(0:00 - 0:05) Hello, hello, hello everybody. I'm Madison. And I'm Maycee. (0:06 - 0:13) And you're watching Holmes Squared. Didn't even include the last names. What is this nonsense? We're the Holmes Squared. (0:13 - 0:19) Well, if you didn't already gather what our last name was, that's kind of sad. Not gonna lie. Yeah. (0:19 - 0:31) Get good. Get good. Because clearly, we're renowned. We're the Holmes, clearly. Well, I mean, our show is literally named after our last name. Again, that wasn't really our idea, but... Thanks, Will. (0:32 - 0:46) Thanks, Will. How are you today, Maycee? When I feel like I gotta tell people this. So I told Maddie, I said, hey, can we ask each other how we are? She's like, why? I'm like, so I can tell people that I'm tired and it gains me sympathy points. (0:46 - 1:35) So I'm a little tired, but I'm doing well. How are you, Maddie? I'm looking forward to soup and cheese balls after this. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. So for people who don't know, our whole family, a couple of years back, we went on the carnivore diet for two years just to get back in good health shape. Health is very important to our family. And one of our favorite meals that we discovered that both our parents tag team on is it's bone broth, chicken, beef, turkey. It's just this beautiful soup. We eat it for like three days. And then we found these because we weren't doing bread because it wasn't on the carnivore diet, but we found these cheese balls. They're literally it's like little bread balls, but they're made of cheese. (1:35 - 1:52) What are they called? Something bits? Brazi bits? Brazi bites, I think. They come in an orange container. This is not a sponsorship. This is literally us just saying what we like. And you can find them, I think, at Costco. Yeah. Yes. And they're frozen and you put them in the oven. It's not a locally made thing. (1:52 - 2:00) Cut them open, put some butter in. You dip them in the soup and it's just... You got to do it. You got to try it. (2:00 - 2:19) Yeah. It's been a long day. I'm tired like Maycee. So I'm looking forward to that really reinvigorating meal because the health benefits to bone broth and the collagen that you get from the meats and the skin. And it's just so good. Everybody should really be doing a bone broth soup once a month for the collagen. (2:19 - 2:22) You could live off that stuff. You could live off of it. That's how good that meal is for you. (2:22 - 2:31) Anyway, now that you all know where we're at because it was very important. That you had to know that. Yes. (2:31 - 3:38) Yes. We're actually going to continue off of last week's episode because Maycee left us off on... She was talking about the familiar and the unfamiliar slash the authentic versus the inauthentic. And she made the literal statement of looking at what's on paper, what's true on paper. And we'll elaborate onto that because in The Master and His Emissary, there is a section where he goes over some studies. And he also does this in The Matter with Things, which is his next two-part volume series. And there was a study on how hemispheres reacted to supposedly objective knowledge based off of what the authorities tell you, which is what this piece of paper says. So Maycee, I don't know if you want to tell the story. I'm not remembering this. Remember the porcupines with the syllogism? That was on paper. (3:38 - 5:42) Yes. Yes. I'm remembering now. Okay. So there was, yeah, I gave a presentation. We've alluded to it before. It was three hours long. I did include that study in the presentation, but to save you guys three hours... That's funny. The study... Well, thank you. The study basically was kind of giving the patients who were having their brains kind of inhibited. And you got only a certain timeframe where only one certain sect of the hemispheres are spawning over the other. And so with the left hemisphere patients, they were giving a sort of, I think it's called a syllogism. And they were saying that it's like, okay, I don't know, monkeys climb trees, right? And then I can't remember. Porcupine is a monkey. Yeah. I think it was like, so therefore a porcupine is a monkey. No, it was, so monkeys climb trees. Oh, right. A porcupine is a monkey. So therefore porcupines climb trees. Yeah. So that was what it said on paper. That's what it said on paper. Right. And so for the subjects that were responding to the syllogism on paper, right. The right hemisphere people, who's, I guess, their left hemisphere is inhibited. They were going like, but porcupines don't climb trees. And funny enough, Gilchrist actually alludes to the fact that some porcupines actually do climb trees. But at the time, for the sake of the study, it's not like these people actually knew that. Right. And so the right hemisphere people were going off of lived experience. They were like, but porcupines don't actually do this thing on average. Like here's the lived experience of that. And it's funny because in the right, the left hemisphere patients who had the right hemispheres inhibited, so they're relying more on the left. They responded saying, well, that's what it says on paper. Then I guess porcupines are monkeys and they climb trees. And the right hemispheres were going like, but porcupines aren't monkeys. Right. They were going like, that's not, that's not a thing. (5:42 - 7:51) So one's going off of like lived experience, but also just straight up knowing the difference between two entities. It's like, just because a chair has four legs, doesn't make it a horse. Right. So, but according to the left hemisphere, if I was to play a syllogism along those lines, it would be like, yeah, it accepts that on paper, a horse and a chair are the same thing. And so that's, if that plays into what it is that you were wanting me to dive into. No, yeah. Because that is the, it's, it's really when we go into case studies that people really start to funny enough, embody and understand and come to the epiphany of their own hemispheres is when we give these case studies. Cause that was an actual person and the left hemisphere, cause you hear the thing in a row you hear. Okay. So monkeys climb trees, porcupine is a monkey. And most people I'd like to think maybe this is a projection go a porcupine, like a porcupine is not a monkey. Like immediately before we even get to the third point. So that's the average. And just so you know, everybody that's phew, your right hemisphere is intact. You know, a porcupine is not a monkey. Woo. That's an exciting accomplish. But the left hemisphere literally, because the piece of paper said it believed it was so. And that is super important because one, a lot of people saw this phenomenon with COVID it's safe and effective. The authorities Fauci told me so the experts told me so therefore it is the case. And then you ignore all real life experience. So now looking at that, everybody watching this, you can tell me which hemisphere believed that which hemisphere was convinced by the authority and the expert because they said it, it must be true. And on a previous episode, we talked a little bit about parroting and same hemisphere. That is the same thing because somebody told me it was the case. (7:52 - 8:19) They don't, they just trust it. They don't verify. And with that, we wanted to connect the, we're reading chapter 11 for our book study. And which is occurring will have occurred by the time this comes out. It will come out. And there's in it, there's this concept of fact versus theory. (8:21 - 10:13) Again, a false dichotomy, but most people on the left hemisphere looking at that piece of paper would say, well, clearly it's a fact because the authority said, so this piece of paper being the authority. So it's the same thing. It's a fact because science told me so. And then you get in with our last episode talking about the different types of knowledge. That's kind of where you got to start questioning. Okay. Funny enough, what is the science? Because there's we, a lot of us know there's manipulation within like the whole COVID realms and stuff like that where this comes out, but there are some cases where there's not necessarily manipulation, but it really is just the difference between, are you looking at reality as this objective thing apart from you or as an ongoing process? We're reading Socrates right now. One of his, well, there's Plato's dialogues, but he wrote them with Socrates talking with another individual. In this case, we're reading the one on Euthyphro. And we read it, but yeah, we, we read it and talking about it, Euthyphro is this young man. And he made, he made the argument basically kind of stating that it is obvious what impiety, what is impious and what is pious. For context, what was going on in the, in the dialogue is that Socrates and Euthyphro are kind of, I think on the outside of the king's courtroom, right? Yeah. King's courtroom, maybe. And both of them are going to be on trial. Kind of one could be defending themselves and the other. (10:13 - 14:27) Socrates is defense and then Euthyphro is persecuting. Yes, exactly. And so Euthyphro is persecuting his, this isn't really much of a spoiler, actually, but he's prosecuting his father for murdering someone. But the context given is that the person that he murdered, murdered some buddy prior to his father murdering him. So there's that. So what happens is Euthyphro, like Socrates is like, whoa, like you, like, is that okay? Like you're, you're prosecuting your dad. Right. And Euthyphro is like, well, um, like I believe that it is right to like prosecute any murderer, regardless of who it is and like who they're related to. And, you know, be it my father or otherwise. Right. Because this is a bad thing. And then Socrates goes on to ask him, well, what is piety and what is impiety? Right. And then Euthyphro answers by saying piety is that which is loved by all the gods. Right. It's, that's, that was his answer. Yeah. And there's already a degree of arrogance within that because. Because Euthyphro for context deems himself as a religious, um, what do you want to say? Like expert? Scholar. Yeah. Scholar. Right. He's an expert in, it's funny. We remember Trustee Asperg's. Well, he himself thinks he's an expert in the gods and in the religious sense. So he is like, well, piety is that which is loved by all the gods. Right. Because I understand what the gods are. Yeah. Which to me, again, that's a very arrogant statement to think that you know what the gods think and believe and all that jazz. So claiming I know what impiety and piety is because I know the gods. Whoa. Already I'm like time out, bro. Yeah. And so Socrates goes on to challenge it and he's like, well, if piety is that which is loved by all the gods and impiety is anything that is not loved by the gods, then the question is, is do the gods always agree though? The gods have arguments. Do they not? And then he throws like, yes, they have disputes. And so it's like, well, how is it that gods that have disputes then can agree on everything that is loved? Right. On piety being everything that is loved by all the gods. It's like, well, not all the gods agree on what it is that they love versus what it is that they hate. Right. And so then he kind of presents the case where it's like, could that which is loved by all the gods also be despised by all the gods or hated by all the gods in the sense where it's like there's an incongruity where one might love this and it's the same topic, same phenomenon. Right. But so but another could hate it for entirely different reasons. Right. So it seems that they might not agree on what piety is and impiety is because what as one sees as pious, the other could see as impious. Right. Yeah. And so the thing that gets presented in that in the sense where it's like what we're talking about with the this fact versus theory type thing, like because on paper, the god now the new authority in this case, Euthyphro uses the gods, the gods are the authority and they love piety. Therefore, this is what it is. It is pious because it is loved by the gods. So him, he treats his knowledge of the gods and piety as fact because he believes he knows. And so authority. Yeah. Yeah. And therefore, he also thinks he too gets the authority. And there was this kind of looking at it from that perspective as, OK, gods argue and dispute and don't necessarily disagree. Now, some you could look at that argument and say, oh, well, then the gods aren't trustworthy. It's not fact based. (14:27 - 14:51) But the thing is, so even today, put this in a modern context of science because in the book, he's also he's comparing now this Euthyphro Socrates things is different from the Master and his emissary. We're just comparing the two works in the Master and his emissary in chapter 11. He's comparing the Enlightenment to Romanticism, also the Reformation to the Renaissance. (14:53 - 15:13) And the you can paint the dichotomy of in the Renaissance and the Romanticism, you could say, OK, the gods do that thing. And so they made this transition into science fact based. You know, if you can't trust the gods because the gods argue, then science, that's the real facts. (15:13 - 15:40) But me and Maycee were talking about our show plan before we started, and she said, but that's the same with science, which makes you can elaborate a bit more on. Well, yeah, because what transition was the idea that, oh, we need to separate ourselves, because when you even read the dialogue, a lot of people are going to catch on that. Oh, like Euthyphro is clearly using the gods as his excuse for what it is that he just wanted to do anyway. (15:40 - 18:01) Right. Or what it is that he's leaning towards anyway. And he's saying that, well, according to my authority, right, this is what it says I'm supposed to do. Right. And so, therefore, what I'm doing is right. Right. But if anything, the most honest thing that he could have done is actually just gone like, oh, I don't actually know if this is the right thing to do. I just know that this is what I'm leaning towards. And then that could have opened up a discussion of like, oh, I don't know, like maybe now we're getting more into the specifics of the individuality of circumstance. Right. Instead of, well, I know that this is pious because it can be applied to all things. Like if this was like this, like it's loved by all the gods. And so, therefore, it's like piety is that thing. Right. It's like, but we already established that that's not something that's even agreed upon. And then even Socrates goes on later on to say, well, we can't even necessarily agree what is just and unjust. That's why we have to have a court system in the first place. Right. And so, and it goes further into that. But, um, and those are supposed to be objective systems. And so is science. And that was the problem with the Enlightenment. Well, yeah. And so what they did is they were like, if you do it later on, look at it, you're like, oh, he's relying way too much on, on the gods. Right. And he's like, he's relying. And it's actually just a reflection of himself. And so he needs to separate himself from it. He needs to be objective. Right. So you need to separate yourself, youth or fro from, you know, projecting yourself into the gods of what it is that they want. It's like, no, you're piety right now that you want to act on that you think is pious is beloved by you. And so it's like, they're like, you need to do away with that. And so it's like, yeah, I go towards a scientific view, but it's like science to hold argument, like science argues with itself all the time if you're actually good scientists. Right. And so what one judges as science and trust the experts, we all have firsthand experience where that's, that's bullshit. Like, you know what I mean? Yeah. It's supposed to build on one another. And some people could be like, well, that's because they were propagandizing. Right. And that's not the true scientific process. Right. But the true scientific process is not necessarily you negating yourself from the, from the process where it's just, I'm just going to, you know, I guess like you do observe what happens because you're the one that's doing the observing. You are not separate from the process. Right. (18:01 - 19:02) Because you interpret it. Because you're interpreting it. It's that, it's that thing that we were talking about with Matthew, where it's like a person can have two sets of data and come to two or two people can have the same set of data and still come to completely different conclusions. Right. And actually, funny enough, we would still say that this downstream was downstream of just a hemisphere thing because people can still take science and use it as confirmation bias. Yeah. Well, that's what even people that listened to Peterson, Peterson said, well, people that claim to be atheists, they just made science, their new religion. And that's what the enlightenment and the reformation, funny enough, have in common is that they just replaced, um, religious symbolism and denotations, that connection with spirituality, they replaced it with something that's more objective or more authentic facts. And that was, that's the dichotomy of the fact versus theory, which is okay. (19:03 - 21:07) So, and this is what you're, what you've said about the hemispheres really coming back to it really makes a difference because the left hemisphere would look at fact as the end all, be all, that is the objective, that is the scientific process. Meanwhile, you were just describing how, even in our last episode, um, you, with the Pina Colada song, you said, she's not a record on loop. She is a person in process. And so is science. It is a thing in process. If it's good, like you said, and that is what theory is. See, if you take the left hemisphere approach and dichotomize and say, Oh, it's fact versus theory. So fact being the real thing, theory being this abstract, that's how, what the enlightenment thinkers thought, but the romantics and people in the Renaissance, they looked at theory as they looked at what we would call good science theory. Isn't this thing abstract that you imagine it as no place in, in reality, all science is supposed to start with your hypothesis, with your theory and theories based off of what will impart reality. Cause you question things that are in front of you. So theory holds both fact and potential growth is what, and that's why science is supposed to be theories. And then theories are supposed to be, most of the time they're incomplete, not supposed to be, they just are. So you can expand upon them in the future. That's the point of science. And when you hold people in that regard as well, that was what the romantics in the Renaissance did. So even this stupid dichotomy of fact, science, objectivity versus theory, which is subjective and out of worldly, it's not. Theory includes, I hit my mic. Sorry. Every time I hit it and I do it almost every episode. We were just talking about this. It bothers me. (21:07 - 21:13) Maycee, it bothers me. But it's never going to stop because I miss waves a lot over here. Yes she is. (21:13 - 21:19) The Italian in me. Anyway, but- We don't have Italian in our- We don't, not even a little bit. No. (21:20 - 26:15) But theory includes, makes room for fact. And that's why science makes room for, that's how the romantics saw it anyway. Yeah. It's like with theory, it's like a, to me, it's like when Gilchrist describes it, he describes it almost like it's a certain disposition that you hold towards the world. It's an embodiment. And so you don't get fact without theory and you don't get theory actually without fact. It's like a two, if anything, it's like theory is more important actually than fact to me. Because when you have, it's like the idea of like, okay, the vaccines are clearly factually harming people. But if we held the disposition in the world, well, what if they weren't? Like, what if we could make things better? Then we hypothesize, how do we help people detox from spike protein? Because we're trying to envision a world that what it looks like if we weren't being deadly affected by these vaccines, because we're like, well, this is not something we want to live with. So how would we like to live? And it's like, well, I have a theory that maybe these things don't need to be kicking our asses. And so then some people go and they actually try and figure out how to factually help people out. They don't know for sure whether or not it's incurable, right? But they're going to try, right? And it's a theory. It's a theory. Like, I don't know if I can cure you, but I'm going to keep approaching as if I can try it and as if I could try and cure you, right? And hence why I'll create the supplements and we'll go from there, right? And then more and more, it might just add on to itself where maybe we do get to cure ourselves or maybe we get to adapt or something, right? Just something could come forward from it. But these are all still leaps of faith. It's because we don't know for sure because we're in the middle of trying to figure that out. So it's funny because it's like fact and theory. It's like the process in between of like the line of what differentiates like them from separate. It's like the most important thing is when they're in the process of on the same trajectory of becoming each other, of becoming one. Does that make sense? No, it does. And that- Because you're doing both. It's like you're doing fact and theory and it's like a push-pull, right? Well, yeah, because it's literally like the two hemispheres. Because if theory, theory would be more closer to because theory has to take from reality. And this is the point that you wanted to kind of end the episode with and really get to using the euthyphro dialogue was the very fact of the process and the right hemisphere takes from reality. The left hemisphere can only take what the right hemisphere gives it because the left hemisphere doesn't work on its own. It's right to the left, then back to the right for the most part. So even theory taking from reality, the fact, like you said, you go from theory to fact and then vice versa. The theory can then take the fact and then further expand. And it is now enriched because of it and you can expand upon said theory is how it's ideally supposed to go. But it's the process and like the words that you want to go into the euthyphro with the process of piety becoming is again, taking from reality. And it's like you said, the process of fact and theory becoming what they are. You want to- Well, actually, so did you want me I can touch on that. Or did you want me to touch on about the idea of the lab rat thing? Or do you think that's for next episode? Just so we can kind of keep ourselves in order here. I feel like Matthew and Gordon when they're like, what do you want to touch on first? I mean, I don't see how the lab rat thing tied in. But if you do based off of what I was just saying, by all means. It's more so the you can't separate yourself. That was more so it was addressing. Remember, so we kind of been touching about that here and there. Okay. It sounds like you really want me. If you can tie if you can tie that into. Well, I'll start. How about we start and then we'll see how it goes. But so do you maybe want to pull it up because it might be for me to explain I did. Yes, I do want to pull it up. Okay. Page 11. Yeah. And this is what it's called. I'm moving my mic because I need to like zoom in while she's going and scrolling so I can read off this thing. Yeah. So I can also do what did he teach me? Oh, plus or FM plus or did or just just go to scroll to 11. Sorry. I thought I was expanding it for those who wanted to. Oh, I see what you're going to page. We're going on an adventure, guys. Yeah, this is not a long dialogue either. (26:15 - 28:01) Everybody. It was really. No, it's literally 16 pages is not too hard. Yeah. Oh, hey, yeah. You're passing 11. What are you doing? Oh, wait. Oh, wait. Ah, okay. Here. This. Yes. Yeah. Yes, yes, yes, yes. Okay. So, um, well, when we were talking about this, it was basically me kind of explaining because again, we kind of do this beforehand, but I'll, I'll just kind of reiterate. Um, the F we're talking about the process of things becoming. Yeah. In fact, in theory, in theory, what they are. Right. And so when we were even talking about in this dialogue or what Socrates and Ether for talking about is how things come into being and how they are approached and interact with in the real world is not the same. Um, depending on what it is that we're talking about. And so in this part, they're talking about the nature of what it means when something is beloved or becomes beloved versus the nature of piety and what it means when something is pious. Right. And when Euthyphro is talking about, well, piety is like clearly this it's beloved by all the gods. Right. Socrates was asking him and he's like, is it pious because it's loved by all the gods or is it loved by all the gods because it's pious. Right. And he's talking about beloved as well. And so when he's talking about the beloved, it's like, is it loved by the gods because it's beloved or is it that the it's beloved because it's, um, loved by the gods. (28:01 - 36:23) And so he's, he's, he's kind of applying the same question to the concept of something that is beloved versus the concepts of something that is pious. And what he's trying to do is show that the process of how we interact with these things and how they come to be in our interaction in the world is not the same. So I can read it. Sorry, Matt. Um, so it just says here, this is Socrates, uh, because we agree that the pious is loved because of this, that is because it's pious. And we don't agree that it is pious because it is loved. Right. You throw. Yes. So Socrates, the beloved on the other hand, because it is loved by the gods is beloved due to the, this very act of being loved. And it is not because it is beloved that it is being loved. And then you throw it's like, that's true. Socrates. So your response, but if the beloved and the pious were in fact the same, my dear, you throw, then if the pious were loved because of being the pious, which later in the dialogue, they kind of agreed that it's the fact they're kind of like, well, pious is loved because it is pious, right? It is not pious because it is loved by the gods. It is loved by the gods because it is pious then. And so applying that principle. So it's like, if we agree the pious were loved because of being the pious, then technically the beloved would be loved because of being the beloved. Right. And he's like, and again, but he's saying, that's not how that works. He's saying that if the beloved was beloved because of being loved by the gods, right. It's beloved because it is being loved, which is what they're saying. That, um, definition of the beloved is like, how does it come to be beloved? Because this has been the process of being loved by something. Right. Then technically you would apply that to the pious saying the pious would also be pious by being loved. But as it is, you see that the two are opposites and are completely different from one another. Since the one is level lovable because it is loved while the other is loved because it is lovable. Right. And so what he's trying to differentiate there is that it's like, they're not necessarily the same thing, like the beloved and the pious. Right. And so this is, this is very interesting because we're talking about words. Right. But these are words that are downstream of experience. Right. And they're also downstream of how we interact with them and how they came to be. And there's a context behind them. Right. And so he's saying it's like context, there is a context. Right. And so he's saying, so they aren't, there's no applying these two as the same thing. So, and that later on goes on to challenge why, you know, Euthyphro's previous statement, because he's like. You hit your mic. I did hit the mic. Euthyphro's previous statement, because he's like, how do you answer my question of in what way and in what process is it how you say it is? Right. And so that's how we're kind of relating to it in the sense of like the, the fact and the theory, because it's like, in what way and in how is it, how is it what it is that we say that it is. Right. And then what, it's almost like that funny, it's a funny line or that funny thing in Gilchrist. And it was, he was talking about how, at what point, and I've talked about this multiple times, but at what point is it an apple tree? At what point do you see that it is, I think it's like if you were, if you were driving by and all of a sudden it was like, no, we'll go with the, we'll go with the apple tree analogy, because that one's a little bit less complicated. But with the apple tree, it's like, at what point is it this thing? Is it like, is it not an apple tree when it's a seed? Is it not, is it an apple tree when it's, you know, a sapling? Is it an apple tree when it's a full grown tree? It's like, well, according to the label, it's like, well, when it's a full grown tree, because it says it's an apple tree. Yeah. The whole process of it is like, it's entirety is apple tree, right? It's like, I was Maycee Holmes when I was a little toddler and a baby as I am right now. Right. And as I will be when I'm 80 years old, it's like, at what point was I not ever Maycee Holmes and same thing with the apple tree? Right. And so that's kind of like, as well, what it is that we're talking about where it's like, at what point is it fact? At what point is it theory? Yeah. Right. It's like, are they not something in and of the, in and of ones? Yeah. I wouldn't say the same, but in and of one. Yeah. Yeah. Cause clearly like kind of, we said on the last episode, how the right hemisphere can make room for the left it's, and we were talking about models, um, using a more encompassing open model, which would be more of the right hemisphere inclined makes room for those of the left or the ones that are a little bit more incomplete, those types of models, whereas it cannot really be the other way around. So theory kind of makes room for the fact and because fact is a point, like you said, within the process of the apple tree. So it's like apple tree is broad enough that it makes room for sapling, but sapling doesn't necessarily make room for the apple tree or the, you know, the seed and those points within this timeline or the circle. But yeah, that's kind of the process of words becoming what they are. And that'll actually be our next episode because we, we watched a movie. Um, we mentioned it in our last one, the, you did mention it, but we didn't get to touch on it too much, but the professor and the Yeah. And we'll touch on it because this idea of words, me and Maycee have been, it's something that the first time I read Master and His Emissary, I think I developed a bit of a bias. I also, it's something that I struggled with because you learn what words kind of come from. And then my initial, I had a bias, but it wasn't a positive bias. It was a negative bias. I was like words. Oh, if it comes from the left hemisphere, I don't want to use words. That's kind of that dichotomy that built to me the first time going through it. But on our second read, it's much different. And this, even this movie really surprised our whole family. So going into our next episode, we'll continue on this euthyphro looking out the words like impious and piety and the beloved, how those are processes that come to manifest and what is the place for words in society? And what to, again, looking at the two types of knowledge, how are the two types of modes of attention looking at the use and the application of words in real life? And then we can connect more of that in our next episode because that's also surprisingly a big conversation. Mm hmm. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I mean, the last thing I would know just from a takeaway overall from also the Socrates and Euthyphro dialogue was the idea of, you know, Socrates is kind of going down and getting, he gets Euthyphro to kind of circle back in on himself to kind of show that it's like, hey, I don't really actually know if you know what you're talking about. But it's also one of those, and you can really see the hemispheres play out and even the responses and how they've chosen to go about. And even there, ask yourself the mode of attention because Maddie and I were talking about this as well. And it's like, Socrates is kind of playing dumb and stroking euthyphro a little bit going like, oh, teach me you brilliant man and all this fun jazz, but mode of attention, right? It's like Socrates is trying to not necessarily, yes and no. It's both trying to see whether or not euthyphro knows what he's talking about. Socrates obviously has an idea, but he's actually just trying to see, do you understand what you're talking about or not? And, but at the same time, he's open to the surprise and that's why he's like, okay, but like legitimately, like, do you understand what you're talking about? Like, I want to know, like, what do you know? Right. And so, but so he's kind of playing dumb in that sense. (36:23 - 38:55) And you could use that to manipulate someone into a corner, right? If you wanted to, or you can use it for the idea of trying to better understand someone legitimately. Even if it just so happens that you indirectly came to understand that they don't understand themselves, which is kind of what Socrates ends up doing. But the takeaway that I just thought might be a good one just for overall, because this is kind of like what I got was euthyphro was, like we said, basically he already, his first leap determined where he landed, right? Like he already knew what it is that he wanted to see. And then he just used whatever confirmation he could to go like, oh, see, like, this is the right thing to do. And it's like, well, you just know, you just want to do that. Like, you didn't actually really think it through because it was actually cool. Our dad was the one that kind of brought this up and I didn't think about it at the time, but it's like, what was Socrates maybe thinking at the time when he was questioning, hey, like, you really want to persecute your father? It's like, well, what happens when we start persecuting each other's family members, right? It's like, what does that happen to society when that actually starts to transpire? It's a bit of a more bigger picture question, but it was funny because Cynthia, we were doing the Socrates dialogues with Matt and Cynthia, and she was like, you know, it sounds so noble at first, like euthyphro saying, like, you know, he doesn't want this poor person who was like mutilated and, I don't know if brutalized a word, but y'all are going to understand what I meant. Gone, undergone brutal treatment. It's like euthyphro clearly is saying that he wants to like, you know, avenge this person and kind of like give his father the what for because like how this person was treated, right? It's like he got neglected and then he ended up dying and therefore his father is a murderer, right? Because it wasn't a direct like stabbing. It was like actually like death of by neglect a bit. And so, and she makes, and she says, it's like, he makes it sound like it's this noble thing. And it just made me think, I'm like, oh yeah, like, and then he says that it's the right thing to do because it's this, it's honorable because the gods say it's honorable, right? And it reminded me of a scene from Good Will Hunting. And I brought this up at the time where I think it was Will, Will Hunting, his character and Sean, I think his therapist's name was Sean, but it's played by Robin Williams. And then he's asking him, it's like, what do you want to do with your life, Will? Because like, you have so many options. You're super smart. (38:55 - 40:36) You could be all these things, right? And then Will, instead of actually just admitting he doesn't know a little bit like Euthyphro, instead of actually just admitting that you don't know or admitting that like any nuance of uncertainty for the realm of possibility for negotiation, he's just like, no. And he doesn't, he doesn't answer the question. And then he says, well, what's wrong with what I'm doing? Like janitor work, construction work, like there's honor in that, right? It's like, I'm, I'm making sure that some of these floors are swept. There's honor in that, you know? Like it's, it's a good, hard job. I'm building somebody's home so they got somewhere to live in, right? It's like all these things. And then Sean, Robin Williams' character just like, yeah, I'm sure you're doing it for the honor of it, right? That's why you're doing it. It's like, it's, it's one of those, you're just pulling something that on the, it's a script. It's like, it sounds nice. And you're also, it sounds like real time, someone trying to even convince themselves. And it's like, yes, because you, yourself, either A, we're already convinced or B, you literally just don't know. And you're not wanting to admit that. Yeah. Yeah. That's, that's a good one. I don't know if that tied into everything we talked about, but it was just something that made me think of the Socrates dialogue. And I, yeah, so. No, yeah. Cause the reality is he doesn't know. And that's the thing about theory is that fact, if it's a fact, you know, it it's certain you can't claim part of the theory. However, which reacts imitates more of reality is partly uncertain. Yeah. You don't get innovation and the beautiful facts surrounding us without admitting that you don't know. Exactly. Without admitting that, that something could be different. (40:37 - 42:23) Yeah. And Euthyphro, like Will's character in Good Will Hunting, didn't want to admit that he didn't know and he didn't know where he was. So that's, that's a good way to segue and end the episode because that movie just gives me good feelings. Everybody, if you haven't seen it, go see it. Robin Williams really just hits the heart. I know. I, I know we have to end off, but I actually was thinking about that today and I was just like, it's so sad. I'm thinking about Robin Williams in the sense that like he, he, he was going through such a tragic life. And I think it was antidepressants that got him in the end, but it's like what he played on the screen and what he was emanating when we've done drama before, not saying we're fucking experts in it, but it's just, you know, that when you're trying to play a character, you're trying to reach something deep inside yourself to figure out how to play this. You're trying to empathize almost funny enough with an app with a character that isn't even technically real, but they're also not, not real. Right. And so it was just sad because he's such a like beautiful character in his, in his roles and a beautiful personality in his roles. So, you know, that there was something there like there's right. But like, yeah. And then, and then he ended up being, it's like those people like that stupid stereotype, but it's so true. It's like the people that are making other people laugh the most. And they're always seem like they're so happy. You actually never know that they could be the most like depressed individual, actually a group. We'll do another episode on this in the future because there's a direct correlation between right hemisphere proclivity to individuals, which Robin Williams absolutely was. And depression or melancholy there's, I mean, both hemispheres have their own version of depression. So don't mistaken me on that. (42:23 - 42:50) But a melancholy and a natural sadness occurring with the right hemisphere is a high correlation. And that's to me why I want so, so vigorously. I want people to know their brain because I firmly believe that if Robin Williams knew his own brain, he wouldn't have trusted the medical system and those stupid antidepressants. (42:50 - 43:55) He would just have to do a little bit more mental weights and work to understand, okay, so I have a natural proclivity towards this, this melancholy, and I'm going to have to work harder to try and balance out my brain. It's going to take effort, but I don't think he would have taken the paths he would have. And we would still be with that beautiful person on this planet a little longer, but that's kind of a side thing. But that's why the, the hemisphere work is so impassioning to me because I really do believe that it can help people manage their life because it's complicated. We're complicated, but it's just one extra thing that people haven't had in their toolbox. And if you can make your life better and add another tool, that way you can fix a couple other things in life, why wouldn't you add the tool? That's just, that's just me. So without further ado, thank you guys so much for watching as always. And, uh, this has been Holmes Squared.