 So I take it it's obvious that you do not agree with Philanus's conclusion. You think that not only there are objects But that their material substance right there made up matter and Philanus has now that there's been to there's objects They're just not material. So you you don't agree with Philanus. I take it now. Maybe you do but I seriously doubt it Well the question is you know, what's the general strategy that Philanus Barkley is going to take to reach this conclusion and what's his Overall and broad strokes. How does he think he's going to Reach the conclusion and convince you to by the way because you know, Highless is basically you Uh, convince you that uh material objects material substance does not exist objects exist, but not material substance Well, uh, you know Highless and Philanus kind of engage in almost like a bet right now almost like a bet So you know starts off a highless saying Or you kind of have to imagine this extravagan sort of talk, you know speech You were represented in last night's conversation as one who maintained the most extravagant opinion that ever entered into the mind of men To wit that there is no such thing as material substance in the world Something a little dramatic flowers there. All right, so yeah, here's here Excuse me. Highless starting out like Philanus. You are crazy Philanus says That there is no such thing as what philosophers call material substance. I am seriously persuaded But if I'm made to see anything absurd or skeptical in this, I should then have the same reason Uh to renounce this that I imagine have now to reject the contrary opinion So what Philanus is saying here is Uh If you can show me That the belief that there's no material substance is either absurd So results in some kind of bizarre Contradiction Right or just something completely bizarre apparently more bizarre than there's no material substance Or skepticism Right, then he'll give up material substance. He'll give up the idea that there's no material substance He'll say that there is material substance Because he says by net right now he says right now the belief that there is material substance results in absurdity Or skepticism or both So this is this is his point Philanus is saying the claim that there's material substance that there's a guitar and it's made of matter Results in absurdity or skepticism or both Uh, so high list does not respond well to this What can be more fantastical more repugnant to common sense or more manifest piece of skepticism than to believe there's no such thing as matter All right, so to which Philanus says Softly good high list Which we should translate is dude chill What if I should prove that you who hold there is by virtue of that opinion A greater skeptic and maintain more paradoxes and repugnances to common sense than I who believe no such thing So here he's laying down the bet My philanus is laying down the bet. What if I show you that your belief results in contradictions and absurdities You know how this is me you may assume persuade me the part is greater than the whole as that Or in order to avoid a certain skepticism. I should ever be obliged to give up my opinion at this point How this says no way you can't do it Philanus well then are you content to admit that opinion for true which upon examination shall appear most agreeable to common sense And remote from skepticism here. He's laying down the bet It's like we're gonna have two competing theories one that there's material substance and one there is not material substance There's objects right but either it's material or it's not And philanus says okay, which one you're gonna figure out which one has more paradoxes more repugnances of common sense more skepticism and the one that has less Is the one we both have to agree on And philanus with all my heart Since you are for raising disputes about the plainest things in nature. I am content for once to hear what you have to say Now it's probably worth mentioning like this is a very It's huge egos, right Huge egos in this dialogue. It's probably worth mentioning that There's one at least one very prominent philosopher that wrote in this dialogue style That was plato And when plato wrote socrates Actually, all the characters kind of had this huge egos, right and socrates was kind of a smart alec And a lot of it and he would do this sort of thing a lot socrates would do the sort of thing a lot Who knows whether that's how socrates actually was right We don't really know but uh Barkley here, I think is helping himself to plato style And writing out this dialogue and that's fine, right? It's fun. It's amusing But that's that's why You know, that's why there's this kind of dramatic style to all of it So this is the general strategy that philanus is taking here He's going to take the theory. He's going to take for granted, right? There are objects Take that for granted and then You take the theory that either the objects are material or they're not And what he says is that look we're going to compare these two and whichever one has more Repugnances to common sense more absurdities or results of skepticism. That's the one we have to give up So he thinks that you know material substance has repugnances to common sense And results of skepticism So we have to give it up and only take only keep that theory That objects exist. There's just not material