Speaker 0 00:00:00 Hi everyone. And welcome to the 100th episode of the Atlas society asks. My name is Richard Salzman. I'm one of the four PhD senior scholars at the Atlas society. And the Atlas society is the leading nonprofit organization. Introducing young people to the ideas of Iran in very creative ways, really such as to where we animated videos and graphic novels. Now, this is a first in a series of things we're trying periodically the society in a series, uh, known as Atlas society asks, but here it's scholars ask scholars and we have four senior scholars at the society society. Thanks to, uh, uh, the inspiration and efforts of chairman, Jay lapper and, uh, president Jennifer Grossman and the great team they have. So we're building intellectual capital here. And, uh, three decades ago, my guest today, David Kelly began the out society and it's just been an enormously valuable venture.
Speaker 0 00:00:58 I think with its ups and downs, I'm sure will admit, but where we stand to day, it's just fabulous. It's got a unique approach to objective and collegiality. I I'm honored to be a part of it. And I, along with the others, Stephen Hicks, Jason Hill, uh Rodinsky and others. So I am delighted today and honored to be able to talk to, uh, spend an hour with David Kelly, uh, about the things that he most values about his intellectual development, about his founding and promotion of the Atlas society is amazing, really amazing unique role in objective and his present views views on the present state of the society and the future. Now quickly may some of you may not know it's worth mentioning. David earned his PhD at Princeton in philosophy in 1974. And he taught for many years at great schools like Vasser college and Brandis university up in Boston.
Speaker 0 00:01:52 First time I came across David, I was reading Barron's magazine. He wrote dozens of really fabulous essays for Barrons in the late seventies and early eighties. Uh, he's also written many technical articles in, uh, academic journals and five important books. Let me name them the evidence of the census, which is a realist theory of perception. That's 1986. I believe that came out of David's dissertation, 1996, UN rugged individualism, the selfish basis of benevolence 1998, a life of one's own individual rights and the welfare state five additions of a logic textbook called the art of reasoning, a really fabulous textbook. That's it? I have it. I dunno if you can see it, uh, and truth and toleration in objective, the, the contested legacy of I Rand in three different additions. Now, David, I know you formally retired allegedly a few years ago, but I, I have known few younger intellectuals who are as busy as you are <laugh> as, as productive as you are. So I don't, I don't even, you you're, you've ruined the concept of retirement. I, I have no idea what it means anymore. Uh, but thank you so much for taking your time to, to join us. Uh, and you're so cold sleepy retirement. Welcome. Welcome. Welcome.
Speaker 1 00:03:13 Thank you, Rob. I'm sorry, Richard. It's a pleasure to be here. Um, <affirmative> and yes, um, retirement, uh, like many people who say they're retired and maybe formally went through, you know, uh, leaving a salary job. Um, very few people I know, um, from my father, uh, on down through many, many friends, um, <affirmative> actually sits still and I don't play golf. So
Speaker 0 00:03:45 <laugh>, let's start at the beginning David or what I consider to be the, the intellectual beginning. So how did you, first of all, where did you grow up and how did you get interested in philosophy and in, and specifically the hardest part of really, I mean, E epistemology, it's gotta be like one of the hardest parts of this. How did you get interested?
Speaker 1 00:04:07 Well, I, I, I grew up in outside Cleveland, Ohio, the, um, suburb, um, on the side called shake Heights, which had a very good school system as said why my parents moved there. Yeah. And, uh, the, I guess the, the, the reason I got interested or the way I got interested in philosophy when I, my family belonged to a Presbyterian church, uh, and, uh, when I was, I don't know, 13 or 14, whatever we had, uh, was time that that's when confirmation took place, like, you know, right. Of, uh, bar mitzvah. And, um, so, but anyway, we had a, a class meeting every Wednesday night, um, just the people who were in this class and we got talking about a lot of issues in the Bible. And at some point it occurred to me, um, that I, I just began thinking about them philosophically, one question in particular, and this was something that another student asked, um, you know, Jesus often talk as if suffering is a good thing during the other cheek, you know, and suffering said, what's good about suffering. I thought that's a really great question.
Speaker 1 00:05:22 And so know I ran with that a little bit. I, and, uh, but in addition to thinking, I, I, it got me thinking, how did she know to ask that question? Where did that thought come from? And, um, so I began thinking, I just, uh, went, you know, from one issue to the other. Um, I, I became, uh, an individualist, um, early on, um, the only ultimate goal that made sense to me was, uh, pursuit of happiness and I was an atheist. Um, and then at some point, um, I came across Iran and I turns out my parents had a copy of the fountain head, the first edition, I think, uh, on their bookshelves. So I began reading and then that was it that I read everything else. I was just astounded, um, how I got interested in philosophy. Um, well I was already thinking along philosophical lines.
Speaker 1 00:06:27 I didn't know that's what it was called. Yeah. But when I had to pick a college, I thought, well, what are subjects? I like, I like English, cuz we talk about real issues there, life issues, ethical issues. Yeah. But I also like math and science, cuz that that's method, that's how you, you can actually assemble the evidence and, and support a conclusion. And I thought, well, is there any, anything that combines those and you know, philosophy is the answer. So, um, I decided even before I went college, that's where I wanted to major in epistemology. Um, it just always interested me how the minds works. I mean, going back to, you know, asking that question about the confirmation class question, how, yeah. Where did that question come from?
Speaker 0 00:07:15 Right. Yeah.
Speaker 1 00:07:16 And uh, and I guess I've always been, uh, you know, somewhat introspective watching my own mind. Um, it just was so interesting and um, you know, my senior year in high school, I, I, I just spent a lot of time reading in philosophy, not all of histology, the history of philosophy, John Locke, second cred, sub religion. Yeah. Thanks. So, um, anyway, and I, when I was in college, I, I liked the courses on epistemology the best. So I stuck at it.
Speaker 0 00:07:53 You know, sometimes I've heard it said that in when you're an undergrad, you learn how to ask the right questions and then a graduate student is supposed to be able to answer them.
Speaker 1 00:08:02 <laugh> that's good.
Speaker 0 00:08:03 Whether that's true or not, whether they teach it that way now, were you undergrad at Princeton as well? Uh, as the PhD or
Speaker 1 00:08:11 No, I was an undergrad at brown university in
Speaker 0 00:08:13 Brown. That's right. So yeah. Pretty good pedigree there, Kelly, uh, you must have been a, you must have been a smart kid. Just fabulous. Uh, now Richard RDY, who was your chairman right on the committee or your dissertation? Is he fair to say he was a prominent, prominent philosopher, but also leans in the direction of postmodernism. So how did you work with him? I mean, was he a pronounced post modern when you were with him? Was he helpful to you? Was he a barrier? How would you describe the relationship?
Speaker 1 00:08:47 Um, well
Speaker 0 00:08:48 It was getting dissertation done. Yeah.
Speaker 1 00:08:50 Yeah. It was very positive. Um, he, uh, we argued all the time Uhhuh and I, I was writing it in epistemology about sense perception and uh, the foundations of knowledge and he didn't believe there were foundations. Uh, so he was kind of in transition. He, he had begun reading a lot of hydro and, um, Dewey, um, but not as fully postmodern as was, you know, later on. Um, he was still kind of in the analytic philosophy mode. That was, you know, the dominant Time, the, the approach that, uh, most of my courses clearly liked him. Um, he, I think it was maybe the first year I saw that he was going to be teaching a graduate course called idealism from Bradley to, And I thought, Holy cow. Yeah. Bradley was his 19th century British ideal list that almost no one reason anymore qu was the AIAN. Um, and I said, if he can see the, I, I could see the connection cuz I'm an objective. I they're both PROMIS of consciousness, but that's, that's the kind of thinking I learned from objective, not from philosophy. And I said, if, if he can see that kind of abstraction and deal at that level, I want this, I wanna be in his class.
Speaker 0 00:10:20 Oh, that's great. Yeah.
Speaker 1 00:10:21 And uh, and then he accepted my, uh, request for him to be my thesis advisor and he was very good. I mean we disagreed all the time, but it was always in a, you know, he was a good teacher and also great support when I was looking for a job afterwards,
Speaker 0 00:10:41 I've met many professors like that and I had the same attitude, uh, partake in their brilliance and set aside the content if necessary and might have influenced your subsequent view on collegiality David and the, how do you deal with people who are not in your orbit quite so, so to speak now, since evidence of the census was I think published in 1986.
Speaker 1 00:11:04 Right.
Speaker 0 00:11:05 Talk a little bit about the transition from the dissertation to the book. Did it change much? Were you becoming more objectives during the transition? There were a number of years in between, right? Or not between a yeah. In the book. So how, how much of it did you change? How much did it become more objective as it entered publication? What, what was the story behind the, the ultimate publication of the book?
Speaker 1 00:11:29 Well, when I was in grad school, working on my thesis, um, you know, I had to, you know, anchor, uh, or at least deal with a lot of, uh, the, uh, people, other people in the field who had written on, on my subject.
Speaker 0 00:11:44 Yeah.
Speaker 1 00:11:44 And, um, and there were some people that already really liked a lot. I didn't like much, but I, he wanted me to write a chapter on, on, uh, uh, the Wilford seller is Aquin. Um, and the, um, When I finished a thesis and then, um, began working at BA I, uh, I knew that I wanted to turn this into a book. I mean, the idea that central idea, an inhibition in my thesis was something I, an idea I had as an earn graduate and I fleshed it out. And, um, and I, I wanted to write a book about that, but, um, I knew I had to get away from the being embedded in That analytic framework.
Speaker 0 00:12:37 Yeah.
Speaker 1 00:12:38 And I was fortunate in, uh, a couple of informal seminars. He was teaching in New York where I was living at the time. And, um, he talked about something called the de Laing, getting rid of the academic lights in your hair.
Speaker 0 00:12:53 Yeah.
Speaker 1 00:12:54 And
Speaker 0 00:12:55 Including, including David, the jargon that you and I know yeah. Is just, uh, I call it Grae. The, the language you have to use to, uh, is performative more than it is clarifying, but yeah,
Speaker 1 00:13:08 Exactly.
Speaker 0 00:13:09 The book does, the book is technical, but when I read it, it was understandable. I mean, you had to really concentrate, but I think you did take out a lot of the graduates that you feel that you did. Yeah,
Speaker 1 00:13:22 I think so. Um, the, I, it, it's interesting for anyone who's in philosophy now and maybe listening to this, um, one of the, the big tasks that I had was I, I was an objectives. I was, I wanted to write about the objectives theory of perception. Got it. Yeah. Um, in detail, um, I had been tr trained and steeped in and had to write for, um, a different analytic philosophy audience. Yeah. And so it took me a while before I felt I could be truly bilingual
Speaker 0 00:13:59 <laugh>.
Speaker 1 00:14:00 Yeah. And, and put those two contexts in the same ballpark and let, let my contexts talk to theirs. And that was a, that it took, that's why one of the reasons took 10 years before I got the book out. So yeah. I remember,
Speaker 0 00:14:15 I, I remember reading the chapter on the primacy of existence. It's just fabulous. And, and yet that's really from metaphysics, but it absolutely foundational for what you said in the rest of the book. And, and, and I'm just a broad picture. Now, David, would you say your subtitle was a realist theory of perception, right. At the time it appeared, this was a minority view, the realist view was that a minority view or just not fully fleshed out view, uh, in the field,
Speaker 1 00:14:45 There was nothing I was aware of. There was anything like the view I was presenting. Um, yes. All right. And you know, really, you know, I was building on Rand's shoulders here. Um, yeah. And that, by the way, that first chapter is one that I wrote just for the book was not my thesis. Yeah. But, um, anyway, the, um, realism at the time, it meant different things to different people. And, um, most of people who were writing about a perception were what I call representational list. They thought the immediate objects of awareness were inside our heads. Right. And data ideas lock and ideas were, so
Speaker 0 00:15:28 We were, we were perceiving, not reality, but images of, so we were one step removed. Exactly. And then you start getting, well, then there's optical illusions, and you can't be sure of your sense, sense perception, something like that. Right. And you were trying to prevent that.
Speaker 1 00:15:44 Right. So I, I had whole whole chapters on, I had one whole chapter on representation and the arguments for it. Yeah. And then, uh, but I, the, um, a lot of people would call themselves realist because they might have had that belief about the perception, but they thought there was an external world. Um, right. Most of the, most of the philosophers are right at that time, I don't think were modern idealists. Um, yeah, you just said everything's a text or anything like that. Um, but there were, they do all these minutia about how we know about an external world, what the inferences are. Um, and you know, so I just, I had to deal with all the arguments, but once you clear that, that, that framework out of your head, it becomes much blur <laugh>.
Speaker 0 00:16:38 I remember when I met you in, I think, 1985 at LA Jolla, and you were lecturing on parts of this. And, uh, the diaphanous model of awareness was being eviscerated by Dr. Kelly and I was just bold over and it was, it was just amazing cuz you know, David, that was a general audience. I mean there was a intelligent layman, but just amazing material. Also some great lectures I recall you doing on free will validating a volition. Now if, if one reads introduction to objectives to epistemology here today, mostly about concept formation. Right. And isn't it true in the beginning that sequencing from sensations to percepts to concepts, she kind of just stipulates the evidence of the senses are valid, right? Yeah. She doesn't go into it in depth. So are you feeling like your book really contributes an important part of the foundation? I mean, if concepts are based on percepts and percept on sensation, if you don't have the evidence of the sense the link is lost. So how would you place the book, you know, relative to introduction to a Vitology?
Speaker 1 00:17:45 Well, I think it, um, I mean, introduction to address physiology dealt with concepts, which I is, is the single most important issue in epistemology. But um, you know, then we have to say, um, the, the, the, the aspects she did not develop were what concepts are based on namely perception, right. At the other end, how concepts are formed into propositions that right. False. What is that about? Yeah. And, uh, so, um, yeah, I, I do think that, that the book, um, adds something, um, substantive to objective, you know, in, in fundamental terms, you know, it, her, it, the primacy of existence was her concept. That's the realist. Yeah. Uh, basic idea and even the, uh, idea of the form of perception, which I developed in right. Some detail, um, came from her. Um, I learned it from Leonard, but I think it was, I mean, that was her idea of, and there was a, one of the things about objective is that, you know, the, there's not a lot of written literature, but at the time in going back 70, the amount that was written was just a small fraction of the oral tradition <laugh> that were discussed in seminars and, um, <inaudible> and so forth.
Speaker 1 00:19:23 So, yeah. Anyway, um, so those, some of those basic concepts came, definitely came from ran. I didn't invent them, but what I did was, uh, I think flesh them out, find the terms, show how they apply, answer objections, um, and then make a beginning in, in the evidence of the sentences too. Okay. We have perception now we, and now we have some concepts. Yeah. Um, what is the actual nature of the what's in philosophy or testology is called the justification of statements. Like, you know, this is a sheet of paper or, um, that's Richard. Well, that that's more complicated, but, um, So, um, yeah,
Speaker 0 00:20:11 And even something like, uh, analytics, synthetic dichotomy, which, which Poff took apart, which I think has usually been, it's usually added as an appendix to introduction to objectives. Totology right.
Speaker 1 00:20:23 Yeah.
Speaker 0 00:20:23 That, that, I remember reading that three times before I understood it, but, um, that's the kind of thing that strikes me, David, that's the kind of thing that you and Leonard and others did where I don't think she could have done that. Not because she wasn't smart and not because she didn't have, uh, you know, a valid theory of concepts, but it, you and the other objectives, philosophers also know intimately the, the, of philosophy, you know, and, uh, cons and, and what's sometimes called cons gimmick and all that kind of thing. And, and therefore, to be able to take apart and understand something like the analytics, synthetic strikes me as it's an application of objective to a controversy and philosophy that really needs to be dealt dealt with. And if it's not dealt with, you know, the, the Corpus can't be considered complete. I wonder if you think that as well, and you might, you've come up with other things like that, where if you didn't do it, no one else was really gonna do that.
Speaker 1 00:21:19 Yeah. You know, that's very good point that when we, um, when we think about open objectives and what additions are made by other people. Yeah, yeah. Um, you know, uh, Lauren's essay is a good example. I think ran, you know, saw through that dichotomy. Yes. Well, less instantly. And was, you know, didn't, didn't think it was an important issues too obvious. Right. There were a lot of things she thought, well, this is too obvious. I
Speaker 0 00:21:47 Right. But
Speaker 1 00:21:50 My brains can write it up, but <laugh>
Speaker 0 00:21:53 Right. And she probably helped him with the essay, but, but to have a, not a, just a foot, but two feet in academia. Yeah. And to know, well, okay, Ms. Ran, you may, this may be clear as a truck to you, but you gotta believe these people are just, uh, you know, getting all caught up in their own underwear. And, and, uh, you may, it may sound silly from afar, but this is what's holding back philosophy. So, uh, it has to be done, uh, uh, great David that, the comments on, on evidence of the census, it's such a fabulous book. I recommend anyone who hasn't read it. Absolutely.
Speaker 1 00:22:29 Thank
Speaker 0 00:22:29 You. Read it. It it's, it's fabulous. I love that. I love that backstory on it now. Uh, did you like academia? Did you like teaching, uh, academic life or
Speaker 1 00:22:40 At first I did. Yeah. Um, I mean, getting a job and actually earning a salary was like amazing to me.
Speaker 0 00:22:50 Yeah.
Speaker 1 00:22:50 I spent
Speaker 0 00:22:51 There paying me to be an epistemologist. Yeah,
Speaker 1 00:22:54 Right. <laugh> um, you know, I was living on a, well, I, I could, I could tell you my, what my site grad stipend was in my salary, but it, unless you know, the inflation statute. Right. Really well.
Speaker 0 00:23:08 Yeah. Don't know, don't say the, no People won't understand the inflation adjusted part, you know,
Speaker 1 00:23:15 But I
Speaker 0 00:23:15 Heard, did you say, did you say somewhere, I think I read it in the intro, the art of reasoning, the great logic textbook you have came out of your Vassar lectures. I mean, you were teaching logic at vasAR. Yeah. That book probably would not have been impossible. Had you not repeatedly taught logic at Vassar, right.
Speaker 1 00:23:33 That's right. Yeah.
Speaker 0 00:23:35 Improved it every semester. That kind of thing. Is that the story of, of art of reasoning?
Speaker 1 00:23:40 Yeah. When I, when I went to, um, vasAR, um, there was a, a woman, um, AIAN from MIT who had been hired just previously to me. And, and so at one meeting we were having, we were talking about the next year for, um, courses and she said, well, you know, I've got all these people, all these students in my logic classes, they don't care about the logic per se. And she met the end of the, the mathematical thing. They wanna learn how to think better. And she said it with a kind of disdain, like I said, how about, of course for those people, <laugh>, I'd love to teach that. So we did. Um, and I taught it, uh, I think starting my second year though, every time I, every year I was there. And, um, yes, that is how the, um, the, the logic textbook came about. Um, but in somewhat, um, indirect way, because I had, um, there were a couple of objective students, I think from Davidson, actually done their neck of the woods. Yeah. And, um, who got in touch with me and they said they wanted to set up a kind of private tutoring. Um, right. And so I worked with them. Um, and then, um, the young woman went to work for WW and Norton. The, and you, everyone at Norton starts as, uh, what they call a traveler salesperson.
Speaker 0 00:25:10 Right? Yeah.
Speaker 1 00:25:11 Going around to schools and everything. And she got bored with that and wanted to advance to editing. So if she thought, if I bring a book in, um, I can do it. So when she, when she showed me the norm, I had no idea what the finances of textbooks were when she started showing me something numbers. I said, I count me in. I'll do it. <laugh>. Yeah. Um,
Speaker 0 00:25:31 Yeah, if this thing takes off, you can make some money doing. Yeah. It's been in it's in, in five additions. David it's a, anything beyond the third edition is a stupendous success. I, I think I have three of the five additions. <laugh> Couple of years, a couple years ago, I let, literally sat down looking for the differences between them and they, I, I can only tell they got better. You cha you changed certain things. They got better. The stuff on logical fallacies, as good as well. A another just great book. And, uh, I have it in, I have the latest one in paperback. It's not too expensive, but buy the expensive ones as well. Maybe you still get royalty. It's a fabulous, it's a
Speaker 1 00:26:07 Fabulous.
Speaker 0 00:26:08 And you're still in touch with the co-author, right?
Speaker 1 00:26:12 Uh, oh yeah. Uh, Debbie Hutchins and I, um, have become fast friends. And I found out that actually she has, uh, kinda a secret objective background. She was a big fan of mine, Rand in high school and got, uh, all, all her college and grads, faculty said, don't, don't ever mention that.
Speaker 0 00:26:33 Right. Yeah. It's often said that if you wanna learn something and, uh, uh,
Speaker 1 00:26:40 She's teaching on brands in, in ethics.
Speaker 0 00:26:45 Ah, yeah. It's often said if you want to, uh, really learn something, uh, teach it. So I'm curious whether, uh, in all your writings and teaching, did you become a better thinker just teaching it? Did you become a better thinker, become you focused on epistemology, you think?
Speaker 1 00:27:05 Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. Be. Uh, I mean that, that's that, um, common statement. You, you, you know, you know, something when you have to teach it, um, I found that in spades when I began teaching, um, and that's what made teaching exciting for the first, I don't know, four or five years, um, taking up a new topic, inventing a new topic, uh, for a course. Um, but then, and, you know, being creative in, in course structure and so forth, but also just being able to explain things that, that I knew, and I could pass a, uh, you know, an oral exam on, in grad school, but having to teach it to undergraduates, um, what, like, you know, why was STAs a significant philosopher? Everything is a bar,
Speaker 0 00:27:55 Right?
Speaker 1 00:27:56 Yeah. So, um, and, uh, but what happened, I think was that, um, I kind of got burned out. I'm teaching. I stopped, I've stopped learning as much. And, uh, from teaching, I stopped learning as much from my students. And I realized at some point that, you know, there really are two kinds of teachers. Um, there are scholars who teach as a means to be able to do research and write and yes. Choir.
Speaker 0 00:28:26 Yeah.
Speaker 1 00:28:26 Then there are people, uh, who are essentially teachers who love pedagogy, who love the task, figure out how best to, um, you know, get ideas across their students, train them to yes. Their thinking. And they, um, in pub, you know, most schools, universities and colleges require you to publish. So they publishes a means to be able to keep teaching.
Speaker 0 00:28:48 Right, right.
Speaker 1 00:28:50 Uh, I was definitely on the, in the first category.
Speaker 0 00:28:54 Well, the other way I think of you, David, is, uh, I've often thought of as that there are professors, we well know them who prefer to talk to other professors.
Speaker 1 00:29:02 Yeah.
Speaker 0 00:29:03 Then there are professors who can talk to other professors or, or, or write to them. Right. But then also students, but then there's a third level. We call them public intellectuals, I think today. And a professor can a professor not only do good in trailblazing research, that's legit and also teach students, but then also reach the general public. That's a lot harder to do. I I know. And you are really good. It at all, three of them. And I mean, the Barrons, I mentioned the Barrons essays, perfect example of, uh, you're a really smart guy, but how do you explain inflation to a, you know, an, a reader that's an investor class or something like that. And they claim to a lot about inflation. Those were mostly, you know, political, economic, social essays. They were just fabulous. But, um, but they're coming from a philosopher and I said, but right. And most people say, but how can a philosopher knows all this stuff about reality?
Speaker 1 00:29:55 <laugh>
Speaker 0 00:29:57 It was just great. Great. So, um,
Speaker 1 00:30:00 I, I don't think you've had any other philosophers on, on, uh, writing for them.
Speaker 0 00:30:05 I'm curious, the student, I feel, uh, I experienced the same thing. If the students aren't really advanced, it's hard to teach to them and learn for yourself. When you started speaking at objective conferences, did you feel like the audience was a little smarter and, and, and got you more interested again, or, or no?
Speaker 1 00:30:24 Um, yes. You know, the OUS conferences, like the, uh, Jefferson school that right. We attend back in the day, um, you know, they, there were people of all ages, but it probably, I mean, definitely students, also some retired people, but there were a lot of in between who yes. You know, loved the ideas. What I found was, so it, that, that was often, you know, great, great questions. Um, uh, you know, during a lecture, after a lecture or just in conversation around the conference.
Speaker 0 00:30:59 Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1 00:31:00 Um, the context was different because they, they were interested in the ideas of objective.
Speaker 0 00:31:06 Ah, right.
Speaker 1 00:31:07 It didn't necessarily have the analytic context. Right,
Speaker 0 00:31:10 Right.
Speaker 1 00:31:11 Uh, or the academic context.
Speaker 0 00:31:13 Right.
Speaker 1 00:31:13 But, uh, I need to take account of when I'm writing philosophy.
Speaker 0 00:31:16 Yeah.
Speaker 1 00:31:17 So, um, there was, uh, and, and, you know, so I would, uh, I have to admit, I got impatient with it when, you know, there, there were a lot of simple laugh lines, uh, trashing canes, or, you know, uh, <laugh> playdo I guess
Speaker 0 00:31:36 Like a standup comedian knows, you know, this they're gonna giggle at this. I've done this before. Yeah. Yep. Yeah. It's almost too. It gets too easy. You mean that at that point
Speaker 1 00:31:46 It does. You have to be, um, I mean, you know, if you're, you're a good speaker, you know, that you gotta speak to your audience and that means having a sense of their, their context and what will interest them. Yeah. So, you know, it's, it was, it was not particularly a problem, but I thought what I was always most interested in was how do I teach them something new? That's, you know, obviously objectiveness, but not something that they might not have thought of before.
Speaker 0 00:32:19 Yes.
Speaker 1 00:32:20 They, you know, the people who attend the conferences are there. They're not getting credit for it. They're out of interest.
Speaker 0 00:32:29 Right. But at the same time, I remember when I was at those conferences, I was kind of biased toward, unless I saw them in academia, unless they were a student, you know, moving toward a degree. Um, I couldn't find the motivation to, to get to the level we were teaching at. Mm-hmm,
Speaker 1 00:32:45 <affirmative>, uh,
Speaker 0 00:32:46 Nice to help the general audience, but there, as we say, are not the capital or not the capital goods that produce future intellectuals. And I know you've been in, I know from your history, you've been interested in not only in the ideas, but how is, or disseminated and how, and how movements work or don't work. It's a, it's a, it's really a specialty. When you think about the role of philosophy in history or what moves the world or how certain, you know, fascinating stuff you've written there. Um, let's fast forward a little bit about, uh, let me ask a more abstract question instead of getting into the weeds, uh, I Rand's philosophy, and then I Rand's life and the way she lived it, uh, are some people have trouble like reconciling the two. And I don't think you did. I think your view was she has a biography.
Speaker 0 00:33:36 It's a fascinating biography. It's a really amaz a Holly would tale to be told, right. Russia, Russia to the empire state building, but, um, foibles and, uh, weird things happen. But does that detract from the philosophy? We, we pretty much always able to say, listen, there's a philosophy here and I'm not perturbed or set aside by certain person traits or biographies. It doesn't make me reject the philosophy or look at it. How would you just look at, you know, a philosopher's philosophy and then a philosopher's life and someone saying, Hey, you, you're not living up to your philosophy. Therefore it's not true. Kind of an ad hominin, isn't it. But what thoughts on that?
Speaker 1 00:34:18 Yeah, it's definitely an ad Homin and I heard that so many times. And, uh, when, when I'm debating or just on a panel to someone who says that, I, I always call them out on it because it's just, it's, it's a forward logical fallacy. Yeah. But there's something much deeper than the logic. Um, when, you know, there, there were things I, I wondered about in the objective movement, but I was never centrally. I mean, I, I was involved. I was even after, uh, the <inaudible> Institute was formed. I, I, I was on their speakers bureau was going around. Can you talk? And actually they helped fund a semester or the foundation for the new intellectual help, uh,
Speaker 0 00:35:09 Right.
Speaker 1 00:35:10 Provide funding for a semester off from BA so I could write. Yeah. But, um, it was always, uh, you know, the sense this background, it it's like a, you know, they talk about the, uh, what is it, the background radiation for the big bang. It's just, you know, you detect it only in certain circumstances, but it's just always kind of there. Um, it was this, something like that was the sense of, you know, there's, there's, there's a tendency toward M and, um, uh, excluding people. Um, yeah. And for a while I thought, well, we're all we're past that. And then Barbara Brian's book came out and actually, I mean, this was three years before, you know, the split which had, and the split was really had nothing to do with Barbara's book, but I read it and I talked, talked about the book, uh, I didn't see eye eye with Leonard at right. That it was awful and malicious. And I had conversations with a lot of other people, and it started me thinking about something that was the beginning of what became truth and toleration. And that was the concept of idolatry mm-hmm <affirmative>, you know, in, in, in, um, the Judaic Christian tradition, you know, God says, no brave images. You have no God before me right down the everything or Moses, but, um, you know, one, the essence of it is you're identifying a concrete object in the world with a transcendent being
Speaker 0 00:37:02 Yes.
Speaker 1 00:37:03 And you can make an analogy, which I did in truth in alteration, um, that with the secular system where the ideas, the philosophy of objective is not identical with Iran.
Speaker 0 00:37:21 Yeah.
Speaker 1 00:37:23 But I felt, I began thinking, um, when I was looking at the reaction to Barbara's book that, um, people were saying, if Iran is flawed, then the philosophy is not right. And, but if the philosophy is right, we can't acknowledge any
Speaker 0 00:37:39 PH like a false alternative there. Yeah,
Speaker 1 00:37:41 Exactly. And so that got me thinking about, um, uh, you know, what the philosophy was and yeah. In my mind, separating a little more clearly from the movement. Yeah. As well as her person. And, um, so one thing led to another, but, and then, um, but I that's, that was my first really, I thought that there's something serious thought that there's something wrong here.
Speaker 0 00:38:12 So, uh, this opens up a couple of avenues, one, the, the issue of open objective versus close. Uh, but I just wanna focus on, on more positive treatment, make sure we get this on the record. There is a fabulous, I don't have to tell you what section I'm talking about, but it's really not well known section of truth and toleration where you SCR I can tell this was a lot of work you scrupulously go through and, and, uh, explain what you think are the core essential principles of objective in all the branches. And interestingly, excluding aesthetics, because she did herself when she was asked, you know, give me a thought thumbnail sketch in all the, I think the opening essay, what is objective in one of her books. Um, and she gives very thumbnail sketches right. Of each brand, Uhhuh <affirmative>. Um, and, and that's really important, right?
Speaker 0 00:39:06 Because if, if objective is everything she ever wrote or said, some stuff she said was just really marginal <laugh> dubious. We don't have to say what they are, but, uh, that's too big a task, right. To say, that's what objective is. And maybe objective capital O you know? Yes. That's. We can certainly circumscribe everything she said and wrote mm-hmm <affirmative>. But if it, but your view, I think if it's gonna be a growing fruitful, uh, expanding philosophy, um, you do need to start with that core. Right. Cause if you don't embrace the core principles, you're probably not an objective. So I'll stop. They say more about, was that hard to do when you had to sit down and say, now I'm gonna tell you what the core is, and this is the core, and that's not the core was that hard.
Speaker 1 00:39:54 It was very hard. I, I can't remember how much time I spent on it, but I agonized over think about, okay. Yeah. Well, if I wanted to define cm, what's what would that be like, or, or existentialism, right. How do those things function? And because they are the, you know, that's how you do a definition or, um, or any kind of analysis you you're, you're trying to identify the nature of something and you compare it with other things that are in the same genius, but different and, and on,
Speaker 0 00:40:30 But you're using logic. You're using your logic.
Speaker 1 00:40:33 Exactly. Yeah. Um, so I put that out and I, it, it was my best judgment as a philosopher who knew objective really well and knew something about the history of philosophy as well.
Speaker 0 00:40:46 Right. You needed hope.
Speaker 1 00:40:48 Yeah. I, I expected people to say what, well, you know, I think you should have been included this, or
Speaker 0 00:40:52 Yeah.
Speaker 1 00:40:53 No one said anything
Speaker 0 00:40:54 That would've been a healthy, that would've been a healthy exchange. Yeah.
Speaker 1 00:40:58 Yes.
Speaker 0 00:40:59 I would've. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah.
Speaker 1 00:41:02 So I, what, what I, I noticed people doing was picking on something that I used to illustrate. I think the example was, um, honesty is a virtue, right? I, on my list of the essentials was rational a virtue. Yeah. I think that, um, that entails honesty and I can give you the argument for that. But, um, if someone says, well, you know, like there's certain business situations in which, um, your, our understanding of honesty has to be changed for, right. Um, fine. Um, even if someone thought that the, um, theory of measurement on mission as the process, by which we form concepts, even if someone says, you know, there's a problem with, of this, um, my response would be okay, let's solve a problem. Let's find a better theory, but yeah.
Speaker 0 00:42:01 Yeah.
Speaker 1 00:42:02 The core is concepts reflect reality concepts are about reality. Yeah. So, um, as long as that core is intact, um, there are a lot of, a lot of things that, um, could be, um, studied further elaborated modified. Um, you know, I have a few, I actually, there are very few things I disagree with the brands writings about, um, mostly what I feel is okay, what you mean? Um, yeah. And I, and that's what Ari scholars do. Um, I know they, a lot of their, the books they published are about how to interpret, you know, this body of work, uh, in ethics, whatever,
Speaker 0 00:42:46 But something that, but you, and I know that's something open to interpretation is not dogma. So let's not create less, not treated as dogma or scripture or, um, yeah, it, it strikes me, I think you and I have talked about this before. It strikes me. It's very interesting that in her theory of concept formation, the issue of the essentials in a, in a definition or in a concept to getting to the essential, the thing that, you know, most explains all other attributes, why can not, why can that not be applied to the concept of objective itself? It's got essentials, it's got derivatives. At some point it has derivatives, like, you know, no president can be a woman that, you know, highly disputable. So if you disagree with that, it's, it's hard to say you're not an objective. Um, yeah. So I, I think, uh, to speak of about David, also, the issue of whether open and closed, you know, open and closed pertains, say to content method application, but also the issue of who you talk to, who you try to convince who you try to persuade.
Speaker 0 00:43:48 And, and if I recall the sequencing, right, that was the first objections people had that, not that you were diluting objective or, or, or, or adulterating it cuz you weren't, but it was more the idea of, you know, we don't talk to, uh, our enemies and then the enemy list was kind of long and weird. Yeah. Talk about that. Talk about that a little bit. The idea that open kind of also means that, you know, reaching out to, you know, possible converts and, and are we sanctioning them or are they just, you, us out your philosophy on that and how it differed in the early days from others?
Speaker 1 00:44:22 Um, well I always, I mean, I, I went through graduate school, then I went to teach at VA. I had colleagues, we had conversations about philosophy. We had little department symposia where someone would deliver a paper or, you know, read a paper and talk about it. Yeah. I mean, I was used to that. That's what that, and I, in any, in any healthy field discipline, that's how people normally function, um, when they're not at each other's throats <laugh>. Yeah. But the, um, And that's how I thought the objective is movement was functioning. I mean, before, Before 1989, I guess when, when, uh, I was first attacked for talking to a libertarian group. Right. I, um, The, um, What I felt at the time and what I wrote in the Initial
Speaker 1 00:45:27 Piece called the question of sanction was, um, up not of agreeing with someone and not of, uh, ignoring moral failures, but, um, the diff uh, difference in ideas, um, that should be an opportunity for discussion, debate outreach. And it, um, and, and then I said after all <affirmative> objective ISS and open philosophy. Yeah. I've said many times, I thought that was a throwaway line. I just thought, you know, reminding people of what we all understand, I was stunned when it turned out. People didn't believe that. But, um, yeah. So now, um, I think part of, of, of open objective is I would incorporate a sense of evidence that I think to toleration the, the incentive for it. Yes. Is, I mean, it, it's a particular form of benevolence that is focused on learning and yes. Electrical engagement. Right. Um, but that's, that's an important part of our lives. You, I mean, for any, for everybody, not just intellectuals. Um, and so it means being open to, um, uh, Open to new ideas, open to inquiry and open to discussion and debate with people who don't
Speaker 0 00:46:58 And it, and after,
Speaker 1 00:46:59 Because we may learn and, um,
Speaker 0 00:47:02 Yeah.
Speaker 0 00:47:06 Um, I mean, it's, it's, it's not difficult after a while to see whether someone's just not open to persuasion, but the idea that we give someone the benefit of the doubt, uh, just sounds like benevolence. And, uh, there would be some people opposed who say, listen, I'm just gonna study this philosophy kind of Scholastic mm-hmm <affirmative>, I'm gonna, you know, I'm gonna stay within the text. I'm gonna become an expert in the text. I'm gonna talk about, I'm gonna talk to others who know the texts and, and I can see there's a certain interest people would have with that. But if you're interested in advancing the ideas that that's not gonna do it, right, you're gonna look for a small enclave of people. And it starts a actually sounding, uh, academically in the sense of Scholastic internal insular. Um, but I think you've always been interested in the idea of persuading and, and in many ways it's more difficult, isn't it, David?
Speaker 0 00:47:51 I mean, it's easier to talk to people who are using the same jargon. I mean, you and I have been in academia, we know how that works. Yeah. And it, and it, and it has that way in objective. But, and so it's not for everybody, but the idea of, I know all this technical stuff and you do, and I know the core of objectives and you do, but then now go try to complain and explain it to a conservative or a libertarian. So someone who's in our orbit, but not quite in our orbit and not quite able to do that. Mm-hmm, <affirmative> either reason or capital. That's more difficult. Isn't that more difficult. Well, also more fun, but in any ways it's more difficult, isn't it? It's not,
Speaker 1 00:48:27 Its more difficult. Yeah. I mean, one of the things that relates to some of the other, uh, things we talked about, but I, I had have always been, um, interested in AB advocacy and persuasion and uh, in cultural and political realms. Yeah. Um, well as just pure inquiry and discovery. Right. So, um, you know, I, unlike, you know, there's some people who are just intellectuals that they, they, um, all they care about is discovery. Um,
Speaker 0 00:49:03 Yeah.
Speaker 1 00:49:04 But that's, so yeah, I've been doing that, you know, pretty much all my life. And even when I was master, I was writing for barons <laugh>, um, and other places. And, and if you're going to engage in that, you have to have, you know, invite people, they, you know, not many people will respond if you, if you, you know, call start out, um, by denouncing them for holding certain ideas. I mean, that's kind of a non-starter conversationally and <laugh>
Speaker 0 00:49:38 Or, or, or con or converting, um, errors of knowledge into you must be dishonest. Yeah. If you don't, if you don't see that, it's not my job to inform you, but to moralize against you, it's it's, it's on almost too easy. That's not the real objection to it, but it's something like that, uh, to impune motives right away. It's, it's almost like a cheap, a cheap way out. But, but also I think David, that once you say, and I, I'll never forget, you used the word, I'm a, Telesis you use that in one of your 1989 thing. And, and I, and people think that's a bad thing, like it's com at it, but if you look it up, it just means interest in persuading others. Yeah. <laugh> and, and debating them. It's it's got a fully innocuous, uh, connotation as far as I'm concerned, but people, some people aren't really good at that.
Speaker 0 00:50:26 I mean, to hold your cool in a debate to think on your feet, to try to bridge, what, what is this person thinking and why are they objecting to capitalism? Why are they sticking to reli? I mean, all the things you have to keep track of and then reach out to, to persuade, um, some people aren't good at it, so they just get emotional and then, you know, resort to a Hom. So you feel that way. I'm sure too, when you, when you do this, it's not only fun and challenging, but you gotta keep your cool as well, stick to the rules of logic and, and not resort to fallacies and all the stuff you learned when you were kid.
Speaker 1 00:51:02 Yeah. I mean, one of the things that really helps that objective isn't, um, yeah, helps within that respect is that, you know, the ultimate, uh, CRI is reality and truth
Speaker 0 00:51:15 Reality. That's the judge in the room, that's the arbiter. Right, right,
Speaker 1 00:51:19 Right. And however, stupid or even malevolent, I think of someone's ideas are yeah. Doesn't impune, first of all, it doesn't, I, you change reality
Speaker 0 00:51:30 And it's no threat to you. It's
Speaker 1 00:51:31 And it's no threat to me either. And that's the, the lack of threat. And that's what I, I think objective is a real help for if you're in this, uh, in this world of discussion and debate out there ands because, you know, disagreement, it's not a threat to you. It, it, it can be an opportunity or it can be, you know, if someone's unreachable and just walk away. Um, but there people say, if I can't convince you, that means something wrong with me.
Speaker 0 00:52:08 Yeah. There's in Insecurity there either. You don't really fully know your argument, uh, or you place too much credence on the idea of agreement among minds is really the basis of knowledge, which is, uh, you know, that's not the correspondence theory of truth. That's the coherence theory of truth.
Speaker 1 00:52:28 Yes. Um,
Speaker 0 00:52:30 UN rugged individualism, uh, a fabulous book as well. What motivated that, the idea that people just weren't seeing the value, the selfish value as you put it of benevolence, why do they not see benevolence as you know of selfish, uh, selfish value to people?
Speaker 1 00:52:47 Well, I, I wrote that in the mid, um, 1990s. Uh, yes. Right.
Speaker 1 00:52:54 So, and first gave it as a summer seminar lecture and, uh, it, things have been rolling around in my mind. Um, partly just thinking about the way I behaved toward people. Yeah. And, uh, the way people I liked, you know, created each other and also, but also, um, just began thinking more and more about, does this have a place in objective? Yes. And we had decided that the topic for that year, the 1995 summer seminar was gonna be civilization. Uh, OK. This is, this is a form of civility and I'm, now's my chance. Now's my chance. Right. So, um,
Speaker 0 00:53:37 Yeah.
Speaker 1 00:53:38 And, and I just began trying to be systematic about some of the thoughts I've and rolling around for years. And, uh, and one of the, one of the amazing things, um, was going through the fountain head and Atlas shrug and seeing how many instances oh
Speaker 0 00:53:58 Yeah. Oh yeah, Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1 00:54:03 And you know, it probably was motivated by, you know, the, one of, one of the most common, if not the most common, uh, assault on objective is, well, you're, you're promoting self interest that that's selfish.
Speaker 0 00:54:16 Yeah.
Speaker 1 00:54:16 And, you know, people are applying their normal sense of selfishness. Right. And, you know, we can get our backs of up and say, no, you don't understand what we mean by selfish. But how about, um, in, instead of that negative reply, which is perfectly valid, how about adding the, a positive thing now we believe in benevolence, we just don't think it's that we it's different from altruism. And, um, once you make that distinction, you know, a lot of people get it. I think a lot of people get it. Um, I remember, um, remember back in the early nineties, uh, Hilary Clinton was, had, had developed this whole takeover of medicine.
Speaker 0 00:55:04 Yeah.
Speaker 1 00:55:04 Hilary care. Um,
Speaker 0 00:55:06 I remember,
Speaker 1 00:55:08 And so I was, I wrote this, uh, talk, um, called, is there a right to healthcare? Yeah. And, uh, not to go into too much detail, but I, when I was giving that to a conference to doctors, I just said, I made a distinction between, you know, the generosity of doctors, you know, astounding generosity that physicians of all kinds have always extended and the duty to serve people. And every, I swear those, I mean, this was, these were all conservative, conservative groups, so no big surprise, but they were, um, you know, there was like this, the clouds part.
Speaker 0 00:55:49 Yeah. Right. See it. Yeah. That's nice. That's a nice feeling. Yeah. Yeah. That's a nice feeling. I think it, we only have a few more minutes, David, so I wanted, oh God, this, I could talk to you for three hours more about these things. We do that privately.
Speaker 1 00:56:04 Yes. Right. <laugh>,
Speaker 0 00:56:06 We've been known to do that. Um, I just have to make a kind of declarative statement. Your, your method has been adopted. I mean, when I look at objective today, there, there are people trying to add to the philosophy, amend, extend, apply the, these many, many who formally said it was closed or talking about, you know, whole new volumes need to be written to elaborate and explain this or that. And the second part of it, and the second part of it, outreach to others, um, you know, without sacrificing your principles, I think you've paved the way you haven't always been maybe no ever been credited for that. But, um, I just wanna say that as a, as a declarative thing, that, that's what I've noticed. That's what a lot of others on the Atlas society have noticed, and I congratulate you for that, but I, but I, I, myself came late to it really late to it way too late, but I'm glad I'm here now, but, but it's really quite an achievement David, because to the extent that it's happened at all, I, I think you've bla the trail.
Speaker 0 00:57:05 It's just amazing. And so I, I wanted to leave with a question really. I mentioned this earlier because I think you're very fascinating in the sense you have this deep technical knowledge, uh, on, in epistemology, but then also this deep knowledge of objective, but then also a, a theory of movements, a theory of how, I mean, you've written on Christianity and Marxism and, and when, when you get a leader and what is it like when they're alive and what happens after, when they have apostles and what goes wrong or what goes, I mean, these are major things that have influenced the world, right? Christianity, Marxism, we, we hope that a hundred years from now, we're including objective in that new of those. So looked at that way. What, what would be your kind of summary assessment of where the movement is, where it's going, um, and application to America's future, what's your assessment generally on objective and its role in the future?
Speaker 1 00:58:05 I, it, it's very hard to say I've never been good at predicting, um, Uhhuh. And, uh, you know, as I said in one conference, um, you know, it sort of depends whether you see the glasses one quarter full or
Speaker 0 00:58:24 Three's,
Speaker 1 00:58:29 I, I try to be, uh, of years and of, of, you know, being had this being my job full-time job. And 60 years since ran was writing 60 more, um, The ideas there's, there has been a huge impact. I mean, Atlas shrug and thunder are still selling gazillions back in the, in the financial crisis in oh eight. I mean, they, they went through the roof and, um, so people are reading the books and Probably it's only a small fraction that get arrested by their ideas by the system.
Speaker 0 00:59:09 Yeah.
Speaker 1 00:59:10 And unfortunately, um, The way our culture is moving the academic and now, you know, the political and social and even business contexts are, are so imbued with bad ideas, with identity politics and, um, the prime of equality, uh, You know, I've run out of new stuff to say, Hmm. So I don't know. Um, I think it, it will take, you know, people smarter about this than I am, um, to, to make that change. I, I would just say that, I think in, in the academic realm where we're ignored, but not always with the same of political hostility, but because I Rand's her They're different. Um, I've always thought what, what, what galvanizes the intellectuals is someone who opens up a fertile field for further research and development. I mean, you know, you know, how it works and objective has, but we haven't made that clear to the thinkers, uh, clear enough anyway. Um, but also I think, um, I don't know. I, I, we see young people coming in, um, Jennifer Grossman, um, that starts CEO now for, um, six years has, has really, uh, drawn a huge following among younger people and following for objectiveness for the, uh, Atlas society. And, um,
Speaker 1 01:00:56 So I, you know, The way history works, there's movement and counter movement, movement, counter movement, and a lot depends, um, on the individuals who can attract and galvanize people's attention. Um, you know, we need, we need more of them, But we're,
Speaker 0 01:01:23 I think, I think equivalent to what you said, David, about, you know, arguing with someone and the confidence you have in the back of your mind. Well, reality really is the arbiter sitting in the judge's chair here I need and get defensive about anything. I, I, I feel, I think you do too. I feel the same way about objective. There are a lot of personalities in this movement. There are a lot of personalities that don't get along <laugh> and that's to be expected, we're supposed to be into the right, but what's the arbiter in the room, the philosophy itself, what is the core of it? What does it really mean? And, uh, you go from there and may the best man and woman an argument win. I, I think even the fact that there are competing, objective groups could be a sign of, that's a good thing.
Speaker 0 01:02:03 That's a good thing. We specialize specialize in different things. We don't all have to, to get along. Um, but, um, attention to reality and attention to the philosophy is everything. Uh, we have to wrap up with David. I cannot thank you enough. I think that I speak for hundreds of thousands who think, uh you've yeah. You've plowed these fields and made it fertile for the philosophy to, to expand and grow. I, I think if you had not done this, it might be dying on the vine. I mean, it's a really amazing three decade story. It's it's still being written. I, I think you guys are growing faster than ever, and it's just a wonderful story and you're still intellectually active. Uh, people know that people see you. It's, it's a wonderful, inspirational thing for many of us. I just wanted you to know that and know that
Speaker 1 01:02:49 So well, thank you, Richard. I appreciate it.
Speaker 0 01:02:52 We love you for all that you've done in that regard. Just really great stuff. Really great.
Speaker 1 01:02:57 Well, thank you so much. And I must say, um, from my semi-retired position, I'm I I'm, I love being, uh, watching what's happening and not to do it all. <laugh> do as much
Speaker 0 01:03:12 It's time for it's time for others to pick up the, uh, the shovels, David and sorry.
Speaker 1 01:03:17 Yeah.
Speaker 0 01:03:18 And the hammer, the hammers and, and the building materials. Yeah. And move on and build on your shoulders and others. Yeah. So thank you. Thank you, David. I want to thank all of you also for listening in today. I hope you enjoyed it. Um, tell others about it if you enjoyed it. Uh, and any of the other materials from the Atlas society, please consider making a tax deductible contribution, go to Atlas society org. Also get on the mailing list. When you go there, visit the events page, you'll see events like this and others almost every day. Really good stuff, webinars and things like that. I I'm told that the next Atlas society special discussion will be well. I must know, cause I'm in on it. The Russia, Ukraine war Friday, but really the one after that, I've heard Robert Bryce before it'll be Robert Bryce. He's an energy expert. He's just fabulous. So he's coming next and, and he'll be next. So, so look out for that, David. Thank you again. Uh, we love, we love what you're doing and thank you so much for sharing all your ideas and thoughts. Thank you, David.
Speaker 1 01:04:19 Thanks. Thank you. You Richard, this is, I enjoyed. I'll see
Speaker 0 01:04:22 You.