 So I listened to the second session and I think three very important questions were asked. The first question, which was criticized, that the world leaders treat the conflicts of the world as if a world conflict would be like a mathematical equation. It would have been a solution, a good solution, but these conflicts cannot be solved. Mostly they can't. They must be handled, they must be kept under control, but they are not mathematical equations. People are not numbers. Second, it was very important to show race about whether in a democracy we need a cultural lead. Basically people believe that they don't, because everything's about quantity, nothing about quality, but wrong. I think those participants who raised the question, this spirit, were right. Democracy needs a cultural lead. And the third issue was about education, whether our educational institutions should be like a marketing institution that produces kids for the market and behave as a market. And that's wrong. It's absolutely wrong. They were right. It is wrong. It has to do with the first, second question. If democracy needs a cultural lead, then cultural institutions, especially educational institutions, should not function as a market, because not this is their function. Their function is to create a cultural lead. How did our education become some market-oriented, and what has to be done? It happened in the last half a century. Education became market-oriented in two senses. Education institutions behaved as institutions of the market. They became a market. They were producing young people for certain kinds of professions, and young people took a kind of profession in order to get a better position. That's all wrong. And it's wrong even from the standpoint of technology, even from the standpoint of physics, chemistry, because if you teach young people the physics or chemistry, which is actually the leading branch in science, the moment they finish school, it won't be anymore important for this branch of science. Only if you learn something with general, universal, you learn philosophy, higher mathematics, higher physics, Greek or Latin language, so, and logic and philosophy, you learn all these capacities, abilities, to argue, to think in abstract notions, to think logically, so to concentrate and to contemplate and to memorize. You learn everything with you later on, can actually, you can use it. It's not a specialized subject matter, but you can use it all, possible specialized subject matters. You're on the first panel, so you've been talking a lot about the crisis in our world and the 21st century. How do you see the 21st century? Is it going to get better or worse? I don't see any at the 21st century. We are at the beginning of the 21st century. Think at the beginning of the 20th century. Think about 1912. But in 1912, you could have foreseen what's going to happen in 14 or 34 or 33 or 42. It was impossible. So I think at the present moment, right now 2012, 100 years after 912, so we cannot do, we cannot possibly know what's going to happen in our century. We can only hope that it will be better, far better than the 20th century. But we have to contribute to this betterment. Here is the problem of changing the world. You cannot change the world as such. But if you have in mind that this conflict between democracy and totalitarianism, especially in Europe, between republicanism and monopartism, which is a European conflict from the beginning of modernity, that in this situation, in this conflict, you have to take the position of republicanism, of democracy, as against monopartism, totalitarian government, and that the danger of totalitarianism is not gone. This danger is always present in the modern world because it is a modern political institution. It was totally wrong when people believed that totalitarianism is something middle-aged or something reactionary. It's absolutely not the case. It is as modern as democracy. And that's why in a modern world, you have to face the danger that they can be reborn. And this basically changed the world in order to prevent the world from embracing against different kinds of forms of monopartism or totalitarian movements and states. What does that mean for the individual that live in this complicated modern age? How should we live to live right? It's a very difficult question. How to conduct a good life in a modern world? I have an answer to this question, but I think the answer which looks complicated is basically simple. We have to choose ourselves. We have to choose ourselves as decent human beings. And if we once have chosen ourselves as decent human beings, then we will become a kind of person for which you have chosen ourselves. That is, if we choose ourselves as decent beings, we will become decent beings. Now, the other things we should do be a decent citizen, a good citizen who does not spare money, either money, time, participation, effort for helping the Republican institution to stay alive and to develop. And the third question is how can you influence the public? You are a philosopher, sociologist, journalist, etc., etc. One has to learn to translate the issues of our own specialty into a common language so that everyone can understand it. You cannot educate the public in another way. If you control the public with the sophisticated language of your subject matter, they don't understand it and they push it aside. So you need to learn how to express yourself. In the language, everyone who gives the minimum effort, everyone can understand. This is why you can contribute to the development of a discursive culture. Discursive culture is very, very important. That is, what does a public learn? To argue, to listen to the argument of the others, not to abuse someone because he has a different opinion, to think with his or her own mind to learn to think with the mind of someone else and then to try to think in a way consistently. This is what people can learn, that people can learn. Of course we have emotions, we have passions, we are one-sided. Everyone has his or her prejudices. There is no person without prejudice. We don't look at ourselves as others, look at us and vice versa. And this is true about cultures. You are a Dutch, you don't look at the Dutch in the way as Germans or English look at the Dutch and vice versa. You have all prejudices, obviously. How can you overcome this prejudice? Not entirely, but only by listening to the other opinion, not rejecting the other. That's what he says, it's rubbish and that's an alien, that's an enemy, but the other has also, his or her position, have to take the other seriously. You will not overcome your prejudices thereby, but you still enter a kind of discursive culture.