[0:00:00 Speaker 1] well, I'd like to welcome you all to the 

[0:00:03 Speaker 0] lecture. 

[0:00:04 Speaker 1] I'm Professor thomas Pangle, I'm the co director of the thomas Jefferson Center for the study of cortex and ideas. And this is one in our series of lectures open to everybody at the university. And you can find out more about our program at 

[0:00:22 Speaker 0] our website, 

[0:00:23 Speaker 1] the thomas jefferson center. It's the undergraduate great Books program here at the University of texas. Uh and we have a number of activities, including this lecture series and a book club and many courses. Uh and uh I welcome and urge you to look into it if you don't already know about it or aren't I already participating in it. But it's my, it's my real pleasure today to welcome as our speaker, Professor Peter erin's dorf, who holds the James front chair in the department of Political Science and Classics at Davidson College in north Carolina. Uh He's the author of a number of important books on plato and homer and on sophocles and many articles. And today he is favoring us with a contrast between the bible and homer, The contest between Achilles and David Men of war, faith and passion, but also men of reason. 

[0:01:21 Speaker 0] Mr answer. Um I want to thank um the jefferson Center and its directors, Lorraine Pangle and thomas Pangle for inviting me here to speak today. Um The title of the lecture um is the contest between Achilles and David Homer. The bible and the question of human excellence. Western civilization is distinctive because it is at its very core multicultural or more precisely bicultural. Western civilization is the product of a mixed marriage, the offspring of Athens and Jerusalem, of the philosophers and poets of ancient Greece on the one hand and of the prophets of ancient Israel on the other. Like the product of many, a mixed marriage, Western civilization may experience perplexity and even turmoil due to the fundamentally different conceptions of God and man and love and reason held by each of its spiritual parents. But at its best, Western civilization has always been enlivened and enriched by the debate between the champions of classical Greece and the champions of the bible. In this lecture, I seek to shed a little light on the contrast between classical Greece and the bible over the question of human excellence, over what constitutes a fully virtuous and admirable human being. By comparing homer's achilles, the foundational hero of the Greeks, with David, the heroic poet, King of the bible. Achilles, and David provide a clear point of intersection between classical Greece and the bible. Both heroes embody vividly and unforgettably the compelling visions of human excellence of those who write about them both are wonderfully manifold and complicated human beings and both are remarkably similar in their complexity. Both are great warriors and both are lovers and also performers of music. Both are men of tremendous passion. Both are men of great faith and as I will try to show in their own distinctive ways. Both Achilles and David are men of great reason. In my lecture I will compare Achilles and David as men of war as men of faith and his men of passion while tracing throughout my lecture the important role that reason plays in the lives of each. And in this way I hope to spotlight the most surprising and thought provoking features of the contest between Achillion and David. IQ Excellence. Achilles and David are both the leading warriors of their peoples. Achilles is the great bulwark for all the occasions and the vanquish er of the Trojan hero Hector. While David is of course the victor over the gigantic philistine warrior, Goliath and the slayer of tens of thousands of Israel's foes. It is, however, David who comes to cite as the more intelligent fighter and adversary Achilles fights his enemies in a very simple manner. Uh He runs them down and stabs them in the face or the neck or the back or the belly with a sword and spear. David, on the other hand, defeats the mammoth Goliath with brains rather than brawn. Uh rather than fight Goliath up close hand to hand with sword and spear and shield, as Goliath evidently expects him to do, David surprises the philistine warrior by killing him from afar with a slingshot. Yeah, When King Agamemnon threatens to take Achilles captive mistress away, Achilles first resolves to run them through with his sword and then when the gods intervened to protect Agamemnon, Achilles denounces and defies him openly. But when King Saul tries to kill David, David does not confront him or fight him openly at all. Instead, he flees and relies on cold blooded and methodical deception to save himself. When the frightened priest, a hemolytic, suspects that David is a fugitive fleeing from Saul, David tells the priest a bald faced lie. He has been sent on a super secret mission by King Saul himself. When David flees to the Philistines, the compatriots of Goliath and the bitter enemies of Israel and David to escape, Saul David has the presence of mind to conceal his identity by pretending to be a drooling madman. When David later again flees to the Philistines. This time is the head of a band of 600 malcontents and renegades. He assures the Philistines, King Fish of his loyalty to the Philistines and his definitive and final break with the Israelites by pretending to raid Israelite villages. While in truth, raiding non Israelite a malachite villages and ruthlessly killing the whole population, leaving, quote, neither man nor woman alive lest they should tell on us. Finally, when David as king learns that the beautiful but married, bathsheba is pregnant with his child and finds himself threatened with the exposure of his adulterous affair, He attempts first to cover up the affair by cleverly bringing Bath Sheba's husband Uriah, home from the Ammonites war to sleep with his wife. And when that clever ruse fails, David pitilessly has your idea, murdered and covers up his murder by ordering his general joe ab set your idea in the forefront of the hottest battle and retire you from him. That he may be smitten and die. As saul remarks, David is a man of exceptional cunning. No wonder Machiavelli admires the fox like David, a man he calls very excellent in arms in learning and in judgment even more than he admires the Lion like achilles. We may not be accustomed to thinking of David as cunning, because, thanks to Michelangelo's great statue in Florence, we tend to think of David as a larger than life figure who does not need to resort to roses and deception, but in the bible's account, David is not at all a big guy. Uh, The first king of Israel Saul is singularly tall from his shoulder and upward. He was higher than any of his people. When the prophet Samuel goes to the house of jesse to pick a new king, he evidently is drawn to David's tall eldest brother, Elia bob. But God tells Samuel pointedly look not on his countenance or on it on the height of his stature, because I have refused him. For the Lord see it, see if not as man city with for man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart and under God's guidance, Samuel chooses David, who is said to be ruddy, beautiful, valiant, warlike and prudent, but never is said to be tall. David is not big and brawny and therefore has to be brainy. Accordingly, the homeric hero whom David might seem to resemble most as a warrior is not the mighty Achilles, but rather the not so tall Odysseus, just as Odysseus defeats the mighty cyclops by his wits. David defeats first the mighty Goliath and then the mighty sol by his wits. And throughout his long career David eliminates a number of men. Your idea with a foul joe ab She may indirectly through guile, rather than directly through force. In contrast with David, Achilles hates and his choose deception, as he remarks to his friend Odysseus in book nine of the Iliad for that man is just as hateful to me as the gates of Hades who conceals one thing in his mind, but says another. Achilles hatred of deception in part reflects his love for his friends and his delight in friendship for the friendship of Achilles for such a key ins of outstanding virtue as Ajax, Odysseus, phoenix and above all patrick lists, constitutes the happiness of Achilles life. The happiest we ever see Achilles in the Iliad. The happiest we ever see any human being in the poem is the moment when Achilles is singing in the presence of Patroclus quote, delighting his mind with his lyre with it. He delighted his spirit and sang of the glories of men. By stressing that Achilles delighted his mind. Homers suggests that through singing of the glorious deeds of men, Achilles is reflecting on the nature of glory and on the nature of the life devoted to virtue and honor. And that Achilles derives an inner joy and satisfaction through such reflection and through sharing his reflections with his friends, Achilles appears to divine the possibility of a friendship that is based on shared conversation and shared contemplation, a friendship based on wisdom that would delight him fully in mind and spirit. And consequently, Achilles denounces deception because hiding one thing in one's mind while saying another threatens to undermine and destroy the delight of freely and openly sharing the thoughts of one's mind with one's trusty friends, and also of receiving their truthful opinions and honor. Achilles denunciation of deception may also more simply reflect his confidence in his own strength. Unlike the wily Odysseus, and also unlike the wily, David, Achilles is a big, strong man who instinctively relies on his unsurpassed strength to face down the threats of King Agamemnon and to subdue the trojans led by Hector. But perhaps most importantly, Achilles, denunciation of deception reflects his faith in the gods, in gods who support justice and punish injustice and who consequently do not compel the just to resort to deception in order to vanquish. The unjust. For. Achilles shares the simple faith of all the characters of the Iliad. A faith first expressed by the Priest of Apollo crises, whose daughter is seized by King Agamemnon, that the gods love human beings that they watch over human affairs and that they intervene to protect the innocent and pulp, punish the guilty. Over the course of the Iliad. However, Achilles faith is sorely tested. Mhm. Both Achilles and David are men of great faith. David dares to face the giant Goliath, not only because he trusts in his slingshot, but also, and above all because he trusts in God. He declared he declares to Goliath. Thou comes to me with a sword and with a spear and with a shield. But I come to thee in the name of the lord of hosts, the god of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied this day. Will the Lord deliver the into mine hand. Similarly, Achilles looks to Zeus to punish both Agamemnon for his injustice and his fellow a key ins for their cowardly acquiescence in their kings injustice. Achilles urges his mother, the goddess Thetis to go to Zeus and take his knees. If in some way he might be willing to help the trojans to pin the Akins against their sterns and the sea being killed, so that they may all have profit of their king and that the son of a trias wide ruling. Agamemnon may also recognize his folly that he did not honor the best of the A Keown's. 

[0:14:06 Speaker 1] However, 

[0:14:07 Speaker 0] just as David is a more thoughtful and subtle fighter than Achilles, so also is David in many ways, a more thoughtful and subtle believer. As the opening of the Iliad shows, Achilles piety is characterized by a noble simplicity. As the poem opens during the 10th year of the Trojan War, we learned that the Akins are suffering from a deadly plague sent by the God Apollo as punishment for King Agamemnon refusal to give up his captive mistress to her father, who is a priest of Apollo. Now, Agamemnon behavior here is truly outrageous. He refuses to protect the akin's from Apollo's wrath simply in order to gratify his selfish desire for a mistress. Achilles, however, intervenes to save the army from disaster. He calls an assembly. He alone speaks out against Agamemnon selfishness. And Achilles succeeds in inducing Agamemnon to return his mistress to her father and thereby brings the deadly plague to an end. Agamemnon, however, refuses rewards Achilles virtuous deed by dishonoring him. He denounces Achilles and then humiliates him by robbing him of his own mistress. And even though Achilles has just saved the army from disaster, not a single man in the army speaks up or intervenes in Achilles defense. Now, Achilles first impulse is of course, uh, when confronted with the outrageous behavior of Agamemnon is to draw his sword and kill him. Uh, but when the gods intervened to protect Agamemnon, Achilles looks to Zeus and hopes and trusts that Zeus will punish Agamemnon and the occasions for their injustice. Therefore, he takes no positive action of his own to punish them, but simply waits for Zeus to mete out justice. Achilles piety is based then on a confidence that the gods led by Zeus are just and that their justice is more or less clearly intelligible to punish those humans who are selfish, ungrateful and cowardly and to reward the dutiful and courageous. In contrast, David seems to rely less directly on God and more on his own wits than does Achilles from his first appearance in the bible. The situation that David finds himself in, the situation that God puts him in is remarkably unclear. David, the youngest of eight sons who humbly tends his father's sheep, is suddenly chosen to be king of Israel by the Prophet Samuel at the command of God. However, sol who was previously chosen king of Israel by the prophet Samuel remains in office. Even though Saul has been denounced as a bad king and shunned by both Samuel and God. What given this situation, David to do? What does God want him to do? Should David as the king newly anointed by God, overthrow the divinely disfavored Saul? Or should David simply trust in God and wait for God to punish an overthrow? Saul as Achilles, simply trust in Zeus to punish Agamemnon. David resolves on his own to take a middle course. When Goliath challenges the Israelites to decide their conflict with the Philistines by sending one man to duel with him. And when David here's that King Saul will bestow fortune and favor on the man who kills Goliath, David takes up the challenge. In this way, David takes it upon himself to achieve prominence and popularity in Israel, presumably in preparation to becoming king without directly overthrowing the sitting king, the still anointed king of Israel. David evidently reasons that God wants him to prove himself worthy of becoming king in the eyes of Israel, but without taking direct action against King Saul. Now, on the one hand, this strategy of David's enjoy stunning success. He slays Goliath in spectacular fashion. He becomes the leading warrior of Israel and he is consequently celebrated by all the Israelites for slaying tens of thousands of Israel's enemies. The king's son and heir, Jonathan loves this noble warrior, the king's daughter, Michael loves him and all Israel and Judah love him. But on the other hand, David arouses the deadly anger and jealousy of King Saul, who subsequently sets out to destroy him. Um once again, David faces an exceedingly difficult choice. All say that David will be king God Samuel, the Philistines, Jonathan even saw himself does God then want David to fight the evidently unjust Saul and overthrow him, confident in his own divine election. Or does God want David to place his whole faith in God that God will make things right without resisting soul at all. Throughout these events, God leaves David in considerable darkness. He places David in a dangerous and confusing predicament without offering him clear guidance at all. God does not offer David detailed instructions as he had, for example, to noah moses Joshua and even saw himself. God moves here in a most mysterious way. David, however, does not ask God for guidance, with regard to the all important question of how he should act towards Saul throughout the considerable period of time, during which David is one of two anointed kings of Israel, and during which King Saul is seeking to kill him. David never asks God how he should respond to this threat. David evidently accepts the deliberate mysteriousness of God. David evidently reasons that God wants him to figure out as best as he can on his own what he should do, or rather more precisely, David reasons that God wants him to figure out on his own what God judges that he should do. David therefore deliberates about what God's judgment might be. He weighs in the balance both the good of his own survival as the divinely chosen king and his need to respect Saul's own previous divine election as king. David. On the one hand, reasons that God does not want want him to harm the divine divinely anointed Saul under any circumstances. Accordingly, David spare salt twice when he could have killed him and he risks his own life. He risked the lives of those suspected of helping him. For example, Jonathan and the priests of Nob. He risked committing treason against the Israelites and he kills innocent family kites rather than kill Saul. On the other hand, David reasons that God wants David to protect himself. He who is also the divinely anointed king and therefore he actively and repeatedly takes measures to avoid being killed by Saul or the Philistines. Now, what is striking here is how actively thoughtful David's piety is, his is not the blind faith of a man who simply trust that God will somehow find a way and set things right in his own good time. David combines tremendous faith in God with considerable self reliance and I think you could say that David's encounter with Goliath is sort of emblematic of his distinctive piety. David does not face Goliath, armed only with his faith in God. As one might say, moses, faces pharaoh. David faces Goliath armed with his slingshot and five smooth stones as well, and he goes into battle with these arms of his. Not, it seems because he doubts God's love or justice or understanding, but because he reasons that God wants him to exert himself in his piety to figure out for himself what God wants of him and to act on his own. There is however, one respect in which Achilles is more thoughtful than David. Unlike David, Achilles questions the ways of God toward men. He questions the God's justice, their love and their understanding. When Zeus delays his punishment of Agamemnon and the A key ins for their injustice toward him, Achilles dares to wonder whether the gods do truly reward the just and punish the unjust. When Achilles friends beg him to forgive Agamemnon and return to battle to save the A Keown's. Achilles dares to ask whether those who sacrifice themselves for others are ever rewarded, either by men or by God's. As he remarks, there is an equal portion for the one who stays back, and if someone fights hard, the evil one and the noble one are held in single honor, he still goes down to death. The man who has done no deeds, and the one who has done many nothing more is laid up for me. Once I suffered pains in my spirit, always risking my life by fighting Achilles. Here suggests that even though the gods are believed to reward the virtuous and punish the wicked, they actually leave all humans to fend for themselves to suffer on their own and eventually to perish on their own. Later in the poem, Zeus appears to meet Achilles demand for justice by bringing Agamemnon and the A key ins to the very brink of destruction. But Zeus also unjustly allows Achilles dearest and most virtuous companion, Patrick lists the man hailed by Menelaus as the best of the a key ins to be killed by Apollo Zeus, his own son, and by Hector Achilles concludes from this apparent injustice that, given their immortal nature, the gods are simply incapable of caring about or understanding mortal beings. As Achilles remarks at the end of the Iliad to King Priam, who is grieving over the death of his own son. There is nothing to be accomplished by numbing lamentation. For such is the way the gods spun for miserable mortals to live in grief, but they themselves have no sorrows. Achilles highlights here not only the common mortal condition that he shares with the Trojan king, but also the gulf that separates them as mortals from the gods. Because humans are destined to suffer all the painful longing and the painful grief that mortals must suffer. Humans must accept their suffering and their mortality with a measure of calm resignation rather than endless excruciating lamentation. But because the gods inflict such sorrows on humans, because the gods themselves have no sorrows, humans must not look to the gods for relief from their sorrows for the carefree God's Achilles suggests here, neither care for humans nor understand them. Achilles goes on to act on this insight into the indifference of the gods. By affirming the importance of what we might call human providence, Prime has come to Achilles to beg for the return of his beloved son's corpse. The gods have ordered Achilles to return Hector's corpse, but after agreeing to returning the corpse, Achilles offers the noble and virtuous Prime a great gift. Achilles asked Prime how many days he would like to celebrate the funeral of Hector. When Prime asks for 12 days a piece to bury his beloved son. Achilles vows to hold back the occasions during all this time. Now, this benefactor shin, this gift of a 12 day truce is entirely free on the part of the of Achilles, the gods do not command it and and even Prime had not dared to ask for it. Achilles would seem to derive no benefit from it whatsoever. No honor, for example, from the a key ins or from the gods and this, the noblest and most compassionate act of poem is entirely independent of the gods. An act of human rather than divine compassion and act of human rather than divine providence. To be sure, Achilles doubt in the gods is not for going or complete. Even though he warns against trusting in the gods for assistance, he still holds out some hope that Zeus may bestow some noble reward upon humans still more than anyone else. In homer's poems, Achilles articulates and acts upon the insight that an unbridgeable gulf separates the immortal gods from mortal humans. Therefore, his final act in the poem is an act motivated by compassion and admiration for a fellow human being rather than an act of piety. Now, like Achilles, David also undergoes experiences that might well lead him to wonder about God's providence through no fault of his own. David is violently persecuted by King Saul and abandoned by both his people and it seems his God, overwhelmed by fear and anguish. David asks his remaining friend, Saul's son, Jonathan. What have I done? What is mine iniquity, and what is my sin before thy father that he seek with my life. Later in his life, David suffers the painful loss of two dear sons, one of whom is entirely innocent. And finally, the heartbreak of bloody and deadly conflict with his beloved son, Absalom. Why would a just and loving God allow, and even inflicts such suffering. Now? David does experience stinging doubts about God's providence as his psalms especially show. Why stand dust! Thou fought a far off? Oh God! He asks. My God! My God, why hast thou forsaken me? Oh, my God! I cry in the daytime. But thou here is not. And David articulates quite powerfully the gulf that separates man from God before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hast formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting thou art God for 1000 years in thy sight are. But as yesterday, when it is past and as a watch in the night, as for man, his days are as grass as a flower of the field, so he flourishes, for the wind passeth over it, and it is gone, and the place thereof shall know it no more. Yet. David always reaffirms his faith in the providence of God as as the psalms also show for the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous, but the way of the ungodly shall perish for the word of the Lord is right and all his works are done. In truth. The earth is full of the goodness of the Lord. The Lord is gracious and full of compassion, slow to anger and of great mercy. Great is our Lord and of great power. His understanding is infinite. Accordingly, David declares, I will love thee. O Lord, my strength, The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer. The Lord is my shepherd. I shall not want the Lord is my light and my salvation, whom shall I fear? David reasons about how to follows God will God's will. But he never seriously reasons about whether he should follow God's will. about whether God is loving or just or understanding God's loving providence is the axiomatic self evident premise of all of David's reasoning why given David's experiences and his thoughtfulness and subtle intelligence, does he never seriously question God's providence? Why given achilles is evident? Piety does Achilles go so far in questioning the providence of the gods? The key reason Achilles goes so much further than David in questioning the gods is to be found not an achilles mind, but in achilles heart. David is, as we have seen, very brainy, very smart and very thoughtful, at least as much so as achilles. But Achilles is more given to anger more spirited than David. And that trait, paradoxically, is what ultimately makes achilles more given to follow his reason than David during his long career. As it is recounted in the bible, David is said to be angry only twice. David is, to be sure, a formidable adversary who kills tens of thousands of am nanites and Philistines, animal kites who kills Goliath and orders the killer. The killing of the killers of Saul and Ishbo Chef, the killing of your idea and who advises his son Solomon to kill job and she may. But David is never said to be angry with any of his enemies and rivals. Most strikingly, David is never said to be angry with his primary persecutor and tormentor. King Saul. Um I mean, the contrast with Achilles on this point is especially striking uh while Achilles becomes enraged when King Agamemnon takes away his captive mistress, David is never said to feel anger toward King Saul. Even after Saul personally tries to kill him three times, tries to have the Philistines kill him, sends messengers to kill him at his home, tries to kill his friend Jonathan, actually kills the 85 priests of Nob. On the mere suspicion of helping David Hunt's David down with his whole army with the intent of killing him and takes away his wife. Uh Moreover, on the two occasions when David is said to feel anger, he fails to act on his anger. The first occasion takes place after he has become a great and prosperous king and has acquired many wives and concubines, but nonetheless chooses to sleep with your ideas, Wife bathsheba, and then has your idea murdered. When the Prophet Nathan tells King David the story of a greedy rich man who takes from a poor man, his one beloved little you lamb. The bible recounts David's anger was greatly kindled against the man and he vows that the man will be put to death. But once Nathan reveals that the story is a parable of David and your idea and declares thou art the man. David's anger dissipates. David acknowledges his guilt, but he exhibits no anger with himself, for example, by attempting to punish himself moreover, once Nathan reveals that God will spare David, but will instead punish his innocent infant son with bathsheba by inflicting on him a painful and deadly sickness. David does not become angry at all with God for the seemingly unjust act, the second occasion on which David is said to be angry is when he learns that his eldest son, Amnon has raped his daughter Tamar. But again, David does not act on his anger by punishing his son in any way. Now, David's relative lack of anger might seem to show that he is more reasonable. Indeed, far more reasonable than the wrathful Achilles after all. As Homer stresses at the very beginning of the Iliad, Achilles is anger toward Agamemnon is terribly destructive. It ultimately leads to the deaths of many of Achilles fellow Akins, the death of his beloved companion, Patrick lists, and in so far as Achilles, vengeance against Hector ensures his own demise, his own death at Troy, on the other hand, David steadfast refusal to indulge any anger towards Saul, enables David to succeed Saul as king, to reign over Israel for 40 years and to die, as the bible says in a good old age, full of days, riches and honor. Similarly, while Achilles not only rages at Hector for killing his beloved Patroclus, but also continues to rage at the corpse of Hector after he has killed him, David appears to accept the death of his infant son at the hands of God with a sad but calm resignation as David explains to his servants, who are surprised that he stops fasting and weeping. Once his son is dead. While the child was yet alive. I fasted and wept for I said, who can tell whether God will be gracious to me that the child may live, but now that he is dead, Wherefore should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him. But he shall not return to me in so far as David seems much more willing than achilles to accept the world as it is, to accept human beings as they are and to accept the finality of death. David seems much more reasonable. Yet. David's apparently calm acceptance of the injustice and harshness of the world is not based on his confidence, that he understands the world as it is through his own reason, but is rather based on his confidence. That, as he explains in the psalms, a just God is the judge of the earth and that consequently, God shall judge the world with righteousness and the people with his truth. David's lack of anger towards Saul, for example, does not signify that he accepts the injustice of Saul, but rather that he trusts that God will judge Saul, as he says, to saul, the Lord judge between me and the and the Lord avenge me of the but mine hand shall not be upon thee. David is confident that God will ultimately reward those. He judges righteous and vent his wrath upon those he deems wicked. Indeed, David stresses in the psalms over and over again, that God is wrathful as well as loving. Uh and consequently that humans should refrain from feeling anger and trust that God's righteous anger against all injustice will prevail, As David says in psalm 37 cease from anger and forsake wrath fret not thyself in any wise to do evil for evil. Doers shall be cut off. But those that wait upon the Lord, they shall inherit the earth. And even when God's justice seems wholly mysterious, David's faith in God endures for even after God punishes David for murdering your idea by sending a painful, lingering and ultimately deadly affliction on his holy, innocent son. Once his son dies, David immediately ceases. His morning goes into the house of the Lord and worships the Lord. David distrusts his own capacity to make moral judgments apart from God. It is for this reason that he rarely judges human beings and that when he does so, he does not follow up on his judgments by punishing himself for the murder of your area or his son, Amnon for the rape of Tamar. And it is for this reason that he is reluctant to pass judgment on the evil or good of his fellow humans of himself or for that matter of God, Achilles is anger, on the other hand, signifies that he does instinctively trust his own capacity for judgement. He is angry with Agamemnon because he judges his behavior as commander of the Akins outrageously selfish and he is angry at the Akins because he deems them outrageously ungrateful toward him. And while these judgments of Achilles against others might seem questionable, severe and even self serving, it is important to keep in mind that Achilles also judges himself most severely, much more severely than David ever judges himself. Achilles blames himself for the death of Patrick lists almost kills himself when he hears the news of that death and in a sense, does kill himself for the death of Patroclus by returning to battle, even though he knows his return ensures his own death moreover, even though Achilles is certainly flawed in judgments, he makes, he also shows that he is willing to revise and correct his judgments. Um, as for example, he does when he blames himself for his previous harshness toward the Akins, or when he expresses compassion and admiration for Prime. Achilles anger then reflects his trust in his own judgment, in his own capacity to determine just and unjust action. And it is the spirited trust in his own reason that ultimately leads him to question the justice of the gods. I mean, to be sure, Achilles never directly defies or disobeys the gods. And the poem, for example, when the gods command him to return the corpse of Hector to his grieving father, Prime Achilles complies however, once Achilles, his admiration for the noble and loving prime is awakened once he recognizes the primes grief for his dead son uh and concludes that the gods do not protect humans from sorrow because they are ultimately indifferent to human beings. Achilles himself judges that the noble prime deserves to be granted a truce to bury his son and peace, and Achilles. Achilles therefore acts to grant that troops again Achilles. His final act in the poem is not in defiance of the gods, but is independent of the gods. It therefore signifies his spirited trust in his own independent judgment and reason. The fact that Achilles is more given to anger than David also reflects. In part, Achilles is higher expectations from his fellow humans than David. David is much more loyal to his fellow Israelites than achilles is to his fellow Akins. He never expressed his anger at sol for turning on him and he never rages at the Israelites who side with Saul or absalom. Achilles, on the other hand, is furious with the Akins for their ingratitude and cowardice, but that indicates that he expects them to be virtuous. He loves the most virtuous of the Akins, but he is therefore angry with them. When they fall short of being fully virtuous, he craves the honor of the Akins, but he wants them to be worthy of giving him honor and hence to be honorable themselves. Achilles is angrier with his fellows than David is then because he expects more of them and therefore, in a certain sense, Achilles loves his fellow Akins more than David loves his fellow Israelites. Now, the suggestion that the spirited achilles loves his fellow human beings in any sense more than David uh, does might seem bewildering. Uh At first glance, David seems to be much more loving a man, a lover of his friend Jonathan of his many wives and concubines of his Children and a great lover, of course of God. Upon closer examination, however, David's feelings for Jonathan and for the women in his life are more limited than they might first appear. Jonathan loves David boundless lee for his outstanding virtue. His nobility and courage. Jonathan is repeatedly said to love David quote as he loved his own soul, he delights in his friendship for David. He proclaims to David, whatsoever thy soul desire if I will even do it for the and he sacrifices his own political ambition and risks his relations with his father and his very life out of love for David. David, for his part, feels affection and especially gratitude for Jonathan's love and for his many benefactor shins. And he does seek to take care of Jonathan's child after his father dies. But David never sacrifices or even risks himself for Jonathan, nor does he ever urge Jonathan to beware of risking or sacrificing himself for him. As for the women in his life, David has many wives, but he only seems particularly fond of two of them abigail for her intelligence and noble character and bathsheba for her great beauty, both of whom he first meets when they are married to other men. However, in each case, his feelings for them seem rather limited. While David blesses abigail and praises her when they first meet. After she persuades him not to kill needlessly. Her foolish husband, Nepal David reveals no interest in involving himself with her while she is married, nor does he show any inclination to uh liberate her from her husband by killing him. Once he hears that her husband is dead, David does take abigail to be his wife, but we are immediately told that he also took another woman to be his wife. David seems to exhibit more passion for the beautiful bathsheba, for he dares to sleep with her while she is still married and he eventually has her husband murdered and subsequently marries her. However, it is important to remember that there is no indication that David seeks to marry bathsheba until she becomes pregnant. And even then, his first plan is to cover up their love affair and even perhaps terminate it by inducing her husband, Uriah to sleep with her at the beginning of her pregnancy, so that he will believe the child his his, It is only when your area repeatedly declines to sleep with his wife while his fellow soldiers are still in battle that David has him killed and then marries his widow. The greatest human love David ever exhibits in the bible is for his Children. When David learns that God will punish him for murdering your idea by killing his son with bathsheba, he grieves so intensely for the nameless child, beseeching God for the child to be gracious, fasting, weeping and lying on the floor for seven days, that his servants fear that their king may do himself harm. When he learns that the child is finally dead now, David has many other Children at this time, but he grieves for this nameless infant, it seems because he loves all of his Children intensely and deeply. Accordingly, when he learns that his eldest son, Amnon has raped his daughter, he feels great anger, evidently because he loves his daughter, but he does not punish his son evidently because he loves him as well. When David here's a report that his son Absalom has killed all of his sons, he is beside himself with grief. When he learns that Absalom has, in truth killed only one son, Amnon David's sheds tears in grief and mourns for his son every day. But he does not seek to punish Absalom and even longs for his return from exile. When Absalom returns, and more and more evidently seeks to usurp his father and become king, David offers no resistance. When Absalom finally revolts, David does flee and marshall his forces against Absalom. Czar me. But on the eve of the climactic battle for the kingdom of Israel, David implores his commanders and men deal gently for my sake with the young man. Even with Absalom. And when David's army wins the battle but kills Absalom. David cries, oh, my son! Absalom! My son! My son. Absalom, would God, I had died for thee! Absalon, my son, my son! David's commander, joe ab explodes in anger at David saying, for this day, I perceive that if Absalom had lived and all we had died this day, then it had pleased the Well. Finally, when another son, Adan Aliaga begins to imitate Absalon and openly plans to usurp his aging father and act against his brother. Solomon. David offers no resistance whatsoever until Nathan and bathsheba persuade him to crown Solomon. And even then, although he urges Solomon to eliminate job and she may as potential threats to his throne. Davidson says nothing about the greatest threat of all his son had a ***. David's love for his Children is so great that he is willing to risk and even sacrifice his dignity, his power, and his very life for their sake. David's love for his Children is different from other biblical examples of fatherly love. He does not seem to love his Children because he seeks an heir to carry on his line after he dies. As for example, Abraham does for David still loves Absalom, even when Absalom threatens to overthrow him and kill him. Furthermore, David does not favor one son in particular because of outstanding virtue or beauty. He differs, for example, from Isaac, who especially loves esa or Jacob who especially loves joseph, or even Abraham who especially loves Isaac in this respect. David also differs from the one character in homer whom he most resembles as a father problem for, even though Prime loves all of his sons and is willing to wage war for nine years rather than force his son paris to return Helen. Prime especially loves Polydoras, mestre Troilus and Hector, and goes so far as to bitterly denounce his surviving sons as evil for not having died instead of Hector. David loves all of his Children unconditionally, without regard to any particular quality. Hence, he loves intensely. Even the nameless first child of bathsheba. David loves his Children instinctively, ineffably without reason, simply because they are his offspring. Achilles, on the other hand, loves his friend, Patroclus, above all, as dearly as he loves his own life and more therefore than he loves his father and his son. And he loves Patrick List so dearly because of Patrick List's outstanding virtue. For Patrick List is outstanding for his gentleness, his compassion and his courage. He single handedly saves the Akins from destruction. So great a warrior is he that only the God Apollo can bring him down. And Patrick List is the only character in the poem other than Achilles, who is praised by anyone as the best of the A Keown's Achilles. Greatest love, then, is, one might say, a rational love. A love based on choice. A love that is awakened by the sheer excellence or virtue of his beloved friend. It resembles the love of Jonathan for David, but it is therefore not an unconditional love. Um for if one loves a human being for his virtue as Achilles loves Patrick lists. For his one, one's love depends on the beloved's continuing to be virtuous and being human. Humans can stray from virtue no matter how virtuous they have been. One sees this from Achilles, his anger at the Akins he loves most because of their outstanding virtue, odysseus phoenix and Ajax. He loves them because they are virtuous, but therefore he is disappointed and angered by what he deems their injustice toward him and cowardice. Before Agamemnon, Achilles loves deeply, but there is something severely conditional about his love. He is angry with his beloved friends when they fall short and he is angry with himself. When he falls short, we never see him angry with Patrick lists, but we must assume that even his love for the virtuous Patroclus is conditional. Achilles, we may say loves Patrick lists, but he loves virtue more. David's unconditional love for his Children. Seems irrational, since it is not awakened by any quality other than being his Children. And it endures even when they are wicked. It is also irrational because it almost destroys his kingdom and his family. And it leads him to shrink from punishing the unjust Amnon and Indonesia and to expose his innocent Children to their cruelty? Why, then, does the bible seem to celebrate David's love for his Children? Why does God choose David for his heart for the capacity for love that God sees in David's heart, including the boundless love he feels for his offspring? What lens David's love for his Children, dignity and grander, according to the bible is that of all human loves it most resembles the greatest love that exists. The love of God for his creatures. As David says in psalm 1 45 the Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works. The Lord uphold it all that fall and raise it up. All those that be bowed down. Like David. God does not love his creatures for their virtues, which are of course, radically imperfect and unworthy of him. Uh To be sure, God does reward the good and punish the wicked, but he ultimately loves humans unconditionally and mysteriously, simply, it seems because they are his creatures as David's Children. Even the nameless child of bathsheba are his creatures. Accordingly, David compares God's love to a father's love on four occasions in the psalms, when my father and mother forsake me, then the Lord will take me up. A father to the fatherless and a judge of the Widows is God, and his holy habitation thou art my father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation. Like as a father pity if his Children, so the Lord pity with them that fear him. David's belief in the kinship between God's love for his creatures and his own love for his Children, helps one to understand David's happiness. A happiness which, for all his troubles, greatly outshines the happiness of Homer's Achilles. David not only loves God, but feels confident that he is loved by God. Since his own heart overflows with love for his Children, his heart gives him confidence that his creator, his father, however distant and mysterious he might seem, loves him in a similar way, and this love of David's and his confidence of being loved always and everywhere, is the source of David's greatest happiness. The happiest we ever see. David in the bible is the moment he enters Jerusalem as king, with the ark of God dancing and shouting and leaping shamelessly and with abandoned Before all Israel and with all Israel, for God, David gives himself entirely to God confident that God loves him and will always love him. The Achilles we see in homer never evinces such overflowing love for another, nor does he ever events such confidence that the gods love him. So. Achilles is a loving man, and he loves most deeply those like patrick lists and Ajax, and even Prime, who exhibit the inner beauty of the greatest human virtues, but therefore his love is always conditioned on the inevitably uncertain virtue of his beloved mortal friends. And as for the gods, Achilles experiences and reflections lead him to conclude that they're immortal, carefree nature renders the gods incapable of loving such mortal beings as ourselves. The happiest we ever see, Achilles is when he plays the lyre and delights his mind singing of the glorious deeds of men in the presence of his beloved patrick lists. This happy happiness is wholly humanistic. One might say he delights his mind by singing not of God's but of human beings, by reflecting on the glorious deeds of virtuous men who are worthy of glory and by sharing these reflections with his human friends. First Patrick lists, and then immediately thereafter, odysseus phoenix and Ajax, and finally with prime. But the happiness of Achilles that delight in pondering the nature of human virtue and human happiness is shadowed by sadness even before he suffers the loss of Patrick lists. For Achilles insights point to the fragility of human happiness and the fundamental aloneness of human beings. The case of Achilles suggests that human excellence entails trusting and cultivating one's judgment and delighting one's mind by reflecting on the nature of human excellence and the human condition and sharing one's reflections with one's friends, cultivating one's virtue and loving and caring, especially for those humans who are virtuous, so long as they are virtuous and facing one's aloneness in the world and the fragility of one's happiness with courage and clarity. The case of David suggests that human excellence consists in loving God in thinking about what God's often mysterious will demands of us, but always delighting in the belief that we are loved unconditionally by our creator, as we love conditionally, those we have created reason and love are central to each vision of human excellence. The relation between the two, the relation between heart and mind is what is at stake in the contest between a collie and excellence and David, IQ Excellence. Achilles is a man of great heart, a loving heart, but he loves most deeply what he understands and judges through his reason to be what is most worthy of his love. David is a man of keen and subtle mind, but he loves a god who is beyond all mind. A god whose mysterious love David knows through the mysterious workings of his own heart. The floor is open to questions. 

[0:59:56 Speaker 1] I'll just let you call on people. Okay. Mhm. 

[1:00:01 Speaker 0] Yeah, a real. Um so 

[1:00:05 Speaker 1] my question that they will only clarify for me something that you are already saying, but you tell me whether or not this is something you have money. Ah It seems to me you were contrasting Achilles and David in there character as pick depictions of excellence of human excellence. Um and of course their faith as a character of their faith part of it. But I wonder whether it wouldn't make in a way more sense to say these are depictions of human excellence given speaks the character of the gods as they are in one. So in other words that when there is one god who is constantly and deeply concerned and is everywhere and it's watching us at all times and wants 

[1:00:53 Speaker 0] us to be just. 

[1:00:54 Speaker 1] And then you can have these conclusions such as David has that. Well, if anything happens, it must of course be just because God is omnipotent and whereas in the Homeric picture, of course, god's interests seem at times only coincidentally to overlap with ours. Right there are doing their own things there sometimes when he said the prayers reach Zeus and but you know, he was busy 

[1:01:15 Speaker 0] that somewhere else. Yeah, I want to 

[1:01:20 Speaker 1] of course. So I wonder if in homer's picture in other words, the human beings just our war on their own And moreover, just to place an emphasis a little bit different than I think you did, it wouldn't be so much that Achilles anger is the key to reasonableness or his somewhat greater questioning, but rather that the Homeric gods just leave us in a position where we can avoid some questioning because of what, for example, Socrates brings out in the ufo that you have this picture of God's with conflicting desires, acting conflicting ways. Can they both be just that question seems to be much more opposable it with the Homeric gods of Biblical. It allows for it leaves us much more on our own. We have some conflict with someone else who believes there just were not God's chosen people were some God's favorites and not the others. And so the anger seems to me to go together with a question to find justice, but because of the character of the gods themselves, not because 

[1:02:26 Speaker 0] yeah, no, that's a very good question. And and I mean, yeah, that's a very powerful, you know, uh, question to raise. I mean, I guess what I would say in response is that, I mean on the one hand, I do believe it is true that the bible intends to present God as a loving as a truly loving and providential being, whereas I think, you know, Homer, I doubt ultimately does intend to present the gods in that way. But it's still, I mean, it still seems to me that the question of the difference between the two arises in the following sense. I mean, whatever we see of the gods in Homer, the characters are pious. I mean, they believe in providential gods. I mean that and and and you know, to go even further. I mean the most common epithet for Zeus in Homer is Father, Father Zeus, father of Gods. And men Homer uses that formulation 13 times all the characters. So there is this kind of, I mean, the horizon of the greek characters of the Keown's is a resembles I think that of the uh, the hebrews of the characters in the bible. And it's also true that even though God, you know, the god of the bible is God God. You know, I mean, the god of the bible is very mysterious and questionable as David above all, you know, raises recognizes, but also as David's life, you know, somehow recognizes. So. So perhaps, I mean, it still seems to me. I mean, it might be that the bible would condemn those qualities of achilles that lead him to question the gods. Whereas Homer might raise questions about those qualities and David that don't lead him to question the guys. But there still is that question, you know, is what is it that enables David, you know, who is fully cognizant? Very cognizant of these issues? Uh, two, uh, you know, ultimately maintain his faith. And what is it in in achilles who does have this, you know, belief at the beginning, you know, very powerfully in providential gods to that leads him to to to doubt that. I mean, there's a somewhat similar, you know, I mean, I guess the biblical view of a reason that questions the gods is pride. No, I mean, and in a way that's I guess I'm suggesting that that's true of Achilles in a way, but that it's a specific type of it manifests itself in a very specific way. And that, you know, a kind of instinctive confidence in his own judgment, even though there's also a kind of he has the confidence to to revise his judgments. So, I mean, I don't mean to uh, you know, to to sort of brought to ignore, you know, obviously the question you raise, you know, what is the folk, what is the portrait of the divine in both? I mean, that would be another lecture, but or more, but, you know, but it does seem to me that they're still given that different portrait. There still is this question of what are the qualities that make up uh, you know, a uh, an admirable human being? And the case of David, I find very interesting because the case of David, really, it does seem different from the other biblical heroes of of the bible, you know, in perhaps in somewhat surprising ways. I mean, does that, 

[1:06:03 Speaker 1] Yeah. Alien today, What makes the hardest for us fully admired, please. Um or even you touched on this in the paper, um his pride in particular his self righteousness. Or at least that's one aspect his so confident not only did. Yeah. Okay. Sure. And it could be contrasted with David's capacity for another quality. I don't know if you mentioned. Uh huh. I mean, Achilles admits that he made mistakes. You know, I shouldn't have. But do you ever see with a real sense of guilt and sorrow for something wrong? You see at least after what he's done to bathsheba the Clintons about it. And just, I mean, I just relate this to the question of who is more reasonable um His self righteousness, I need their way that David knows himself. 

[1:07:06 Speaker 0] I mean, I think you could say that certainly that Achilles is more given to solve righteousness than than David. But I guess I tried to argue that um Achilles is ultimately tougher on himself than David. I mean, David um feels very bad about what you know about that his son is dying and tries to save him, but there doesn't seem to be. And you know, maybe one could argue, I sometimes have thought that David may be haunted by a certain sense of guilt in his dealings with Amnon, Absalom, Madonna and so forth, But he doesn't really punish himself. No, I mean, David lives a long and happy life, you know, there's heartbreak and so forth. Whereas Achilles, I mean, even when they first tell him that Patrick Ellis is dead, they the messenger holds his hands because he fears Achilles, his initial reaction will be to blame himself and he does blame himself and he does, in a way kill himself. You know? So I mean, paradoxically, again, I guess what the question I raised and I admit this is paradoxical but is is the very trust in his judgment that leads him to be self righteous. That leads him to be judgmental toward others. Does that also make him in a way more judgmental toward himself? Whereas David? Um you know, it seems, I mean, again, not to say he doesn't repent, but it just seems that he doesn't he ultimately outsources that he ultimately, you know, says, you know, leaves, it leaves that part at least two to God. Um I think uh yes, 

[1:08:54 Speaker 1] given that, would you have set up David loving his Children? But others like Yeah, 

[1:09:02 Speaker 0] Jonathan. 

[1:09:03 Speaker 1] Yeah. Meanwhile Keeley's holding everyone including himself to the high small standard and basic. That would it be fair to say that uh, David takes a more passive approach towards society. Like he doesn't try to really do much and correlated. That doesn't try to other people that basically focused on his own self preservation, his own moral compass, phone and poorly. That wouldn't be fair to say that David would be less likely than achilles to endorse the common idea that we can legislate right and wrong, that we should think 

[1:09:43 Speaker 0] right. I mean, I think, I mean, I think David is very active in many ways. You know, he's very thoughtful, he's very cunning and brainy and but I think, you know, that that he is, he seems less willing to make moral judgments and to act on them than um than than achilles. Um, Yeah, and in that sense, you know, there's a kind of humility. Again, that's what's striking is the two times he really see he seems to be self righteous or righteous and have a kind of righteous wrath. He sort of backs off in each case. I mean, the most spectacular one is the case with with Nathan, but even with AMN in he just, you know, he uh, I mean, and this is something I don't fully understand. I mean, I think this is a that David dot, I mean, he may resemble God in a way with this sort of loving side of God. This sort of seemingly loving beings without um in a kind of unconditional way. But obviously in terms of the judgment that in that way he seems quite different from God and quite self consciously, two to separate him, you know, to, to bow down to God to defer to God's judgment. I mean, the God somehow combines both the wrathful judgmental side with this sort of overflowing loving side and with David, you know, it seems, I guess it seems ultimately that it's more the latter. Uh that David exhibits. Oh, sorry, yeah. 

[1:11:30 Speaker 1] ErIC but you're also saying that there's this Right, right, right, true. 

[1:11:40 Speaker 0] It's a mystery. I don't understand how it fits together, I mean, but I think they're both there because somehow, I mean, the unconditional side of God's love is their God loves all God, you know, and the love is not awakened by any um, you know, virtue or something that merits such love. But yeah, I mean, I don't I don't understand, it seems to me that is a real question God's presented is somehow combining both these types of of law. But even the anger, you know, I mean, even the anger, it's not like achilles having judgments about what people are capable of. And so, you know, it doesn't seem the same thing as a human anger. Human judgment would would be, it seems somehow different. And I don't understand how that. 

[1:12:28 Speaker 1] But as long as I wondered about this, whether it was really isn't God's love toward David at least awakened by some sense of a virtue. Yeah. And just this capacity thing else is 

[1:12:42 Speaker 0] capacity to work. Yeah, No, I mean, and you know, and there are other virtues that people, but again, I mean, it's small ball compared to God's love. Right? I mean, it still has this this huge, it's not like achilles love for patrick lists or no, I mean, or Jonathan's love for David. No, it's not. Uh, yeah, there are qualities of David that seemed to separate him out from others, you know, and uh, that might even be offered as a model for others. But it still seems fundamentally, uh, it's not a love that is awakened that is based primarily on admiration. Ah, 

[1:13:29 Speaker 1] I wouldn't have called an admiration arbitrary. 

[1:13:33 Speaker 0] No, I wouldn't. I don't. Yeah, no, I mean, in that sense, right. I mean, maybe you could say that again. There is this miss, you know, some combination of a kind of general love for those he has created, uh, which seems to be evoked above all, just by that fact with some distinctions, some judgment. Uhh practice. Why 

[1:13:56 Speaker 1] do you think he loves David so much? 

[1:14:00 Speaker 0] I don't know. I mean, I'm not, it's not, I mean, in the story about David, there isn't a whole lot of evidence of God, you know, like showering David with all sorts of good fortune now. I mean, it's not, it's not, I mean, you know, he leaves David on his own a lot. He David has to do a lot of stuff. I mean David counts on God and I, you know, and David feels that God comes through but it's not, you know, it's not, you know, it's just not there aren't, there aren't a lot of examples. There's not even, I can't think of a spectacular example like giving him a son when he's 100 or something like that. You 

[1:14:42 Speaker 1] know, two I have in mind or just David okay, preserving the kingdom of Israel Kings right after Solomon. No time. Mm It's even God rather says that Israel. Mhm. 

[1:15:09 Speaker 0] Yeah. I mean I guess I'm just saying that it isn't when you say he loves David so much. It seems, you know, it just seems complicated. It doesn't seem as though he does. He certainly doesn't hand everything to David, you know, on a on a silver platter. I mean, if if one were David, it seems there would be reasons to wonder as David does about God's about God's love. Yes, 

[1:15:31 Speaker 1] you can see a little bit more about a self reliance and serious relationship, because it reminded me a little bit of my monitor these interpretation of moses. Remember correctly, he says, when moses gets angry or spirited, that's kind of like, right, so the actual spiritedness or anger is a kind of divine endowment by God. So it's not it doesn't seem like itself reliance. So, I'm wondering what you were getting at is that the spirit of this is is itself an act of self reliance or if it's just kind of results in something that looks like self reliance because it's not just sitting in the brain. 

[1:16:12 Speaker 0] I mean, that's a very interesting question. I you know, I don't feel confident. I understand. I know. I mean, you know, the moses even less than I know the David section, but it does. I mean, if I'm not mistaken, I mean, moses great act of anger after killing the Egyptian overseer is uh, when he gets angry with the Israelites for, um, and he smashes the the, the tablets. And I think he that that's he that's condemned by God. I mean, isn't that why white moses can see the promised land but not enter it? That he so in that respect? I mean, you know, when I wonder whether the anger isn't somehow necessary for for moses, but moses is not very self, I think, compared to David, I mean, what I find so interesting about David is that in some ways he seems so much more, uh, how shall I put it? He seems like an example of human piety that's much more intelligible than moses because he doesn't talk to God a lot. He spends most of his time trying to figure out what God wants of him. And it just seems like that's somehow more I wonder if the bible doesn't present that that's more the condition of humans than say, moses conferring with God repeatedly David confers I think with God five times. But in each case they're relatively small questions he doesn't dare to ask God. What do I do about Saul? What about this? What about that? He just doesn't ask. Um, Yes. 

[1:17:49 Speaker 1] And it's a simple question and I was wondering who you think is the more admirable character. 

[1:17:56 Speaker 0] Now? I don't know. I mean, I honestly and I tried to frame this lecture to be honest in that way. I mean, because I think that, you know, in a lot of ways achilles seems more reasonable and and therefore seems more appealing in so far as one admires reason. On the other hand, I mean, David, I guess the two points I make at the end, it seems to me are are no worthy about David. I mean, one is that David, you know, there's some David's love seems more natural in a way than achilles is. I mean, it's more intelligible to say that one's love is awakened by certain qualities that therefore, and therefore, the continuation of one's love is dependent on those qualities. But that doesn't seem what love is. Somehow love seems maybe maybe originally awakened by that or something. But just this kind of maybe love is a bad thing, you know? Maybe love is. But it seems as though David exhibits that in a in a way that seems somehow more true to the heart, perhaps, than Achilles, you know? And then there's the complicated question of David's happiness. Uh, you know, maybe one could say it's diluted or somehow, but I think at least in the two works, there's no I don't think there's a question that Achilles is less happy now, one could say, well, that's because Achilles is so messed up. You know, he's so angry, he's such a tumultuous guy. What if Achilles were like Socrates, then everything would be fine. But I don't know, you know, I mean, it seems to me, you know, there are all sorts of questions one might raise about that. I mean, I think Achilles, you know, one might wonder whether there isn't a kind of harshness and bleakness, you know, to rational wisdom and whether the things that lead to a kind of sadness and achilles are not things again that are somehow more human perhaps than what one season Socrates. I mean, we'll never really sees Socrates grieving or sad even over anyone's misfortunes. Athens also by these, you know, now maybe that's the path, that that's the real deal. But you know, I mean, it seems to me that that's a real question. Um, one might have so I did. I tried to exhibit my own perplexity and confusion and share it with all of you. That was my fundamental ambition in the lecture. I was just wondering, yes, thank you very much. Thank you