dived into that water and you dive in after them to get them out of the water, right? Then that then is an act, and you could be absolutely scared doing it. People could see the fear in your face while you dive in, but you're like, you know what, that's the right thing to do. This ignorant person dived into this water, and he doesn't have no idea of the danger. I'm gonna rescue this person. You see what I mean?

SPEAKER_00: 23:54

Yeah, good, great example, too. Yeah. So Aristotle in book one is talking about happiness and purpose, and then brings in the concept of virtue, and then he's bringing in this concept of but there's also external goods that also lead to happiness.

SPEAKER_02: 24:21

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 24:23

Or or is part of what what makes one happy. How do you how do you make sense of you know, and this is by the way, like, you know, so psychology terms in you know, in our airport bestsellers, we're talking about intrinsic motivation versus extrinsic motivation, right? I mean, yeah, these these um, you know, money, power, I mean, these are things that you know don't this don't necessarily lead to happiness or short-lived. Um, but I think Aristotle's saying that you need some level of that too, in order to reach or achieve happiness. That's my interpretation.

SPEAKER_04: 25:01

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 25:02

Well, what do you think about it?

SPEAKER_04: 25:03

Do you believe that uh to be the case?

SPEAKER_00: 25:06

Yeah, I sat with this for a little while, and um and I I think that it to me it it it does come back to on a on a small like in your your day-to-day life, these things some of these things will shift your state of mind into happy, you know, where I am feeling pretty good, but but again, it's fleeting. So I think it I truly believe that external goods on the on their own will not lead to happiness. And I have plenty of examples in my life and in our world of people who are very well off and yet miserable, right? And and so that is not the answer. Um but I can see how it makes life easier to probably pursue a virtuous life uh and make the right decisions and be on a path of good.

SPEAKER_04: 26:07

Yeah, I I I absolutely I absolutely agree with you. And I I the way you said it very succinctly, it the small g goods that lead to small H happiness lead you, if one is if one is fortunate enough to find themselves on this path of virtue, find themselves asking, why is it that I'm not happy despite having all of these pleasures and all of this this wealth, the accolades on all why what is missing? You see, one has the difference between the happy pig and the sad Socrates is the fact that Socrates asks why, and is not just wallowing in you know in the comforts of what's presented to him, he's a rational being, and that that's what rationality is. Rationality is asking yourself what is good and what is evil, what is right and what is wrong, and not just taking conventional the conventional path and just agreeing to doing it. And it is you one needs to have one needs to be fortunate enough to have the ability to do it, because I do I do believe that there are some people who have more ability than others, but everybody has the opportunity to, but that opportunity comes by more readily for someone who has this the small g goods that lead to the small age happiness. Like a simple example is one has to be you're more likely to be able to participate in the common good if you're you're born in a certain part of the world. You have you are you you have a certain there's a certain amount of of physiologic wellness that you need, sleep, food, um things, things of that, things of that nature. You know, it's like the it's like the Maslow's hierarchy. Yeah, it's just gonna go there, right? Right, right, yeah. And and each of those things, like if you were to keep me awake for several days, sleep would be something that I would really desire, no matter how contemplative I am, to keep me hungry, food is something that I would desire and I would leave contemplation in search of food. But once I have a full belly and I have rested myself at night, and I live in a society which is secure and I don't have to worry about the safety of me or my the ones I love, and I have a means to express myself at work or in some field, or um, you know, I have that ability, then I'm in a position now to take the next step in this process. And once in that self-actualization bit of Maslow's hierarchy is what Aristotle is saying, it's a ladder that you have to one has to climb, but one cannot get to the top of the there are no bottom rungs of that ladder. Right.

SPEAKER_00: 29:28

Yeah, yeah, you need some stepping stones, some your basic needs need to be met. If you're focused on survival, food, shelter, there's no, and maybe there's time for contemplation, and maybe it's worth exploring, you know. Uh, if folks who don't have basic needs met, are they do they spend time in contemplation around, you know, in in terms of curiosity and doing good, because they could still live a virtuous life.

SPEAKER_04: 30:06

Aristotle is an elitist, so Aristotle will disagree.

SPEAKER_00: 30:09

Yes. Well, that was one of my questions for you is is Aristotle an elitist? He is an elitist. Yes, he's an elitist, yeah, and he is a practical.

SPEAKER_04: 30:19

Practical person, and I again I'm not here to disagree. Is would there be examples of people who have been in absolute privation, born in it, lived in it, and been happy? I would say I can give my own example from not my example, but I can give you my own feeling, my own thought, my gut feeling on this is that when I am stressed out, I don't find myself to be as contemplative as when I'm rested. And uh and I believe the same is true for my fellow humans that if I lived in a war zone, I would not yes, can I show courage? Can I show justice? Can I still practice those things in a war zone? Absolutely, yes. But um I but at the same time I would be miserable. And and you see, so this path to capital H happiness, one can fall off this path at any point. And yes, when you fall off this path, you find another path that gets you, you you can come back to this path. But if you imagine someone who stays on this path the whole time just out of good fortune, and the Aristotle's argument is, and this is again, you cannot be very specific about this because this is a fictitious human being who's had nothing but good fortune. Along with that, they've been also have had enough experience to develop wisdom, had enough life experience that haven't broken them down, built them up in a way that they have come to a point where they have crossed the pleasures, crossed into honor, crossed into contemplation, and along the way carried everything along with them. They have the looks, the intelligence, the power, the money, the nature, and opportunity. And they've been able to keep their limbs about them, their wits about them, their family about them, their you know, their their society, and everything is beautiful, and they've come to a place where they've been able to contribute back. Now, that is almost as fictitious or as impossible a concept as Plato's capital G universal good, you know. Um that's what I that's what I feel about this elitist. That's why he's blamed, he's that's why he's not blamed, but that's what he's uh called an elitist because he believes that that human being is the closest to capital H happiness and in everybody else. Now ask yourself, you know, have you met a person like that? I mean, have you known of a person like that? I have not. Neither met, known, or even not even in books do you find people like this?

SPEAKER_00: 33:36

Right. Yeah, you know, so yeah, a couple things that you mentioned that really has stick with me, but one is just a day-to-day, right? Like I, you know, if I'm stressed, I'm less able to focus on on a deeper concept, right? And and you know, I we we can we can talk about you know our moment-to-moment experiences and our mindset shifts throughout the day, dozens of times a day, right? And in you know, I you know, back in 2013 to 2015, I did research on state of mind and the impact on our day-to-day experience. Um, and we we could talk about that more in a different episode, but but the you know, we looked at look, people are aware that they shift, but they don't always they always know what triggers them. They also don't always know what to do to to change it into a better state of mind. And I I bring this up because I think that I think that we get distracted by an awful lot of things in our in a coming from an elitist perspective of well, we have resources, we have food, we have shelter, um, we can get bogged down with things that you know there's lots of stress. What is that stress? Is that stress real? Is it something that we're creating for ourselves? Um, is it a distraction from you know doing you know the the hard work, the focused work? But then I it comes back again to for me is that virtue is something you need to exercise and practice in that it comes and goes, and now you're not it's not a straight linear pathway, and and so that journey is is um you know ups and downs. So that that was one thought. Another one is is where does spirituality come into this? Because the spiritual path, not religious, but the spiritual path is one where I don't agree with Aristotle. And again, you know, you know, whether we agree or not, but like I I tend to agree that I think you need you need a certain level of um external goods as part of leading to happiness, right? And those come and go, but it's still part of a bigger picture, longer term perspective. But the spiritual path is one where if you're prioritizing that, if you're someone who meditates in the morning when they get up or prays, you know, just you know, prayer, however you want to define it, in the morning, once in the afternoon, in the evening, and then all of a sudden it becomes a habit. And next thing you know, it's part of your thinking throughout the day. Is that a life that can get you toward to happiness in live, you know, living a virtuous life without the need for external goods?

SPEAKER_04: 36:59

Yeah, yeah, I again I think finding specifics is going to be hard, but my my take on that is I I can only say that from my experience, what I've seen is that when I was younger, I used I was pursuing things because I believed, and these aren't frivolous things, I mean these were bigger things in life, you know, things that are honor seeking. But I my thought was when I achieved them, I would achieve happiness. And uh when I achieved them, I realized that that was not necessarily the case. Now, once I achieved that, then there was another goal that I wanted to achieve now. So that good that I achieved was a small g good. I just didn't realize it. It took me several iterations of doing the same thing over and over again to realize that these are small g goods, and then I asked myself, what is a capital G good? What does that mean? Like does it even exist? And so that's what led me down this path. I had a crisis essentially. One needs to have the crisis because what at I give this example, and I think I've heard it somewhere. I didn't come up with this, but as a as a child, you know, when someone is like four or five, right, and they get handed a balloon, they hold on to the balloon, and they and and it it is the law that that balloon, it's the law of nature that that that child is gonna let go of the balloon at some point, and the balloon flies away. And the child is absolutely distraught because they have lost the balloon. They don't understand the first of all, they're attached to the balloon. And as an as a parent or as an adult watching this, you know, one would one would say, you know, why is this child so attached to the balloon? Now you could just buy them another balloon, they get happy, but they're gonna let that balloon go again. Now, um, as an adult, I understand the nature of balloons. I know balloons fly away, and I'm not attached to balloons. I and I don't remember the last time. There was a time when I was attached to the big red balloon, but sudden suddenly I lost attachment to the big red balloon. It wasn't a choice. I wasn't a four-year-old going, you know what, this it's the nature of balloons to go away. That's the nature of it. Why I should not be tied to the balloon. My capital H happiness is not tied into the balloon, and so I'm going to no pun intended, release the balloon. You know, I'm not gonna be attached to the balloon. That didn't happen. But suddenly one day I was no longer attached to balloons, I don't care about balloons anymore, right? Um, now that's a that's that's everybody has had that experience, but it wasn't a choice, right? So you see, the contemplation part of this, if I were to tell myself that I actually walked myself out of liking balloons, and it's not necessarily the truth. You have to live the experience to understand the nature of these things in order to be able to give up on these things. So one has to go through pleasure, understand the nature of pleasure, give it up, go for honor, understand the nature of honor, and give it up. And then what you would now where you are is this contemplative stage of your life. And now it feels like you're not tied to anything, and everybody's like, How can he be this person be so happy? They don't own anything, they live in privation, how can they be happy? Because one has understood the nature of it's like a four-year-old looking at you saying, How come this person is not unhappy that they've lost the balloon?

SPEAKER_00: 40:42

It's a wisdom of through experience and life lessons. That is right, yeah. And I I think that not everyone gets there. No, I think that um so you and I both had events that triggered a shift, right? So that red balloon for me was climbing the hierarchy and chasing money and power and you know, next title up, and and having a major life event that pretty much put a stop to that immediately, and um and led into crisis first before I came out the other end. But I made choices in my life that actually shifted, and here's what what's interesting, because this is where it gets to Aristotle as potentially elitist in the talk of goods, is by making that choice and stopping the life path that I was on, I actually ended up better off externally in terms of external goods. I ended up making, you know, uh, you know, having having a larger salary, no longer needing a position or title. I had economic security that once I made it through the crisis, I was able to actually shift and reflect and contemplate more and to start to have these. And now this also, this was you know, before the age of 40, but for a lot of we, you know, the the midlife crisis, which is I think people, you know, I think we all experience some sort of midlife crisis, not just men, you know, both women, men, yeah. We all do. And I think that that that is because we're all holding on to the red balloon, we're wanting a bigger red balloon, right? And it's like that's that we're chasing something, and we realize at the age between 35 and 45, that none of that means anything. That's right. And and so back in the day, or you know, Aristotle's time. I mean, what was the what was the uh life expectancy expectancy back then, right? I mean 40s maybe 40s.

SPEAKER_04: 42:54

Yeah, but once you made it out of uh childhood, you know, you could live up to your 60s and your 70s. Socrates was 74 or something when he was dead, yeah. Yeah, so was wasn't and he wasn't an anomaly by any means, right? Yeah, so I'm sure they had their own crises, absolutely, yeah. But you know, the the concept of the the the balloon, we are all holding on to numerous big red balloons, and we keep letting some of these go, but we are still attached to some, and we are all identified by the balloons we hold, and those balloons are linked to our identity. Yes, so I had a big red balloon that I carried on for the longest time that I was a cardiologist, and that's a big red balloon, and it's a hard balloon to let go. Yeah, it even now I find it hard to let go of the balloon, even though I I'm not as attached to it as I was before. I still I still you know participate in it and I can't get away from it. And I and and and I tell myself that I'm happier for it. Yes, it genuinely makes brings me pleasure, but it is still a concept, it is a balloon, and there is a seven sixty-year-old version of me, hopefully, that looks back and one day and says, I don't know when I lost it, but I don't I don't identify myself as a physician anymore or a cardiologist anymore. I cannot choose to do it right now if I want to do.

SPEAKER_00: 44:27

Interestingly, I I look at that, I do a lot of work, you know, with leaders, and this concept of letting go of ego uh-huh is something that we've been bringing into teams and and in one-on-one coaching because those red balloons you're speaking of are all aspects of what's what creates your ego. And in to truly get contemplative and sh and evolve, one has to let go of that. And you know, there's lots of ways to do that. And um, I mean, I've there's even some really extreme ones with you know hallucinogenics and going down that path. And there's some good books out there on how you have to let go of your ego there as well. Uh, but I think the the idea of the the concept of letting go of ego, because it drives everything we do. Um, and and you need it, you need some of it, but it's it's how do you make room and space for beyond the ego?

SPEAKER_04: 45:30

Yeah, I I would say we should move on from this. But one thing I would say is that even letting go is a balloon, right?

SPEAKER_02: 45:41

Yeah.

SPEAKER_04: 45:43

See, so uh, but we can but we can move on from this one. Um to underscore the point that uh yes, there is an elitist nature to this, but that I don't believe it, I don't believe it to be mis it's it's not we all believe to that to be the case. If we were hungry uh or if we were poverty stricken, expecting that one is gonna have the same level of happiness and ability to contemplate and self-actualize, is gonna be limited compared to somebody who was born into a better circumstances, right? We all believe that. As a matter of fact, that is what we believe as equity. We want to get everybody to a place where one is not eking out a meager living, right? Because that is a hard way to go through life, and one cannot self-actualize, actualize. And so Aristotle is as elitist as you and me. Right, right.

SPEAKER_00: 46:41

Totally agree. So that's a nice segue into um what I believe is probably the last part that I captured from book one, which is the role of politics, and that Aristotle's bringing that in. Tell me how you see politics. Yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_04: 47:03

Uh so yeah, by the way, I I so Aristotle uh politics is a whole nother book that or lexicities that Aristotle delivers. Yeah, and it's it's interesting to read a lot of how we our modern politics comes from the political science, comes from Aristotelian thinking on politics. So I I would start with digressing a little bit, but Plato, Plato's idea on the good was more of this universal good, and it is an individual sense of good. One needs to become a good person, capital G good. That means one has to develop a philosophical constitution inside of oneself, and that is the pinnacle of being human. Aristotle, and and so before I go to Aristotle, the the way so the the interlocutors of Socrates ask Socrates is this even possible? What you're describing, this philosophical constitution, is it possible? And Socrates says, if we can imagine it, I just he just laid down the premise and he showed what a philosophical constitution is. Can you imagine it? And if it exists in your mind, it is it's a it's an it's a form, and one could create a copy of that. It is possible because of that reason. Now, it's a it's a beautiful argument, one reads it, one gets convinced. But Aristotle is a critique of that argument and says, yes, all well and good, but to what benefit is it to a practical person, this form or idea of good or this individual sense of a philosophical constitution, if one cannot express that into an action that one can see in this world? So, yes, one could become this ideal person and never participate in anything external to them, and they could live this life knowing full well inside of them that they are they have achieved this happiness, the state of happiness. But wouldn't it be better if we as uh as a republic come together and create a republic that participates in the capital G good just as that individual human being does? If two people achieve the capital G good, isn't that better than one? And if that by that principle, if millions of people achieve the capital G good, isn't that better than this then the so that is politics for him? Is how do you get a city-state to become capital G good? The the the that's the reason why it's important to read the Platonic dialogues before one reads the Aristotelian lecture series because uh Socrates uh starts uh his discussions by saying that that uh trying to convince a crowd of people to do such a to do something is uh impossible simply because if one is talking to a crowd, and if the crowd is cheering one on, one is telling the crowd what they want to hear. Right, and if one is talking to a crowd and the crowd is booing them, they are not going to change, anyways. And we see that all along, right? If you look at even in the current state of politics, and you know, when folks are giving speeches, they are surrounded by people who support them, right? Um so the the is that really changing the hearts and minds of these people? No, it's not, and so it's not an idea, and so philosophy is discussed at uh it's either it's on a one-on-one, like what we are doing right now, or with a or or through discourse. That's what Plato and Socrates, but Socrates believe that one shouldn't be reading books, even because you shouldn't be reading a book and having a discussion with oneself, one should be discussing, discoursing on politics, a very small group of people, but it the aim is to improve oneself. Aristotle doesn't believe that. Aristotle believes that one can actually create a lecture series and go out and talk to princes and expect them to now become these philosopher rulers who then build city-states. Well, we know how all that turned out. Like, you know, his his pupil was Alexander the Great.

SPEAKER_01: 51:49

Right.

SPEAKER_04: 51:51

Right. What do you think about politics?

SPEAKER_00: 51:54

Yeah, what do I think? I think that in theory, I love I love the idea of it, and I think that um it's almost uh a little utopian. I don't know if that's the right, if I'm using it correctly, but you know, that's what comes to mind when I think of, well, well, you know, if we if we all live this way and we get the big capital G and then we're all in it together, right? Um and and you know, that's just um I think that I think it's I think it's nice if it's a great in concept that that's what politics should be, is to political science should be like the that you're in it for the greater good, to you know, help others bring bring others up, right? Raise others together. And I'm I am a a firm believer in leaders teaching leaders, right? And people, right? So at the end of the day, the day uh a leader, but it's not through necessarily debate or standing up there, it's it can be shown in action instead of just words, right? It's both. Um but but we look at a lot of um, you know, I I work in a lot of organizations and see a lot of different cultures, and culture starts at the top. And so if you want to prop everyone up, and I'm working right now with an organization that has an incredible culture, and every member of the senior team lives and breathes that culture, and they speak of it and they act that way, and they are growing very quickly, and they refuse to bring in people who don't who are who are are potentially not a good culture fit. Um, so it's and that's not to say that there's no conflict, right? I mean, it's it's there is conflict and there's decision-making challenges and and there's growth challenges, but but the idea of of politics and uh you know focusing on you know the the capital G for everyone, I in conceptually I think is a wonderful idea. I think that I think that I don't know if it was like that back then in Aristotle's time, and I don't know if it's like that now. I don't know if you know power and uh and all these you know big red balloons get in the way of other people, you know, of focusing on uh the greater good for others, I think. Yeah. Yeah, if we're all focused on virtuous, you know, living a virtuous life, that shouldn't be the case.

SPEAKER_04: 54:34

It shouldn't be the case, that's correct. See the thing is what comes in is this the opinions. Opinions is what is the problem here. Because even in the example that you gave the company that is that has in its leadership people who believe in culture, but you said something right after that that they would not include people in there who don't believe in that culture, right? And so if one is so that then becomes a very uh you know a it takes away from the c the capital G good is the common good, that means universal good. Now, universal good could be all humans, but you could take it to it could be for the planet. Now, once you can create, you can create a little microcosm, right? Your ones Atlantis where everything is beautiful and great, and then outside of it is all terrible. And and so then one and one can ask yourself, have you then created then one could say, even if you add one more person to that, right? Wouldn't that increase the good? Then yes, so that means you have not achieved capital G good, right? You know, because even if because if anything more can be added to it to make it better, you haven't achieved capital G good. Um and so the the thing that we one of the things that I think we should have hit upon and we didn't necessarily is that when when Aristotle says happiness, it is not the same happiness that we think about in uh in there's no word really for it. And I think the word that we have come up with or what the word that is flourishing, flourishing comes as close to happiness in the sense of how Aristotle describes it. Eudaimonia is the term that he's talking about, right? And and you had alluded to this eudaimonia or happiness, that capital H happiness, eudaimonia, flourishing, to flourish requires one to have all of the small g goods and the small age happinesses, all leading up to the contemplative, the ability to then extend that beyond oneself, into the one's community, into one's country, into one's you know, and beyond that ability is flourishing. One can do that now. As one can, as you could imagine, one could be on this path and then suddenly deviate off of this path at any point. And the the the you know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, is what I keep saying that, but you know, there was I'll tell you this is um this is a great example of how one could be one has to be very careful if one is trying to build a city-state and go down this Aristotelian path. Obviously, Alexander is the greatest one. Momar Gaddafi was a Platonist.

SPEAKER_01: 57:40

Okay, yeah, I didn't know that.

SPEAKER_04: 57:42

Yeah, yeah, and he he was somebody who read Aris Plato and Aristotle and believed himself to be the philosopher king. And we all know what happened right now now. Momar Gaddafi, for the longest time, one could have said in his own weird, peculiar way, had achieved the pinnacle of what Aristotle was talking about, trying to build a state and trying to involve himself in the politics outside of his state, but died a very terrible death, a terrible death. I mean, it's uh and so at some point, see if you'd have if he'd have died 20 years before he actually died, you know, he probably would be somebody that you know in his mind would have been someone who was flourishing.

SPEAKER_01: 58:42

Right.

SPEAKER_04: 58:43

But the last the up to the moment of his death, even the the manner of his death was so painful that it is um it just goes to show what Aristotle says that that it is it it is a eudaimonia of flourishing is something that is retrospective. You look back at your life and say, Have I achieved it? And and you could be one step away from having the most painful experience and then completely forgetting everything that happened behind you. And that is how ephemeral this concept of flourishing or eudaimonia is. You see, and a lot of people who do many very evil things believe they're doing it in the path of some common good, they're just ignorant of the fact that what they're doing is not in fact aligned with the common good, they just forget it somewhere along the way. The whole German war machine is an example of that, right? Right, and so there are several such examples, and to you could suddenly find yourself and you know shooting yourself in a bunker somewhere. You you see what I mean? Yeah, or or uh uh as a matter of fact, uh Mussolini and Gaddafi have similar in common, something in common, right? Like Mussolini was the terribly tortured and killed towards the end. And but but you could imagine up to a certain point, Mussolini actually thought that he was, in fact, some sort of a you know a philosopher king. I don't know, Mussolini's uh You know, philosophical underpinnings, I don't know, but I could tell you that he probably felt he was flourishing till he was not. And then if you if right before he was he was tortured and hung, if you were to ask him, Do you think you led a good life or something? What do you think he would say? He was an app he was absolutely in pain, you know, and so one could step off, and that's that's looking back, and I think that's an important concept to have, and so that's another reason why I believe that um what it is not a destination, flourishing or eudaimonia is not destination, it's a direction. And if one is not aligned in the path of virtue, one is not in the direction of eudaimonia. It may look like your life is you're flourishing in life. You have all the trappings of it, you have all the small g goods, but you are way off.

SPEAKER_00: 1:01:17

Yes. I think you captured it very well, very, very nicely. I think that that's in your lifetime, you you never actually reach the capital G good. It is it's a path, it's uh I I'm gonna say it even though I hate it, but it's a lifestyle choice in terms of how you choose to go through your you know the world in the life that you're living. Um and so at the end, that's when you can reflect and say, you know, I had a good life or I didn't, or you know, and it and there, you know, if you're looking at the big picture, you might say yes, but then you know, again, like in a moment's time, all of a sudden, you know, you had good intentions for a while, and then you know, all of a sudden uh you know you're on a different path, and um and all those good intentions are gone and forgotten.

SPEAKER_04: 1:02:20

Absolutely. And see, that's why being on the path of virtue is more important than trying to be on the path of eudaimonia.

SPEAKER_02: 1:02:28

Yeah.

SPEAKER_04: 1:02:28

If you get too caught up in trying to get all the small H's and the small G's and forget that all you needed to do was walk along the path of justice, temperance, courage, and then eventually wisdom, you know, that is better. And to your point, can the contemplative man be happy? Yes, even if you may not have, you may have given up all of these small g's and small h's along the way, one could would not find themselves being tortured and hung. You know, um, and so I I would say that is a better life than a life of uh of luxury that then eventually leads to something terrible at the end. Uh this is great.

SPEAKER_00: 1:03:17

Yeah, I think so. I think we covered book one now, right?

SPEAKER_04: 1:03:22

Yeah, thoroughly done. He does describe these uh virtues now. He talks about between the two virtues the justice, temperance, courage, and wisdom. Uh there are intellectual virtues and then more practical virtues. And then I think book two, he kind of talks a little bit about uh you know those intellectual virtues. So we do be straight. Now we actually get into the meat and bones of his uh now that he's laid this prelude about uh these virtues and how one becomes a virtuous person. How do you how does one exercise the virtuous muscle, as you had said?

SPEAKER_00: 1:03:53

Yeah, yeah, exciting. All right. So book two is next.

SPEAKER_04: 1:03:57

Absolutely, absolutely. Thanks, Jeremy.

SPEAKER_00: 1:03:59

Yeah, thank you all.