 Okay, so the question is, how does Locke argue that plate is mistaken? What's the strategy that he's going to take? Well, what are some different options? I mean, so if you're going to prove that somebody is mistaken, you're going to prove some other person's conclusion is mistaken, what have we done, right? So what do we do? We take the premises for an argument, we look at the conclusion, and we try to show that one of the premises is mistaken. Well, he's not really doing that, right? It's not like Locke has provided an exposition of Plato's account and then shown the tragic error in his reason. He hasn't done that, right? At no point does he say Plato made a crucial error here. So he's not doing that. Okay, is he showing a conceptual difficulty with form? A conceptual difficulty. So is he saying there's something incoherent about talking about how form is eternal or incoherent to talk about how form is known through reason? Well, he hasn't done that either, right? It's not as if he said that eternal forms are conceptually incoherent, so we have to reject that, so that he doesn't do that, right? And frankly, we haven't either, right? The idea that form is eternal is estranged to us, but conceptually incoherent. So far, we haven't really tackled anything like that, right? So he's not doing something like this. He's not showing that that's an error in Plato's argument. He's not showing that there's conceptual incoherence in what Plato has offered. Is he saying what, giving a coherent account of all the instances where people know things and saying what they all have in common is experience, right? Is he doing a survey? He's not even doing that, right? He's not even appealing to a majority opinion, which is not a great argument, by the way. But he's still not even trying something like that. He's not giving it account of, he's not giving a catalog, I should say, of a bunch of different instances of knowledge and saying what these all have in common is experience. He's not even doing something like that. So what's the nature of his argument? Well, we see his strategy in this first paragraph that he offers us. And this first paragraph, he basically tells us, I'm going to give a coherent account, a plausible account of how knowledge is acquired through experience that doesn't need to appeal to innate ideas, that doesn't need to appeal to rationalism. And since I have this coherent account, I have this plausible story, Plato's wrong. Now, you listen to an argument, we listen to this guy being said a lot with the strategy is it all of a sudden it's it's kind of you're like, wow, really, that's it. That's a plausible story. That's the argument. And so I should reject Plato's account, maybe wonder about that.