 I just want to say, here you are in Holland, please do not back down. In my country, we have just, you know, had the fabulous Governor of Kentucky say, the future of education, we don't need philosophers, we need engineers. And we're going to stop funding education for anything that's not engineering and the hard sciences. And we don't need the philosophers and we don't need the humanities. Now, of course, I do realize that being human is not necessary. But the humanities are about advising you how to be human and deepening what it means to be human. And I think, without that, you can have all the hard science you want for breakfast. But it's not a balanced diet. And also, Obama keeps coming forward and saying, I want more scientists and more mathematicians. He doesn't say, I want more humanities majors and I want more philosophers. But of course, they could have helped him, not green light torture. They could have really helped him not decide that it was cheaper to simply attack a few villages with drone strikes. It's not cheaper. It's so much more expensive. And the famous cliché, but it's true, is if you think education is expensive, see how expensive it is to have no education. And that's what we're in the middle of America right now. In my country, education has been deliberately attacked and rolled backwards since 1980 in a systematic way. In my state of California in 1984, the legislatures started meeting a special committee to create new crimes so that people could be locked up in new prisons and to systematically shut down schools. So in some parts of California, prisons are the new schools and that was not accidental, it was organized. Starting in 1984, we now have in the state of California more prisons, we have built more prisons since 1984 than Mao Tse Tung and Joseph Stalin put together. And we now have the largest prison population in world history in the state of California. We've also perfected solitary confinement in which young gang members are quote-unquote isolated for their own good and have no human contact for now seven, eight, nine and ten years. These people have, of course, lost their minds. The young people who have been released have gone home and they're sitting in a back room of their mother's house with the blinds drawn down during the day and the door shut not able to talk. It costs $275,000 per year to subject a human being to this treatment, solitary confinement and the California prison system. But we do not have $3,000 to send that person to college. To put a young person in the California prison system costs five times more than tuition at Harvard. And what most young people don't have is basic opportunity to do something interesting. Not something that insults their intelligence, but something that engages their intelligence and opens a world that is more interesting than what surrounds them at the moment. And our rollback of education has meant we have deprived the generation of doing something more interesting than what they're now doing. And it's not that there's nothing that needs to be done. But again, we live in an amazing moment of economic thinking. Anything that actually does not need to be done, there's money available immediately. Anything that urgently needs to be done has no budget, no money, has been defunded, the budget has been cut or removed. And I just want to describe to you a little bit of what I'm hoping the next stage for education is, but also how this works in public life. Because it's now time for universities to have serious roles in public life once again. Because if we leave truth-telling to the politicians and to the legislatures, that will be a problem. And so the universities now need to step forward and have a very public face. Which is where the arts are actually crucial. Because the arts are about the ability to speak in public, to act in public, and to create a dialogue and to create a participatory shared occasion that is able to function through metaphor that lets everybody go to the next step themselves or together. I just want to again underscore if more of the political decisions that we've seen in the last generation had been made with artists in the room. And I don't mean to say that artists are better than other people. The worst artists are just horrible. And there's nothing worse than bad art and there's a lot of it. Well, no, there's one thing worse than bad art and that's the bad artist who made it. But just to say, I'm not making a special case for artists being great. I'm just saying it's another sensitivity, sensibility, awareness, and thought process which needs to be in the room as decisions are being made about welfare, education, war, and peace. About housing and about law. At the moment, the law has very little majesty because so many laws have been passed that are simply offensive. And it will take two generations to remove laws that have been passed in the last 20 years. Law does not mean morally correct. Law means what somebody thought they could do to their own advantage and to disinvantage someone else. And that is the law. We need a larger picture of what law is which is why moral philosophers are necessary because most law is just expediency and deliberately somebody putting their finger on the scale because they can. And we need to ask ourselves very seriously what the structures of equality are. And could be in the 21st century. We have come from extremely unequal histories, unequal systems, unequal ways of thinking, unequal categories, and equality is the urgent question. The other question for me, for intellectuals, is now we've had an amazing period of critical theory in which intellectuals have spoken in a language that is impenetrable to the general public, which means no one who actually votes has read your damn book because it's unreadable. And with deep admiration because there's been such beautiful work done intellectually in the last 35 years, the task of the next 35 years or 50 years is to rewrite those books in a language that becomes part of public dialogue. What I'm saying is the real intellectual task is to find a way to discuss complexity in terms that are simple with no falsification. How do we remain honest and true to genuine complexity but express that complexity in a way that is transparent and where there are points of entry for an entire range of citizens? That is a serious intellectual challenge. And we need the greatest minds to take up that challenge of no falsification but actually using with discipline and precision language that is within reach of a majority of the citizens.