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

90. In regular counting, you're 10 episodes

away from our big, big one-hundredth

show with our no

longer a semi regular co host. Now he's just the co host

Tom Libby. How are you doing Tom? I'm

doing fantastic, Jesan, thank you, I love the new introduction, it's so much

better. Well, you're no longer semi regular, you're no

longer just wandering in off the street.

I'm just a fixture now. Now you're just a fixture. You're now just a picture.

Yeah. You're just in a picture on the wall. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Like, like the,

Like the posters behind me in the video, spot gas, which you can't

see if you're listening to the audio and you should be watching the video on

YouTube, by the way. So today,

we are going to open up. This is now January of 2024,

so I'm gonna time stamp date this podcast right here.

This is January 8, 2024, and we're going to open our

big election year and everything else that's going to be going

on during 2024,

with a book that focuses,

us as listeners and as readers and as leaders

on the platonic roots of the democratic ideals

about justice, leadership, character, and society

that have built the west and that have heavily influenced,

America, so heavily influenced America and so

heavily influenced, thinking about America that we

don't even think about this book anymore. It's

one of those books kind of like Shakespeare or the Bible that

we just sort of accept as being

part of the general conversation.

Those ideals and their impact on Writers leaders' conceptions of

themselves and their place in the chaotic now

of algorithms, public distrust of leadership and the

growing sense that the, quote unquote high watermark of the

destructive fourth turning in America. And I'll Explain more about that as we

go along, maybe behind us in the United States

also are going to be the focus of our conversation today.

So today we will be reading selections

from the Republic of Plato.

Now I'm not going to go into the authorship

of the book because I don't really need to, it

actually stands alone, and you can find many, many open

source versions of the Republic of Plato,

online. It has been studied and read for

the last 2,500 years ever since it was published

by Plato, who was a student of the philosopher Sorrells.

And it is a Socratic, perspective

on a whole lot of things. And we're gonna cover a lot of those or

many of those today. Now we will not be reading the whole book because

we can't, there's just no

possible way to do that. And so we will be reading selections from that, and

we will be getting Tom's insights on The Republic of Plato, a book that,

a book that he did not read in college, I believe. Is that correct? That

is correct. I've read excerpts of it throughout my

My, you know, you know, expanded life, but it's

expansive. I don't know whether I'm ready for it. But,

I have read excerpts of it, but I've not read a cover to cover. No.

Okay. Well, fortunately for Tom, I read a cover to

cover in college, and, and, the book,

I won't say it deeply influenced me, but it did definitely helped me make

sense of many things that I saw. In the culture

and in society. And some of the chaos that,

Well, some of the chaos that I was observing when I was in college 20

years ago. And, it is also a book and this is going

to be part of the focus of our podcast this year. It is a book

that lays the foundation for us to be able to begin to talk

about solutions rather than constantly noodling and

philosophizing on the nature of problems.

Which I do believe we've done quite enough that.

So I'm going to go ahead and open from the Republic of Plato.

The translation that I have, and again, you can go pick up any translation

floating around out there. All of them will be basically the same. And of

course, there are open source translations all over the Internet, that you

can go and get. And so I'm going to open up with,

chapter 6 in the Republic, where

Socrates is laying out his perspective on the

rudiments of social organization. So we're going to start there

today. Now, the

way that this book is structured. And I was explaining this to Tom when,

Well, before we started, before I hit the record button is this book is

structured as a conversation, Writers? So, 1 person is

talking to another Jesan, and you know,

traditionally the way a philosophical Argument is constructed when 1 person's

talking to another. There are no quotations. It's not

drama dramatized. You know, it's not Shakespeare. It's a it's

a philosophical or a Socratic conversation between 2 folks.

So I want you to imagine as you listen to this in the theater of

your mind, I want you to imagine 2 individuals in

great ancient Greek robes, sitting on top of hill.

I was talking to each other. Was it Was it supposed to be assumed that

Plato himself was talking to Socrates in this? I I I I saw

that somewhere that it was supposed to be, Mhmm. Like that that that you were

supposed to make that assumption as you read it. Is that something that you've got

us the same? Okay. Alright. Yes, exactly. Yeah. And, or, or the

very minimum that Plato was was sitting at Socrates' feet

as he was going back and forth with all these folks, eavesdropping

on the conversation. Right? Got it. Yeah. And so

the way in which this book is structured is structured like that.

And so the excerpts are going to are going to reflect that as we go

today. Alright. So I'm gonna open up with, with

Socrates speaking, to a, to a fellow named

Glaucon, right, in, in chapter 6 on the rudiments

of social organization. I will tell

you, we think of justice as a quality that may exist in a whole community,

as well as in an individual. And the community is the bigger of the 2.

Possibly then we may find justice there in larger proportions easier

to make out. So I suggest that we should begin by inquiring

what justice means in a state, then we can

go to look for its counterpart on a smaller scale in the individual.

That seems like a good plan. He agreed. Well, then I

continued the, I meaning Socrates. Suppose we

imagine a state coming into being before our eyes. We might then be

in be able to watch the growth of justice or of injustice

within it. When that is done, we may hope it will be easier to find

what we are looking for much easier. Shall we try then to

carry out this scheme? I fancy it will be no light undertaking, so you would

better think twice. No need for that, said Ade Montes. Don't waste

any more time. My notion is said I,

that a state comes into existence because no individual is self sufficing.

We all have many needs, but perhaps you can suggest a different origin for the

foundation of a community. No, I agree with you. So

having all these needs, we call into, We call in one another's help to satisfy

our various requirements. And when we have collected a number of helpers and associates

to live together in one place, we call that settlement estate.

Yes. So if 1 man gives another, what he has to give an exchange for

what he can get, it is because each finds that to do so is for

his own advantage. Certainly by the way, pause, this is

exactly how sales books. Even 2,500 years ago,

back to the book. Certainly very well said I. Now let us build upon our

imaginary state from the beginning. Apparently it will always exist just to

our needs. The first and greatest need being the provision of food to keep

us alive. Next, we'll want a house, and thirdly, such a

things as clothing. True. How will our state be able

to supply all of these demands? We shall need at least 1 man to be

a farmer, another a builder, and a third a weaver. Will that do or shall

we add a shoemaker and 1 or 2 more to provide for our personal

wants? By all means. The minimum state then

will consist of 4 or 5 men. Apparently

now here's the further point is each one of them to bring the product of

his work into a common Tom. Should our 1 farmer, for example, provide food

enough for 4 people and spend the whole of his working time in producing corn

so as to share with the rest? Or should he take no notice of them

and spend only a quarter of his time on growing just enough corn for himself

and dividing the other 3 quarters between building his house, We think his

clothes and making his shoes so as to save the trouble of sharing with others

and attend himself to all his own concerns.

The first plan might be easier, replied AdeMantis. That may

very well be so, said I, for as you spoke, it occurred to me for

one thing that no 2 people are born Accly Alike. There are innate

differences which fit them for different occupations. I

agree. And will a man do better working at many trades or

keeping to 1 only keeping to 1. And there

is another point, obviously work may be ruined If you let the right time go

by the workman must wait upon the work. It will not wait upon his leisure

and allow itself to be done in a spare moment. So the conclusion is that

More things will be produced so the work will be more easily and better done

when every man is set free from all of their occupations to do at the

right Tom. The one thing for which he is naturally fitted.

That is certainly true. So, we shall need more than 4 citizens

then Tom supply all those necessities we mentioned. You see, Enomantus,

if the farmer is to have a good plow and spade and other tools, he

will not make them himself. No more will the builder and weaver and

shoemaker make all the implements They need so quite a number of carpenters

and Smiths and other crafts who must be listed. Our miniature state is beginning to

grow. It is Still, it would

not be very large even when we have added cowherds and shepherds to provide

for the farmers with oxen for the plow and the builders leaders well as the

farmers with the drawed animals and the weavers and shoemakers with wool and leather.

No, but it will not be very small either. And

yet, again, it will be next to impossible to plant

our city in a territory where it will Libby no imports. So there

will have to be still another set of people to fetch what it needs from

other countries. There will. Moreover, if these

agents take with them nothing than those other countries acquire, They will return as empty

handed as they went. So besides everything wanted for consumption at home, we

must produce enough goods of the right kind for the foreigners whom we depend on

to supply us. That will mean increasing the number of farmers and craftsmen.

Yes. And then there are these agents who are to import and

export all kinds of books. Merchants, We call

them, we must have them. And if they are to do business overseas, we shall

need quite a number of ship owners and others who know about that branch of

trading. We shall again in the

city itself, how are the various sets of producers to exchange their products? That was

our object. You will remember informing community And so laying the foundation

of our state, obviously they must buy and

sell That will mean having a marketplace

and a currency to serve as token for purposes of exchange. Certainly.

Now suppose a farmer or an artisan brings some of his produce to market,

at a time when no one is there who wants to exchange with him. Is

he there to sit idle when he might be at work? No, he

replied. There are people who have been We've seen it opening here for their services.

In well ordered communities, they are generally men not strong enough to be of

use in any other occupation. They have to stay where they are in the

marketplace and take goods for money from those who want to sell

and money for goods from those who want to buy.

That then is the reason why our city must include a class of shopkeepers.

So we call these people who sit still in the marketplace to buy and sell

in contrast with merchants who travel to other countries. Quite

so. There are also the services of yet another class

who have the physical strength for heavy work, Though on intellectual

grounds, they are hardly worth including in our society. Hired

laborers, as we call them, because they sell the use of their strength for

wages. They will go to make up our population.

Yes. Well, Adi Montes, how is our state now grown to its

full size? Perhaps. Then where shall it find

then where in it shall we find justice or injustice?

If they have come in with one of the elements we have been considering, Can

you say which one? I have no idea

Writers, unless it be somewhere in their dealings with one another.

You may be right, I answered. Anyhow, it is a

question which we shall have Tom face.

And it's a question we've been facing for the last 25 100 years ever

since Socrates ran that thought experiment on Anemantis

and, and Glaucon sitting outside underneath the tree.

We haven't gotten any better books, and this is the irony of

the Republic of Plato. The

arguments that Royal our society and Royal our culture

arguments around. And this is why I started with justice or injustice,

but really begin with the formation of the state, really

begin with our human

struggle on what does justice actually mean, which is why

the republic starts with this concept of justice, moves backward to the state,

and then moves forward as we are going to move forward today towards what of

man, and it was all men. Sorry, ladies. What

type of man will be in charge of the state? We're gonna

talk about that because those ideas, what

type of man, who's going to be in charge of the state, what is the

state comprised of, And of course, what is justice and

injustice have been be doubling us as human

beings, but most notoriously been be doubling us in the

west for the last 2,500 years.

And of course, Albert Einstein said upon the creation, notoriously

upon the creation of the atomic bomb, that the solution to this

problem lies not in the atom and not in technology or

science, but in the human heart,

which is something that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle

were all groping towards, but couldn't

quite grasp. Not until somebody else came along a

little bit later, but I'll leave that aside for just a

moment. So, Tom, I'm

going to open up the election year of 2024

with what is the state? What is justice? What

is injustice? What is virtue and knowledge? How do we

locate this in people? And so I'm gonna go all

Socratic on you here, and I'm going to

propose that we, on the podcast today, We Develop A

State. But, of course, it will have old human

problems with new technological chaos in it.

I think I think one of my I think one of my favorite, the one

one of the few excerpts and one of the favorites I read, like, so

when Sorrells was asking, I forget who it was asked, but it, like

actually, I think he asked several people. I don't think this was 1 conversation with

1 person, but, Like, before you do all of that, can you,

like because essentially, this this is

predicated on on justice or injustice, right? Most of this is all predicated

on So he and and he asks people to

define it, right, so define justice. And there was every time

somebody came to him with an answer that they thought was sufficient, He would

rip it apart. Right? Like, he would rip it and say, that can't be defined

as justice because of this and this and you have that and that. And and,

again, I I don't I can't quote it, so I I don't know the verbatims,

but I will tell you they're there. They're in there, and I I can't remember.

But but so So how

do we how do we go forward with even having this conversation if we don't

even know what that definition is first. Right? So Right? One of the one of

the things that that, I I think back to

a statement that a that a lawyer, an attorney said to me one

time Going through, we'll just call

it a a a a negative state in in in the legal field,

right? And he said he said to me,

There's only 2 outcomes you can ask for. Anything else

anything else is unfair. Right? So he said either Book

parties are unhappy or both parties are

very happy. Anything else means that it didn't work.

Right. Right. So I'm trying to I I try to think of that in the

same, like, cadence as what Socrates was talking about

justice. And so if you think about, It's

essentially agreed upon fairness, right? Like, so something

justice is basically A predetermined

set of fairnessness, so to speak, right? So,

you know, I I I bring if you think about what he was talking

about with, the start start of his state where I'm gonna be a

farmer. I have all these crops. Have enough crops to feed my family, and I

have this leftover. I can trade them away. And as long as I'm

happy with what I get in return, That's fair and just. Right? Mhmm.

But it's not for it's not for you to decide what's fair and just,

it's for the 2 parties involved to decide what's fair and just. Mhmm. So

it's all very individualistic. It is. Which, by the way,

is is one of the knocks that I hear When people start

talking about socialism in our in our current government and world,

in in in in country, right? Like, we want all this we want all

this socialism, but If just if

justice and fairness is determined between the 2 parties at hand,

then how can you expect the entire village or the entire state to be

okay With the same justice that you're okay with. That's why

it doesn't work. Right? That's that's why we haven't been able to figure

this out yet. And and and by the way, the same rule

applies if you're talking about the 2 parties

being myself And the state government or myself and the local

government or myself and the police officer that just pulled me

over. It it's the 2, Whatever the 2 parties are defined

as, but that doesn't go outside of that conversation and

that those 2 parties. Mhmm. So my my

the way that I interact with our government and the way that you interact with

our government are two different things. Right. So how do you your

definition of justice and mine that's why Socrates could never get the real answer from

anybody. Right. Well, and that's why also he was notorious to

everybody. He was notorious for walking around

saying that well, not notorious, but, you know,

claiming that he knew nothing. Yeah.

Yeah. Which, you know, Plato and subsequently Aristotle,

mostly Plato, latest at the feet of Plato. Plato,

you know, defined that as

a species of wisdom, which we're gonna talk about today also on the podcast. Right?

How do you get to wisdom? Because

the the idea that there was a

definitive answer to these questions,

doesn't exist, and yet and this

is the old the other irony.

Socrates was put on trial

and and and took the hemlock, by the way,

volunteered to take the hemlock because he was considered to be a

gadfly among the young who was disrupting the state.

By walking around claiming he didn't know and asking a bunch of prodding

questions that drove people crazy. And you could, and by the way, you pick up

some of that tension in the Republic, you know, you pick up some of that

tension where people, particularly Glaucon, at the beginning of the

first 2 chapters, is very frustrated

with Socrates constantly poking

him and asking him basically variations of the same

question in order to get to clarity.

This reminds me if if anybody has ever raised a kid, this

is this is the this is the 3 year old. This is 3 year old.

Hey. Hey. Don't touch that. Why? Well, because you're gonna hurt if you touch

that. Well, why? Well, because the knife is sharp. Well, why? Because we need

sharp knives. Why? Like, they just It's infuriating. Right?

This is this is Sorrells was a 3 year old.

And he'd probably be okay with that, actually. You're right, like, that's it, Steve, like,

yeah, you're exactly right.

Well, and when you think about sort

of his dialogic way of talking. It's the

the Socratic method. Right? His way of teaching, teaching through questioning.

That is something that quite frankly a lot of people struggle

with. I think there was a rare moment in the west, And I

would maybe put it in the era of Victorian England,

maybe, where that was actually sort of accepted

and sort of viewed as a as a as an erudite way

of learning or an erudite way of thinking, but that's

all gone. This is dead as gone as dead as dead

and as gone as the Victorians are. And

We are we are back Tom, not back to, we have returned

to the Jesan. And the mean is don't ask me questions,

just accept the answer. When I give you the answer for what justice is, don't

ask me any questions. Yeah. Or or when

or you or on the opposite, When I Defined What Injustice is, Don't You

Dare Question Me. Yeah. It's

that, I just had the the,

Like, I'll you know, your opinion is what I is what I say it is,

like, that kind of scenario. That that's that's like, I

I I I remember with my uncle, it was

it was basically my uncle's definition of the military. Right? When we went into the

military, he goes, I said, what was what's it like being in the military? He

goes, my my what's it like being in the military? It's very simple. They tell

you your opinion and you agree to it. That that's it.

Well, it is, it is the whole, it's the whole

idea of, I'm even just doing, and

it is the thing that befuddles folks sometimes about this podcast. It's

the whole thing about thinking,

right? And and, you know, I

kinda opened up with saying, you know, we're not going to continue to

philosophize about the nature of problems and we're not.

Because I do think that at a certain point Tom paraphrase

from Billy and Murphy as Robert Oppenheimer in Christopher

Nolan's great film, Oppenheimer. At a certain point, you do have to move from theory

to practice. Who just won a Golden Globe, by the way. Yes. I

did see that. I that does but that doesn't bode well for the

future. I don't think he's gonna win an Oscar because people win Golden Globe. When

we lose the Golden Globe, they don't win Oscars. They don't they don't win Oscars.

It's gonna be the Barbie movie or some nonsense anyway.

Yeah. Anyway,

so I, but I, but I, I, so I think that while you

have a lot of words, we have a modern, I actually said this today

in a different context to a bunch of different people. We've

had 30 years of an explosion of words

digitally, Just the word number of words that have

been thrust into the cultural zeitgeist, not just in America, but

globally has exploded. It's been ridiculous.

But I'm not sure that those words mean anything.

And that's the thing you kind of get to when you read Socrates

because at a certain point, and by the way, you also get there when you

read the vibe or when you read Shakespeare, right? When you read these, these,

these cornerstone books of Western

thinking, You get to this idea

that maybe all the talking that's going

on is meaningless noise.

And maybe that would have been something that Socrates would have been frustrated with as

well. Because are you truly getting to any insights here or you just

blabbing to to blab?

I mean, we as a species just enjoy to hear ourselves talk, so I think

you're just blabbing the blab. Like, I think that that you're right, but that's but

that's par for the course when it comes to humanity. Like, but Tom

most people just like Like like right now, I'm not

letting you interrupt me because I just like here no, I'm just kidding. I'm kidding.

Like, but but in reality, it is like a human thing, right?

Like, do you like Even people, I I introverts, people who

don't like to interact with other people, but if you are 1 on 1 with

them and you ask them a question, they'll run off For quite a while talking

about whatever they wanna talk about.

I picked up a book, over the holidays, And we'll go back

to the book here in a minute. We'll go back to the republic in a

minute here, but, picked up a book over the holidays called The Art of Listening.

It's a sales book. Okay? And,

and the structure of the book it's

written from the perspective of an automotive essays Jesan.

Writers? Who's a car dealer, basically. And it's teaching it's a book that teach teaching

car dealers how to listen rather than talk. And weirdly enough, it was

written, a couple years ago, but it seems like it was written for an

audience in the 19 fifties. Yeah. So I

don't know what's going on there, but The

author emphasizes that if you listen to

people, you will be able to figure out what they want and give it to

them. And that that is the most

important part of selling, not constantly talking.

You're a sales guy. What do you think of that theory? I

actually teach it all the time, like, almost almost verbatim, and I'm I I

don't I I've I know the book now, but I've been training

salespeople for almost 20 years and that book wasn't around when I first started,

But but the philosophy was, and we were always told, you know,

you know, the, you know, you have 2 ears and 1 mouth for a reason.

You're supposed to listen twice as much as you talk. Like, that's a

essays, like, 101 kinda thing. So the

problem lies in where the, like, where the magic

happens is Knowing when or

or knowing what you're listening to, making making sure that

you're actually Paying attention to it. See, that's

the thing. Most people think of listening as just not talking and that's not the

same thing. Like, actually listening, Listening to understand,

listening to have, an

actual, like, gifted response

rather than Listening to simply respond,

writers? Like, there's a big difference behind that, and you you

you can't sell anything without Talking, like that just doesn't happen. So you have to

be able to speak to people and and and understand and be able Tom

to Tom express to them that you're giving them what they

want, there's an art to that. But I do think you definitely need to

listen a lot more than you speak in essays, for sure. That's That's that's

been around for a very long time.

Wonder what Socrates would think of that.

I think you would like it only from one perspective. The here's here's here's the

because, again, in in sales, when you're you're taught to You're

taught to you're taught to you're taught to jab. Right? Like, so

meaning, you ask a question, the customer gives you the answer rather

than responding with, Oh, you wanted this is what you

want, this is what we got. Right? Like, instead of you jab, you ask

them a follow-up question and more in-depth, Well, you asked, like,

you just continue on a path of these short questions to just try

to get them to explain more and more of themselves and their thinking

to you. I think Socrates I think this is what he did anyway.

Socrates was the 1st salesperson on planet. Yes. He

just he did the same thing. He needled And jabbed and stuck it in

there and just wanted to pull out more and more and more and more data

from people. He was that's all he was looking for. He was looking for fodder.

Like, he was just looking for that that just whatever

he could put down on paper to to get people to to get fired

up. So so, Okay. So was

Socrates' death the ultimate death of a salesman? Probably,

yes. Like,

well, it's hard to use the death of a Sandler salesperson in my opinion. No.

I'm just Wow. Wow. It's all of our it's all of our Sandler sales are

out there. We love you. No, no, because like I I had this conversation with,

like, there's a, the methodology behind, Sandler is to,

it it is, that is the methodology is to keep prodding and, but but But

here's the here's the clear the clear difference from what I teach and what Sandler

teaches. If somebody clearly tells you a a

definitive Yes or no state like, something that, like

or or a question that you should have a clear answer Tom. Like, for

example, Jesan. How much does it cost?

And Sandler would say, tell me why that's important to

you Or why why, you know, what no no no. I'm asking you a very

just tell me what it costs. I'm asking you a quest just asking you a

direct question. I don't need I don't need that's the problem. That's

what Socrates' problem was. Right? Because if somebody asked you a direct

question, answer it and then, like, I would in that same scenario,

So, Tom, what does it cost? Well, it costs this, but why does

that matter to you? What are you looking to gain out of either reducing podcast

or, like, what is what What does that matter to you? Tom explain

to me why you're asking that question. I would still answer their question though, which

is what I think Sark Tom your point, why Sarkar Readers the death of a

Sandler salesperson, he just decided never to answer the actual question. He

just, kept, you know, beating around the bush. Anyway

And he and he drank the hemlock. So, I mean, you know, that's that's the

other that's the other challenge there. Alright. Now for all you Sandler training people

out there, I'm I'm not assuming that Sandler training is bad, so please don't

Rip the comments apart about his sidebar. I was

just just making an observation here. We love Sandler training

systems. We love all training Sorrells from Zig Ziglar to

whoever with Sandler. Yeah. We have no problem with anybody with

sales. Please, you gotta get out there and sell yourself. You gotta you gotta get

out there and do something. And if it works for you, it works. Just put

it on. Exactly. That's right. Now we're

going to move ahead here a little bit in,

in the in, the Republic. And, we're

going to we're gonna skip past, Socrates'

description of the luxurious state, which creates

which is the which is the and this is sort of where the republics meet

really really exists, which is This idea of,

the state as a place where,

where children can be born, who have a prudent

fear of, poverty or war, and

they do not act or, or, or behave beyond

their means. And then Socrates gets into the

idea. And, and, and some of this people

believe is, is Plato putting his ideas in Socrates mouth,

less Socrates himself. But either way, both men have sort of

merged together on this.

The idea of how do you tame a spirit, how do you create a

leader, in a luxurious state where

everything is provided for other than, and

well, not everything. Yes. Where everything, every material, where every

material need is provided for.

And now we have to be concerned about moral laxity,

which we don't talk a lot about that on this podcast, but it does

undergird some of the conversations that we do have. And so we're gonna talk about

it a little bit directly here as we

read about the guardian's temperament in chapter

8 of the Republic of Plato. So back to the

book. Don't you think then said

I, that for the purpose of keeping guard and by the way,

keeping guard is how they're describing leadership For the purpose of keeping guard,

a young man should have much the same temperament and qualities as a well

bred watch. I mean, for instance,

that both must have quick senses to detect an enemy, swiftness in

pursuing him, and strength if they have to fight when they have caught him.

Yes, they will need all those humanities and also courage if they are to fight

well, of course, and courage in dog or horse or

any other creature implies a spirited disposition. You must have

noticed that a high spirit is unconquerable. Every soul

possessed to up. It is fearless and indomitable in the face of danger.

Yes. I've noticed that. So now we know what physical

qualities our guardian must have, and also that he must be of a spirited

temper. Yes. Then Glaucon, how

are men of that natural disposition to be kept from behaving pugnaciously

to one another and to the rest of their countrymen.

It is not at all easy to see. And

yet They must be gentle to their own people and dangerous only to

enemies. Otherwise they will destroy themselves without waiting till others

destroy them. True. What

are we to do then? If gentleness and a high temper are contraries, where

should we find a character to combine them? Both are necessary to make a

good guardian, but it seems they are incompatible, so we shall never have

a good guardian. That looks like it.

Here, I was perplexed when I'm thinking over what we have been saying. I remarked

that we deserve to be puzzled because we had not followed up on the comparison

we had just drawn. What do you Jesan? He asked. We never

noticed that after all, there are natures in which these contraries are

combined. They are to be found in animals and not the bulls and not the

least in the kind we compare it to our guardian. Well bred dogs, as you

know, are by instinct, perfectly gentle to people who they know and are accustomed to

and fierce to strangers. So the combination of qualities we require for our

guardian is after all possible and not against nature.

Evidently, Do you further agree that besides

this spirited temper, he must have a philosophical

element to his nature. I don't see what you mean.

This is another trait you will see in a dog. It is remarkable how

the creature gets angry at the mere sight of a stranger and welcomes anyone he

knows Though he may never have been treated unkindly by the 1 or kindly by

the other, did that ever strike you as curious? I had not

thought of it before, but that is certainly how a dog behaves.

Well, but that shows a fine instinct, which is philosophic in a true sense.

How so? Because the only mark by which he

distinguishes a friendly and an unfriendly face is that he knows the one and does

not know the other. And if a creature makes that the test of what it

finds congenial or otherwise, how can you deny that it has a passion for knowledge

and understanding? Of course I cannot.

And that passion is the same thing as philosophy, the

love of wisdom. Yes.

Shall we boldly say then that the same is true of human beings? If a

man is to be gentle towards his own people, whom he knows, He must have

an instinctive love of wisdom and understanding agreed.

So the nature required to make a really noble guardian of our

Common wealth will be a swift and strong spirited and philosophic,

quite so. Given those natural qualities then, how are these guardians

to be brought up and educated? First, will the answer to

that question help the purpose of our whole inquiry, which is how to make out

justice and injustice grow in a state? We want to be

thorough, but not Tom write off this discussion to a needless length.

Alaucon's brother answered, I certainly think it will help. If so, I

said, we must not think of dropping it, though it may be a rather long

business. I agree. Tell them then. We will take our time and educate our

imaginary citizens. Yes. Let

us do so.

How are we to educate

our guardians?

Or to paraphrase from Whitney Houston back in the day, I

believe the children are the future. Teach them well and let

them lead the way. Show them all the beauty they possess inside.

Yeah. How's that working out for us?

Sorry. I just, no, no, no, no, no. This is the core. This is what

it again, 2,500 years of us arguing in the west over

2 questions. And and we're gonna, we're gonna tussle a little bit over these 2

questions right now. What sort of men or women should

a society have? And then

the 2nd question, which no one wants to talk about

these days, because this is a touchy one, but it is the only, it is

one of the only 2 questions really we're talking about. What kind of

worldview do we want those people to have?

Do we want them to have a secular

scientific rationalist worldview? Do we want them to have

a religious, a religious theocratic,

theological minded worldview, or, or do

we want to Find the mystical third way. Remember when bill Clinton talked about the

3rd way back in the day? Remember that? Yeah. We're gonna find a 3rd

way between those 2, except there is no 3rd way.

But this is the argument we've been having in the West for 2,500 readers, and

it's sharp at America because Tom your point about individualism, There's

315,000,000 individuals in this country and they all have an

opinion about what sort of person should be

not just an American, but what sort of person should be produced

by an American society? And this is of course why the Greeks

hated democracy, not hated, but they were, They, they looked at a side eye

at democracy. And that's also why we

don't live in a democracy. We actually live under a Republican small R Form

of Government. We don't actually live in a democracy.

Because, well, anyway, There's a whole lot of practical reasons,

which we'll get into in July, when we discuss our 4th, our 3rd

round of going through the declaration of independence and the constitution. Now we discuss all

the more, all this recent Supreme court decisions that will be coming out in July.

We'll get into all that down there. Point is.

These are the 2 core questions. What sort of men or women should

a society have? And from immigration to education, this has been

the struggle of America. You and I both have

backgrounds of people that didn't, that I won't say that didn't come from here, but

like didn't come from here and then came here and mixed with everybody else.

Right. You have a background of people who were here

and then mixed with other folks who showed up for other places. What

sort of men or women should a society have. What

kind of people do we want to create?

Well, I think it's hilarious actually in the way in the in the

first, in the first Excerpt that you read

where he describes who the society will quote unquote need, right? Right. Oh,

yeah. Because he's not wrong. Like, you need farmers and Be like, you need

those people that are gonna produce food. You also need people

that are gonna, you know, facilitate those relationships with

Foreign entities to get the stuff that you can't I mean, there's no place on

the planet that will produce everything a society needs. It just doesn't

exist. That does not exist. Back, you know,

back into the, like, essays,

you know, before governments even existed, we had

trade, Like, right? So, like, in in in when it when we were all

tribespeople, never mind the the Americas or, like, there were at one point,

the entire world was covered with tribespeople, And they've still had trade and

barter with because of things that they couldn't produce themselves. So I'll do you

one better. If the entire Internet goes down, because World

War 3 breaks out, which I think we gotta talk knock off all that talk,

but okay, fine. Let's walk down that road a little bit. If that

actually breaks out and we're all nuclear Armageddon into wherever.

It'll take us about 5 minutes to get back to trading things. Oh,

absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, you see it. It's depicted

in every apocalyptic movie ever, ever.

Like, they're they're they're giving us The road map right there.

When this world goes to kapalooey, guess what?

The, you know, the the idea, the idea of paper

money or coins is gonna be irrelevant. Nobody's gonna care.

They're gonna care about the clothes on their back and the food in their stomach,

the house over their head. How do I get those Mad

Max. They're having wars over gas. Exactly.

They're having wars over they're having wars over the simplest stuff because that's That's what's

left. Right? Like Gas and water. Yep. Anyway, like,

there's there's a lot trading for gas and writers. We will be. Like, that's just

that's what will happen. There's a lot of depictions of that.

Yeah. Because because that writers. Because that exists outside the

state. But, again, even in those societies, you see this in the

the one of the the show is on. We don't need we don't need an

over an overseeing government to tell us what to do or how to do that

either, the way. Yep. Like, that's the other part of it. Because that over that

overstating, that goes away. Let's see. Right. We don't need you. We're just we're

gonna do our own thing.

It'll be it'll be a bunch of people and the survivors all left just screaming

who? And then just walking away. I know exactly. Well, I don't I don't

understand. But when you see this in The Walking Dead,

so I I didn't I watched the 1st season of that show and I made

it through about halfway through the 2nd season before I was just done. I was

finished because there was too much caterwauling about, like, we gotta get back to the

world as it was. I was like, come on, give me a break. I I

couldn't I couldn't buy into that. But fundamentally in The Walking

Dead, I mean, you see this, you know, there's a disaster

that shows up, and

The, the, the societies, the many societies

that are set up. And I found this out after readers, you know, stuff from

other people, but the many societies that are set up inside of

that, or, or subsequent to that apocalypse

are of course consumed with the idea of

what sort of men or women should our society have, who is in and who's

out. And this is what Socrates is

talking about, who's in and who's out. How do we educate them once we've

decided that they're in? Now that's a 2nd order question, but the 1st order question

Jesan, what kind of people will we have?

I think I think the easiest the simplest version of this,

right, is as long as it's

a variety, you'll be okay. If you have 5

people that are all doing and saying the same thing, you're not gonna be okay.

Right? Like, I I I just book again, let's let's take

this Tom one step Further. Right?

Sure. You society's gone. We're an

apocalyptic state. All I have is

my family with me. Mhmm. Right? I feel like we're

gonna be okay. My son and I know how to hunt. We can know how

to we know how to, We we can get food out of whatever animal we

get. We can get clothing out of the animals. We know how to tan hides.

Certain things about that, we we know how to do. We have You know, there

are other people in our family that know how to sew, they know how to,

like, how to create things out of, like, we we will be okay

Because of our family unit has a diverse level of

knowledge when it comes to survival outside of

Societal Norms. Sure. Now part of that, again, Haysan has led,

you know, as as alluded to, for those of you first listeners to the

podcast, My, you know, my background and culture, my family is Native

American. We have, and we still to this day teach some of

those old ways. So we, now,

We have people that can drive, we have good negotiators, we have

people in our family that have been, you know, they've been doing they've owned their

own businesses, like, so again, As long as you have a variety,

I don't honestly, I don't even care what the variety is. You have a

better you have a better shot at survival If you have a

variety of personnel and personalities, then if you do if you

have 5 auto mechanics or 5 plumbers

or 5 or 25, You know, you

know, carpenters. I it doesn't make sense. Dara, say

you're talking about a diversity of skill sets. Yes. So it's a diversity

of skill sets. I think personalities matter too though, because

I'm I'm just saying, if you if you don't have somebody that can challenge the

status Cool. Even within your own, you know, group. I mean,

again, go back and watch the rest of the 842 seasons

of The Walking Dead. Sorry. I'm sorry. I know. You're right.

Yeah. And all the spin offs. Good lord. All spin offs. Right? I I want

I watched the 1st 4 seasons. I couldn't get past the 4th, You know, after

the 4th season, to me it just became very repetitive. It was the same thing

over and over, same story lines over and over. But anyway, but

but If you have all if everybody thinks alike,

you tend to be very stagnant in your in your in your

ability to, to to to plan, to

project, to alter course, to you're very limited.

If you have a diverse personality group and a diverse skill set,

It's easier to start making adjustments as you

go because you get input from different people, you get input from different

philosophies, different thinking, different, like, And then you can make the best group decision

you can make based on all of the information presented to you.

Now let me push back on this because this is the pushback on

that. And this is pushback that I hear from,

interestingly enough, because what you're describing fundamentally at a small

level is the American experience. That's a or

the American experiment. That's that's fundamentally what you're describing, but at a at a very

micro or macro level. Yeah. You you are. You don't think

oh, you're okay. You don't okay. Doesn't work that way. It doesn't work that way

in the news. Well okay. Go ahead. Go ahead. Well, okay. Okay. This this is

where the pushback books. So so so if I'm observing

your small group from the outside

And for a time, there's some things that are getting

done, like decisions are getting made, things are moving forward books great.

And at an indefinable time in the future, you're going to

hit something that your group cannot overcome. I might

be something material, it might be something psychological, it might be something, dare I say,

spiritual, whatever. Right? It's gonna be those one of those big 3.

Right? And your group, and this is what someone

from the outside would say observing, who

maybe comes from a group that's more, Shall we say

homogeneous in your group?

They're going to look at that moment where you hit that chaotic

disruptive piece. And

they're going to predict, I'm not gonna say they're correct, but they're going to predict

that you're gonna fall apart because you have too many divergent

voices with too many divergent skill sets, and then

splitting and breaking fracturing, dare I say, will occur

and then the whole experiment falls apart. And that

is one of the major knocks against America these

essays, that we've been yelling at each other with chaos

for the last 20 years and that we are rattling and

almost falling apart. And in some

cases, some folks would go so far. And by the way, this is for much

more homogenous societies than others. China will knock us this

way. Scandinavia, Finland will knock us this way, Russia

will knock us this way. And yet

and yet, There are other folks

who will say, don't mistake

the chaos and the argumentation for

the thing falling apart. Because when the decision gets

made, click, they're gonna go in that direction. They

always have. Right?

But when you're going through that chaotic moment, it doesn't feel like you're going to

click. True. Now again, I I I think there

there's also there's reasons why on a on

a bigger scale, you have way more hurdles In my opinion that you do on

a smaller scale, right, of course. So because societies

in general have survived that way for

1000 of years before the formation of real governments. Right.

Yep. Again, I go back to tribal people whether it was, you know,

across Asia or, you know, for Australia,

Africa, United States, when they were tribal people. They you

know, to your point, It it could be it it becomes chaotic

when it becomes when it gets to the point of, now I need to bring

people together to make a decision. Let's have a discussion about it. I need everyone's

counsel, so you're gonna tell me all the pros and cons. You see you tell

me all the pros and cons. You see, and we're gonna make a decision based

on all of this collectiveness, but once we make the Decision we go.

There now that being said, you still did have that occasionally

where again, I I rather than think of 1 family unit, of it

more of a tribal unit. Let's say there's a 1000 a 1000 people, right?

Mhmm. You might have somebody so butthurt

that they take their 2 or 3 family units

that that encompasses 50 people out of the 1,000, and

they go, we're just gonna go this way anyway. Mhmm. And you say, Good luck

to you so long. And that's it. That's the end of it. That Tom me

is not fractioning and falling apart. That's a single piece

of of your of your body that that goes a

different direction because they feel strongly about that. And then

if their success and failure is now on their own, like, they

They get to decide on their own success and failure, but their decision making process

is gonna be the same because they they just saw They just saw and

learned what all of this they're they're gonna try to make whatever their

50 person unit. They're gonna they they think it's gonna be better,

But it ends up being the same. And they grow their

50 to to a1000, and they have the same thing that happens. Right. And then

there's a fracturing again and so on and so on. Right? Right. But with, like,

with the United States and and and our government, there's

actual, you know, documentation that says that that's not, quote, unquote supposed

to happen. Now that's not suggesting that at some point in the to

your, your, your barometer earlier

in indefinite A time in the future, the United

States could look at this and go, hey. Listen. We're gonna be, you know, we're

gonna we're gonna separate the 4 different countries because we just can't get our shit

together anymore. Excuse my language. Can't get on the same page. You know, this,

you know, this northeastern part of the country is gonna be 1 country.

Southeast, northwest, and southwest. We're gonna divide it into 4 countries. You

guys go do your own thing and and and be done with it.

I I'm not suggesting that I could never see that happening. I just I mean,

I don't In my lifetime, but I'm saying if if

the if the feces were to really hit the fan, I could see that

happening to some degree with the, you know, the northeast,

southeast, northwest, like, just Well, fortunately for you in the next

segment, I've got a I've got a balm for that that Gilead,

I got Book from Gilead for that wound. That's because

I because I think we're at the I think we're I think the feces has

already hit the fan. I think we're out of the feces fan hitting moment. I

think, I think we are, we are, we are. We are

just on the other side of past that, and don't get me wrong. There

still might be more in incidents of that. I mean, back, we have an entire

year to go through here. This is why we're starting off with the republic.

But I don't think I do think we've reached, we reached the high watermark of

all that nonsense in 2020. I actually do. I'm sorry. I know that

some people disagree with me on that and I think that I'm Pollyanna ish.

You've been with me, you know, well over 2 years now in

various projects and a year on the podcast. I don't think, I

don't think I strike you as being a Pollyanna. Doctor. No.

So I'm cautiously optimistic. Let me, I'll frame it

that way that we're crossing the other, we're

crossing the other side of the river on something. I think a decision has been

made. There is a click that has occurred. And I've said it on before on

the podcast, and I'm gonna keep saying it because I do think it's happened. But

I think the the manifest station of that in the

body politic and in decisions. It's,

it's gonna be the lag. It's the lag part that we're going through right now.

Yeah. Yeah. And so the, the lag always includes

whatever the hell chaos was, was that you just came out of and

all of your memories of that. And then you gotta, You guys snap

to wherever the, wherever the next decision is, but

we're still consumed with the idea or we're assuming the idea. We're

still sort of dancing around the question. What sort of men or women should a

society have? What sort of character or temperament should they have? And, and

Socrates, you know, leans into wisdom. And we're going to

read another section in here, which talks about what the specific,

what the specific pieces are like wisdom and, and, And,

specific character temperaments, which we never talk about character anymore, either, which is a

shame, but what kind of character do we want to want,

Want those people in that little tribe to have, do we want them to have

a character that is conformist or do we want them to have a character that's

nonconformist? Do we want them to have a character that's patient

and, and, and full of, what do you call it?

Gentleness and meekness and kindness to, to, go to the the book of

Galatians in the bible, or do we want them to have a

character that is more war like an authoritarian

and, and competitive.

Who makes that decision about what kind of people we're going to have

because Socrates would, would imply.

And Plato supports this, But Socrates would

imply that the state is the one that creates the guardians

and is responsible for the education of the young. As a matter of fact, he

goes on about this for quite some time in talking about sort of

what comedies, what plays the young should watch, and that there should be

censorship in the arts. He wasn't a big Fan of the artists, by the way,

and the creatives because they got away with too much. So

and and he and he also believed that creativity in the arts was way

more influential than formal education on shaping the character of the

young, which is another thing we don't like to talk about.

Could you imagine Socrates today watching movies and and cinemas?

They're like, oh, the apocalypse is already here. Look at that. Yep. It's already here.

God, that would be, he would yell in Greek, what the hell, and then he

just walked out. He'd he'd be he'd be searching for a hemlock shop somewhere,

anywhere. It's gotta be something. You know, it's

funny that you say it, like, it's so hard to to

picture yourself, like, being like, agreeing with somebody who was alive 25

100 years ago. Like, thinking that, like, there's

just certain pieces of it that I can see, like,

how his fear came to fruition. Right? Like like when he talks about

to your point, like, when he talks about, you know, the the arts being

more influential than formal education, think about that for a second. We start

watching television shows at 2, 3 years

old. Our formal education doesn't start till 5 or 6.

He's right. Like, we're being influenced now. Great. If you have

awesome parents and they have you watching educational shows at a very young

age Or at least shows that are supposed to be

educationally entertaining or whatever. I don't know. Mhmm.

Sesame Street comes to mind, you know, like, 123's ABCs. Like, they're teaching

you that stuff. Mister Rogers' Neighborhood. Mister Rogers' Neighborhood. Yeah. Stuff like that.

Great. Where or as if you're off watching, like, some random cartoon that's

just some mind numbing Mickey Mouse thing or whatever. I don't know.

Sorry, Disney. I'm I don't mean that, but you know what Tom But it's like

but, like, he so he's he's right to that respect. So, like, should there

should we, as a society, have more censorship over that programming,

which, by the way, was the whole point of PBS in the 1st

place. Like, if you think if you go back to, like I forget. Was it

Nixon or, no, No. It wasn't Nixon.

Carter. I think it was Carter. Carter. I think it was Carter. I think you're

right. I think it was Carter. I know it was around that era. It was,

like, seventies where somebody went, Oh, we should spin up a TV

a TV channel that is really for educational purposes, and we said everyone said, oh,

great idea. And now look at it. Book

watches it by the way. Like, you know, it's like and it still has quality

of TV, but I I still find myself watching some of the

documentaries on PBS Thinking to myself, I wish everybody

watched this. Like, there's certain just there's just good it's good television, people. I'm

just saying PBS Does some book, some good stuff, but- Well,

that- but that- but that rubs up with- that rubs up against the idea

of autonomy and independence.

True. Does the state

this is the whole point of the first amendment. Does the state

make a law

requiring certain things around speech,

which goes directly to education, goes directly to entertainment, goes directly to everything,

or or or does the state and this is what the founding

fathers would say, is the state agnostic on that?

Matter of fact, they're agnostic. No. Right. They're they're not, but but, again, we're

going to what the we're going to we're going to what the principle is. Right?

Is the state agnostic and you're

gonna let, to paraphrase from chairman Mao, a

1,000 poppies bloom. I

think they tried their damndest to get

the happy medium, writers? The best of both worlds, which is why now

Everything you turn on has a rating on it. Right. You know,

it'll say why, you know, why 7 or whatever. Mhmm. They're they're at

least trying to inform parents. They still give the the

developers of those programs the freedom of speech, and they can do whatever they want

as long as you list it and label it as to what it is. And

then parents have the, have the,

the wherewithal to either elect or not elect and let their kids watch

it. So In in a

way, the state is responsible for doing just that, what Socrates

is talking about, and saying, this is what you should be watching.

Now if the parents Throw caution to the wind and say, I'm gonna

let my 5 year old watch Freddy Krueger or whatever, like, whatever r

rated horror movie. Let's not do let's let's not give it to Freddy Krueger,

forget that, forget that. That that's okay. That's Freddy Krueger,

sure, forget that. We had in the

1880s, 1890s, 1900s, 1910s,

1920s, 1930s

1930s, a mere 90

years ago. Now.

Leaders. I know. Right? I did that math in my head just by

myself.

We had children as young as 2 3 years

old Attending Hangings and Lynchings.

Don't talk about Freddy Krueger. Don't talk to me about art over

there. Like, people wanna talk about the good old days as if there was

some, like, magical halcyon place.

Let's have a real honest conversation about the good old days. Do you want

your kid attending a hanging or do you want your kid watching cuties

on. Or do you want your kid picking up a stone

because that's they're part of the community?

Like, like, do you really do? Yeah. Yeah. But this is, but this is, this

is creating this, but this is the, this is the, This is the

can of worms that Socrates opens by

talking about what kind of people we want to have as guardians,

What kind of people do we want to have in the state? And by the

way, you're writers. There are only certain levels of people that he believed were capable

of handling education. So

men, okay, landowners, okay, and

then the Romans took it a step further and said, who served in war? Women

were out. They weren't part of the franchise. Okay?

Children were literal property.

Literal property. Matter of fact, in ancient Greek

culture, they did not have a conception of homosexuality or

pedophilia in the way that we conceive of that sort of thing.

The the the philosophy or the theology that gave us that

idea that that might be a Not a great thing,

that child's not maybe property, was Christianity.

They were really the precursors of that and

Judaism, like Jerusalem met Athens and all of a sudden Athens

went, oh, particularly Athenian women,

went oh, oh, oh,

oh, that means we have to protect our kids. Oh, and that also means we

have writers. And then Athenian Men went and jumped off a cliff somewhere.

Someone said, release the kraken and they just all fell. Yeah. I was just fell

in the water. I I I kid,

ladies. I kid. But it's taken a

long time in the West for us to work through these ideas of who

has franchise and who doesn't. And the most radical I still

will say those radical country on the planet that has taken this idea of franchise.

We're even doing it with gender now. We're the most radical

country on the planet because we've taken this idea of franchise

and we've blown the doors off of it,

which I believe would shock Socrates. It would shock you talk about

television, I don't think he'd be shocked so much by that

as by the idea that all of these folks get to

vote and get to have a say in the demos. They get to

have a say in the democracy. To him, that would be

outrageous because what sort of person has a

society produced who goes

and attends and takes their kid and goes and attend to, I'm gonna go to

the least controversial one in my example list there, takes their kid to go see

a hanging. What sort of society is producing that kind of person who doesn't

know morally that they shouldn't not not religiously,

not based on Jesus, based on Greek philosophy knows they probably

shouldn't probably not a good idea to take that kid to go see, by hanging.

What kind of society produces that, that, that essays that's okay. That

would bake his gourd. Yeah. True. I I

got no rebuttal. I I I think that would I think that would really

but but well, it's making the noodle of people who are around now. So

Okay. Worldview.

We can make this short. What kind of worldview should a

leader have?

And by the way, I've been holding on to this question for you since we

started talking about Shakespeare last year. I've been holding my powder

on this question for you because I have an idea of the

answer to it, but I wanna hear what your ideas.

You know, it's so it's so weird. Like, I never really gave

and I I don't I don't give much thought to that because

I'm so,

I book, my kids and I have this conversation a lot because my

son will come home and be like, Dad, did you read the latest thing that

somebody said over in China or Ukraine or whatever? And I'll go,

and how's that impacting you right now? Like like, what what exactly

what changes in your life if that really happens?

Whatever that is. Again, whether, you You know, whether Russia drops a

nuke on Ukraine or China decides to, you

know, blow up Taiwan, whatever. Right? Like, whatever the whatever the

The or, you know, I think one of his latest ones was something about,

like, a Chinese war vessel coming too close to an American

or some I don't something like that, and I was like, and? They do that

stuff all the Tom. You just don't know about it because it's not, like, but

the fact that it's being published today is now impacting your day like, you're allowing

this to rent space in your head. Why don't you let people that know a

little bit more about what's going on worry about that instead of you? Right? Like,

so And and Sorrells like, well, don't aren't you worried about

this starting a a a world war blow? And I'm like, nope.

Nope. Here here's my I I I I don't think there's a country on the

planet that wants to see the entire world blown to smithereens, so they're

gonna do all do anything in in their power To not have World

War 3 happen. Like, they've already seen this twice.

They've read that book. They don't like the outcome. They're not gonna do it all

over again. Now that being said, Not suggesting that everything is copacetic and everybody's,

you know, singing Kumbaya around the campfire. I I get I'm not I'm you know,

I'm realistic. I know that the United States and China are never gonna have a

great relationship. The United States and Russia are never gonna be best

buds. Like, it's not like it's not like the bullying in the in the

the the coming of age movie where The bully picks on the kid, the

kid fights back, and now they're best friends, like, that's not gonna happen, writers? Like,

we know that. But what we do know is that, Here's

my, I'll move on. I'll try to answer your question in a second,

but I also feel like

It's gonna stay like this for

all time until we have some sort of

external existential crisis that Forces the

human race to think of each other as a human race and not as Russian

or Chinese or American or like,

We all bleed red when we bleed. So what, like, I think it's

gonna be like, again, go back to the movies. It's gonna be some alien

invasion or Some Tom hitting the earth that wakes us

up to realize that we should be thinking of this as

a a worldly unit instead of individual countries. And if we

solve this, whatever problem is coming at us, then we're

gonna be better off for it. Then we're gonna be better off as a, as

a world for it. Right. You do know that there will still be you do

know there will still be those people though that will claim it's all a conspiracy

from the new world order and and and and that the reptilian

aimed leaders are, like, nonsense from Klaus

Schwab. You know that you know that. Right? There aren't going to be that commodore

people who are going to be like, I don't wanna go along with your new

glorious utopia. Yes. I get it.

Alright. Yeah. Yeah. But Answer the question. But, again, so so

so in that so in that case in that case, right, so you asked me,

what kind of leader do I want? Right? Like, what kind of world Yeah. What

kind of world view do you want your leader to have? So

so I essentially And And by the

way, world doesn't have to be in the global world. It could just be the

world of, like, their backyard. Well, no. No. No. No.

I I I was thinking there's a first. Right? Because Okay. Because if you think

about it, like, everything else can work backwards because when it comes to my

home, I can be a little selfish, but I don't wanna be selfish when it

comes to My city Mhmm. I could be a little

selfish with the city, but not selfish. Mhmm. When it comes to the state,

the selfishness should go even further away and and so on and so

So it becomes it becomes to a point where, like,

it's it's almost like I want them to put I want

their worldview to be humanity first,

our country second. You know what I

mean? Like, it like it's like it's like it's almost like a hierarchy of of

thinking as opposed to just a linear view of thinking.

Because, Again, the best way I can describe it is

the local politicians in my city, they're my neighbors, I

know them. I can walk, I can pick up the phone and call them and

say, Hey, I don't like the way you voted on this, I need, like, what's

going on with this? They can talk me through it 1 on 1, You're when

you talk about so so I can I can get I have a much firmer

grasp on our local government and how it impacts me on a day to day

basis? Again, go back to my conversation with my son. Mhmm.

China sending a destroyer or whatever

their warships are called Buzzing by a

US fleet does not change what my

grocery prices are at the grocery store Tomorrow. No. But the

tax hike that my local government pushes or

whatever Mhmm. Book. Good. That impacts me immediately. Writers?

So something that impacts me immediately, I expect them to

have more or I expect to be able to be worried

about more. How does it impact me? How do I work on this? It doesn't

impact all of humanity. It impacts me personally, 1 on 1. It

impacts me. As I go up the ladder on

Governmental Sorrells, I'm

more worried about how it impacts the selection of me's

And not necessarily me personally because more times than not,

it a decision they make, again, would it go from

local to state? It's still there. Mhmm. Like, our state

government impacts me a little bit. They change, they change a tax

law or they change some sort of, You know,

speed limit on the on a on a on my favorite road or whatever. Like,

yeah, that can impact me a little bit, but it impacts More of our gen

localized society. So our localized society should

be should be your thought process when you're trying to make that law.

Our federal government essays the more removed you are from the government

level, the more I want them thinking about the whole and

not the individual person. Right? Like Okay. So that and so

to your to your question about the worldview, I I really think that our world

leaders in general, all of them, not just the United States, I think all of

our world leaders Should be thinking about humanity first. What

is good for humanity as a whole and then what is good for my

country? But that's definitely not the way they think. Right?

But if they did if they did, I think we would I think the world

would be a better place. I think we'd well, and I think I think

some of the bedeviling problems that we consistently

yell and scream about.

For instance, this idea of,

social justice, right? Which is, which is an all consuming

idea, now in our in our particular

cultural moment, and

diversity, equity, and inclusion, and, you know, know, who gets to be the president of

Harvard and whatever. Okay. Well, you know, I had

to drop that in there because Like, I was waiting, I was waiting for

it. I have some thoughts on that,

but that's neither here nor there. Well well, actually, no. You

know what? No. What kind of person do we want to

lead Harvard? What kind

of person do we want to lead IBM?

What kind of person do we want to lead any of these

multinational corporations and or,

public private entities like Harvard that have

endowments of over $1,000,000,000 or that

where the CEO is making $50,000 a

month and runs a small country.

Yeah. What kind of worldview do we want those folks to have? Because

those books. Pache politicians to your

point, politicians having a worldview that focuses on humanity the higher up

they go. Okay. I I I I I might push back and

poke a little bit on that, but in general, Okay. I can go along with

that, but when we talk about a multinational

fortune 500 company where the

person is is Jesan behaving as if they are a

politician or a president of a small country,

but they do not have the posture of being oriented towards

humanity even though they may say they do. To

paraphrase from Elon Musk, I am also tired of people

who want to look good, but do evil. Mhmm.

I've also had enough of that. Yeah.

So, you know, I don't have the power to change

that just as as we do in politics, Stop buying their products.

Right. Exactly. But we don't. You know, we don't because,

you know, whatever. Samsung has the best technology on the phones or iPhone

or Apple has the best music selection. Whatever that whatever

your whatever your justification is because

that impacts you Personally. Right. Right?

Like, so Right. Right. Right. And so what kind of people do we we we

we cannot get away from this these these 2 questions being locked together. What

kind of worldview do we want people to have and what sort of society do

we want to, to have produce these kinds of

folks? And by the way, This is why people keep reading the republic,

and this is why it is so influential because these questions run

through everything from politics economics, to warfare. I mean, we've talked about

all of this. Cultural entertainment, all of it. It's it's all

impacted here, which means it's, of course, what

is not discourse? These 2 questions locked together are

of course part of a human problem.

Regardless, by the way, even of time and climb. You know, they're reading the Republic

of Plato, you know, in in the

Muslim world. They're reading the Republic of Plato in Argentina. They're

reading the Republic of Plato when it's not censored by the

state in China.

So, you know, I mean, it's it's these

dialogues, these kinds of conversations, and and by the way, there is

no right answer. Socrates would say the

the conversation itself is the answer to the question because we have

to talk these things out. Otherwise,

authoritarian guardians will come in, authoritarian leaders will come in,

and just set up a leadership. Yeah. Which, by the way, the Romans

really liked. By the way, by the way, there

are there are companies, and and you can you can there's plenty of other

podcast that talk about this, but and you hear our Our

mutual, our mutual colleague, JP, talk about conscious capitalism all the

time. That's the the Patagonias of the world that are really

trying to put humanity first. They don't always succeed, and they're

not perfect at it. So I'm not suggesting that go go, you know, go buy

all Patagonia products because they're the best company in the world. I'm not suggesting that.

I'm just saying that companies like Patagonia are at least

putting forth the effort where to to your point

where you're done you're not just trying to make it look good. You're actually physically

trying to do the right thing. And and For sure. Whether you succeed or

fail, sometimes is not the most important thing to a consumer.

But the fact that you are Doing that, you're trying. I think if more

companies kinda bought into this Patagonia style of of

thinking, we might make some impact. But again, it it's the

consumer that forces that issue, by the way. So we as consumers have the

power to look at a company like IBM, PepsiCo,

Coca Cola, any one of these giant companies and

say, we're just not gonna buy your products anymore until you until you start

looking at this From a global perspective and and a and a humanities

perspective. Well, and I think that is already starting to happen. A matter of fact,

I think that's been happening for the last 10 because what you're long in that,

the very first instance of conscious capitalism brought to the attention was

1984. Okay. 1984. Okay. Going back to 1984,

but I don't think it really hit, hit, It

hasn't hit it hasn't hit it. It hasn't hit it. It hasn't hit the launching

pad till about 5 years ago. Right. Writers, and I and I think

that that the the thing that was missing in 1984

that really got ramped up probably about 5 or

6 years ago, is the ability

of individual people to understand how social media works

Yeah. And to socially connect with each other in smaller and smaller

groups further and further away from the dominant center.

So you're seeing this all over the place. You talk about conscious capitalism.

Okay? It's also happening in,

various Christian sects in the United States. They're falling apart

left and right. Yeah. But you've got Pastors

who draw no more than a 100 bodies to their church,

who are publishing their sermons on YouTube and are generating

millions and millions of views, and people are

connecting to them who never would go to that church.

Right. Yeah. Right. So the

majority report may say

Or no, the majority report may include large

organizations like Patagonia that's been doing what they've

been doing since they were since they were first founded, right, back in

the 19 eighties. But that report also has to include

All of these other smaller entities that have popped up because of the

nature of connection with social connection. Now people actually understand how

social connection works online, and we have to

acknowledge, the fracturing and disruptive

power of the Internet and its ability to

connect people of like mind. So

if I really don't want to buy

guns. Not not I'm gonna say buy guns. If I really,

really don't like, I'm gonna pick a really hot button topic here. If I really,

really don't like abortion, I can connect with a bunch of people online that really,

really, really don't like abortion, and I don't really care how you feel about

it. I don't like abortion. I connected with a bunch of people who don't like

abortion. Now we're all gonna get together and we're gonna do whatever it is we're

gonna do. Or on the opposite side of that, I really, really like abortion.

I'm gonna find a whole bunch of people who support that and we're gonna connect

together, and I don't really care what you feel about that either. Right. And

this creates Remember that idea of chaos I was talking about when you look

at it from the outside? This creates more chaos. This creates more

fracturing because what the Internet does as a

connection machine, but also as a broadcast machine,

is it podcast solve these fracturing Tom to the world,

by the way. Now that could be interesting for connection

because, to go back to the hot button topic, if I don't really really like

abortion in Iowa, but no one in my neighborhood cares

and never has. I could connect with somebody in

Germany that cares, and now it's a

global thing. You talk about humanity. Now it's a global thing. Now I'm connected with

someone in Jesan. I'm connected with someone in Russia. I'm connected with a group in

Argentina who all really really don't like abortion, and now we're all working

together to stop abortions.

And I'm not working with people who are in my backyard.

That looks chaotic. That's the chaotic power of the Internet,

and I don't think we know how to handle that at all. No. I I

I agree. I don't think we do either, And and but, well, again, this I

think this is I think this whole this part could potentially be a conversation

for all by itself because Oh, yeah. Because it's, You

know, it Tom might actually it might be more of an illusion of

chaos versus actual chaos be be because

Because, again, so think about it, what you just said, person in Iowa connects with

a person in Germany, now it's a global thing, blah blah blah. But does that

does that global thing, Is that able to

impact the the Ios state government?

Probably not. So it's an illusion of chaos. It's an illusion of

chaos versus actual chaos. But with climate change, to go to something that's

very popular, with climate change, Okay.

I can connect if I'm a small group of activists in

Nebraska, not to pick on Iowa, not gonna go to Nebraska. Yeah. If I'm a

small group of activists in Nebraska, I connect with

globally every NGO on the planet that's battling climate

change. And by the way, those NGOs have had

success in changing governmental policies in

these various countries at a at a supranational

level. That's insane. That's the power of the Internet. That

would not have happened in 1984. That's the fundamental difference between

1984 and now. Right? And so I don't think

we've really gotten our arms around the

disruptive power of the Internet as a communication tool,

much less the disruptive power of social media as a connection

tool. Not so much in a communication as an organization

tool. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Organization

tool. Okay. You're gonna organize and mobilize a bunch of people. I

mean, think about it. A 100 years ago, we were putting Flyers on people's doors

saying come back to city hall on Tuesday. Right? Like Right. Now we

have the we can expand that be well beyond our reach, of of our

physical reach, but Oh, yeah. But that doesn't mean we can't mobilize them to

to start like, you can you can actually mobilize protests on a

national level and synchronize them. Writers? Tom

your point, we haven't done this yet, but I think I don't think it's far

away. Well, occupy occupy Wall Street was the first sort of beta

example of that. I would I would assert we have. Occupy Wall

Street was the 1st beta example. I think the

the black lives matter riots of 2020,

whether you think That to me was probably a closer example of what I was

talking about. Right. That's a closer example. So you could actually organize those to

happen simultaneously. Right? Versus versus

in pockets, like Yep. Because we were reading about them as they were happening,

you know, Tuesday and then Friday and then Saturday and then 2 weeks from

now, another 1 in 2 week. I'm talking about globalizing your

mobilization through that org through that organized communication. Right?

Like, so you're gonna be able to You're I think you're gonna see that sometime

in the very near future. Yeah. Yeah. I think I think people think Think of

it like flat think of it like flash mobs on a global scale. Oh, it's

going on a global scale. Yeah. Well, the Canadian truckers are an example,

where that happened in real time. That's true. I didn't think of

them. Although it wasn't I mean, it really wasn't world news, but, you know, whatever.

It's Yeah. Well, it was well, it was important for the people of the world

of Canada, you know, and, of course, in the world of Washington DC,

January 6th was an important thing for the people in Washington, DC.

Right. I'm gonna leave that aside. That's it's I've already talked touched on

abortion today. I already Said a word, I don't need to go into any of

Russ' fat over there. I'll say it, I

agree. I think that the

concentric circles of connection and and

coordination. You talk about organization, coordination

are getting tighter and tighter. Yeah. Yeah.

Now what Tom what end and what impact that will have?

That remains to be seen, but I do, I do, I do hold to my

original thesis that we actually have no clue what we've

unleashed. I I think we're at the beginning of that particular

revolution. We're nowhere near the middle or the nowhere near the middle, much less the

end. Yeah. Yeah. Alright. Back to the book. We gotta round the

corner. Back to the book. Books was a long segment. Back to the book. Back

to the Republic of Plato. The, the edition that I have

is is translated directly from the Greek with extensive notes. And and by

the way, the the version that I've got also had,

notes that were in it from a philosophy professor actually owned the book before me.

So it's it's kind of interesting to read those notes. If you could find an

annotated version with notes written in it by other people, you can

also get all of that extra information, as well and those

extra insights as well. Alright. Cool. So we're gonna move to

chapter 12 here. We're gonna read a little bit of a session here section

here on what should the virtues be of the state?

What should the the virtues be

that are the primary drivers for the guardians. What sort of people

should we have? And in particular, I like to frame this conversation

or or this this excerpt. In light of the idea, and

I've already said a couple Tom on this podcast, that I think America is coming

out of a, a chaotic cycle, and we're about to go

into what I think is going to be a cultural, technological, and

potentially even economic high. And I think

that that is that is on the horizon. I could feel

it on the horizon. And again, I'm not a pollyanna.

If history tells us anything, though, I don't think you're being a Pollyanna because if

history tells us anything, that that is a very real probability.

Absolutely. Out of the great depression came some of the best

years of of economics in the United States. Out of the Vietnam War came some

of the best, out of the cold war came some of the best. Out of

9/11 came some of the like, so all these tragic events in human history

and and I'm sorry, in US history have had some way of turning the

economic corner for Jesan, And COVID is probably not

gonna be very different. I don't think I I don't think you're, I don't think

you're so far off the the the the ledge here that

that I wouldn't call you Paul Hannan because of that. Just knowing the

history the way I do, I think that I think people who are calling you

Paul Hannan probably aren't, They're not thinking back far enough to

realize that a lot of the stuff has already happened. We've seen this a couple

and and by the way, not even that far not that long ago, The the

banking collapse of 2008. Yep. Right? Right outside of

that, we had a couple of really rocky years, and then we had some of

our Lowest mortgage rates possible. Houses were going off the shelf like

crazy. People were are were getting people were quitting jobs without

Having a job lined up because they weren't worried about their their employment. They thought

they could get a job tomorrow. Like, all that stuff happened after 08.

Mhmm. So I think I think you're on to something about with

it. I don't I don't think you're being at all. I think it's Well, and

I think People are just forgetting their history. I and I think the I I

yeah. I agree with that. I also think these things go in 20 year Sorrells.

And so from 2001 to 2020. That's in your

your I mean, we're at the end of a 20 year cycle. Yeah. Will

there be some blowback and some shutoff and and some other yes. Absolutely.

But I think we're at the end of a 20 year cycle. I also believe

that, fundamentally, we have to be looking at what we require of our

leaders because the leaders who The leaders who

were positioned to lead in chaos cannot be the same people who

lead in the position of a high. I agree with that

too. So chapter

12, virtues in the state, wisdom.

To begin then, the 1st quality to come into view in our state seems to

be its wisdom, and there appears to be something odd about this quality.

What is their ought about it? I think the state we have described

really, has wisdom for it will be prudent in counsel,

won't it? Yes. And prudence and counsel is

clearly a form of knowledge. Good counsel cannot be due to ignorance and

stupidity. Clearly. But there are many and various kinds of

knowledge in our commonwealth. There is the knowledge possessed by the carpenters or the smiths

and the knowledge of how to raise crops. Are we to call the state wise

and prudent on the strength of these forms of skill. No. They

would only make it good at furniture making or working in copper or agriculture.

Well, then is there any form of knowledge possessed by by some among

the citizens of our newfound commonwealth, which will enable it to take

thought, not for some particular interest, but for the best possible conduct of the state

as a whole in its internal and external relations. Yes, there

is. Where is it and where does it reside?

It is precisely that art of guardianship which resides in those rulers whom we just

now call guardians in the full sense. And what would you call the state on

the strength of that knowledge, prudent and truly wise?

And do you think there will be more or fewer of these genuine guardians in

our state there will be Smith's far fewer,

fewer in fact than any of those other groups who are called after the kinds

of skills they possess much fewer. So if a state is

constituted on natural principles, the wisdom it possesses as a whole will

be due to the knowledge residing in the smallest part, the one which takes the

lead and governs the rest. Such knowledge is the only kind that deserves the name

of wisdom and it appears to be ordained by nature that the class privileged to

possess it should be the smallest of all. Quite true.

Here then, we have more or less made out of our 1 made out one

of our 4 qualities and its seat in the structure of our commonwealth, to my

satisfaction at any rate. Next, there is

courage. It is not hard to discern that quality or the part of the community

in which it resides as to a title, the whole to be called brave. Why

do you say so? Because anyone who speaks of a state is either brave or

cowardly can only be thinking of that part of it, which takes the field and

fights in its defense. The reason being, I imagine that the character of the state

is not determined by the bravery or cowards of the other parts. No.

Charge that is another quality which a community owes to a certain part of

itself. And it's being brave will mean that In

this part, it possesses the power of preserving in all circumstances, a

conviction about the sort of things that it is right to be afraid of, the

Conviction Implanted by the Education which the Lawgiver Has Established. Is that not what you

mean by courage? I I do not quite understand. Will will you

say it again? I am saying that courage means

preserving something. Yes, but what?

The conviction incultated by lawfully established education

about the sorts of things which may be rightly be feared. When I

add in all circumstances, is, I mean, preserving it always and never abandoning

it, whether under the influence of pain or of pleasure, of desire

or fear.

And then we're gonna move forward a little bit.

2 qualities I went on still remain to be made out in our state, temperance

and the object of our whole inquiry, justice. Can we

discover justice without troubling ourselves further about temperance? I do

not know. And I would rather not have justice come into light first, if that

means we should not go on to consider temperance. So if you please, take me

to temperance first. Of course, I have every wish to please you. Do go on

then. I will. At first sight, temperament seems

more like some sort of concord or harmony than the other qualities

did. How so? Temperament surely means a kind of

orderliness, a control of certain pleasures and appetites.

People use the expression master of oneself, whatever that

means, and various other phrases that point the same way.

Quite true. Is not master of oneself, an absurd expression,

a man who was master of himself would presumably also be subject to

himself and the subject would be the master where all these terms apply to the

same Jesan, no doubt. I think, however,

the phrase means that within the man himself in his soul,

there is a better part and a worse, and that he is his own master

when the part which is better by nature has the worse under its control.

It is certainly a term of praise, whereas it is considered a disgrace when through

bad readers or bad company, the better part is overwhelmed by the worst,

like a small force outnumbered by a multitude. A man in that

condition is called a slave to himself and intemperate.

Probably that is what is meant. Then now

look at our newly found state and you will find one of these 2 conditions

realized there. You will agree that it deserves to be called master of

itself. If temperance and self mastery exist

where the better part Rules the Worst.

Temperance, wisdom, courage,

and justice. These are the 4 things that,

Socrates would assert are necessary Tom, for

necessary for a guardian, for a leader to be

a good one. Not even great. Just good. Just showing

up. These are the table stakes, as they say in

poker, the hardest one

out of all 4 of those. If we were to rank

order them, I would say the hardest one probably to obtain because

it takes the longest to attain is wisdom.

Now I shave off most of my gray hairs.

Tom allows them to be proudly displayed. You can

see them on the video, if you weren't watching the video,

And there is this idea of a gray Pilgrim,

from Lord of the rings or a gray traveler that, I

believe Longfellow or might've been Thoreau talked about,

that occurred or that shows up an individual, a nomad,

a person who is a prophet, somewhat who shows up at

the and of, end of,

the end of a historical. And this

individual much like Gandalf and Lord of the rings,

checks the worst excesses of the past cycle in

order to make a space for the best things of the

next cycle to be.

That's The ability to do that check comes

from the quality of wisdom. I think Socrates would agree with that.

As we exit the 4th turning from William Strauss and

Neil Howe, have you ever read that book? That's where I'm getting this language from,

this idea from. I think we're exiting the 4th turning. I think we're at the

end of the 20 years of chaos that comes that came after the unraveling that

began in the mid 19 eighties and continued through the end of the 1990s. When

I graduated high school. I've lived most of my adult

life in chaos in one form or another cultural, social,

economic, moral, political.

And I don't know what people like me and in my generation are going to

do when there is a high, when there is a spring after

we exit the cyclical historical winter.

But we can't all be cranky about it.

Nothing worse than a cranky old man in spring.

And I've lived in the Northeast. I know what I'm talking about.

Yeah. We got 14 inches of snow yesterday, by the way. So, yeah.

Spring's gonna be fun. Anyway, great. It's gonna be a good time.

What is the leadership pathway using wisdom?

Because I had something that has been lamented, a lack of appreciation for it is

something that has been lamented, but I think wisdom's about to have its

day.

I I I feel like I feel like this question is probably the hardest one

of the whole podcast, honestly. Because, like, when you think

about I I think the bigger problem, honestly,

Is recognition of wisdom. Right? Like, I think Yeah. Because I think I think

there's some I think there's some lost in translation

Things that happen from generation to generation to generation, and I think that

there that we are in one of the biggest gaps

In history. And what I mean by that is like, if you think of the

Great Depression era generation and then the World War II

era and then the Libby boomer, like There was this, there was

this, like, transfer of wisdom and and and confidence that

kinda went with them. Mhmm. Right until about

our generation, so, like, the generation before us, they're like, okay,

we're pretty confident you guys got this. We're not a 100%

sure, but We think we can survive whatever you guys end up

doing. Our generation right now is looking at the 20 somethings going, we have

no idea if we're gonna survive them. And part of the reason

part of the reason we don't think part of the

reason we don't know if we're gonna survive them is because we're not convinced

in our ability to transfer our confidence of wisdom and

integrity to them. I think we don't even think we have

any wisdom to transfer, which is even worse.

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe as a collective, but I, if I am speaking

strictly from myself in our family unit, I look at what

my elder like, the my my mentor and

and and and The the person that I would have

put the world on passed away 2 years ago. Mhmm.

The informa he passed away Feeling confident

that what he taught me is going to be taught to the next

generation. Right? Like, he died feeling confident that

I was gonna do what I was Supposed to do. I am now in turn

trying to push that that knowledge

I don't know, I'm banging my head against the wall trying to figure out

how to get them to see That. So

so to to your point, like, I think part of it is they don't view

me the same way they viewed him. Mhmm. So so even

though he felt He did a good job teaching me to

the point that I now have the ability to teach the next generation.

They don't know if I have the capability. So to your point, It's not that

we don't have the wisdom, it's just that we they don't have the

confidence in us that we're gonna be able to transfer that wisdom to them.

So it's it's it's a it's a bizarre psychological twist, I know,

but I don't think the I I think the onus is

I think the onus is on us not because we don't have the

wisdom. I just don't think we know how to transfer it. I don't know if

we know how to present it. I don't know if we know. We're not giving

them reason or cause to believe in our wisdom and

or our ability to give it to them and to and to push it down

and and give That's where I think the disconnect is, and I think

it's the biggest gap we've seen ever in in that in that

So part of it is that,

I was born in 1979, so I'm on the tail end of the Gen X

generation. I'm in that weird middle ground between Gen X and millennials.

While we were in the 74, so I'm I feel the same way, by the

way. I so I think you and I I think you and I are closer

to thinking and and whatever than than I am to other Gen

Xers. Yeah. Like, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Libby be, well, yeah. Cause the gen

X generation, I mean, 64 to

64 to 80. Right, in general, in demographics is, I mean, that's

that's but the number of people inside of that generation so

so part of this is also scale. That's actually the one of the smallest

generations in American history. There were only, I think,

12,000,000 people in that generation or 20,000,000 people in that generation

was how lit it was Small. It was it was tiny. Right? In

comparison to, what is it, 60, 70,000,000

baby boomers, who are all our parents, And then our young

if if if we had came from large families, which I did, our younger

brothers and sisters were millennials, but

in some cases, Gen z, but mostly millennials. And the

millennial generation runs from 84 to 97, and they were

there's 90,000,000 of them. 90,000,000.

So part of it is if your generation is

is literally four x Less

than the generate than either 3 x less and 4 x less than either generation

on either side of you,

Your best move is just to kinda hang out

because what are you gonna do? But that's not in our nature.

We we are I think about this for a second. The generation that you're talking

about is is one of the smallest is is probably the

most innovative, the most competitive, The like,

we we check all the boxes that neither of the other 2 aside of us

wanna check. Right. Like, honestly, if

you think about No. You're correct. And so So the the Gen

z's of the world, everyone gets a trophy. There's no competitiveness there.

There's no win and lose or die. Like, there's like a can we just like,

everyone's like a happy and it's like so we anyway, I don't know.

We are not the generation that's gonna just stand idly by and just watch what

happens. I could tell you that. No. No. But this is what but this is

why I say it's hard to be. So so our generation came

up, and this is why I mentioned I spent 20 years of my the

first 20 years of my adult life, from 20 to 40,

and I'm in my you know, I'm 44 now,

in chaos. Like, there is September 11th literally happened the

year I turned 21. Yeah. Like, 3 weeks afterward

was my birthday. Like, yeah, happy birthday. Here we

go. Off to the races now.

Uh-huh. So from that historical moment,

from that historical perspective, The thing that

binds all of us together is that

sense of survival through chaos.

But what we tend to do as a result of that and,

again, I'm getting a lot of these ideas from, the book, The 4th Turning. I

would strongly recommend you read that. William Strauss and Neil Howe. Great book.

You can pick it up on audiobook. We're gonna be covering that book actually on

the podcast in February, I believe either February or late

January with, with our other, guest host, Brian Bagley. So

you should pick up you should listen to that episode. It's gonna be a great

a great bonus So we're actually gonna break apart this book and get into some

of these ideas, because they have influenced how I think about this now,

and how I think about the books and what we're doing on the podcast too.

So, we've been defined by chaos and this is why I said,

people who've been divided by chaos tend to be survivalists. Well, survivalists,

When everything switches over and everybody keeps clapping and getting it, those guys are

out the back smoking a cigarette, grumbling about the kids

and and the wisdom that we do have your

correct. Your, your sense of your psychological sense is correct. Your, your,

your, your instincts are correct. Our wisdom is

not valued and that's something that Strauss and Howe talk

about where like the nomad generation, which is what they call Gen Xers,

the nomad generation, and this is not unusual throughout cycles

in American history. There's been about 4 cycles of nomads throughout American

history And, usually, when they

are ill in middle age and elderly and the next generation is

coming into a high and then into an awakening, Their

wisdom is basically chucked out the

door. And I don't see why it would be

any different for us, which is why I think

it is more incumbent upon us as a generation and as individuals

Tom your point who actually press the case for

wisdom, to actually press the case for to Plato

to to Socrates's point, temperance, to actually press the

case for, you talked about conscious capitalism,

ethics and virtue to press this case as strongly as we possibly can

because my concern

is that too many of us

will sort of throw up our hands and let it go because

you just run out of energy at a certain point. Like, you know, along in

a timeline, you're just like, I I just I just wanna be done.

But that's not helpful for people to your point who need that

wisdom transfer. And by the way, the big boomers aren't doing a good job of

wisdom transfer anyway because we've got an

entire generation of people who literally had to have power. I I mean,

we have an 80 year old Joe Biden

literature had to have power yanked away from them, from,

from their dying hands. This is, this is

not good. This is not good. And so

The Path Through Leadership Through Wisdom, I

think,

Well, I think it's gonna be 20 years before we figure out before we, before

the, before the, before the, before

all of the all the bets are in, before everything is is but I but

I think we better be working for that 20 years. We better be laying the

foundation. We better be saying the things. You know, we better be offering

the solutions. We better be leading on them with the wisdom we do have.

I think I think it kinda goes back Tom, I mean,

it kinda goes back to something you said earlier too about, like, we've gone

away from, Like from from building character

and build like certain certain things that drove people to

do, like, We don't hear anybody talking about

integrity anymore. We don't hear anybody talking about character, which by

the way, just so y'all know, in my house, Topic of conversation at least

once a month. Do you have integrity and what you like, that's a big thing

for us. Like, it's a very big deal for us. What is the measure of

your character? How do you know you're being a good person or bad, like, we

talk about that all the time. Yeah. I don't think families have those conversations

anymore. Yep. I I just I just think that they they make

assumptions based on your actions instead of having

you talk Through why you did a certain thing, why you acted a certain way,

how you how you felt that action or that that inaction is going to

impact the rest of your family. Like, And by the way,

again, I I I think it goes back to a cultural thing. Like, we we

we live, breathe, eat, sleep, drink our culture. Sure. Like, our culture's

important to us, so we don't care what the US government is doing when it

comes to our internal workings of our family. Like, we don't care what the

worldview is if, Like, when it comes to the but I think because of the

inner internal workings of our family, it impacts us all

Outside of when we're outside of our family. Like, and that I know.

I I lay my head at night every day knowing that when my kids are

outside doing their thing, That they're good people, like I know they

are, because we talk, like those are the kind of things we talk about. What,

you know, my, I just, something so stupid, simple,

People are gonna think this is the most, the dumbest thing to dwell on, but

I'm telling you it matters. When my son, who still lives at home, my youngest

son, when he calls out sick at work And I see him in the kitchen,

I go, why aren't you at work? I didn't feel good. What do you mean

you didn't feel good? Did you feel good not not good enough to go to

work? Like, how what do you mean? You're like, well, I woke up with a

with a runny nose, stuffy fever, a head cough, blah blah blah. I didn't I

thought going to book, I didn't wanna get anybody else sick. I don't know if

it's COVID or not. Great. I understand. Go back to bed and have a good

day. Like, I get that. But if he's like, oh, I just didn't feel like

it, that is not a reason to call in sick, my friend. That is not

an integrity and Like, that is not an integral part of society.

That's not what you do. There are other people that work where you work that

rely on you to do a certain amount of work and do it a certain

job. But if you don't show up, they have to now do more book, then

that's not right. Like, that's, that's, so

again, Like, so now I, like, I go back

to the, like, our family unit is

more important to me than the global. Right? Like, that's that goes back to that.

And I think that there's not enough of that kind of stuff that happens on

a regular basis. That that could potentially

influence what you're talking about Tenfold versus us

trying us, you and I, trying to influence the next generation of workers

that we've barely known. Right? Like, I think that there's Yeah. There's a lot

of that that that goes anyway. I I think there are those those

I think those conversations are happening. I think you should take heart. I think those

conversations are happening, but I think they are happening in families Tom your

point that are away from the dominant cultural

set cultural and media centers. And by a way, I you can mean

physically away, you can mean psychologically away. Sure. You can

mean technologically away, you know, whatever.

Right? So, you know, I think about it I mean, I

know I know Jewish communities in the United States where

They have Sabbath I mean, they they celebrate Sabbath religiously,

and that is a time for families to get together and talk

about character and integrity and how this relates to da da da da.

Right? I know, I

know homeschooling families who, particularly in the last 2 or

3 years who pull their kids out of out of school people who pull their

kids out of school because of COVID. I matter of fact, I think of a

guy right up the street. Not particularly religious, just pull his kids out of out

of school because of COVID, and him and his wife are now building

community in their family around these ideas of Tom

your point, integrity and character and wisdom and temperament, and they're

having those conversations in 1 on 1 conversations,

and in 1 on 1 interactions over Sunday dinners, over Saturday dinners, over

weeknights dinners. So, you know, these things are happening in subcultures.

I think of the larger

society in the United States, but I don't think

to your point, I don't think the revolution's being televised. The revolution isn't

even showing up on TikTok. More importantly, it's like

again, so why it's important to me? I I I'm gonna I'm gonna put this

right into business for you, into a business sense. I had a client recently,

a client recently, talking about his sales manager who

so I I'm doing some sales and marketing, consulting and coaching for

that for that comp for this company. I'm talking to the owner of the company.

It's about 5 or 6, $8,000,000 a year, somewhere around there,

And he has a sales manager. Now during the during

the weekend, a bunch of calls came in and on that Monday,

he asked the sales manager why he didn't, Why why didn't you call the

customers back? And he said, well, because it was the weekend. I was away with

my family. He goes, that doesn't fly with us. You're a salaried

employee. Your responsibility is to take care of customers, Take care of blah blah blah

blah blah, whatever. And he said, the sales manager said, well, if

I do that and I'm on my time with my family, I'm

gonna take a couple of hours off during the week and either leave early or

come in late so that I can make up that time with my family. And

The boss, the owner of the company, was a little offended by this.

Now, here's the catch. So I called him on the carpet for it,

And I said, why are you offended by this? Why isn't this bothering you?

You project out

Family's important. You're you're you're you're part of our family now.

You're treated like family. We want you Tom, like So

he's using your company culture

to ask you or to tell you that that's what his expectation is, and you're

crapping on it. Your country that there's

0 integrity in that. You're you're crapping on your own statements.

And, you know, it it to his to his credit, he went, Oh,

damn. I it did that did not click to me because I was thinking

about, like, service to the customer and going beyond, like,

our Like, are you seeing our customers,

like, the whole slew of us as one family, so they

deserve your time and attention As if and he goes, didn't

even click to me. So but again, like, to your point about leadership, like,

this is a guy who leads a company of, I don't know. It was, like,

25 employees, and he didn't even see it. He

didn't see it. He didn't see the problem with it. So to your point about

wisdom, How can you invoke wisdom if he didn't if he's not

seeing it himself? Right? Like Right. So you need outside

counsel. You need people you need to you need people to keep you To keep

you honest, to call you on the carpet, to show you, like, you need because

that's what the family unit is doing with each other. Right? They're Right. They're talking

to each other about this stuff. Companies don't have that. Company leaders,

who do you have to do that with? You don't

have feel like that. Who who backchecks who book who back

checks you. Writers? Who who is going to who's going to do that? Who's gonna

call you the carpet. Right? Writers. You need a trusted person.

You need your your, you know, Steve Jobs needs his Wozniak. You know, like,

that's Yeah. You need you need somebody. So if you're trying to run a company

by yourself, Then you need a you need a business coach. You need some Sorrells

outside person you can bounce ideas. I don't care what you pay that

person. If you don't think you need them, you are wrong. Yep.

I'd agree with that. I would absolutely agree with that. I would absolutely agree with

that. I would I would hold to that. Well, Tom,

I think we're about done here. I had another beat in here, but you know

what? We went long in the 2nd segment and, we shortened up a little bit

on this third one. Plus, I gotta be,

cognizant of your time. Plus, the last piece, we were just

gonna talk about politics. We've got all year to talk about that.

Yes. Yes. We do. No need to rush on that.

Oh my. Oh my.

How could leaders stay on the path by reading

Plato's? How how can we How can we use this

book, the Republic of Plato? How can we use the words of Socrates,

to think more critically, to develop more character, to think about

our virtues as leaders. What can we take from this

book today? Well, I think we could take a

lot from it, honestly, but but the one thing that I would that I'd like

to probably leave you with is this. I go back to our 1st

segment when I was talking about While when he was trying to get

people to define justice. Right? And every time he got a

definition of justice, he poked a hole in it. Yep.

So for leadership my I go back to that and say,

anytime you are in a problem solving scenario And

somebody gives you a solution to that problem, try your damndest to poke

all the holes in it you can to get to the point where you don't

have any holes left to plug. You'll know the right answer. Right? So you can

you can view Socrates's methods as a as a

way of kind of vetting out your own way of thinking when it comes to

your problem solving in your company. And again, it doesn't matter what you're trying to

solve, whether it's a sales and marketing problem, a leadership problem, or

operations problem. It Just I would say the

the the philosophical points that he makes in there are very

valid even in today's world, just constantly trying to

To to poke those holes. I think that that Tom me is how I I

would like I'd I'd leave this. I would add to that

only by poking those holes in the problem.

We're not giving the problem power. We're actually Oh, no.

Taking power away from the problem, and we

are giving power to the solution. Yep. So I

think of When the Navy Sorrells are kind of notorious

for this, after they have a mission that they go on

and, they come back and they break that mission down.

And from what I've heard, and anyone who is either knows

more about this than I do or is a Navy SEAL themselves can correct

me on this. I welcome feedback and checking on this, but what I've

heard is that no seal who was on the

mission, Whether it went well or badly doesn't

matter. No seal who is on the mission gets to come to the

breakdown of the mission with more problems.

You could only come with solutions. What are we going to do

next? How are we going to fix this? What do you propose?

What is an idea? Look, sometimes this idea

will get pushed back of coming to your boss, not with

complaints, But with solutions, I've seen this get pushed back on LinkedIn before

and, and, and the pushback typically comes in the form of, well, people don't come

to you with complaints. You never hear them. And then they're paralyzed because they don't

actually know what the solution is. And so it's a, it's a, it's a cul

de sac of escapism that allows you to think that

everything is correct as a leadership in reality it's not. And then the problem gets

to be big enough, and then finally it blows up your company.

I don't buy that, and I don't

buy it cause I didn't run and I don't run my company that

way. And I did have 25 people at one point, and I

did have a lot of people bringing me a lot of problems And we

took a Socratic approach, to

solving many of those problems. And by the way, the

Socratic approach also involved accountability on the part of

the person poking holes in the problem Yes.

For executing on the solution, which we

cannot also dismiss. And

Socrates placed the responsibility, and this is fundamentally why they

charged him with with the crime of disrupting the youth.

He placed the responsibility for solving the problems of Greek society

on the shoulders of the people who could actually solve the

problems of Greek society. Yeah. Socrates is great

problem or great challenge to the state

was the idea that accountability existed at on the shoulders of the

individual, not the state

Tom point. You want to have integrity and character and wisdom in the world.

You wanna have it in the state? You wanna have it in your elected leaders?

All of it starts in your own house

around your own dinner table. For sure. That's where all that

begins.

I'll close there. Thanks for coming

on the podcast today, Tom. Always my pleasure.

And well, That's it

for us.