Leadership Lessons From The Great Books

Hello.

My name is Jesan Sorrells and

this is the Leadership Lessons

from the Great Books podcast,

episode number 62.

Welcoming back my regular co

host today, Tom Libby.

Hey everyone. Well, thank you

for welcoming me back Jesan.

Very excited to be here.

And Tom is coming along at an

auspicious time in the podcast.

We were just talking a little

bit off the air. I am in the

process of fighting corporate

giants in my own life. I'm

having that weird moment,

corporate and bureaucratic

giants in my own life.

And so it's interesting that in

the.

Month of June, a month of pride,

as I mentioned before in the

previous episode that we are

going to be covering, we're

going to be talking about City

of God by St. Augustine of

Hippo. Now this is a massive

book, has multiple smaller books

inside of it. It is right around

1100 pages. Yes, I said 1100,

100 pages long. We will not be

covering the whole book.

Instead, what we will be doing

is.

We will be reading from books

two.

Books three and books four

excerpts today in order to.

Buttress the arguments and the

ideas that we laid out in.

Episode number 61 where we

discussed C. S. Lewis's the

Abolition of Man. Because I

think that during the era we are

in right now, there's nothing

that we need to be doing as

leaders that is more impactful

for the people who will follow

us than figuring out how to

debate how to persuade and how

to convince. And St. Augustine

of Hippo, in his lengthy book

The City of God, lays.

Out a pattern of argumentation

that is undeniable in its power.

Matter of fact, without this

book and.

Without the efforts of St.

Augustine of Hippo and we'll

talk a little bit about St.

Augustine today on the podcast.

Without the efforts of St.

Augustine, the initial first

thousand years of Christianity

probably wouldn't have worked

out. Christianity probably would

have been strangled in its

cradle. And thus Darwinism,

Nietzscheism and the

postmodernism that we all live

under right now.

Well, probably wouldn't have

gotten legs underneath it. We

owe a lot to St. Augustine and

we don't read them nearly

closely enough. So as usual, we

will start off with the book

from City of God.

We are reading in book two,

chapter 21.

And I quote if our opponents.

Score in the historian's

judgment that the.

Roman state has sunk, quote, to

the.

Depths of depravity, unquote, if

they are not troubled about the

disgusting infection of crime

and immorality which rages in it

so long as that state continues

to stand. Then let them listen.

Not to Salas description of its

degradation, but to Cicero's

argument that it has now utterly

perished.

That the Republic is completely

extinct.

Cicero represents Scipio, the

annihilator of Carthage, as

discussing the state of the

country when it was felt that it

was doomed to perish through the

corruption described in Salast.

This discussion is placed at the

time when one of the grachy had

been killed, an occasion from

which Salas dates the beginnings

of the serious civil

disturbances. Salas records his

death in this work. Now, Scipio

said at the end of the second

book.

Quote in the case of music for.

Strings or wind, and in vocal

music there is a certain harmony

to be kept between the different

parts, and if this is altered or

disorganized, the cultivated ear

finds it intolerable, and the

united efforts of dissimilar

voices are blended into harmony

by the exercise of restraint.

In the same way, a community of.

Different classes high, low and

middle, unites, like the varying

sounds of music, to form a

harmony of very different parts

through the exercise of rational

restraint.

And what is called harmony and

music.

Answers in Concord in a

community, and it is the best

and closest bond.

Of security in a country, and

this cannot possibly exist

without justice. Close quote.

Then, after a more extended

treatment of the point

describing the great advantage

of justice to a community and

the great loss occasioned by its

absence, another of those

present of the discussion, named

Phyllis puts in a plea for a

more detailed treatment of the

subject of justice, because it

was at that time popularly

supposed that some injustice was

inevitable in the government of

any country. Scipio agrees that

this question needed

investigation and explanation.

He admits in reply that in his

opinion what they have already

said about the Commonwealth

gives them no basis for

proceeding further unless they

establish the falsity of the

statement that injustice is

inevitable in government, and

further the truth of the

assertion that complete justice

is the supreme essential for

government.

The discussion of the question

is then.

Deferred to the next day, and in

the third book the topic is

thrashed out with the fiercest

arguments Philos undertakes to

defend the position that

government entails injustice,

covering himself by disclaiming

this as his own opinion. And he

contends energetically for

injustice against justice,

asserting a superior utility for

the country, and striving to

prove his point by plausible

arguments and illustrations.

Then Lalius, by general request,

undertakes a defense of justice,

and asserts with all possible

emphasis that nothing is so

inimical to a community as

injustice, and that a country

cannot be governed and cannot

continue in being without a high

degree of justice. When this

question has in the general

opinion been dealt with

sufficiently, scipio returns to

the interrupted discussion. He

starts by repeating and

supporting his brief definition

of a Commonwealth that it is the

wheel of the community, and he

defines the community as meaning

not any and every association of

the population, but an

association united by common

sense of right and a community

of interest.

He goes on to point out the.

Advantage of definition in

argument, and from these

definitions of his he derives

the proposition that a

Commonwealth I e wheel of the

community only exists when

there.

Is a sound and just government,

where.

The power rests with a monarch,

or with a few aristocrats, or

with the people as a whole.

But when the king is unjust a.

Tyrant, as he calls him in the

Greek manner, where the nobles

are unjust, he calls such a

combination a facio, a caucus,

where the people are unjust. And

for this he finds no accepted

term, unless he should call it a

collective tyranny. Then, he

holds, the Commonwealth is not.

Corrupt, as had been argued on

the.

Previous day, but by logical

deduction from the definition,

it ceases to exist at all.

For there could be no wheel of.

The community if it is unjust,

since it is not associated by

common sense of right and a

community of interest.

Which is the definition of

community.

Thus, when the Roman

Commonwealth reached the

condition described by Salas, it

was not by now in the depth of

depravity in Salas's phrase, it

had simply ceased.

To exist according to the

reasoning produced.

By the discussion of the

Commonwealth which engaged the

leading statesman of the time.

Similarly, Cicero himself, at

the beginning of the fifth book,

speaks in his own person, and

not in the person of Scipio or

anyone else, when he quotes.

The line of enneas ancient

morality and.

The men of old fixed firm the

Roman state.

And he continues, quote this

verse both.

Its brevity and its truth seems

to me like the utterance of some

oracle.

For the great leaders could not

have.

Founded, or could not have so

long maintained such a great

state with such a vast stretch

of empire, had there not been

that morality in the community.

Nor could the morality have done

so.

Without the leadership of such

men.

Thus, before our own period, the

traditional moral code produced

outstanding men, and these

excellent men preserved the code

and the practices of their

forebearers. Whereas our age has

received the Commonwealth like a

magnificent picture which has

almost.

Faded away with age, and it is.

Not only omitted to restore it

with its original colors, it has

not even taken the trouble to

preserve what 1 may call the

general shape in the bare

outlines. For what remains of

that ancient morality which,

according to the poet, supported

the.

Roman state, we see that it has.

Passed out of use, into

oblivion, so that far from being

cultivated, it does.

Not even enter our minds.

And what about the men? The

morality has passed away through

a.

Lack of men, and we are bound.

To be called into account for

this disaster, and even, 1 may

say, to defend ourselves on a

capital charge.

For we retain the name of a

Commonwealth. But we have lost

the reality long ago, and this

was not through any misfortune,

but through our own

misdemeanors. Close Quotes st.

Augustine of Hippo, born 354 and

died in 430, is among.

As I stated before in the

opening there the most

influential cultural figures of

all time. His development of

Christian theology during the

formative fourth and fifth

century shaped church.

Teaching for at least two

millennia, ascending.

To influence as a teacher of

rhetoric in Hippo, Rome and

Milan, augustine initially

embraced Manichean religion and

later came under the influence

of Neoplatonism.

In 83 87, however, his life

dramatically.

Changed direction with his

conversion to Christianity.

After conversion, he returned to

his native North Africa where he

was ordained a priest and later

made a bishop.

As leader of the Church of

Hippo.

He preached widely and wrote

voluminous biblical commentaries

and apologetic works, defending

Christian faith against its

rivals and detractors. Along

with more personal and pastoral

works.

Such as Confessions, we'll be

reading selections.

From book Two, three and Four,

as.

I said today, of his seminal

Christian.

Apologetic, The City of God on

the podcast. And this is follow

up, by the way, to a couple of

episodes that we did last year

on City of God. This is a big

book and we're going to be

revisiting City of God quite a

bit over the coming years. We

covered book One and we also

created an introduction to City

of God. I would encourage you to

go back to listen to those and

we will have links to those

previous episodes from last year

in the show Notes, where we

covered City of God by St.

Augustine. But we're going to

delve into this.

Today because I think, as was

noted.

In the example where Augustine

is quoting Cicero and Salas,

he's quoting the.

Roman.

Pagan thinkers of his time in

order to delineate Christian

thinking from pagan thinking in

order to cleave and to clarify.

I think there is something that

can be gained from that,

particularly in our time of

mixed motives and of postmodern

discourse. Leaders are operating

in a time of chaos and confusion

and the leader who can speak the

most clearly, who can cleave and

clarify, is the leader who will

win. And Augustine gives us a

rubric, a framework to be able

to do that.

And he does it.

He does it with a little bit of

a rhetorical flourish.

So, Tom, I know you haven't

read.

City of God, which is fine. It

is a massive book, like I said.

And so I'm taking on all the

weight of that. I'm reading it

for you.

But just from that clip there

where.

He quotes Cicero who is talking

about.

The death of, or not the death

of the loss of the morals,

right.

The loss of the moral decline in

Rome. And we're going to talk a

little bit about this idea of

moral decline. But let's sort of

open up with this.

How do we talk about how we talk

about things?

How do we structure arguments

these days? This is one of the

topic areas that we are going to

talk about. I'm going to quote

extensively from a guy who

publishes for the Rational male

substac. But I want to get our

initial thoughts on this laid

down because Augustine one of

the clever things he does in all

of his writings from

Confessions.

To City of God is he demands

that.

The opponent in his argument.

On the other side of the debate.

He demands rhetorically that

that individual live up to the

logical conclusions of their.

Debate or of their position.

Right. Whatever that is.

We don't really do that these

days, do we?

No, I don't think so. And I

think there's there's also a

I've noticed over this,

especially over the last ten

years, maybe even five,

whatever, but we've lost the art

of agreeing to disagree and the

ability to have a complete

difference of opinion about a

particular topic and still walk

away friends. Right. We've

gotten to the point now where if

you don't agree with everything

that I agree with and we're

going to debate each other, it's

debate and hate instead of agree

to disagree. Right. If you don't

agree with everything that I

think, then I don't like you

anymore. I can't be your friend

anymore. I don't understand

where or how that paradigm shift

happened. Certainly wasn't when

I was a kid or as I was growing

up or even in my young adulthood

life. And it didn't even matter

whether you were talking about

the difference between Roman

Catholics and Protestants or

Democrats and Republicans or

males and female. It didn't

matter. What mattered was, to

your point a second ago, if you

could debate somebody with some

logic behind what your debate is

and you could live that logic,

then it was okay to walk away

friends. And you could just say,

you can live your way, I'll live

my way, or you can believe what

you believe. I believe what I

believe, but we still have a

common ground of X, and we can

still be friends because of

X-Y-Z-I think there's been some

definitely been some missing

teachings of that or some sort

of, like, lack of I'm not even

sure the words I'm looking for,

but it's very frustrating. It's

very frustrating to see from a

personal perspective. I've

literally had one of my children

say that to me about a

particular topic we were

debating on. He was like, I

can't even talk to you, dad. And

I'm like, you can't talk to me

about this, or you can't talk to

me because that's two different

things. You can still come to me

with your problems about life

and about finances, and, like,

you need to help if you need you

need to borrow money. I don't

know, whatever your kids do with

you. Just for the listeners

perspective. I got five kids,

and this only happens to be one

of them that this happened with.

But the reality of it is it

caused some friction that I

wasn't comfortable with. It

wasn't that I was uncomfortable

with the debate, and it wasn't

that I wasn't uncomfortable with

the topic. I was uncomfortable

with the outcome that he felt

like he couldn't talk to me

anymore because of this one

conversation we had about this

one topic. To me, that's

asinine. But again, go ahead

with your next.

Well, you and I both come from.

An era, and and maybe this makes

us dinosaurs, which is yeah,

well, you.

Know, dinosaurs eventually turn

into oil and then we wind up in

cars. That's fine. I'm down into

the atmosphere. It's fine. I was

raised with the idea that sticks

and stones will break my bones.

And you know what the end of

this is, right?

Yes, of course.

But we are now in an era, and I

can't believe it. Once a year,

and maybe this is the time of

the year. I'll do this once a

year on the podcast. I have to

do a polemic. I have to do an

apologia for free speech. Right?

And it's weird to me that in.

The year of our Lord 2023, I.

Have to do an Apologia for

something that should be

obvious. Words are not violence.

They are merely things that are

out there. Not even things. They

are expressions of objective or

subjective ideas, thoughts,

feelings, and emotions that, by

the way, exist in people.

They're the outward expression

of an internal reality.

And if I can't outwardly express

my.

Internal reality to you, how can

we negotiate reality? How do we

figure out what's real?

Goes to one of my favorite

quotes of all time, which has

been several times been

associated to Einstein, but

never proven that he actually

said it, the actual person who

said it first or whatnot, has

never been proven. But

perception is greater than

reality, right? So to your

point, how do you debate reality

when reality could be different

based on who's viewing it or

who's experiencing it? The

easiest you can argue this all

you want. People can argue that

fact is fact. No, it's really

not. Because here's the thing,

and this is the simplest version

of this.

You and I could be in a.

Room for an hour with no way of

telling the time. So no windows,

just four walls in the door. You

and I go into that room. An hour

later, somebody opens the door

and says, okay, guys, your hour

is up. Come on out. And you look

at it and go, oh, my good Lord,

that's already an hour. It went

by so fast. The same exact hour

I look at and go, that was the

longest hour of my entire life.

What rules the fact is our

perception of it, not the actual

fact. So to your point, the

debate about reality should be

continued to go on, and the idea

of being able to view things

from a different perspective, I

don't know where it went. I

don't know where what you're

talking.

About is more than just a view

of it, because a view of it is

that response after I get out of

that locked room with no clock

on it.

Right. That's the judgment I've

made about that experience.

Right. My judgment was it went

by like that. Your judgment was,

My God, this dragged okay, I

think we've confused and this is

the cleaving and the clarifying.

Right.

We have to separate judgments of

reality.

Which, by the way, are

perceptions.

Perceptions are just judgments

of reality. I think we have to

separate those from and this is

where now we get into

neuroscience and philosophy, but

from what is reality itself.

And in that thought example that

you.

Have, reality is there is a box.

With two people in it with a

clock or with no clock.

Sorry, with no clock. Is there

any deeper meaning about those

sets of objective facts? No,

there's no deeper meaning about

those sets of objective facts.

And to seek deeper meaning from

those.

Sets of objective facts is part

and.

Parcel of the challenge of human

history, which is one of the

reasons why on this podcast last

year, I did it a lot. Not so

much this year, but I believe

that the meaning crisis in our.

Culture, and particularly

Western culture in general.

But the United States in

particular, I think is the most

damaging and deleterious thing.

It's even worse than climate

change. We could fix climate

change.

We could fix global warming,

global cooling.

Global whatever, methane from

cows, smokestacks, whatever. We

could fix all of that stuff.

If we could figure out the

meaning crisis. And it's not

necessarily an issue of.

I don't think, why people take

the certain meaning that they do

from that set of objective facts

of the room. The two people and

no clock. I don't think it's the

why that's interesting, but it's

not particularly relevant. I

think what's interesting is the

what of the meaning.

And to your point, we have

those.

Two can the two whats exist in.

The same space, can they exist

and everybody be okay?

And when our whats come out as

words, they're mere expressions.

I don't know.

I'm struggling with this

massively because we're a

literature podcast. We read

literature.

Right.

We read books. And what are

books? Books are collections of

words that are about ideas.

Yeah, precisely.

And now we live in it. Well, now

we live in a time where, like,

Roland Doll is getting redacted.

Like the kids book writer.

You got people who are actively

going back and rewriting

Rolandah. Rolandal or what's her

name wrote a bunch of the

children's books for young women

that were targeted towards young

women.

Judy Bloom.

Yeah, judy Bloom is getting

rewitten, too.

So what are we.

A sure sign.

Of totalitarian tyranny is when

you rewrite the past. That's

what Salah did.

He hired people to retouch

Photos so the trotsky would go

away. We laugh about this, but

that's a true sign of a

totalitarian being unable.

To deal with another set of

realities. Yeah. And I don't

know where we go from that.

And I'm not being, I'm not being

apocalyptic on the, on the show

when we're very clear. I just

don't know where we go from

that. I don't know what the end

game is.

It's funny you say that

apocalyptic because I really do

think that sometimes we're our

own worst enemy with this stuff,

right. We get so wrapped up in

the and I think, I still think

it's part of a bigger problem

with the instant gratification

generation and all this other

stuff. That's all part of it,

right. I tell people all the

time and I say this light

heartedly, but I actually deep

down believe it. I do think

we're going to have a world War

Three. I don't think it's going

to be Russia in the United

States or the United States in

China or China. I think it's

going to be Amazon and Google. I

think Amazon and Google are

going to get really pissed off

at the human race and if they

shut those two companies down we

do not exist anymore. The

apocalypse is upon us if those

two companies decide to go to

war with each other. But it's

the same. We're a little

scattered a little bit and I'm

sure.

We'Re going to bring it on.

You'll bring us back in a

second. But I'm just saying that

this is what starts heading us

into this direction that we feel

like there's no coming back

from, right? Is the fact that

now we have these companies that

really control more of what we

think and how we act and what we

do than our parents, than our

grandparents that are teaching

us the same. Like you said

earlier, the whole sticks and

stones may break my bones

scenario. But you can't get that

from Google. You can't get that

from Amazon. You can't get that

from Spotify or now all of a

sudden we're learning our life's

lessons from these just things

that don't matter. So now we

feel like the rest don't matter.

Well here's a bake your noodle

question.

Okay, this is interesting that

you bring this up.

One of the things that Augustine

does in City of God is he

presumes that the Roman pagans

he's arguing against have free

will. It's not even a thing.

It's like air. He's like why

would we even argue about that?

Now 2000 years later we're not

on the cusp. We've been saying

for well over 80.

Years in our western culture

that there is no free will.

We're just a set of automatons

that are behaviorally programmed

and driven by either nature or

nurturer. It doesn't matter

which one you pick. We're just

behaviorally driven. And in the

last 20 years of.

The internet, particularly the

last 20 years.

Of social media on the internet,

the behaviorists who believe in

the automation of humanity would

say it's been proven that we are

automatons. Because I can get

you to click on some argument

that doesn't matter, so.

I can sell you more stuff. Yeah.

Or drive your thought process,

right?

Or drive your thought process.

They would push back against

Augustine or an Augustinian

argument, and they would say,

there is no free will. That's

BS. That's the thing that we can

get rid of. You're just a

programmed you're just a

programmed you're just a

programmed robot, basically.

Well, yeah, you're an AI with

better software, which is why we

fear our AI, by the way. That's

why.

I don't buy it, though.

And I've never bought it. And

the reason why I don't buy.

It is because I've known too

many people in my life,

personally and professionally,

and maybe you could chalk this

up to anecdote. Sure, okay. But

I know too many people in my

life and even myself, who, at.

The moment of choosing, made a

choice.

And Google is not there. Sorry,

Amazon is not there.

Sorry, Facebook is not there.

They're not there at that moment

of.

Choosing, at the moment when I

go, I'll grant you, things may

be automated. In my head, the

click were, as.

Robert Sealdini, the author of

Influence the Psychology of

Persuasion, would say, which I

do believe in the psychology of

persuasion. The psychology of

persuasion works on me

absolutely all the way up to

the.

Click were point where I have

to.

Decide, do I doom scroll past

or.

Click on that ad? But there's

still a choice there, even.

Down to the microscopic

fragment. I may not understand

what the choice is. I may not

even be a completely free actor

in that choice, but if I'm even

1% free in that, I'm.

Still a free actor.

And I don't disagree with you.

And when the scenario that we

were talking about a second ago

about whether you click it or

not click it, the problem is

that people like Google and

Facebook and Amazon and

whomever, they're playing the

odds, because the odds are that,

by the way, it doesn't have to

be a click either. By the way,

there was a point of time in the

city that I live in, and I won't

give it away. If you've seen us

on other podcasts, you probably

already know where I live. But I

won't give it away for this

purpose because it might matter.

So the city that I live in,

there was clickbait all over the

place about these protests and

these marches and all these

stuff that if you're this type

of person, you should get

involved in it. If you're that

type of person, you should get

involved in if you're this type

of a lot, just a tremendous

amount on every facet that you

can think of. Now, that being

said, I'm walking down the

street and I see this protest

happening. It's not a click, but

I might now go, oh, I'm going to

go join them, because I've seen

this so many times I've clicked

on it, I've read a bazillion

times, it's been pounding into

my brain that what they're doing

is right or for the right reason

or the right cause or whatever

that is. So now I am less likely

to walk away from that than I am

now going toward it and joining

in on this. And it's just a

programming issue. Now, to your

point, there is a point where it

is my decision on whether or not

I walk over to that protest and

join them or I just keep walking

down the street. The problem is

I don't think the question is

whether or not we have free

will. I think the question is do

we actually use it? Do we

actually deploy a fundamental

thought process that makes us

think is this for me or is this

just because I've seen it a

thousand times and I think

that's what's lacking. It's

lacking the ability. And again,

like I said, it's because right

now a very high percentage of

people in the younger

generations are being educated

by Amazon and Google and

Facebook and all these things.

Maybe not Facebook because most

of the young kids don't care

about Facebook, but you know

what I mean versus asking their

parents because that's what we

did. We went to our parents for

this information. What is this

protest about? Why do you think

it's this? Should I join it? No.

Why? We continued to ask the

why, but it was to people that

we felt trusted on that they

were going to give us the right

advice, not a click of a button

that then we had to decipher

whether the algorithm was right

or not. And I don't mean to get

amped up either. No, it is very

frustrating.

No, get amped up because this is

worth getting frustrated about.

This is the thing where, again,

I.

Think we have to cleave and we

have to clarify.

Those are the two things we have

to do. And I think that there's

another C in there along with

cleave and clarify. Without that

you get chaos and then there's a

fourth C in there. Confusion.

Right. And I do believe

fundamentally that entities,

maybe not necessarily Google and

Amazon, but the entities that

Google and Amazon pay.

Taxes to, they like chaos, which

they.

Do works for them.

And the more chaos there is,

the.

More, as Augustine might say,

immoral men. And he does talk

about the chaos of the Roman

Empire, by the way, quite a bit

in the first few books of City

of God, the more immoral men can

engage in immoral behavior.

For their own benefit.

Well, that's pretty funny. I was

thinking as you were reading oh

my good, good. The more things

change, the more things stay the

same.

That's right. And that is one of

the things that you yes, you're

reading about something.

That happened 2000 years ago or

plus or minus a few whatever,

but. A couple of thousand years

ago, and you're talking about

judgment and how judgment, it

needs to be true and pure. And

I'm like, Good Lord, how do we

not learn from this? We're still

trying to figure out how to

well, and I think that

judgments.

Well, and I'm going to get into

this today. This is another

thing we're going to bring in. I

think that that's a strength of

the west.

I don't think it's a weakness

now.

Oswald.

Well, nah, I won't use spangler.

There were thinkers let me frame

it this way. During World and

there have always been, but

World War II was the most recent

example. Well, no, actually,

World War II is.

The most recent example.

Osama bin Laden, he was a very

recent example.

Osama bin Laden fundamentally

believed that if.

He knocked out the World Trade

Center.

The United States would shrink

and run away. He absolutely

believed that.

That's why he spent ten years

yeah, seven years plotting,

planning, putting things in.

Motion, making it happen,

because he observed behavior in

1993, when the World Trade

Center was attacked the first

time, that.

Indicated to him from his

Eastern worldview.

And Islam is fundamentally an

Eastern religion. So from his

Eastern worldview, undergirded

by Islam, he believed and I'm

not saying.

Anything that isn't already

written down that you can't find

everywhere on speaking of the

Internet, you can't find

everywhere on the Internet. Just

go look it up.

He believed that the United

States would cut and run.

They were, in his language, a

weak horse. We were a weak

horse. Now in 2023, gosh, what,

like 30 years on from 1993? We

can look at the 17, almost 20

years we spent in the Middle

East.

As a failure from our

perspective in the west, but

from the perspective of Al

Qaeda, what Osama bin Laden.

Did was a massive strategic and

tactical failure. Because just

like the Japanese in World.

War II or the Koreans and the.

Chinese in the Korean War or I'm

going to skip over Vietnam

because it doesn't fit the

model. Although, interestingly

enough, all the way up to the

ted offensive in the Vietnam

War, the Vietnamese generals

even said we.

Were basically beating the pants

off of them.

And then when the Ted offensive

occurred, because of the way

that was framed in the American

media, things were able to

shift, and they sensed the shift

and were able to move ahead of

it rather than stick behind it.

So I'm going to leave that one

out because that one's a little

bit more muddy. But through even

the terrorist attack moments

from the Marine, well, the

release of the prisoners under

the Reagan administration, iran

Contra affairs, ryan Contra

affairs, all that.

All the way up to our

ignominious.

Great power withdrawal in

Afghanistan recently, all of

that, right?

Our enemies.

Look at that. And I do say our

enemies because the United

States does have enemies. But

even broadly philosophical

enemies of the west.

Look at that.

They look at all of those kinds.

Of events, and they draw

different conclusions than we

do. Yeah, true.

And we only know our

conclusions.

We don't know theirs.

So for all of this new

information we've got, the

reason why we're still.

Arguing like St. Augustine is

because we're.

Doing something that is

fundamental to how.

The west actually operates, how

Western thought actually thinks.

And it starts from debate with a

rhetorical flourish.

It starts from debating about

objective reality. It starts

from even the Ottoman Empire

noticed this when they invaded

the Hapsburg Empire. The

Venetians, right, the Venetians

were literally arguing all the

way up to the point where they

had to get a cannon to shoot at

the Turks, and the Turks were

like, at the gate. And the

reason we laugh is because.

What the hell do we do here in

America? We argue and we argue

and we.

Argue and we argue and we argue

or we argue or we argue

literally all the way up to the

point of a soldier jumping out

of a plane.

But then once a soldier jumps

out of the plane, well, I guess

we're going now. Yeah.

Don't get me wrong. There's some

very Bernie Sanders things in

here, too. I'm going to point

those things out today.

Augustine was not a fan of

endless war. But my point is

that idea of.

Argumentation and debate.

And wrangling ideas, that's

something that needs to be

preserved in the west, and

that's why free speech.

Matters.

And free will. And those

arguments are ancient to the

west. All right, back to the

book. Back to so that's our

opening. So welcome to the

podcast, folks.

Back to the book.

Back to City of God by St.

Augustine. We're going to read

book two, chapter.

Six, going to pick this up a

little bit.

By the way, the edition that we

are reading, you did see it on

the video of the podcast. And by

the way, the Full title of City

Of God is concerning the City Of

God against The Pagans. So my

version was from Penguin Books,

translated by Henry Bentinson

with an introduction by Gr

Evans.

The City of God was first

published.

In a book form, not a folio

form, in a book form in 1467.

Wow. Yeah.

And this translation was first

published by Pelican Books in

1972 with a republished reissued

version in 2003 with better

footnotes.

So back to the book. Book Two,

chapter Six the City of God.

This is the reason why those

divinities have no concern and

by the way, those divinities

he's talking about, he means the

pagan gods like Jupiter or Zeus

or Athena.

Okay?

This is the reason why those

divinities have no concern for

the morals of the cities and

peoples by whom they were

worshipped. Rather, they allowed

the most terrible and abominable

evils to have free play to the

utmost detriment, not of lands

and vines, not of houses and

property, not even of the body

which is the servant of the mind

but of the mind itself, the

actual ruler of the flesh. They

allowed this. They did not use

their awful power to prevent it

or if they did try to stop it,

let us have the evidence and we

do not want to hear general

assertions about whispers

breathe in the ears of a chosen

few and handed down by a secret

religious.

Tradition teaching integrity and

purity of life.

Let the pagans show, or even

mention the place is consecrated

for such gatherings where what

happens is not the performance

of spectacles marked by lewd

utterances and gestures on the

part of actors with a free reign

to every kind of depravity. Not

the celebration of the flight of

kings, which is really the

flight of.

All decency and morality, but

where the.

Assembled people can hear the

commands of the gods about the

needs to restrain avarice, to

curb ambition, to put a check on

lust, and where wretched men may

learn the lesson that perseus

teaches in a voice of sharp

reproach. Quote ye wretches,

learn what we men are and for

what life were born. Find out

your station in the race of life

and how to turn your corners.

Learn the limit to be placed on

wealth and learn how much to

pray.

For the good that can be done.

With the crude coin how much to

give to country and to friends.

Find out the role that God

would.

Have you play the part assigned

you in the scheme of things.

Close quote let us be told in.

What places those divine

precepts are regularly

proclaimed in the hearing of the

people assembled for worship. We

on our part can point to

churches set up for this very

purpose.

Wherever the Christian religion

is spread. There's a reason I

like Augustine, like.

Reading that kind of rhetoric

because Augustine follows a very

simple mode of argumentation and

it is a mode of argumentation

that I think needs to come back

into our discourse in the west.

To Tom's point in my own point a

little bit earlier here and it.

Could be summed up just sort of.

In this way you, meaning the

person on the other side of an

argument, have a worldview. Here

are the examples that I can.

Provide on how that worldview is

failing.

Tell me why that worldview is

better than what I have to offer

from.

My worldview and don't use my

worldview to justify yours. Use

your own.

You believe in a certain set of

things. Cool. Don't reference

what I believe to justify

yourself. This is an interesting

discourse approach, right. It

becomes the basis later on, many

years later for classical debate

and debate among classical

scholars. We live in a different

kind of time, though, where that

sort of classical discourse is

seen to be intellectual and

maybe during its own time. It

was.

But in our times, it is seen.

As being stifling or being a

sign of supremacy of either race

or intellect. Take your pick,

because of the ability to even

think through it all the way to

its logical end.

However, there is something

valuable in this mode of

rhetoric.

Leaders can learn from this

mode. Leaders can learn how to

set up an argument, how to

persuade, how to defend from

this mode of argumentation. As a

matter of fact, I would.

Encourage leaders to think about

this this way.

If you are faced with a person.

Who is opposing you in a debate.

Ask them how and where their

thought.

Process will ultimately end up.

See if they've done the logical

conclusion thing.

And by the way, if they haven't.

If they get all upset, if they

if they revert to emotional

appeals, or if they blow up, or

like Myra Burlow back in the

day, threatened to stab Jeff

Bezos once in a meeting way back

in, like, 2003, if they resort

to intimidation into violence.

And by the way, not words, is

violence, actual violence?

And I hate to tell you leaders,

you've probably won the debate.

But what have you won, exactly?

Have you convinced the other

person, or have you merely

created a stalemate? This way of

arguing, this way of demanding

that other folks justify their

thoughts, justify their

existence, without resorting to

referencing my beliefs or my

worldview is really very

interesting when you have

competing ideologies at a 50,000

foot level, but it's also really

interesting when you have

competing.

Opinions at a 50,000 foot level.

So Tom question is, have you

ever.

Tried that with your kids? I

think every parent has at least

once.

Well, yeah, I mean, that's that

whole argument. Go do this. Why?

Because I said so. You know what

I mean?

It's a little more complicated.

It's more like when they're

like, 15 to 17 and they go,

well, I want to do because of

you.

Go, okay, go ahead and try that.

Yeah, right.

And you make that face right

there.

Well, here's the thing, though.

Here's the thing with my kids,

right? Again, you find this

funny. You'll find this one if I

ever said that to my kids on the

first shot, like, if they said,

dad, I'm going to do this,

because I.

Went, you go right in.

You go try that. They'd be like,

Why? My kids would come right

back at me and go, why are you

not fighting this? Because

there's something am I going to

do something stupid? Am I going

to hurt myself when I do this?

Is there a trap door somewhere

back there?

Yeah. And maybe it's because

when they were younger, I did

similar things like, dad, can I

go climb that tree? And I'd be

like, sure, if you want to climb

the tree, if you fall, you're

going to hurt yourself. You

break an arm, break a leg. Then

you have the whole summer where

you can't do anything else.

Whatever I'd give them and they

go, you know what? I guess I

don't want to climb that tree. I

did that to them even with the

simplest of stuff, like as they

were younger. So maybe when they

got to that 15, 1617 year old

brain and it was just embedded

in them at that point to go,

wait, if dad is okay with this

right out the gate, there's

probably a problem. And

sometimes, by the way, by the

way, sometimes it was not a

problem of I might get in

trouble or hurt myself or

whatever. Occasionally it was,

I'm going to make a fool out of

myself and Dad's going to laugh

at me. So it was even simple

stuff like that, where I'd be

like, you go right ahead and do

that. I'll be standing right

here to watch. So, yes,

absolutely. I'd done that with

my children, for sure.

Okay, now, have you ever done

that.

With strangers or people who are

not your children?

Those second level

relationships, like at work or

in a larger sort of leadership,

maybe leadership context?

Because I've done that,

actually, with folks that I've

led where.

I don't lose.

Any, and this is my perspective,

I.

Don'T lose anything if you fail,

and.

If you succeed, I might gain

something.

But it's a 50 50 shot.

Yeah, I agree with you. I would

add one caveat to that in my

brain. I would try to run

through as many scenarios as I

can of outcomes to make sure

that it didn't hurt the company.

It wasn't a matter of

necessarily me being right or

wrong or the other person being

right or wrong, but this debate

and this trial and error type

thing that we're going to go

back and forth on. If there's a

possibility that it hurt the

company, I probably wouldn't

have allowed it to happen. But

if there was no risk of the

company losing ground, money,

whatever the loss would have

been, then, yeah, absolutely. I

have done that as well. I've

done it in certain circumstances

at work, in leadership roles

like that, but I wasn't as eager

to do that if I felt like the

outcome could potentially hurt

the company. Yeah, the company.

Okay, now, here's something that

I've struggled with often. Well,

not struggled with, but I've

watched other people struggle

with when I would tell them what

the thing was to do as a

consultant. So I'm going at a

company.

We'll say ace company. We'll

just pick actually, no, I'll

pick a company from Looney

Tunes, acme.

Acme.

Worst company on the planet, by

the way. Worst company.

Roadrunner should stop working

with them and cancel his entire

account. Terrible company.

That's why I tell my kids,

actually, I'm going to do a

whole shorts episode on the

leadership lessons from Looney.

Tunes coming up here shortly,

and one.

Of those is don't ever order

anything from Acme, worst

company on the planet. I tell my

kids that all the time. Whoever

the sales rep is for Acme needs

to be fired. Or it might be the

CEO, actually. The sales rep

might be the CEO, actually.

They got one account, and it's

well, it's Wiley Coyote.

Anyway, so I'm head of the Acme

company, right? Or not head. I'm

invited in as a consultant,

right? And they say, well, this

person's doing this, this

person's doing that, and.

ABC.

Thing happened, or XYZ thing

happened. And I love this line.

There were enough people around

him or her usually it's a him,

but there were enough people

around him or her to buffer the

results of this.

And so we just sort of let him

keep going.

And one of the first questions

that I ask is, why don't you let

him or her experience the

consequences of their actions?

And the second line out of that

is, well, he makes sales every

quarter.

So we can't do that. Like, he

hits his quota. Right.

And so that's a practical

example for.

Leaders of you've got to engage

in.

Some consequentialist thinking,

right? Like, people have to be

able to experience the

consequences of their own

actions, particularly adults.

And yet we spend a lot of time

in our culture and I think.

This is, again, something

relatively recent, protecting.

People, protecting adults from

the consequences of their

decisions. And I got a bone to

pick with that. Like, I really

do. I got a bone to pick with

that, because.

I wonder if there's something to

be said about the whole that is

a product of the PC environment.

Right. So you can't do this

because it's a it's a woman or

because it's a minority or

because it's like we have to

stay away from these kinds of

conversations. Because I wonder

if part of it is because of the

recent push to really what's the

word I'm looking for? I'm not

thinking of the word.

There's a word operationalize

equality.

Yeah, which you can't, by the

way.

You can't get to from here

because.

Nobody is equal to anybody else.

And equity let me be real here.

Equity is always about the

outcomes.

It's about the outputs, never

the inputs.

Yeah. Right.

Never about the inputs. When

you're trying to get equity on

inputs, everybody knows that you

cannot get there from here, even

though we don't want to say it

out loud, because there's

different competencies. People

look for different things.

There's different personalities,

there's different behaviors,

there's different responses to

consequences. There's different

reactions, there's different

thought processes. It is so.

No offering this way, no matter

how good Google is, even they

know they can't arrange for

equity. You can hope, you can

pray, you.

Can have it as a goal, but on

the input end, you can't.

But on the output end, the

output.

End, there you can you can

output for equity. You can put

in rules and regulations and you

can say, well, this thing can't

be said or this thing can be

said. This number of people has

to be hired and this number of

people has to be fired in order

to reach some mythical balance

somewhere. And by the way,

before you all.

Come for me, yeah, I happen to.

Have brown skin but that has

absolutely nothing to do with

and don't talk to me about

internalized racism or

internalized white supremacy.

Please tell your story walking

go listen to another podcast.

Please tell your story walk in.

I don't want to hear it.

I'm a rationally thinking human

being, right? And if you're a

rationally thinking human being,

there has to be consequences

because.

Equity can't equity of outcome

does not.

Work because the inputs always

drive the outcome. They just do.

And at a certain point we seem

to have lost that ability to

view human nature through that

lens. And it is a tragic view

of.

Human nature, which by the way

does come from Augustine, by the

way. The original Judaic

converts to Christianity did not

have a tragic view of human

nature. They had a very Jewish

view of human nature, which is

different. I'll just frame it

that way right now. But Paul,

first the apostle Paul and then

Augustine later on really came

on and really put that whole

like original sin, tragic view

of human nature thing onto

Christianity which lasts here

for 2000 years. And now we're

here where we don't have a

tragic view of human nature.

And we're going to do the equity

dance, which isn't necessarily

going to work.

That's an example, by the way,

if you've lasted through that

example, by the way, of

demanding that a worldview live.

Up to its own structure. Because

if we organize for a particular.

Outcome, there's going to be

consequences from that. Are we

willing to accept those

consequences?

I don't know that we are. And I

always go back to the.

Example of the plumber right in

my house. I recently had to get

some plumbing.

Done around my house.

Honestly. I mean, I live in

Texas. I don't need to go into

where I live just like Tom does

need to go into where he lives.

But I live in Texas and it was,

you know, it was four gap.

Tooth Caucasian fellows who

showed up and fixed my pipes. I

wouldn't have cared if they had.

Shown up in any other

conflagration or pick. I don't

care. Fix the pipe, right? I

want the pipe fixed. That's the

outcome that I want.

If a machine can come along and

do it, fine, I'll take that too.

The outcome that I want is that

the pipe is fixed and that raw

sewage stops flowing into my

front lawn.

Every time I flush the toilet.

It was always a terrible

situation.

It's a terrible situation.

And by the way, it got there.

Because of the incompetency of

another agency.

Which shall remain nameless on

this podcast.

Damaging the pipe and not

repairing it because of their

incompetency.

And then I found out from the

plumber guys that apparently

this happens all the time with

that particular agency, that

particular organization, and

they're running around all over

town fixing the problems that

these incompetent folks have

created all over town.

And it's a big company.

And if I said the name of.

It, you know, I can only

imagine. Back to the book

because.

Augustine is going to argue

against something that will.

Be very familiar talk about

living in.

Our own time or referencing our

own time, something that's very

familiar to us in in our own

time. So we're gonna skip ahead

a little bit. We're gonna go to

book three, chapter ten of

Augustine's City of God.

Are our opponents going to reply

that.

The Roman empire could not have

increased so far and so wide and

the Roman glory could not have

spread except by continual wars

followed one upon another?

What a satisfying explanation.

Why must an empire be deprived

of peace?

In order that it may be great in

regard to men's bodies, it is.

Surely better to be of moderate

size.

And to be healthy than to reach.

The immense stature of a giant

at the cost of unending

disorders. Not to rest when that

stature is reached, but to be

troubled with greater disorders

with the increasing size of the

limbs.

Would any evil have resulted?

Would not, in fact, the result

have been wholly good if that

first era had persisted? Here

are Salas's brief description of

those times. At the beginning of

history, the name of kings was

given to the first wielders of

power. Those kings differed in

their inclinations some exercise

their mental powers, others

their physical abilities. At

that time, men's life was lived

without greed and each man was

content.

With what he had.

Was it necessary that for the

angrandizement of empire we

should have the process deployed

by Virgil when he says, by slow

degrees his age succeeded? Age

life lost its beauty and its.

Worth declined as wars, fierce

madness and.

Lust for gain possessed men's

hearts. Now, obviously, the

Romans had a just excuse for

undertaking and carrying on

these great wars.

When they were subject to

unprovoked attacks.

By their enemies, they were

forced to resist not by lust for

glory in men's eyes but by the

necessity to defend their life

and liberty. We grant that for,

as Salas says, as soon as their

power advanced, thanks to their

laws, their moral standards and

the increase of their territory,

and they were observed to be

very flourishing and very

powerful then, as generally

happens in human history,

prosperity gave rise to envy.

Neighboring kings and people

therefore, made trial of them at

war. Only a few of their friends

came to their help. The rest,

paralyzed with fear, kept well

out of danger.

But the Romans, alert both in

peace and war, acted with

energy, made their.

Preparations, gave mutual

encouragement, advanced to meet

the enemy, and with their arms

defended their liberty, their

country, their parents.

Then when they had by their

courage.

Dispersed those perils, they

brought help to their friends

and won friendship rather than

by rendering rather by rendering

services than by receiving them.

That Rome grew great by such

conduct was nothing to be

ashamed of. But what was the

cause of that long period of

peace in Numa's reign? Was Rome

being assailed by hostile

attacks on her malignant enemies

when Numa came to the throne?

Or was nothing of this kind

happening.

So that a long continuance of

peace was possible? If Rome was

at the time being harassed by

invasions and did not rush to

oppose them by force of arms,

the policy by which her foes

were pacified without being

defeated in battle or overawed

by any warlike initiative should

have been Rome's perpetual

policy.

And then she would have reigned

in.

Unbroken peace, and the gates of

Janus.

Would have remained closed. If

that was not possible for her.

It means that Rome enjoyed peace

not for so long as her god's

wish, but for so long as the

neighboring people's wish, who

surrounded her on all sides and

granted peace to Rome when they

did not provoke her by

attacking.

Unless, perhaps, such gods will

have the.

Effuntry to offer for sale to

men something that depends on

other men's choice or refusal.

The concern of their natural

malignity is indeed to work on

the evil dispositions of men as

far as scope is given them by

means of fair, of fear or of

encouragement. But if they could

always achieve their purpose and

were never thwarted by a more

secret and superior power

working against their designs,

then peace and victory and war

would always be under their

control.

Though the immediate cause of

them almost.

Always rests with the passions

of human beings. Yet these

things generally happen against

the.

Will of gods, as is witnessed

not.

Only by legends which are full

of lies and give scarcely any

information or.

Hint of the truth, but by the

actual history of Rome. What do

we want?

More? When do we want it?

That was the cry of the pagans.

In the ancient Roman Empire. And

it is the cry all the way down

to the west to now.

Augustine was critiquing the

past in order to arrange the

future as we do now.

He was judging the past of the

Roman Empire going back to its

original founding in the BCS all

the way up to his time in the

Ads. And he was judging the

pagans for believing in gods

that would allow bloodletting in

peace. That would be just as

justified as bloodletting in

war.

Augustine was opposed to the

bloodletting period.

He's very Bernie Sanders like in

that little piece there. I could

even see Bernie saying pretty

much the exact same things

except he would replace it with

endless wars and.

He would replace references to

Rome, to America.

Augustine didn't understand

something, though, that C. S.

Lewis, a Christian writer much,

much later would eventually say,

and we cover this in Abolition

of man recently, and I quote

directly from C. S. Lewis, he

says in reality of course, if

any one age really attains by

eugenics and scientific

education which we both have in

our time and Augustine did not

in his by eugenics and

scientific education the power

to make its descendants what.

It pleases all men who live

after.

It are the patients of that

power.

We are the patients of the power

that was wielded by the people

before us and we are also the

patience.

Of the tradition that was

wielded before us. And we rub

against that tradition and.

We reject it and we judge it.

Not, of course, understanding

that we will be judged by folks

in the future and found wanting

as well. The thing that

collapses us as human beings is

time.

So Augustine lived in his time

and he was done. And this

references back by the way.

To Tom's initial example of

being in the room with no clock.

The thing that and I glad, I'm

glad you brought that example

because this is exactly where I

was going. The room with no

clock is still bound by time. We

are bound by time. I can

remember a time when I did not

have gray hairs in my beard. I

can remember a time when.

Sir.

Tom can remember a time when he

did not have gray hairs in his

beard. When I look in the mirror

I still see a 25 year old.

But when other people look at me

they don't see that the body

betrays us.

Right?

Time continues to go on and time

defeats us. But we are trapped

in this thing.

Right? We have to negotiate with

time.

And wars can seem to be endless.

I mean the ones that Augustine

talks about in book three of the

City of God he relays out almost

the entire history of the

second, first and second Punic

Wars. The civil wars that

occurred in Rome, the social

wars by the way, the War of

Spartacus, the Gladiator War. He

talks extensively about that and

about the degradations that were

committed during that time. And

this was something that for him

was recent history. He wrote

City of God, I believe it was in

three something in the fourth

century. And so this was like

literally right on his doorstep.

It was as if we would be.

Writing about American history

for people 1000 years from now.

Which leads to the question how

can.

Leaders negotiate with time?

How do we negotiate?

Yeah, I know this is a big one.

Not like we haven't been hitting

on big ones all this entire time

but this is a big one. How do

leaders negotiate with time?

Because it's going to chew up.

Everybody at the end.

I think it's funny that you say

as you were talking, not to be

argumentative, it's hard to

explain. So when you were saying

when you're talking about

physical gifts, like, or like,

you know what you look like when

you look in the mirror, you see

a 25 year old. I look in the

mirror. I don't honestly, I look

in the mirror and I am very

realistic on my view of myself.

The difference. So I look at

again, let's just take my yard

work, for example. When I was

25, it was brute force, right? I

was 25, I had all the energy in

the world. I was much stronger

than I am now. I could just blow

through a bunch of things and

call it a day and then go out

and party with my friends on a

Friday night. It didn't matter.

Whereas now I look at my yard

work more strategically.

Can I get this done?

Versus this is my time better

served doing this versus that?

And I don't think it's all that

different in the work

environment, right? So again,

when I was 25, I just threw more

hours at it. I would work longer

days. I would work more because

I didn't know any better. As my

knowledge got better and I

figured out that there was

better ways to do things, I

didn't have the strength to work

longer hours. Like right now, I

can't work a 1415 hours day,

three, four or five days in a

row like I could when I was 25.

Now I look at it and go, how do

I make that 14 hours day six?

Because I'm much better off

mentally than I was when I was

25. I think part of the problem

we have is kind of to your

point. Do we have leaders that

look in the mirror and see a 25

year old or do we have leaders

that look in the mirror and are

realistic with what they're

looking at? Because I do think

there are we do have some

leaders that look in the mirror

and they know who they are and

where they are in their stages

in their life. And they go back

and they go into work and

they're going to say, I'm going

to approach this from the whole

work smarter, not harder kind of

philosophy. Now, if anybody has

ever known me in the past and is

watching this, they're going to

know that I'm just full of crap

right now. Because my philosophy

my entire life is that I have

always hated, with the passion

of 1000 sons, that statement of

work harder, not smarter,

because I think we should be

working harder and smarter. I

don't need to go do physical

labor 10 hours a day, but that

doesn't mean that I can't use my

brain for 10 hours a day. I'm

going to continue to work hard

at getting myself better. I'm

going to work hard at educating

myself. I'm going to work hard

at getting better at certain

things, but I'm also going to be

smart about how I do it. Right?

So again, I go back to.

I.

Don'T think this should be a

debate on how do we get more

time, or it's really how do we

get more out of time. It's not

how do we gain that's.

The negotiation, though.

I got to bring.

Up jiu jitsu at least once every

podcast when I do Jiu jitsu,

and.

I am, I mean, I'm eventually

going to cleave my courage.

Actually not cleave, I'm going

to nail my courage to a post and

I'm going to go to a tournament

competition, and it's going to

be a mess.

I already know it's going to be

a mess. However you talk about

working smarter, not harder, I'm

going to be tactical, right? I'm

going to build a plan. I'm going

to work on that plan.

With my jiu jitsu coach. And one

of the parts of that plan will

be live rolling sparring with

tough opponents who are 25 at

least.

Two, three days a week. Right?

Well, I'm in my forty s, I.

Go three minutes with a live

opponent, and I'm gassed because

they're actually trying to stop

me.

And by the way, they're using

brute.

Force, to your point, because

they're 25, they're using brute

force. Meanwhile, I'm not using

brute force. I'm trying not to

get injured. And I'm also not

25. So like, I'm aware that I'm

not.

25, but at the same time, but at

the same time, my brain goes,

you can do that, it's fine.

The battle between the brain and

the body is the battle.

And as work, we see this in.

The decline of relevancy of men

in the west, or maybe should say

decline that's alarmist the

shifting of relevancy of men in

the west. The things that you

would do with.

Brute force at 25, you better be

doing smarter at 30 because the

preservation.

Of your body across time is a

negotiation.

And I don't think we've done a.

Really good job of explaining

that to people. So I wouldn't

disagree with you. I would

merely say I think you're

negotiating in two different

realms there.

You negotiate with the body and

the mind.

And it's not that I like I agree

with you. Well, I would say

this. I can work a 14 hours day.

But I'm going to be bored like 4

hours in. I'm like, this is

ridiculous, why am I doing this?

Right?

I could just get up tomorrow

because there'll be work

tomorrow. That's a brain thing,

not a butt.

Sitting in chair thing, right?

Is your brain 25? Have you taken

one of those, like, brain

quizzes where like, your brain

is 25 or your brain is 39?

Actually did do one of those and

it said my brain was 33.

Oh, look at that.

Okay.

Which, by the way, I would love

to be 33 again. I don't know

what anybody is complaining

about. At 33 years old, we could

say 25 all we want. I think the

early 30s is the perfect match

of that brain and brawn, right

like that early the early 30s,

once you get past the early 30s,

is when the brain should start

taking over.

The number one cause of injury

in old men, I'm sure you've seen

this meme before. The number one

cause of injury in old men is

them believe that they are young

men. Like, I'm sure you've seen

this meme before. I think that

temporal negotiation is also

complicated by and we talked

about this on a short episode a

few episodes back. I think it

was like 77 or 75, one of those

up in there. You can go listen

to it, but it's this idea of the

cult of youth.

Now mind you, I do think there's

a tipping point. By the way.

That's what I was going to say.

So you and I are a little bit

different in age. I'm a little

bit older than you are. And I

think that I hit that at about

45. When I was 45 is when I

really started thinking I

shouldn't be doing that anymore.

I didn't allow my brain to cheat

me into thinking that I could be

that brute force. It was right

around 45 or so that I started

feeling like because even to

your point, even in my early

forty s forty one forty, forty

one forty two, I was like, I got

this, whatever, I can pick up

that 100 pound whatever, just

throw it on my shoulder and

whatever, right? But by the time

I think there is a tipping point

now bring it back to the

leadership part of it, I still

believe that. I still believe

that there's a tipping point

where we're talking about the

difference between mind and

body. And I think in the

workforce it's mind and mind.

But I think it's your strategic

mind versus your tactical mind,

right? Your tactical mind being

brute force and your strategic

mind being in our analogy about

mind versus body, I think the

mind part is your strategy part

and your tactical part is your

body part. And I think that the

same thing happens. There's a

tipping point in your work life

where you realize to your point,

if I really put 100% effort in

for the next 6 hours, I should

not have to work the rest of

that 14 hours day. Like I should

be able to put all other stuff

until tomorrow. And I'm not sure

if it's 45. I just think that

the same rule applies that

you're going to work 100 hours a

week if you have to, until you

hit a tipping point where you

realize you shouldn't have to do

that anymore. And you start

thinking more strategy and you

start employing more thought

process that allow you to think

big picture and move objects

with a unified force versus one

person. Again, I don't know what

the age is. Maybe it's less than

45, because I do think that, to

your point, I do think we do

physically think we're younger

than we are for a lot longer.

Maybe it's the mid 30s in the

workforce where you start

thinking, all right, I'm at an

age now where the younger people

think I'm old and the older

people still don't know what I'm

the older people still think I

don't know what I'm talking

about. But I do, and I need to

kind of start shifting my

mindset to really getting the

older people to buy in and the

younger people to realize that I

am now the one to turn to for

answers.

Okay? So that goes directly to

that whole cult of youth. We

have this whole thing, and it's

so deeply embedded in our

culture that.

When you call it out, people

think you're a weirdo.

Right.

And the thing to call out is.

This we have now fully bought

into the never trust anybody

over 30 kind of idea. We fully

bought into that. Like, we were

fully bought in probably in

1985. We were, like, fully

bought in. Right.

The problem is, we know at a

practical level that the best

people to be in charge are the

most mature people.

And quite frankly, I'm sorry.

I'm glad you're 35 and you've

had some experiences. And by the

way by the way, I was saying

this when I was 35. Like, I went

out as a consultant. I started

out as a consultant when I was

33 years old, and one of the

first things I said out of my

mouth was, I'm stupid.

I'm 30 free.

I just haven't lived long

enough.

Never trust anybody over 30. Yet

every world leader is, like, 60

in their 60s. Never trust

anybody over 30. But yet we

continue to vote in 70 year olds

as president and 80.

Year olds, 70 year olds and 80

year olds. We can't even get a

50 year old in there.

Exactly right.

50 is too young. So on the one

hand, we have this never trust

anybody over 30 kind.

Of thing, but then on the other.

Hand, we have the schizophrenia

where we know are tied inmically

together and that they are both

valuable things that interlock.

And it is this negotiation

across time.

That we don't do well.

And maybe it's just a thing in

America that we don't do well. I

suspect it probably is for my

international listeners who are

in places like India and in

South Africa and in Turkey and

other places, your mileage will

probably vary.

But in America, if you're

listening internationally.

In America, for sure, we are

trapped on the two horns right.

Of that dilemma. Right.

Why do 30 year olds still listen

to Warren Buffett?

Because he knows what he's

talking about.

Right. And how come he knows

what he's talking about? How

come is it that my Instagram

feed on business? Instagram is

full of like thirty s and forty

year olds who are chasing clicks

and clout and every other

friggin.

Thing, but if you put them up.

Against Warren Buffett I'm going

to take Warren Buffett every day

and twice on Sundays.

Yeah, for sure, right? At some

point we've got to publicly.

Say, yeah, we're trusting the

old people.

I think that's hilarious the way

that you phrased it, too. It's

like we're fighting against what

we project as our thought

processes versus what is really

our thought processes.

Right.

We hide behind that social norm

of never trust anybody under

over 30. Right? Because if you

think about it, in 1985 might be

a little early. I was thinking

like the late 90s is really when

this right when the.com boom

started and the tech companies

really started because us old

folks have no idea what we're

doing in tech. Right. You can't

hire somebody in their 40s or

early 50s because they don't

know how to use a computer. You

have to get somebody under 30

because now it's all about the

under. That was a whole

millennial movement, which, by

the way, millennials are turning

40. So your own philosophy is

going to come back to bite you

in the very near future.

You will be judged by the

measure that you have judged

others, and you will be found

wanting by the standard that you

have established for others. So

be careful.

Tread lightly.

I believe that Augustine would

say the same thing.

Tread lightly.

Back to the book, back to the

City of God.

We're going to turn the corner

here.

Augustine has something to say

here in book Two, Chapter 25

that I think.

Shed some light on morals and

the.

Enlightenment project, in

addition to as we turn the

corner here, the value of

classical discourse, which is

something we've been sort of

talking about throughout this

entire podcast. So back to the

book. Back to City of God. Book

two, chapter 25 by St. Augustine

of Hippo. The Penguin Classics

edition.

Can anyone fail to see and

understand.

Unless he is one of those who

prefer to copy such gods and to

be kept free from their society

by the grace of God? What

efforts these malignant spirits

use to give by their example a

presumed divine authority to

criminal acts. They were indeed

seen joining battle among

themselves in a wide plain and

Campagno shortly before the

citizen armies fought their

shameful battle in that very

place.

For first a terrible din was

heard.

And before long, many people

reported that they had seen two

armies fighting for several

days. And when the fighting

stopped, men found what looked

like the tracks of men and

forces such as could have been

left on the ground as a result

of that encounter. Thus, a

battle among divinities, if it

really happened, gives excuse

for civil wars.

Between men and 1 may notice

the.

Malice or the misery of gods

like these. While if it was a

mere pretense of a battle, the

only purpose was to gloss over

the crime of civil war by giving

it a divine precedent.

Civil war was already underway,

and a.

Number of other loathsome

battles had already been fought

with frightful bloodshed. Many

had been touched by the tale of

a soldier who stripped the

spoils.

From one of the slain and

recognized his own brother. When

the corpse was bare, moved to.

Abhorrent to such civil strife,

he killed.

Himself on the spot and fell on

his brother's lifeless body. To

mitigate the disgust caused by

such.

Tragedies, and to inflame the

ardor for this abominable

warfare, the maligned devils,

whom the Romans thought of as

gods and the proper objects of

worship and veneration, decided

to show themselves to men as.

Fighting among themselves, so

that the natural.

Affection between citizens

should not shrink to imitate

such battles. But the gods

example might rather excuse.

The crimes of men with the same.

Astuteness the evil spirits also

commanded theatrical shows. I've

already said a good deal about

this to be dedicated and

consecrated to them, in which

the enormities of the gods were

celebrated on the stage, in song

and enacted narrative.

A man might believe or

disbelieve the.

Actual stories, but he could see

that the gods were delighted to

have such acts represented, and

thus he would feel.

Free to imitate them.

And so to prevent the idea that

wherever, whenever the poets

record fighting among the gods,

they are libeling them by

inventing discreditable stories,

the gods have themselves given

confirmation to the poet's songs

to deceive mankind by displaying

their battles before.

Men'S eyes not only in stage

plays, but even by enacting them

in person on the field of

battle. I have been forced to

say this.

Because the Roman writers have

no hesitation in saying that the

Roman Commonwealth had been

ruined by moral degradation and

had in fact ceased to exist at

all long before the coming of

our Lord Christ Jesus. They did

not blame their own gods for

this ruin, yet they blame our

Lord for the transitory

disasters which cannot bring a

good man to extinction, whether

he lives or dies.

Yet Christ's teaching is full of

instructions.

For the promotion of the highest

morality and the reproof of

wickedness. While those gods of

theirs never took the trouble to

impress such commands on their

worshippers so as to save that

Commonwealth from utter ruin. In

fact, they were more concerned

to ensure its ruined by

corrupting morality through the

baneful authority of their

example.

I do not suppose that anyone

will.

After this have the face to

assert that the commonwealth

perished because the gods then

deserted all the shrines and

altars.

Like friends of virtue disgusted

at the vices of men since they

used their.

Efforts by all those signs in

the shape of entrails, augeries

and prophecies to boast and

commend themselves as foreseers

of the future and as assistants

in battle and thus are proved to

have been present.

If they had absented themselves,

the Romans.

Own ambitions would have fired

them with.

Less ardor for civil war that

did the prompting of the gods.

I'm going to quote, as a backup.

To Augustine a study that was

recently released and we're

going to have the link to that

study.

From the journal Nature saw this

a couple of days ago and it

struck.

Me because Augustine is talking

about moral degradation in the

year, in the year of 300

something when this book was

written.

And well, we are 1700 years.

Have I mentioned the more things

change, more things are the

same? Have I used that line yet?

You have, and I'm about to give

you some scientific proof to

back this up.

So, from the Journal Nature, I'm

going.

To quote extensively or read

extensively from the abstract to

the study and you can go Google

it when you click on the link in

the show notes below the player

on the podcast. And I quote

directly from the journal Nature

anecdotal evidence indicates

that people believe.

That morality is declining.

In a series of studies using

both archival and original data,

we show that people in at least

60 nations around the world

believe that morality is

declining, that they have

believed this for at least 70

years, and that they attribute

this decline both to the

decreasing morality of

individuals as they age and to

the decreasing morality of

successive generations. Next, we

show that people's reports of

the morality of their

contemporaries have not declined

over time, suggesting that the

perception.

Of moral decline is an illusion.

Finally, we show how a simple

mechanism.

Based on two well established

psychological phenomena biased

exposure to information and

biased memory for information

can produce an illusion of moral

decline. And we report studies

that confirm two of its

predictions about the

circumstances under which the

perception of moral decline is

attenuated eliminated or

reversed. That is, when

respondents are asked about the

morality of people they know

well.

Or people who lived before the

respondent was born together.

Our studies show that the

perception of moral decline is

pervasive, produl, unfounded and

easily produced. This illusion

has implications for research on

the misallocation of scarce

resources, the underuse of

social support and social

influence.

Close quote. So you'll be happy

to know, Tom, moral decline is

an illusion. It's just something

that you believe based.

Off of the things you're seeing

in.

Your time and it's based off of

what is it?

Biased psychological phenomenon,

biased exposure to information,

and biased memory for

information. So you only

remember the negative things of

the generation you're in. And I

haven't read the whole study.

But I'm going to suppose that

this.

Is where they're going.

You only remember the negative

things of.

The time in which you live, but

unfortunately you only have

access to a limited amount of

information, although you do

have Google, but we'll leave

that aside for just a second.

You have access to a limited

amount of information that is

only based on your time in your

narrow neighborhood. And thus

the people in your narrow

neighborhood and the folks and

your neighborhood is your

generation. The people in your

generation are always worse than

the generations that came before

you.

But this is an illusion.

So you'll be happy to know that

you're under a delusion and you

could.

Just get rid of that.

It kind of reminds me so I read

this study once about

intelligence levels, right, that

every generation thinks the

generation behind them is less

intelligent because of something

they're doing, right? Some

stupid thing, some fad, whether

it's clothing or dance styles or

whatever, when the reality is

actually quite the opposite. The

reality is our intelligence

levels are actually increasing

exponentially as we move

forward. It just changes, and

it's noticeable in certain

subject matter, right? For

example, geography, right? I

watched this guy this is TikTok.

All right, here we go. But the

guy was like, this is just

interviewing random people on

the streets of Times Square in

New York City. And he said he's

asking questions like, how many

states are there in the United

States? And the range of answers

were just dumbfounding to me

because to me that seems like

such an idiotic question, right?

What's? The capital of the

United States. One person I'm

not going to say male or female,

but one person said, A. The

capital A in the United States

of America, that should be the

capital.

You know? And I'm thinking to

myself, how have.

We gone this far? But those same

people are the ones that are

purposefully tweaking the

algorithms on YouTube or TikTok

or they know how to manipulate

product placement, so they're

not less intelligent, but I

think it's just changed. So to

your point about the moral

degradation, I have this weird

suspicion that it's literally

identical, that it's the same no

matter what time or error that

you're standing in. It's just a

matter of how you interpret the

information pouring into you and

how valuable that information is

to you personally. Right.

By the way, I do think that.

There are some foundational

pieces that aren't really

degradating as much as we think

they are. I think it's the

layered moralities that we're

talking about versus the for

example, that whole treat

somebody with respect. You're

going to treat somebody as a

human being when you meet them

as a human being. That's just

natural for you to do that, to

me is a moral compass like,

that's your moral foundation is

being treated as a human being.

When you get a couple of layers

after that, that's where I think

it becomes argumented. Like, you

can argue that whether it is or

it isn't or whether the illusion

exists or not.

So Stephen pinker, the writer of

Steven Pinker, who has written a

ton of different books about a

ton of different things,

everything from linguistics to

social anthropology, wrote a

book a few years ago called

enlightenment now the case for

Reason, Science, Humanism, and

Progress.

And he asserted in that book

that.

Everything is actually getting

demonstrably better.

And he went back and looked at.

Data, data on things like

violence and murders, data on

things like the number of state

sponsored wars that have

occurred over the course of

time, the number.

Of deaths in those state

sponsored shorts.

He looked at economic data and

who was living on a dollar a day

or not who was living on a.

Dollar a day, but how much

based.

On our equivalency, how poor

people were in the past versus

where they are where they are

now. And by the way, there are

massive leaps that have occurred

in the course of human history

at a massive talk about time at

a massive temporal scale. So one

of those great leaps was the

industrial revolution. Another

great leap was the move from

feudalism to medieval feudalism

to a more renaissance, middle

ages type mercantileism. Right.

That was another massive leap.

Right.

And by the way, he traces this

not just in the west, but also.

Globally, and he does, of

course, talk.

About how and this is one of the

challenges of writing a piece

of.

Writing a book that defends the

enlightenment, typically against

postmodernism.

And by the way, the postmodern

belief is that there is no

meaning, everything has gotten

worse, and we should tear the

whole thing down, deconstruct

the entire thing and have it

fall to the ground because we're

stupid and we're patriarchal and

we're racist and we're bigoted,

the usual things. And Pinker

stands in opposition to all of

that and says the Enlightenment

project is the best. And by the

way, the Enlightenment project,

he surmises or he puts together

as the project of rehuman reason

being used to make human beings

lives incrementally better. Did

climate change come along with

that? And the melting of ice

caps? Yeah, but now we have more

people out of poverty, so we can

actually do something about

that. Or did the ability for us

to industrialize at scale allow

World War II to be the most

horrific war that we've ever

fought in human history? Yeah,

but it also allowed us to have

babies, to go off and fight.

That war so we wouldn't have to

have tyranny you. It.

Also gave way to more

democratic.

Countries in the world, along

with penicillin.

And a few other things that were

kind of important that I kind of

like, oh, by the way, I'm a fan

of enlightenment. I mean, I'm

necessarily a fan of man all the

time, but I am a fan of the

enlightenment. I do think that

collective human reason does

need to be need to be pushed.

And I do think that the

collective defense of the

Enlightenment is one of the

things that we're doing on this

podcast. I am not a

postmodernist. I don't believe

that the theories of

postmodernism have any hold. As

a matter of fact, I believe they

believe, I believe they lead to

a discourse in a meaning

discourse problem. But this

thing in Nature, right, the

journal Nature and again we'll

have that link both to Steven

Pinker's book and to the journal

in the show notes.

This idea that we believe that

morality.

Is declining for the last 70

years.

The question that I would have

for.

The journal Nature and maybe

it's exposed in the study is why

do human beings believe this?

And beyond just the bias factor,

although that's hugely

important, but why is that so

pervasive? And I think it's

because I'm going to answer my

own question. I think it's

pervasive because it's easier

for human beings to believe a

negative than it is for them to

believe a positive. And this

gets back to the whole like,

nature of fallen man and all

that kind of stuff that

Augustine sort of laid the

groundwork for, laid the helm

for 1700 years ago.

Now.

There'S another piece that goes

with this. And like I said, we

were turning the corner. We want

to wrap up here. There's another

piece that goes along with this.

And so I want to read I'm going

to go back to City of God. I

want to read our final selection

here because there's another

piece that goes.

Along with this that I want to

touch on.

I think it's very valuable for

us to understand when we think

about discourse around the

Enlightenment and around

postmodernism and even around

argumentation. So back to the

book, finally, the last section,

City of God, book four, chapter

ten. We're going to read a

couple of.

Pages in this and then I'm

going.

To read a long section about

debate because I think there's

some ideas in.

Here that need to be explored.

So book four, chapter ten, City

of God.

Why do the pagans give Juno to

Jupiter for wife to be called

sister and spouse? The reason is

they say that by tradition we

assume Jupiter to be the ether,

the upper air and Juno in the

lower air. And these two

elements are joined together.

The one above the other.

Then it follows that this

Jupiter is not the subject of

the statement, the whole

universe is full of Jupiter if.

Juno also fills some part of it,

or is it that each of them fills

both?

Elements in this married pair

are at the same time both in

both and.

In each, then why is the ether.

Assigned to Jupiter and the heir

to Juno?

And in any case the two of them

would be enough why?

A lot to see to Neptune and.

The Earth to Pluto, and they

must.

Not be left wifeless. So Salacia

is provided for Neptune,

prospenia for. Pluto, for it is

the lower part of the sky. The

air is, they say, occupied by

Juno. So Salacia has the lower

part of the sea and pro Serpina

the lower.

Parts of the earth. They try to

find ways to botch.

Together their fables, but

without success.

For if their account were true,

their.

Teachers of old time would have

spoken three elements, not four,

so as to distribute each of the

married pairs to their

particular element.

As it is, those teachers

undoubtedly asserted.

That Ether and air were

different elements. But water,

whether upper or lower, is still

just water. You may conceive

some difference, but not enough

to make it anything but water.

And in spite of all the

imaginable differences and

distinctions, lower earth cannot

be anything but earth. Observe

further that the whole material

universe is made up of the four

elements. Then when will Minerva

come in?

What will be her sphere?

What will she fill?

She was sent in the capital

with.

Both Jupiter and Juno, although

she was not the daughter of

both. If they say that Minerva

holds sway in the upper part of

the Ether.

And that this gave the poets

occasion.

To admit the story of her birth

from the head of Jupiter, why is

she not reputed the queen of the

gods on the ground, that she is

higher than Jupiter?

Is it because it was improper

to.

Place a daughter above her

father?

Then why was that equity not

observed.

In the relationship between

Jupiter and Saturn? Is it

because Saturn was conquered?

Then they fought, did they?

Certainly not. All that is

legendary gossip.

Very well.

Let us not believe the fables.

Let us have better ideas about

the gods. Then why is Jupiter's

father not given at least an

equal place of honor, if not

higher? Because Saturn

represents duration of time. So

they worship time when they

worship Saturn. And the

implication is that Jupiter,

king of the gods, is a child of

time.

Is there anything improper in

calling Juno.

And Jupiter the children of time

if he is the sky and she is of

the earth? For undoubtedly sky

and earth are created things.

And Virgil is basing himself not

on poetical fictions but on the

writings of philosophers when he

says the omnipotent father Ether

all supreme, descends with

Fekken to showers upon the lap

of his glad.

Consort, upon the lap, that is,

of.

Tell US, or Terra. For here also

they are determined to have some

difference. And in the earth

itself they distinguish Terra,

Tellus and Telemo. And all these

gods are called by their special

names, assign their own separate

functions and worship at their

own rights, at their own altars.

The earth is also called the

mother of gods.

So the fictions of the poets are

more tolerable since it is not

in the poetry of the Romans but

in their sacred books that Juno

was found not only as sister and

spouse of.

Jupiter, but also as his mother.

They make out the same earth to.

Be Ceres and also Vesta,

although more often they claim

that Vesta is simply fire, fire

in the hearth without which

community cannot exist. And the

reason why virgins are by custom

consecrated to her service is

that fire, like virgin, like a

virgin, does not give birth. All

this inanity deserve to be

abolished and swept away by him

who was.

Born of a virgin.

Is it not insupportable that

while they ascribe to fire so

much honor and 1 may say,

purity, they are not ashamed

sometimes to identify Vesta with

Venus, thus making nonsense of

the virginity which.

Is honored in her attendance for

Vesta is Venus.

How could the virgins do her due

service by abstaining from the

works of Venus? Or are there two

Venuses, one a virgin and the

other a wife? Or rather three or

one for virgins, who is the same

as Vesta, one for married women,

one for harlots.

The last was the goddess to

whom.

The Phoenicians used to give a

present earned by the

prostitution of their daughters

before they gave them a

marriage.

Which of these is the lady wife

of Vulcan?

Certainly not the virgins, as

she is a husband. Not the

harlot. Perish the thought, we

must not seem to insult the son

of Juno and murderous fellow

worker.

Then we infer that Vulcan's wife

was.

Concerned with married women.

I hope they will not imitate her

behavior with Mars.

There you go, back to fables

again. But what kind of justice

is this.

To be angry with us for talking.

Like this about their own gods

and not to be angry with

themselves for taking pleasure

in watching the god's

depravities in the theaters.

And remember, incredible though

it would be.

Were it not proved quite

incontestably that those

representations of the god's

disgrace were.

Instituted in honor of the gods.

That's how you upend somebody

else. So let me quote

extensively from a substat I

follow occasionally, called the

Rational Male by a guy named

Rolo tomasi, by the way, not his

real name.

And I quote from him, and this.

May be helpful in understanding

what I just read there from

Augustine and understanding our

entire podcast.

This is from a recent blog post

he wrote, and I quote, think

about.

What a debate is and what it has

meant in the past. The nature of

the argument has changed a lot

over time. In the past, argument

took the form of classical

discourse. This wasn't the back

and forth process we know today.

It was a rhetorical speech

intended to persuade it would be

for a single person. But

primarily the speech was

directed at an audience. After

classical discourse came modern

discourse. This was back and

forth process between two

debaters who took the

oppositional roles but

essentially engaged in a

cooperative process.

Whose goal was to establish

truth by.

Determining which cause, which

case was more persuasive. Then

came postmodern discourse. This

takes the form of a no holds

barred struggle to discredit not

only.

The other speaker's position,

but the speaker himself. The

goal is not to prove the.

Opposition wrong, but to silence

it so that one's own position

will dominate conversation. Thus

classical discourse intended to

persuade an audience. This is

important because modern

discourse intended to establish

a truth. By playing an advocate,

you have committed a logical

fallacy. Postmodern discourse

intended to establish your views

as a social standard via sheer

dominance. You are a liar. Most

arguments nowadays are

postmodern. What goes unnoticed

in the social media.

Age we've entered is we've

entered a post discourse age.

Argument itself is obsolete.

Arguments are no longer meant to

persuade. They no longer

establish truth, nor do they

determine whose views will

dominate the social discourse.

Persuasion requires a receptive

audience. Postmodern discourse

in the social media age has made

this largely impossible.

To establish truth is to test.

It's not a contest of

theoretical constructs of logic

based upon belief sets whose

worldview will influence

thinking and language is

determined by how those ideas

spread themselves.

And whose repetition they

require.

Debate is no longer relevant

either as a method, as a means

of discovery or dominance.

Who wins?

The debate is not determined by

debating. It is determined for

forces entirely external to the

debate.

This means that arguing is no

longer empowering. It is merely

a means of entertainment. They

don't want a definition of

objective truth. They want an

archetype they could agree with

or hate on to determine if.

You'Re their ideological team,

if you're on.

Their ideological team or the

opposition. And I would add to

that close.

Quote, and I would add to that

in order to gain clout or

clicks.

It reminds me I had a teacher

when I was still in I think I'm

pretty sure it was still

elementary school when I was a

kid, that told me the difference

between right and wrong was the

majority. And social media has

really made that come to

fruition, right? I don't know if

you've ever done that. I tend

not to actually get engaged on

social media with what's

supposed to be debate, right?

But it ends up becoming

vilification, right? You make a

comment on somebody's post and

all of a sudden 500 people go on

there and rip you apart. So now,

regardless of whether or not

your statement was right or

wrong or truthful or factful, if

you just don't agree with these

500 people, you get vilified.

And now that post becomes some

sort of enshrinement of why the

person who posted it was right.

I just find it fascinating that

something that was said before

the Internet was even a thing,

because that's how old I am. The

difference between right and

wrong is the majority. So if you

are part of the majority, then

you become right. That's

basically because the minority

can be bullied into just going

away. And I think that's I never

really put those two and two

together until you started

reading that. And I started

thinking about that statement

and that comment that she made,

that teacher made. And I was

like, Goddamn, we just

manifested this. We went from it

being a debate in Congress of

like, again, the Senate 51 votes

to 49 that could make create a

law and put it on the

President's just to sign. And

whether it's right or wrong is

just because it's the majority.

And we went from that to social

media vilifying. Any individual

person that doesn't believe what

these 500 people believe. And

it's strange to me that she said

that with no such thing as the

internet, now all of a sudden we

have put that into some sort of

actuality in real life, not just

in a legal sense or in making

policy or whatever, but now with

anything we do, we can have the

same outcome. It's kind of

insanity to me.

I wonder, are we at a structural

moment?

What I mean by structural moment

not pivotal. What I mean by

structural moment is this.

So on the one hand, you have

people like myself, right, who

still are Pache, Rolo, Tomasi,

and even Augustine.

I still believe in classical

discourse of a speech as he

framed it here. I also still

believe in modern discourse. I

still believe in that. I believe

in the Gore Vidal, william F.

Buckley debate idea. I still

believe in the City of God,

augustinian, I'm going to write

this thing and you're going to

deal with.

It kind of idea. I still believe

in that.

That's why we do this podcast in

the way that we do it, right?

I'm putting my money where my

mouth is. I don't engage in

postmodern discourse. If you

have something to say to me on

the internet about some episode

that I did where you found a

fence, you better send me an

email.

And it better be well written.

Otherwise I don't respond to

flames. I block and report

people or accounts. I just don't

do it. And part of that goes

back to.

Just sort of like when I began.

Really putting stuff out on the

Internet, putting content out on

the internet, I had to decide if

Rollerguys 60 4@yahoo.com was

really somebody that I was

going.

To be listening to. Do I really

care about your opinion? And the

answer was no, actually I don't.

But I do really care about Tom's

opinion. So if Tom sends me an

email that says, hey, dude, you

missed the mark and here's the

ways you missed.

The mark, I'm going to take that

seriously.

I would call you just going to

call me or you're going to text

me or whatever. Yeah, okay. Or

anybody else that we know

mutually, right? Like I could

name any of any of those people.

Fine.

Send me an email. Send me a text

message. We will have a

conversation, we'll have a

nuanced conversation and we'll

get to the bottom of it, right?

Sure.

And I think that's what we're

missing in a social clout driven

age is the nuance. And that

drives me absolutely nuts

because most problems.

Have simple solutions.

I fundamentally believe this.

Most problems have simple

solutions, but the.

Problem itself has to be nuanced

has to be believed and clarified

so that.

We can know what we're actually

talking about. But if we're not

interested in that, if we're

just chasing clout and clicks.

That'S a real problem.

And I wonder if we are at.

A structural tipping point where

we're tipping.

Into something else, or if this

is just a moment where all of us

who remember the old way.

Are just.

Sort of being put back on our

heels kind of a little bit for a

moment.

And don't worry.

I remember watching Mike Tyson

fight back in the day, and it

wasn't the Evander Holyfield

fight.

I believe he fought he fought

Riddick Bow, right? Yeah.

Ridic bow fight. Yeah. And I

remember watching it with my.

Father and Ridic Bo rocked him

and.

He went back on his heels a

little bit.

But I mean, he's Mike Tyson, so.

Like, there you go. And most of

postmodernism, most of

everything.

That goes on in social media,

it's Ridic Bow. I mean, that's

okay, but I'm Mike Tyson.

I've got the weight of 1100

pages and 1700 years behind me.

How are you going to beat that?

Right?

I wonder, as you said, that, I

started wondering in my brain. I

wonder if every generation has

had that moment because as we

talked about before, I read the

study where every generation

thinks the generation behind

them is less intelligent, when

in fact they're not. But I

wonder if that intelligence

level hits a point where it puts

that generation back on its

heels. I'm kind of curious about

this. I think somebody should

check in. Somebody smarter than

me should really look into this

and try to figure that out

again. If there's a rinse and

repeat here, if this is

happening pretty consistently,

like I said to you a few minutes

ago, millennials are turning 40.

We have millennials turning 40.

They can no longer subscribe to

the don't trust anybody over 30

thing because that includes

themselves. So that generation,

that kind of I won't say they

started it, but they really put

the power behind it and now on

their heels, right, because of

something. So I wonder I don't

know when you said that, putting

our generation on our heels, I

wonder if there's some validity

to that, but more so from a

structure of a cyclical thing

that happens pretty much every

now, then let's go one level

deeper to that and say, is that

tipping point? Has the tipping

point moved? Did the greatest

generation of all time hit it at

60 and then the baby boomers hit

it at 50? And the Gen Xers hit

it at 40, and the millennials

hit it.

You know what I'm saying?

I wonder if there's some there's

a research project here.

I agree. And maybe the journal

Nature, maybe we should reach

out to them. We should have them

on the podcast from them about

how we're not immoral to climb.

Maybe they can sort of answer

some of that or extrapolate some

of those ideas out from that

study, because I think there's

something parallel to what they

did there and what we're talking

about. Right.

I also wonder if and this gets.

Back to that old idea that

Augustine and Thomas Aquinas

with his Suma Theologica, which

we won't cover on the podcast

because it's 14 volumes. It

would be three years. It's not

going to happen. Thank you,

everybody, for reaching out to

me about Suma theologica.

I'm aware of it.

Thank you. Man spent an entire

lifetime writing it. Thomas

Aquinas did, god bless him, but

we're not doing that. I don't

have that kind of will.

But books like that,

shakespeare, which we've.

Covered on them, we've covered

on the podcast, the Bible, which

we'll be covering.

This month again, those books

sit at.

The basement of Western

civilization. They're at the

cornerstone of Western

civilization, and they do create

a by their mere existence,

whether you like the content or

not, is in irrelevancy. By their

mere existence, they do create a

framework of rhetoric and

argumentation and debate

discourse right. That people can

engage in. And maybe we're at

the end of.

And this is where maybe I take a

little hope. Maybe we're at the

end of the.

Whole Nietzsche and experiment

where there is no God and there

is no truth and there is no

nothing.

And maybe that rocked us back in

the west for 100 years, maybe

120, but I think maybe we're at

the.

End of that because there has to

be.

I'll frame it this way.

The Empire built by Augustine

and Shakespeare and Aquinas and

the Bible and Austin and all of

these people that we've.

Read on the podcast, the Empire

built by them will strike back,

and there's.

A lot of weight behind that

empire.

They got Galaxy class cruisers,

and they're going to show up,

and the Rebels.

Lose in this one. That's where

the Star Wars analogy stops. The

Rebels lose, the Empire wins,

because there's a lot of weapons

to bring to bear. And if you

eliminate that structure, then.

How do you talk about the

fundamental nature of reality?

Or even just how do you socially

negotiate across time any of the

things we've talked about today

on the podcast? How do you do

any of that without having some

context of shared meaning?

And you can't. All right, I

think we've covered a few

things.

Anything you'd like to leave for

leaders about?

Stand on the path? Any last

words, Tom?

We kind of got real

philosophical today. We really

did, didn't deeply

philosophical.

No. Again, I've been on this

with you I don't even know how

many times at this point. I love

being on this podcast with you

because I think it really brings

out all the old phrases that I

remember when I was a kid and

all the things I've been told

that I didn't even realize that

I was putting into practice, but

I was putting into practice. No,

I think it boils down to

leadership, boils down to a

simple thing of if you are true

to yourself and treat people

with at the bare minimum

respect, you'll figure some

stuff out even on your own. But

there are plenty of books out

there to read, there's plenty of

people like yourself to reach

out to and talk to about fine

tuning it. You certainly can do

more work with yourself and fine

tune yourself and become a

better leader than you are

today. And if anybody tells you

that they're at the pinnacle of

their life and they're perfect,

they're lying because you should

be literally learning this stuff

till the day you die. But no, I

think that there's a starting

point there that everybody is

capable of, which is be true to

yourself and be a good person

and treat people with that

minimum respect. And some of

this stuff you'll figure out as

you go. But again, like I said,

with podcasts like this

available and books are

available and people that are

really good coaches and out

there, you can certainly fine.

Tune it a little bit better as

you go. I agree. And I would add

that it doesn't hurt to at least

have a passing understanding of

the nature of how persuasion.

And argumentation and discourse,

which is just conversation, is

constructed. I do fundamentally

believe that the art of

conversation is being eroded.

But human beings, it'll never

fully go away because human

beings can't get away.

From it because we need it.

It's too much embedded in us.

And 20 to 30 years of

smartphones are not going to

overcome millions of years of

evolution or if you're not an

evolutionist, thousands of years

of human civilization.

There's too much there. There

the foundation. The concrete is

poured too deep for leaders. You

have a responsibility to know

how to construct a conversation,

how to persuade, how to

communicate and how to engage.

In discourse beyond merely just

telling people what to do,

barking out a few orders and

expecting them to be obeyed.

Sometimes you've got to convince

people.

Sometimes you have to provide a

structure so that people's faith

can be rewarded.

To paraphrase from Bad Man

Begins or maybe it was a dark

night, it doesn't matter. It's a

really good line.

I'm a sucker for a good turn of

phrase, as you all know.

I also think that morality may

not be in decline, but there is

definitely.

A shift going on. And if you can

feel it in the zeitgeist, if you

could feel it.

In your well, I'm going to use.

The word that Augustine would

use. If you could feel it in

your.

Soul, that's something to pay

attention to. That's an alarm

bell.

It's indicating that there's

something that you have missed

as a leader that you need to fix

or some way in which you have

wandered off the path.

And now you need to figure out.

How to get back on it, not just

for yourself and for your

community, but also for the

people that you lead. Hopefully

this podcast can help you do.

That during this month of June

and.

Every other month that will come

afterward. I want to thank Tom

Libby for coming on the podcast.

Want to thank you for always my.

Pleasure wrapping his arms

around this very challenging

book.

And there's there's like 30 some

odd.

Or 40 some odd books in actually

22 I'm sorry, books in City of

God divided up into smaller

chapters.

Again, it's 1100 pages.

So we'll be revisiting this

further on down the road.

But until that time, them well,

that's it for me.