 We grow up in cultures with narratives that tell us who we are by ways of simplification. And this is happening everywhere. So I am being told that if you are coming from a Muslim geography, you are a Muslim, and you can be nothing else, or this has to be your primary identity. If you go elsewhere, you will come across the same narrative across Europe from the far right. If you are a Christian or if you are a Dutch, just be that, you know, and nothing else. All extremist ideologies, what they have in common is they simplify complexity. And they're based on identity politics, and all identity politics is based on exclusion. That's why I have a huge problem with all kinds of organized religions, because they're based on a distinction between us versus them, and the presumption that us is better than them, you know, sometimes expressed, sometimes not expressed. So I do agree that we intellectuals or the left, the liberals have not done a very good job in terms of connecting with people's anxieties, and we must be critical of that. But at the same time we have to see, we have to resist this tendency to simplify things, because as human beings we are so complex, we are composed of multiple selves. You know, we're made of water, our main element is water, it's based on flow. What do I mean is, yes, I'm an Istanbulite, I'm at the same time a Londoner, I have connections to the Balkans, I have connections to the Middle East. There is in me so many elements from the Middle East, you know, at the same time I'm a European by choice, at the same time I'm a world citizen, at the same time I'm a global soul. So if I can have multiple, multiple belongings, there's a bigger chance that my multiple belongings will converge with yours. But if I am based, defined on the basis of a single, exclusivist identity politics, there's no way we can find common ground. We need to abolish that narrative that tells us, you can only be one thing, you can only, you know, simplify the narrative, and for that we need intellectuals, we need public intellectuals too. We need people like you, we need people like you, I agree. We need people like you who make it inspiring, who give us new positive visions of what it is to live the way that you're living. If people have nowhere to jump to, they will stay with their old identifications of nationalism and sexism. If we don't give them a new inspiring vision, visions of justice, visions of human unity, visions of human meaning, they'll stay where they are and that's what we're failing to do as intellectuals. Unlike you, you're one of the few who actually is trying to do this. We need to go back to humanism, we need to go back to the basics, but revolutionize it, radicalize it, we can't have a more radical humanism. And I know I spoke, you know, I'm taking your time, but if I may add this, we need to also talk about certain subjects that we have abandoned for too long and faith is one of them. I think faith is a subject that's too important to abandon to the religious, you know, and faith is not necessarily a religious concept. When you start writing a book, it's an act of faith. When you fall in love, it's an act of faith. When you move to a new city, it's an act of faith. There are so many moments in our lives that are acts of faith that have nothing to do with religion and we also need doubt, because faith without doubt will turn into dogma. So we need the vaults, we need the dance, the dialectics of faith end up. These are also issues that we don't talk about and if we don't talk about these things, people go to the far right, people go to the religious because there is a need to talk about these issues. I do think that there is a common thread that needs to be emphasized between general faith, which takes courage to live more generally and religious traditions that emphasize faith. To my mind, it's very important not to think simply of religions as repositories of exclusivism. Very much with Agnes where varieties of perspectives breed their own types of exclusivism. We cannot get over exclusive, we can practice boundary maintenance in a creative and mutually enriching ways, which is what I've partly heard you say. But I also think that we shouldn't think of religions, great world religions, simply as associative and fanaticism. I think great world religions are repositories of our most enduring and most potent accounts of what makes life worth living. Some of them have endured for 4,000 years, some of them less than that. I think I would be wary of simply dismissing religious traditions, rather involving them in a mutually fruitful debate, meaning them up to rational discourse and learning what might be wisdom that might be learned from the great religious traditions, in particular about the meaning of life. We are bereft of meaning in our life. We live in a culture that is so incredibly flat in terms of experiences that we have. We have made our business, as I said, to turn stones into bread, and we have not nurtured cultivated souls that know how to enjoy the varieties of bread that we are producing. No wonder we are this satisfied. This is precisely the answer. David, go back to the stones. I just want to make two points. Both speak to you, one, you're absolutely right about religion, but I think you're optimistic right now about managing boundaries of religious cohabitation. Fanatical minorities have now the means to kill people. They don't represent Islam being the case in point, but it might easily be true of crazed Christian evangelicals in America, like Boykin, who thought the Iraq war was, wanted to rerun it as a crusade. So there's a problem, actually, again, of the core of religions being able, it's tougher than you think, in our age of social media. You know, sort of homegrown bombers and young recruits, volunteers for ISIS, represent a tiny minority who can exercise a disproportionate amount of havoc, and that havoc can then be, you know, that is the kind of dynamite of vulgar but effective campaigns that we've just seen. You don't make my point, I think that's right. Yeah, no, the second point is also, I'm just again endorsing it really, but I think when heroic social democracy, never mind Marxist socialism collapsed, what the West replaced it with, essentially, was shopping. Yeah. And that, it turns, and that, as you, I think it was you who said, in gender's new form of perceived inequalities, why can't I have that bigger car, that bigger house, and so on, and so the whole promise of America, which was a fantastic and bizarre, mysterious promise, the pursuit of happiness, then commensurately becomes the fury of unhappiness because of radically unequal shopping opportunities. You know, so you are absolutely right about, we need to do something about that. Actually, we're all witnesses of a time in history where everything is happening too fast, and I think this is quite dangerous. I mean, we've seen this in Turkey, every day something new happens, every week something new happens, and there's barely any time to stop and think and analyze and digest. You're being catapulted into the next event and the next event. That's why we need these intellectual exchanges. Very, maybe I'm simplifying, but broadly speaking, we are being pulled in two very opposite directions, and the second trend is gaining speed right now. Yes, on the one hand, we had high hopes about world citizens, global souls, internationalism, multiculturalism, which is not a favorable word anymore, and then the other one, the tribalism, isolationism, the illusion that sameness will bring safety. This is what we are being spoon-fed right now. They're telling us if you are being surrounded by people who are exactly like you, who dress up like you, speak like you, in the same background, you'll be safe. It's an illusion. We are far too globalized to have this. Whether we have walls, actual physical walls or not, sameness will not bring us safety. How do we break this vicious circle? So I want to focus on the similar patterns. Also with regards to religion, and I hear what you're saying, of course it's wrong to say that religion is completely negative, religions exclude a lot. Organized religions exclude a lot. And you're right, we need meaning, but perhaps there's another way of doing that. Maybe it needs a different name, a third approach, which has not been named yet, which understands spirituality, which understands faith, and at the same time resists being organized, resists being part of any tribe. And for me, approaches that cultivate individualism because I come from a very collectivistic society belong to tribes, political tribes. So anything that cultivates individualism is very precious. Because fascism and neo-fascism, these are collectivistic diseases. You need masses, multiplicities. And as human beings, we are affected by the energy of other people. So if your best friend is biased against Armenians, that energy affects you. When you're alone, it's a different story. So in that lonely space, I think there's room for spirituality, for faith. When it's an organized religion in the public space, it's a completely different story.