Natural Hearing (Aristotle's Physics)
Lecture 51: Final Causality: Nature's Purpose and Its Implications

Transcript
================================================================================

It is the causa causarum, as they say in Latin, the cause of the causes, right? It's the cause of the other cause being causes. So, even among the four kinds of causes, this has a preeminent importance. Where it is a cause, it's the most fundamental cause. So it's an extremely important question then, huh? For the natural philosopher to know whether this is a part of his goal, part of his understanding of natural things. Now, after natural philosophy would seem to be most important for ethics, right? And, in fact, for the whole of our life, right? Why? Because man and his parts are by nature, right? And the fundamental question for human life and the fundamental question for ethics is, what is the inner purpose of man? What is the inner purpose of human life? Now, if you answer that nature does make things for an inner purpose, then you might ask, well, does man then have an inner purpose by nature? And if so, what is that inner purpose, right? And then, later on, how can we best achieve that, right? As individuals and as families and even as nations, right? On the other hand, if the answer to this question is no, right, then neither man nor any of his parts have any inner purpose, because they're all by nature. And nature doesn't make things for the sake of anything, huh? You take the negative position here, right? And then, either man and human life have no inner purpose, or we simply invent one, huh? But it's a free invention on our part. You see, it could be anything, right? And that's the position that someone like John Paul Sartre, right, would have, huh? Okay? Why, for Socrates and Plato and Aristotle, who answer yes to this question, then they look for the natural purpose of man, and even the natural purpose of his parts, right? And then they try to see how those can best be, what, achieved, right? So all our thinking about life, all ethics depends upon the answer to this question. They tell the students, you don't know what to do with yourself until you answer this question. You know, as you put a ballpoint pen, I say, if you don't know the purpose of this, you don't know what to do with it, right? Like a little baby might put it in his mouth, doesn't know what to do with the thing, right? If you don't know the purpose of man, you don't know what to do with yourself. You may think you do, but you don't. You know anymore when the baby does what to do with the ballpoint pen. Okay? And I was mentioning, I think, last time, you know, trying desperately to make this importance of this kind of concrete for them, you know, I stand next to a student and said, you know, my knowledge of what? Anatomy is kind of easy, you know? I think I'll cut off your arm. Keep it over to the lab and dissect it and improve my knowledge, huh? I'm kind of interested in the brain, too, because I'm going to cut your head off and take it down to the lab and dissect it. And I say, now, I'm sure you're going to, you know, oppose me trying to cut your arm off or cut your head off. But is it just a question of who's stronger? You know, whether I'm strong enough to cut your arm off or you can stop me, right? Or would you say that I don't have a right to your arm, that your arm is for the sake of you? What would you say? Yeah, they want to say that there are arms for the sake of them and not for the sake of my knowledge of anatomy. But I go on to point out, your arm was made by nature, right? Now, if you say that nature makes things for an end or a purpose, you could give a good argument to say that nature makes the part for the sake of the whole, okay? And therefore that your arm is for the sake of you. But if you deny that nature makes anything for an end or a purpose, your arm was no more made for you than it was made for my knowledge of anatomy. Just a matter of what people say nowadays, right? You know, a question of will, really, right? You see? I say, thank God people don't act always in accord with their ideas, huh? You know the famous, what's that novel there, where the brother's car muds off, right? Where the older brother, you know, comes back from university and is all tanked up with these wild ideas, right? And his younger, stupid brother, right? Acts on them, and I guess he kills the father, right? Because it seems quite allowed, right? Given the fact that there's no God, there's no morality, and so on. And of course, the older brother is shocked by the fact that he's killed his father, but he's already acted on the ideas of the sophisticated brother, huh? So sometimes it takes something like that, right? To say, hey, gee, I should be examining my ideas if this is what it means, right? For people to act on my ideas. Or the other example I take is, you know, if I find out that you would make a good, what? A good fertilizer for my garden out of you, right? And so I'm going to shove you into my grinder and grind you up and so on and spread you over my garden and get a good crop this year. And you might, you know, resist me trying to put you into my grinder, right, huh? It's just a question of might here, huh? Or is it a question that I don't have a right to grind you up, right? That you're for the sake of something more important than fertilizing my garden? Well, again, you are managed by nature, right? So if nature doesn't make man for any end or purpose, then you were not made for anything higher than fertilizing my garden, right? I said you would fertilize my garden. Well, why not? You see? Or another example I give is I come in class and I say, now if I come in class here with the intention of deceiving you, right, and leaving you in deception, right, would you say that I'm misusing my mind and abusing your minds, huh? Yeah, yeah, of course, eh? But again, huh, your mind is something you have by nature, right? And if nature doesn't make things for any end or purpose, then it didn't make your mind for knowing the truth any more than for being deceived, right? So whatever, you know, I enjoy deceiving. So why not? It doesn't make any difference anyway, right? In other words, you can't really misuse somebody or abuse somebody if it doesn't have any inner purpose, huh? In a sense, to misuse something is used in a way that's contrary to its innate purpose, huh? So I'm trying to press on their minds that this question is of absolute importance. The whole of ethics and the whole of their life, right, and all of our thinking about what we should do or should not do depends upon that, huh? Now, after ethics, you can say that it's important also for the arts that help nature, right? Now, this is the difference. When we say help nature, we mean help nature and what nature is doing, right? Even without the art, huh? Now, when the woman is pregnant after about nine months, usually, sometime sooner or later, nature is going to start pushing the baby out, right? Okay? And the obstetrician is, in helping the woman to deliver the baby or to bring the baby forth, is helping nature do what it's already trying to do, you see? But when the carpenter makes a chair or a table out of the tree, it's not helping nature to do what it's already trying to do, you see? Because the tree is not trying to make a chair or a table, right? We're just kind of helping it so the chair gets out well, right? See? So this is the distinction between an art like the medical art that helps, right, nature and what it's already doing, and the part of the carpenter, which is not helping the tree to make a chair or a table, right? Okay? Now, the art of logic is also like the medical art. And that's why Socrates could call himself a... Intellectual midwife, huh? Yeah? You can say that all of the servile arts are helping arts. You've got to be careful what you mean. I mean, you can say that when the carpenter makes a chair, right, or makes a bed, he's helping nature in the sense that it gives me a place to sleep and a place to rest myself on and so on, right? But we're taking a more strict sense, huh, when you talk about the arts that help nature. We mean to be more explicit, huh, or say it more fully. The arts that help nature in what it's already trying to do, right? And so if I cut myself when I'm shaving in the morning, right, nature will maybe stop the bleeding, right, and seal it up, right? But sometimes it's a little bit slower or something, right? I know I get my red stains in my white shirt, right? So I take this stuff and, you know, it's kind of stingy stuff, and it stops the bleeding, right, huh, see? Or if I get a big cut, you know, they might sew me up, right? And that doesn't complete the job of healing, but it pulls the ends together and helps nature, right, to heal them and to heal them with less of a scar there, right? Okay? And so even without logic, men will try to, what, give birth to thoughts and to think things out, right? Now, if you see that nature is acting for an end, then the medical art or the art of logic, they have to begin with the recognition of what that end is and then how we can help nature achieve that end, right? So when Hippocrates or something like that had the Hippocratic Oath, right, he explicitly forbade abortion for the doctor, right, huh? Okay? Because that's not what nature is intending, right? Okay? But if you see that nature is acting for an end, then the way the medical art becomes something arbitrary, right? It has no parameters, you might say, from nature, huh? The same way for logic, right, huh? Logic, the rules of logic are not arbitrary, but they fit the natural procedure reason. But, you know, I have, you know, some modern logicians in my office to, I mean, you know, there are texts where they say that, you know, the rules of logic are like the rules of any game. And you can play according to the rules or not, you know, Hoyle, but basically the rules are arbitrary, right? The rules of monopoly or whatever it might be, right, are arbitrarily invented, right, by man, huh? So the whole nature or character, you might say, of these arts that help nature will be, what, turned, huh, destroyed, right? If you see that nature doesn't act for an end, right? Okay? So it's not only ethics, but the medical art and the art of logic that depend upon the answer to this question, right? The very character, the very kind of art they are, right? Depends upon recognizing that. Okay? Then you could speak of the importance of this, obviously, for theology, right, huh? Because the man who says that nature acts for an end is going to ask eventually, well, does that require a mind, right? And then he's going to ask, well, does nature have a mind or is it directed by some other mind, huh? And if he concludes that nature doesn't have a mind, then he's going to conclude that it's a product of a mind that's directed by another mind. And this is going to be leading the mind sort of to recognition of the divine mind eventually, huh? Okay? But notice, all these things that this question affects, whether it be ethics in human life or the medical art or the art of logic or even theology, you can't reason from its importance to those things as to what the truth or falsity is in the question, right? But you can reason from them to the enormous importance, right? You know? They tell the students, I mean, they may not be interested in understanding nature too much, so bad for them, but they may be like that. But so they can't avoid living human life, right? Or having some contact with the doctor or having, using their mind once in a while. And so on. So that this question is certainly relevant to them, right? You know, Socrates in the Phaedo, right? He says, We philosophers are always accused of talking about irrelevant things. But now he's getting into a discussion of whether the human soul survives death and this is on the days you want to die, right? You can hardly say this is irrelevant. I mean, he's to have it think about it a little bit more. That question is relevant to you, not just the day you die, but the way you live your whole life, depending upon when you think this is all there is, right? Or the soul goes on, right? So you may think that philosophy is irrelevant to you. You just take it because it's a general requirement or something, you know? You take a little bit of philosophy, you know, but here your whole life depends upon this. You just take it because, huh? You see? You show life is just up for grabs and you could be anything. Okay? Now, that's the first thing you do, right? Now, the second thing we do is to point out certain misunderstandings of what it means to say that nature acts for an end. Certain common misunderstandings that lead some people to deny that nature acts for an end, right? But these are not really arguments against it. They're a result of what? Misunderstanding of what is meant by this. Okay? These misunderstandings can be connected with what we learned about the four kinds of causes and the three corollaries in it. And so, I usually just talk about three common misunderstandings that you're going to sometimes. Now, one of the most, the gross ones is the one that thinks that misunderstands the kind of cause an end is, right? Okay? So, misunderstanding, I won't repeat the misunderstanding, but misunderstanding the kind of cause that is the end. And sometimes this is associated, too, with the equivocation of the word mover, right? Or motive, huh? And more particular words than mover. Attract, draw, and so on, right? Okay? That these words like mover or drawer can be sometimes used for the, what, fourth kind of cause as well as the third kind of cause. So, if you say that I'm moving this eraser, right? Say I'm moving the eraser. I'm a cause in the third sense of cause, right? Not matter, form, but mover, not end, right? But now, if the prince climbs a tower that imprisons Rapunzel, right? And Rapunzel's beauty moved him to, what, climb the tower, right? Did Rapunzel's beauty move him in the third sense of cause? Okay. Again, take another word, huh? I'm pulling this glass towards me, right, huh? Okay? Drawing it towards me, huh? And you get some kind of performer down there at the center of Wister, and he's pulling in the crowds, right? He's drawing in the crowds, right? What, is he doing like a cowboy? You know, he's been out there and he lassoes you, you know, as you're walking by, and he pulls you in, right? That would be the, what, third kind of cause, right? Okay. But he's a puller or a drawer, or a big drawer, in the fourth sense of pause, right? So sometimes, you know, they give a kind of mystical understanding of the end. Somehow, you know, it's reaching out to you and pulling you in, right? Like in Midsummer Night's Dream, you know, where the girl is hopelessly in love with a man. She's pursuing him, as a lady shouldn't do, right? But she compares him to a magnet, right? He's responsible for all this. Well, a magnet is really, in a kind of mysterious way, it's really a mover, but in the third sense of pause, right? But the Shang-Yan is a magnet in the sense of the, what, speaking metaphorically, in the fourth kind of pause, right? So sometimes, people understand that in kind of a pseudo-mystical way, you know, the fourth kind of pause, as if we had some crazy idea that somehow is reaching out to you, you know, or beauty is pulling you up the towel, you know? And that's, I'd say, a fictitious understanding, right, of the fourth kind of pause. Now, his second common misunderstanding is of the first corollary. Sometimes they think that we are proposing the end in place of these other kinds of causes that are more known. So they have a false dichotomy there, right, huh? What is the cause of my going across campus towards the diagonal, right, see? Am I moving because of nerve impulses and muscles contracting and so on? Or am I moving across campus in this direction because of eating my lunch? Well, yeah. But if you had to choose between the two, you'd say, what? The muscles are moving you, right? Because that third kind of cause is more known, right? Okay? So, and sometimes it's easier, right, you know, to see the end in some way, right? And then the mechanism of how the heart works or the eyes work or the lungs work or something, right? And, okay? And then the third misunderstanding, of course, is with the second corollary. The same thing, right? So I said, is intercourse the cause of the baby or is the baby the cause of intercourse? Which is it? Again, it's a false dichotomy. It could be both, right? But one in the sense of end, right? And the other in the sense of what? That for the sake of which, huh? But again, if a person sees this dichotomy, he's going to choose the more known cause, right? I'm sure there are other misunderstandings, but these here I like to give because they tie up with what we've learned already, right? But now, even more important than these misunderstandings and leading many to deny the nature acts for an end is something called, what, custom, huh? Now, you mentioned how in the apology of Socrates there, right, he addresses both the men who have charged him, who have initiated the legal proceedings against him and are trying to prove that he's a bad man in court, he not only wants to reply to them, but to his, what, anonymous accusers, his unnamed accusers, right? The people who in Athens and so on, who have been saying bad things about him, right, for years. And he also indicates he's more concerned about them than the men who are trying to prove in court that he's a bad man. And there's kind of a contrast there between the force of custom and the force of, what, argument, right? Those who have been saying bad things about Socrates have accustomed people to, what, think of Socrates as a bad man in some way. Those who are in the courtroom have to prove in the courtroom that he's a bad man, and the custom seems to be strong within the arguments, huh? And so sometimes I stop on that because there's something more universal here, I think, to learn than just what's going on in the trial of Socrates. And that is, which is stronger, for the most part, in our thinking, custom or argument, huh? And even I present that, you know, to a general class there, students will tend to say, custom, right? Okay? And there are many witnesses to this, huh? One witness that I think I mentioned before last time, Max Planck, right, the father of modern physics, right, who was himself uneasy about his new theory, right, because it was so contrary to the things that he had been brought up in. But in talking about this difficulty of getting a new idea accepted, when it's contrary to the customer ideas of the world around you, he says, we don't really convince the older physicists the new ideas. What happens is that they die off, and the younger guys starting out are introduced to the new ideas in the beginning of their career, right? And they accept them, and that's how they get adopted, right? Well, as I say to the students, you know, if the scientists, who are presumably trained to follow the evidence in some way, right, and be more rigorous than the common man, huh, in their thinking, if even of them it's true, right, that custom is strong with an argument, how much more so, right, for men in general? Well, and sometimes, you know, I'll grab an innocent student there and say, you know, what's the cause of day and night, right? Is it the sun going around the earth each day? Or is the earth really turning on its axis, and that's why it only appears if the sun is going around us each day? Well, if a good modern, he answers what? The earth is turning on its axis, right? Does he accept that because he has some proof of that being so, or because his mommy and his daddy and his grade school and his high school teacher and everything he kind of read was saying that and repeating it? It's because of that, right? And then I say, now, let's get down and examine this by reason, right? You know, I say, now, if you take a piece of earth, you know, and you hold it there and you leave go of it, does it start going around in a circle like that? Huh? Is that the natural tendency of earth? Oh, you know if you have a mold into kind of a ball, like the earth is supposed to be a ball, more or less, huh? Does it just naturally start rotating? No. If I leave go of it, it goes straight down in a straight line. It doesn't go around. It doesn't start rotating, you see? Now, if I want to, I suppose I could take it and I could start to spin it here on the desk, right? You know? I'm going to keep on spinning around year after year. Now, it's got to spin around a little bit and then it'll fall apart, more or less, right? You know? So, everything we know about earth, right, so it makes no sense to see that the earth is just, what, going around all the time and so regularly as day and night is, huh? You know, we can use that as kind of the standard for our clocks in daily life, right? That's a ridiculous way what you maintain, you know? You know? Well, they aren't able to defend what they think, right? But do they agree with me? My arguments, you get no arguments reading their side. I get, you know, I'm convinced myself by my arguments. So, custom is stronger, right? And, um... Aristotle, in the Second Book of Wisdom, you know, talks about the influence of custom upon the way we think, right? And Thomas, in the beginning of the Summa Concentives, upon what we think, right? But the example I just gave was an example of the influence of custom upon what we think. And what we've been told for years, or from the time we're young, right, seems to be naturally clear, right? Okay. My friend Warren Murray was in an English class years ago at the University of Wisconsin there, and the English professor was making fun of the... Ancients were thinking that the, what, sun went around the Earth instead of the Earth around the sun, right? As if somehow it was obvious that the Earth went around the sun, you know? Well, it's not obvious, you're just accustomed to hear that, right? So my friend, knowing some science, he said it has some little fun, right? And he said, well, that's not true either. And according to Newtonian physics, strictly speaking, the two should be going around a, what, common center of gravity, yeah? You see? And it might be closer, you know, to one than the other, right? But still, strictly speaking, the two of them are going around a common center of gravity. A little bit like, you know, if a man's out there, he's got an old kid, and he's, you know, doing like this, going around a circle like that, right? The man is actually, what, rotating, right, as well as the kid, right? And it was a center of gravity, which is closer to the man, because he's bigger than the kid, right? But they're actually kind of rotating around a common center of gravity, right? So maybe even according to Newtonian physics, right? No, according to what the ancients thought, right? According to Newtonian physics, maybe it's not true to say, well, we'd say either, right? You want to be really exact, right? But he's actually got a little bit of, you know, it's not so obvious as you think, right? In fact, it may not even be true. So, now, you can see this, you know, if you live in the academic world, too, you know, or you read authors, you know, you go to different ages, and people take for granted things in one age and not in another, right? And C.S. Lewis, in one place, has an interesting reason for reading the ancients, men of different ages, than our own, huh? And he's not claiming necessarily that they're wise, right, huh? He's not claiming they don't make mistakes, right? But the mistakes that they make are not the ones that we make. So, when we read them, and we see them say the opposite of our mistakes, we might stop and think about it, and we examine our positions, and see that, right? It's kind of an interesting point, huh? And that's one way in which trial broadens, huh? If you only read authors in your own milieu, right, you're just going to get the same thing over and over again, right? And some of it will be true, maybe, but some of it won't be true, right? And some people who, you know, live sometimes in a foreign country, they see that some things there are better than at home, but other things that were at home that they saw were better, right? You know? Remember, Richard, when we're saying, you know, when you get married and so on, and your spouse, you know, had a different family life somewhat than yours, right? You may see something good in their family life that was maybe missing in your family life, but vice versa, right? But you can make those comparisons, right? So that sense, you weaken a bit. That's one of the weakening, the force of custom a bit, is to travel, right? But not just geographically, but maybe in time, huh? So the thing, what you notice at the same time is the force of custom and a certain similarity of thought, that they take something for granted, it seems to us, absurd, right? And we take certain things for granted, you know, we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. So, I mean, if I stood up and said that in Rome, slave Rome or slave Athens or some other slave society, they'd be crazy, you know? You know? Their first reaction would be, I mean, you know, if they had a scene in the silence, they'd lock me up, right? I mean, if you had a mind to say that. But again, you know, Aristotle speaks of the influence to have custom upon the way we think, huh? And in the second book of Wisdom there, you know, he talks about some men want everything to be said mathematically, and some want you to be a poet and so on. But wherever they come from, right, huh? And so Descartes wants the clarity of mathematics everywhere, huh? And the search with mathematics everywhere. And Novalis says the more poetic it is, the more true it is. But they come from entirely different, what, studies, right? And so if you have experience with, you know, committees of professors who come from different disciplines, right? They, you know, what's customary, you know, customary thinking, you know, approach the same problem in the same way, but in the way they're accustomed to approach things in their discipline, right? You know, I remember a big amount of video where the sociologist said, you know, he's trying to exemplify something ever, you know? Like, you're doing a word count in Thomas, he says, you know. My first reaction was, what the hell would I be doing a word count in Thomas for? It's like a sociologist might do, but... I've never made a word count in Thomas. Now, did we talk in here before about the customs of the modern world? Well, let me just do a brief overview here. But it's one group of them that's important now. I think there are three, at least three major sources of the modern world, customs. Maybe other sources that are more, what, hidden, huh? It's a famous remark of Monsignor Knox, was it, huh? He says, it's so stupid, he says, of the modern world to have ceased believing in the devil. But he's the only explanation for it. Yeah. Now, the first major source of the modern world and its customs, huh, is the mercantile origin of the modern city. Mercantile origin of the modern city. In the late Middle Ages, huh? The modern city was found in the late Middle Ages by merchants, right? And Woody McNeil, that I mentioned before there in the rise of the West, which is perhaps the best world history you have, secular world history, contrasts the origin of the Greek city with the origin of the modern city. And he says the origin of the Greek city was aristocratic, huh? The aristocrats, the land of aristocracy, settled near the seated government, right? And gradually the city grew up. So there's an aristocratic stamp, he says, to the ancient city. And even the most commercially active, he says, of ancient cities, they never completely lost this aristocratic stamp, huh? And... But the modern city was founded by merchants, right? And he goes into, you know, the whole ethos of the merchant class, huh? They're kind of converted pirates, actually. And have some aggressiveness in the West there, huh, that derive from that, huh? And then he points out, of course, how, as the word itself indicates, civilization, in its higher aspects anyway, is tied to the, what, city. You know, those words are connected, right? Chivas and Chibita city, right? In civilization. So this, in a way, colored the whole civilization, the Greeks, and the whole civilization would be, what, moderns, right? So this is the first major source of the modern world and its customs, right? And I give it first because it's the first that comes to light, then, first in time. I'm not saying this here is the most important, but it's the first one in time. And so there's a way in which our civilization is more commercial-like than any other civilization ever been. And it's striking, you know, how economics is a kind of independent discipline. And so there's a way in which our civilization is more commercial-like than any other civilization-like than any other civilization-like than any other civilization-like than any other civilization-like than any other civilization-like than any other civilization-like than any other civilization-like than any other civilization-like than any other civilization-like than any other civilization-like than any other civilization-like than any other civilization-like than any other civilization-like than any other civilization-like than any other civilization-like than any other civilization-like than any other civilization-like than any other civilization-like than any other civilization-like than any other civilization-like than any other civilization-like than any other civilization-like than any other civilization-like than any other civilization-like than any other civilization-like than any other civilization-like than any other civilization-like than any other civilization-like than any other civilization-like than any other civilization-like than any other civilization-like than any other civilization-like than any other civilization-like than any other civilization-like than any ...is characteristic of the modern, what, world, right, huh? In fact, they give Nobel Prizes in economics, right? So it has a lot of prestige among even the so-called social sciences, right? They don't give anything about prizes in political science or sociology so much, but in economics, right? There are reasons for that, too. Maybe it's only mathematical, but... And that even has some influence upon the philosophers, huh? If you study the history of ethics, you'll run into the book by Adam Smith, right? The Theory of Moral Sentiments, right? Okay? So Adam Smith, in a way, is a philosopher in the history of ethics, huh? But Adam Smith's most famous work is what? Yeah, it's kind of, you know, the first great book in economics, you might say, in modern times, huh? It's kind of, you know, you think of Plato and Aristotle having as their major work a book on the wealth of nations. Of course, Adam Smith was, what, a Scotsman, right? And if you read the economic history of Scotland in the 18th century, it's a remarkable example of a country starting off being very poor and learning some tricks in England, right? And then, towards the end of the century, so far advancing that the English are now learning from the Scots, how to do some things. So it's, you know, what they call economic takeoff, so to speak. I mean, it's a magnificent example, I mean, a very striking example of how suddenly a nation that is poor becomes, relatively speaking, kind of what? Well-to-do, right? And so his mind might have been drawn, right, to this. Why do some nations remain poor and other nations, you know, become somewhat wealthy and so on, right? In the 19th century, of course, Marx regarded his most famous work as, what, Das Kapital, right? That's the one he dedicated to Charles Darwin and so on, right? And, you know, the early collection of Marx's paper called The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, huh? Well, in case you didn't know, everything is explained by the economic mode of production, right? So, I mean, you find that, you know, I don't think it's the most important influence or the most prominent one, but you can see that in Adam Smith or in Karl Marx and so on, and the prominence of economics in modern times. So, the president gives, what, two standard addresses during the year? One is the State of the Union that we had last night, right, and this economic report, too, right? But did our president Kulich say, you know, the proper business of America is business? Of course, you see it very much, you know, if you, obviously, newspapers and magazines, they're mainly, what, advertising is, you know. So, you know, if you, obviously, you know, there's a lot of people, you know, you know, there's a lot of people, you know, there's a lot of people, you know, there's a lot of people, you know, there's a lot of people, you know, there's a lot of people, you know, there's a lot of people,