 I want to know, on a much more philosophical level, why we get into this kind of situations. Lee, if you mentioned injustice and intellectuals, please explain what you meant with that. Intellectuals are not doing their jobs. We're mostly critics. We're not proposing inspiring solutions. We're talking too much. We're listening too little. Demonizing our fellow citizens isn't working. I am not going to call to the barricades this Christmas. I'm going to go back to Ohio where I grew up, and I'm going to talk to the people in Ohio who voted for Donald Trump. I'm going to listen to what their concerns are. I suspect that their concerns are very much like our concerns. I suspect that they feel that they have been humiliated in the society, and that they're not getting a fair share from our rules. They see a corrupt corporate elite changing the rules in the favor of those who are already rich to make them richer, and they don't feel like they're members of our society. The world seems to be ignoring the rise of an animal that has caused so much misery in the world, and that animal is called the dictator. Dictators rise in this way. They play on people's fears and so on. We have heard about the two world wars, two catastrophes. The center of it is an animal called a dictator. We have seen a lot of wars, civil wars in Africa, in the Middle East. If you look closely, the center of it is an animal or an institution called a dictator. A dictator is not a dictator because the country is called a dictatorship. You can have a dictator in a democracy. For example, in the American system, if we are to follow exactly what Mr. Trump once or says he wants, then we are in a dictatorship which is coming. So the world must now start fighting the dictator. We have a dictator in Zimbabwe with dictators in Africa, and they have common characteristics. They come as liberators. They come as wanting to save the people, but underlying this big self-interest, either as a class interest or as an individual interest. So I think we are in for a very, very difficult time. A more unjust world is coming, I think. It's a very interesting question which you raised before we started to speak about Trump. That was the question of justice. That is how you can make the society more just. I think it's very interesting, because the idea of a completely just society is the worst ideas of them all. Because completely just society is a society where no one can say that it is unjust. That is completely just society is a dictatorship, in fact. Because justice is not salt and sugar, which is contained in the water, which is the state. It is when people believe that this is just and it is just, that all these people will say, no, it is unjust, that its institution is unjust. We argue for it and we want to change it. Without this, there is no liberal democracy, liberal democracy by definition, a society which is not never entirely just, and this is basically the good in it, that it's not entirely just, that all these people can say, this is unjust, these institutions are just, this is not good, something would be better. We can always say, what would be better? We can change, we can believe that it has to be changed. And I think this is why I think liberal democracy is never completely just society, completely just society is a totalitarian dictatorship. I am sorry. I think there was a misunderstanding. I understood you. I wanted to explain what you said. I see, I see. I misunderstood you right now. I wanted to defend your position. Yeah. We agree, actually. The question if I understand it correctly is about current anxieties. What's new? Injustice is from time immemorial, from the time the hills were created. And so the question is really, what happened now that gives a certain kind of urgency to the anxiety? One line is Simon's line, which is basically beautifully described by Yates. The center doesn't hold. The best lack all conviction. The worst are full of passionate intensity. So what the best needs is intensity to counter the intensity of the worst. And the basic thing here is really the feeling, the strong feeling that things are happening when the midst of things that are happening and we just don't understand. And the failure of the pollsters, sure, people are not embarrassed. There are some people who explain to you a day before the election that the election, or the electing Trump is impossible, the day after, explain to you why it was necessary. So that the people are unshameful when things are not... We simply, I think, at the basis of the anxiety, and it's growing because of division of labor, complicated technology, complicated, a much more complicated world, is that we live in a situation that we radically don't understand. My lesson from this election is not to join the army of salvation, how to save the world, but first start with really understanding what's going on before you change the world. Well, I couldn't agree more with you, Avishai, but I think actually it begins with something for which our education, essentially, like many people around this table. I remember, you know, I too was born in 1945, my history teachers... Actually, I had a history teacher who said to me when we were 11 years old, well, boys, we don't understand what the rest of the 20th century happens, but of one thing we can be sure, institutionalize fanatical religion and nationalism are things of the past, so much for the prophetic powers of history teachers, really. But why I raise that is because what we have is a very... What makes it quite difficult to understand is that we have ancient demons and hobgoblings ferociously in the emotive power of nationalism, of a kind of visceral tribal sense of regeneration. It's almost biological, but it's very ancient that it's being wired together with a world that will be shaped by robotics, by the cyber universe, by artificial intelligence. So we have wired together two things which the enlightenment assumptions about progress don't allow for, but nonetheless it's absolutely the golemization of politics in that way. We don't yet really have a grip on what it is that we must actually address ourselves to other than, you know, it's clear that the sociological analysis, simply of structural inequalities, it's absolutely right but it is not enough. And you raise the point of storytelling very kindly to myself and Aleph and what does strike me is that not just a kind of intellectual view of the long struggle for liberal democracy has not actually been told with enough narrative vigor and vividness, has not become part of the American story right now. But it hasn't made its way into public discourse by which I mean discourse beyond the university, beyond wonderful conferences like that. It's not sexy, it's not a university, it's not entertainment. I mean I was being only partly facetious when I talked about that. Let me bring something to this whole discussion. We speak of a totally different place of the world, from Africa, from Turkey, from America. That is, the question is what is common in them because they know the differences. For example, in America there will be no totalitarian dictatorship because the first step of totalitarian dictatorship is to change the constitution. And if you cannot change the constitution, you cannot have totalitarian dictatorship. Then the fascism, the warships, or any of this kind, it's a different kind of phenomenon. Turkey is a different kind of phenomenon, there's something in common between us and Poland, Eastern, part of Europe, et cetera, et cetera. The question is what is common? And that's in common with all modern, all modern society. That is modernity. And modernity is a world which is as you indicated, it has no foundation. It is based, if I may say, on freedom. But freedom is a foundation which is not found. You are free to do anything. It has three different kinds of tendencies. One tendency is market distribution, which I quote, capitalism. The other is technology, progress integral. The only thing where there is progress is technology because it's cumulation of knowledge, technical, and the third is the possibility to change political rule. That is, choose the kind of political rule you want to choose. Stephen, what human nature is all about? Will history remain that tale told by an idiot, or...? You didn't finish the question there, did you? Will it remain? Or not. Well, I think the telling of history is an attempt to escape from the idiocy of the contemporary, from the prism of the contemporary. And I'm the person who said we have to really think about now, and I echo Avishai's concern that we think about what's new. But I've always thought of history as a kind of involuntary pluralism because if you're doing it right, and this is true also, the kind of writing that Elif does, I think, it's involuntary empathy. You have to put yourself in other people's shoes, separated in space and time. And for me, the great conundrum, the great potential tragedy of our time as well, is that the world has divided, as we've all said in one way or another, between those who feel life must be lived with people who look and sound exactly like themselves and are coastal people who find that life is actually most rich when it's living with people who are not like ourselves. And history's job really is to give narrative richness to the possibility of a fully lived human life being with others. Thank you. Thank you so much.