Philadelphia Political Agnostics

Sun, Jan 4, 2026 · 3:00 PM EST

•

Online

Bi-Weekly Discussion - Can & Should We Be "Politically Agnostic"?

Online

This is going to be an online meetup using Zoom. If you've never used Zoom before, don't worry — it's easy to use and free to join.

Click on the link below to log into Zoom at the scheduled date/time...
.

***

CAN & SHOULD WE BE "POLITICALLY AGNOSTIC"?

INTRODUCTION:

When I started this meetup back in 2015, I originally just wanted to create a nonpartisan forum for people with different viewpoints to discuss political issues. My thinking was that it would probably be a mistake and a waste of time to invite "true believers" in traditional conservatism or liberal-progressivism to join us since they'd already have their minds made up and would be prone to ranting & preaching. There are already plenty of political groups in the Philadelphia area that specifically cater to the interests of conservatives & progressives, and they've got the two major political parties, so I decided I'd create a space for those who didn't fit neatly into either of those boxes, which I decided to call "political agnostics". (I also considered the terms "political orphans", "politically homeless" and "political skeptics".)

Over the past decade, I've periodically received messages & comments from people expressing confusion over the meaning of the term "political agnostics" - e.g. is this a group for politically active atheists & agnostics? Quite a few people have objected to the idea that one should be "agnostic" - in the sense of ambivalent or apathetic - on political issues that could have big impacts on many people's lives. Others have questioned whether it's even psychologically possible to be truly "agnostic" - in the sense of unbiased or objective - on contentious political issues. This meetup is meant to address these confusions & concerns.

First off, it helps to know how philosophers define the term "agnostic" (and its opposite, "gnostic") and how it can be subdivided into "strong" and "weak" versions. "Gnostic" indicates the possessesion of some form of esoteric or transcendant knowledge. "Strong agnosticism" is the position that the truth or falsity of a gnostic claim is forever unknowable to anyone. "Weak agnosticism" can either the humbler position that you personally don't know whether X exists, but you don't deny that someone else could know. Or it could indicate the somewhat stronger position that no one knows whether X exists right now, but it may become verifiable in the future as we learn more. (This is similar to "weak atheism" where a person does not believe in God but doesn't claim to know definitively whether or not a deity exists.)

How can we transfer the term "agnostic" into the political realm? One place to start is with the political philosopher Eric Voegelin, who defined gnosis as "a purported direct, immediate apprehension or vision of truth without the need for critical reflection; the special gift of a spiritual and cognitive elite." Voegelin saw philosophical parallels between the ancient philosophies of Platonism & Gnosticism which claimed knowledge of a "transcendental" reality and communism & fascism which also claimed a form of ultimate knowledge but were more concerned with transforming "immanent" reality, i.e. the political world.

Voegelin's political take on "gnosticism" is similar to the concept of "ideal theory" in political philosopy, i.e. a range of theories which specify the optimal societal structure based on idealised assumptions which while unrealistic can arguably still provide a guide for improvements in our non-ideal world and possibly serve as a goal or end-state we could reach in the future. Critics of ideal theories often oppose them on the grounds that they assume a level of detailed knowledge about complex systems we can't possibly have, at least not now. Other critics reference James Madison's famous quote: "If Men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls would be necessary." These critics propose a range of "non-ideal theories" that account for real-world constraints and try to aim for a society that isn't perfect but is relatively good, considering the alternatives.

When we talk about being "politically agnostic" in this discussion, we'll explore several positions characterized by skepticism towards political knowledge:

(1) APATHY/CYNICISM: In its "strongest" form, political agnosticism could mean denying the possibility of any knowledge of what qualifies as a good society or what public policies could improve the human condition. A strong political agnostic would probably be completely apolitical, although they could theoretically adopt a political ideology through a "leap of faith" if they felt it would somehow make their life better or happier. If they valued their own self-interest, a strong agnostic's political actions would be entirely guided by what benefits them personally, although they might feign altruism to win social approval. They may be cynical and assume all political debate is merely a cover for people pursuing their narrow self-interest. (This is called the "self-interested voter hypothesis" in political science and doesn't appear to hold up empirically for most voters - most people think they're helping society or at least their identity group or party.)

(2) REALISM: In a more "moderate" version, political agnosticism would merely mean that one doubts that anyone has Voegelin's type of "gnostic" knowledge of politics, and thus one would be suspicious of any political prophets or master texts that claim to furnish an infallible roadmap to utopia and likewise of anyone claiming they should be entrusted with absolute power. This moderate sort of agnosticism would be similar to what the economist Thomas Sowell called the "constrained vision" of politics - i.e. the belief that human nature is essentially unchanging and that humans are naturally somewhat selfish & ignorant. Those with a constrained vision of politics often describe themselves as "realists", value law & order, and believe compromise is essential because there are no ideal solutions, only trade-offs. The constrained vision of the political realists suggests we can still know what "dystopias" are from history, and that we'd be better off hedging against really bad outcomes (e.g. tyranny, genocide, world war, economic depression, hyperinflation, famine, etc.) instead of trying to create a utopia.

(3) PRAGMATISM: In its "weakest" form, political agnosticism could merely mean a form of "political pragmatism" that is suspicious of purist ideologies. One could accept that all knowledge is provisional but still believe in the possibility of progress, albeit typically through incremental reforms rather than revolutions. Pragmatists tend to believe human beings can be improved - in their behavior if not their inherent nature - through education, social programs & just law enforcement. Pragmatists tend to favor a scientific approach to both ethics & politics where trial & error are used to reform society & gradually advance towards a utopia we can never quite reach.

A NOTE ON SOME RELATED MEETUPS:

The 1st section of today's outline deals with moral philosophy, and it mentions the ways in which moral uncertainty can justify certain elements of classical liberalism. We explored these topics in a previous meetup entitled "Locke & Mill Revisited" - see Part 2 on J.S. Mill's "harm principle" & how it relates to Cass Sunstein's "libertarian paternalism" and Part 3 on Locke's case for religious toleration & how it relates to Karl Popper's "paradox of tolerance".

The 1st section of today's outline also mentions "reflective equilibrium". This concept was mentioned in the Intro section of a meetup we had back in August entitled "Is 'Cancel Culture' a Real Threat?" We explored how the deliberation & discussion necessary for "reflective equilibrium" relates to freedom of speech & the press, as well as to Karl Popper's idea of the "open society".

The 2nd section looks at "political agnosticism" in the context of the conservative movement in the mid-20th century. We looked at the elements of "classical liberalism" in Buckley-era conservatism in the 1st section of a meetup back in Oct. 2020 entitled "Is Constitutional Conservatism Dying?"

The 3rd section looks at "political agnosticism" in the context of the progressive movement in the late-20th/early-21st century. We looked at the elements of "classical liberalism" in post-Cold War liberalism in the 2nd & 3rd sections of a meetup back in Oct. 2020 entitled "Is Social Liberalism Dying?"

The 4th section of our outline mentions a group of public intellectuals known as the "Intellectual Dark Web" (IDW). We looked at them in a previous meetup back in Aug. 2022 entitled "What Is Responsible Heterodoxy?" where we considered the development of "heterodox" intellectual spaces in recent years and the debates around why some members of the IDW have arguably become grifters after falling prey to "reflexive contrarianism" and "audience capture".

***

DIRECTIONS ON HOW TO PREPARE FOR OUR DISCUSSION:

The videos & articles you see linked below are intended to give you a basic overview of some of the debates in psychology, ethics, political philosophy & public policymaking that relate to agnosticism, realism & pragmatism. As usual, I certainly don't expect you to read all the articles & watch all the videos prior to attending our discussion.

The easiest way to prepare for our discussion is to just watch the numbered videos linked under each section - the videos come to about about 53 minutes total. The articles marked with asterisks are just there to supply additional details. You can browse and look at whichever ones you want, but don't worry - we'll cover the stuff you missed in our discussion.

In terms of the discussion format, my general idea is that we'll address the topics in the order presented here. As you can see, I've listed some questions under each section to stimulate discussion. We'll do our best to answer most of them. I figure we'll spend about 30 minutes on each section.

***

I. THE PSYCHOLOGY & MORAL PHILOSOPHY OF AGNOSTICISM:

• DO SOME PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAITS LIKE OPENNESS, CONSCIENTIOUSNESS, COGNITIVE RIGIDITY/ FLEXIBILITY, NEED FOR CLOSURE, AMBIGUITY AVERSION, RISK TOLERANCE, AND UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE PREDISPOSE US TOWARDS OR AWAY FROM ACKNOWLEDGING MORAL COMPLEXITY?
• CAN WE DISTINGUISH AGNOSTIC POSITIONS LIKE "MORAL SKEPTICISM" & "MORAL UNCERTAINTY" FROM "MORAL NIHILISM" WHICH DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF MORALITY OR "MORAL RELATIVISM" THAT DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF A UNIVERSAL, OBJECTIVE MORALITY?
• CAN AGNOSTICS BASE THEIR MORALITY ON COMMON MORAL INTUITIONS OR EMPIRICAL OBSERVATIONS OF HUMAN PREFERENCES & WELL-BEING WITHOUT REFERENCE TO GOD OR A COSMIC ORDER?
• ARE PHILOSOPHERS LIKE WILLIAM McASKILL ON THE RIGHT TRACK WHEN THEY SUGGEST THAT WE COULD ADDRESS MORAL UNCERTAINTY BY LOOKING FOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN DIFFERENT ETHICAL SYSTEMS, OR BY PUTTING MORAL ISSUES TO A VIRTUAL VOTE BY REPRESENTATIVES OF DIFFERENT ETHICAL SYSTEMS?
• IF WE'RE UNCERTAIN ABOUT WHOSE LIFESTYLE IS MORE VIRTUOUS, WOULD THIS JUSTIFY JOHN STUART MILL'S "HARM PRINCIPLE", I.E. ONLY USING FORCE TO STOP PEOPLE FROM HARMING OTHERS?
• CAN RELIGIOUS & POLITICAL TOLERANCE BE JUSTIFIED BY MORAL UNCERTAINTY & THE REALITY OF MORAL PLURALISM? ARE MORAL EMPATHY (I.E. UNDERSTANDING OTHER'S MORAL BELIEFS) & WILLINGNESS TO COMPROMISE VIRTUES IN THIS CASE?
• IF WE NEED TO USE DELIBERATION TO ATTAIN COHERENCE & STABILITY IN OUR ETHICS (I.E. "REFLECTIVE EQUILIBRIUM"), DOES THIS JUSTIFY AN "OPEN SOCIETY" WITH FREE SPEECH & A FREE PRESS?
• DOES MORAL UNCERTAINTY ALLOW FOR "MORAL CONSTRUCTIVISM" - CREATING MORALS? IF SO, DOES IT ALLOW FOR "PRAGMATIC ETHICS" - USING TRIAL & ERROR TO IMPROVE MORALITY?
• IF WE ACCEPT MORAL PRAGMATISM, SHOULD WE TREAT TRADITIONAL MORALS FOUND IN MANY CULTURES AS DEFAULTS (A LA CHESTERTON'S FENCE) SINCE THEY'RE THE PRODUCTS OF PARALLEL CULTURAL EVOLUTION?

1a) Arie Kruglanski, "The Price of Certainty" (video - 6:46 min.)

1b) David Corey w/ Yuval Levin & John Inazu, "Can American Politics Survive Pluralism?" (video - 1:06:07, listen to 6:00)

• Gillian Kiley, "People more likely to trust, cooperate if they can tolerate ambiguity, study finds" (Brown)
• Ronald Bailey, "Why Liberals Are More Open to Experience Than Conservatives - Conservatives are not more simple-minded than liberals." (Psych. Today)
• EA Concepts, "Moral Uncertainty" (Effective Altruism-dot-org)
• T. Naddlehoffer, "[Richard] Posner's Pragmatic Moral Skepticism" (Leiter Reports)
• Jason Brennan, "A Moral Pluralist Case for Libertarianism" (Libertarianism-dot-org)

.
II. THE COLD WAR ERA'S CASE FOR AGNOSTICISM IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY:

• WAS ERIC VOEGELIN RIGHT THAT MARXISM POSITED A FORM OF TRANSCENDENTAL KNOWLEDGE OF POLITICS COMPARABLE TO PLATONISM & GNOSTICISM?
• WILL SECULAR SOCIETIES ALWAYS BE TEMPTED TO "IMMANENTIZE THE ESCHATON" (I.E. CREATE HEAVEN ON EARTH) AS VOEGELIN CLAIMED?
• WAS KARL POPPER RIGHT THAT "HISTORICISM" (HISTORICAL DETERMINISM) INVOLVES UNFALSIFIABLE ASSUMPTIONS & IS UNSCIENTIFIC? SHOULD WE BE SUSPICIOUS OF THOSE WHO CLAIM TO BE "ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY"?
• IS POPPER'S "PIECEMEAL SOCIAL ENGINEERING" A BETTER ALTERNATIVE TO RADICAL SYSTEMIC CHANGE? IS THIS AKIN TO WHAT JUSTICE LOUIS BRANDEIS CALLED "LABORATORIES OF DEMOCRACY" - OR DOES THAT INVOLVE COERCING THOSE WHO DISAGREE ONCE THE "BEST" POLICY HAS BEEN "DISCOVERED" THROUGH TRIAL & ERROR?
• WAS MICHAEL OAKESHOTT CORRECT IN PREFERRING "NOMOCRACY" (NEUTRAL RULE OF LAW THAT TRIES TO MAINTAIN ORDER) TO "TELEOCRACY" (JUDICIAL ACTIVISM THAT TRIES TO DIRECT SOCIAL CHANGE)?
• DOES THOMAS SOWELL OFFER AN ACCURATE EXPLANATION OF THE LEFT-RIGHT POLITICAL SPLIT IN HIS BOOK A CONFLICT OF VISIONS? IS THE BURKEAN VIEW HE CALLS THE "CONSTRAINED VISION" A FORM OF POLITICAL AGNOSTICISM?
• WAS SOWELL'S REJECTION OF LEFT-WING SOCIAL ENGINEERING DUE TO HIS "TRAGIC OPTIMISM" OR DID HE FALL PREY TO "CYNICISM", AS MATT McMANUS ARGUES?
• HAS BURKEAN CONSERVATISM DECLINED IN THE G.O.P.? IF SO, IS IT DUE TO THE DECLINE OF THE ROCKEFELLER REPUBLICANS IN THE 1960s, THE RISE OF RIGHT-WING EVANGELICALS IN THE 1980s, THE INFLUENCE OF THE NEOCONS IN THE 2000s, THE RISE OF TEA PARTY POPULISM & TRUMPISM IN THE 2010s, OR SOMETHING ELSE?

2a) Thomas Sowell, "A Conflict of Visions" (video - 3:41 min.)

2b) Joe Scarborough & David Brooks, "Conservatism Was About Humility And Moral Formation" (video - 9:54 min, listen to 5:50)

• Mike Sabo, "Republicans Should Stop Promoting ‘Laboratories of Democracy’" (Federalist)
• Giles Fraser, "What Andrew Sullivan taught me about Michael Oakeshott" (Unherd)
• Christopher Freiman, "Ideal & Nonideal Theory: Why So Many Classical Liberals and Egalitarian Liberals Disagree" (IHS)
• Samuel Kronen, "Thomas Sowell: Tragic Optimist" (Quillette)
• Matt McManus, "Sowell the Cynic" (Areo)
• Rod Dreher, "David Brooks’ Farewell To Conservatism: A right-liberalism that has more affection for the Acela corridor than for the Rust Belt is not going to plant hedges against populist radicalism" (TAC)

.
III. THE POST-COLD WAR DEBATE OVER POLITICAL PRAGMATISM & EVIDENCE-BASED POLICYMAKING:

• IS NILS KARSON RIGHT THAT POLITICAL PRAGMATISM OUTSIDE THE U.S. IS MOSTLY THE RESULT OF THE FAILURE OF KEYNESIAN POLICIES IN THE 1970s & THE ADOPTION OF "NEOLIBERAL" MARKET REFORMS IN THE 1980s-90s THAT MADE WELFARE STATES SUSTAINABLE?
• CAN POLICY BE BASED PURELY ON EVIDENCE WITHOUT UNDERLYING IDEOLOGY, OR DOES THE TECHNOCRATIC APPROACH INEVITABLY REFLECT THE BIASES OF SOCIAL ELITES?
• DO POLITICIANS SOMETIMES RIG THE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PROCESS OR CHERRYPICK RESULTS TO PRODUCE "POLICY-BASED EVIDENCE MAKING"?
• IS HENRY FARRELL RIGHT TO SAY THAT PRAGMATISM DOESN'T ALWAYS MEAN MODERATISM & SOMETIMES REQUIRES RADICAL SOLUTIONS TO DISMANTLE BARRIERS TO "UNFORCED INQUIRY"?
• WAS JONAH GOLDBERG WRONG TO DRAWN PARALLELS BETWEEN EARLY 20th CENT. AMERICAN PROGRESSIVISM & PRAGMATISM AND FASCISM? IF SUCH AN IDEOLOGICAL LINK EXISTED IN THE PAST, IS IT STILL WRONG TO CHARACTERIZE TODAY'S PROGRESSIVES AS "LIBERAL FASCISTS"?
• ARE PRAGMATIC PROGRESSIVES STILL PRONE TO TECHNOCRATIC HUBRIS, EVEN AFTER REALIZING THAT MARXIST IDEAS LIKE A COMMAND ECONOMY WERE DOOMED TO FAIL? DO THEY UNDERESTIMATE THE ROLE OF GENETICS & DEEP CULTURE IN SOCIAL PROBLEMS & OVERESTIMATE THE INFLUENCE OF EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES TO HELP?
• IN RETROSPECT, WAS OBAMA A RADICAL IN MODERATE'S CLOTHING, AS JONAH GOLDBERG THOUGHT, A "ROCKEFELLER REPUBLICAN" AS CORNEL WEST CALLED HIM, OR SOMETHING ELSE?
• HAVE LIBERAL MODERATES LIKE ADAM GOPNIK, JAMES TRAUB, JONATHAN CHAIT & MARK LILLA SUCCESSFULLY MADE THE CASE FOR A PRAGMATIC & UNIVERSALIST LIBERALISM IN THE 21st CENTURY, OR ARE THEIR CRITIQUES OF "IDENTITY POLITICS" & "CANCEL CULTURE" JUST SEEN AS UNDERMINING THE LEFT'S MULTIRACIAL COALITION & EXPOSING IT TO RIGHT-WING ATTACKS?

3a) Nils Karlson, "Pragmatism vs. Ideology" (video - 16:29 min, start at 11:18)

3b) Jonah Goldberg, "Which One Are You: Ideologue or Pragmatist?" (video - 5:11 min.)

• Henry Farrell, "The Politics of Pragmatism" (Crooked Timber)
• Jonah Goldberg, "On Pragmatism & Fascism" (National Review)
• New Republic, "The Liberal Fascism Fallacy (a.k.a. Conservatives Immanentize The Eschaton)" (New Republic)
• David A. Bell, "Lost Bearings: Adam Gopnik and the search for a 21st-century liberalism" (The Nation)
• Timothy Nash, "If Liberalism Is in Crisis, Who's to Blame?" (NYT)

.
IV. POST-2016 DEBATE OVER ENLIGHTENED CENTRISM, CLASSICAL LIBERALISM & THE "INTELLECTUAL DARK WEB" (IDW):

• DOES POLITICAL AGNOSTICISM INEVITABLY LEAD TO STATUS-QUO BIAS & "BORING CENTRISM", OR ONLY IF ONE FALLS PREY TO THE "BALANCE FALLACY"? CAN CENTRISM BE RADICAL AND/OR ENLIGHTENED?
• ARE QUILLETTE'S "CENTRIST MANIFESTO" & THE NISKANEN CENTER'S ESSAY "THE CENTER CAN HOLD" JUST REWARMED THIRD-WAY NEOLIBERALISM, OR ARE THEY PRESENTING SOMETHING NEW?
• HAS THE IDW DEMONSTRATED THE BENEFITS OF CIVIL DIALOGUE, OR MERELY FORMED THEIR OWN ECHO CHAMBER?
• WHY WAS "CLASSICAL LIBERALISM" EMBRACED BY SOME MEMBERS OF THE IDW? DO THEY HAVE A DECENT GRASP OF THE UNDERLYING POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, OR IS IT MOSTLY JUST A PLACEHOLDER?
• DID THE IDW WRONGLY DISMISS POSTMODERNISM'S SKEPTICISM OF "META-NARRATIVES" & EMBRACED SCIENTISM, AS NICK GILLESPIE ARGUES?
• DID THE IDW'S BREAKUP IN 2020 SHOW THE DANGERS OF "REFLEXIVE CONTRARIANISM"? AS "PEAK WOKENESS" PASSES, DO WE NEED TO MOVE PAST CRITICISM & TOWARDS SYNTHESIS, AS DAVID FULLER ARGUES?

4a) Kyle Kulinski, "Steven Pinker Thinks ‘Radical Centrism’ Is New & Genius - It’s Neither" (video - 11:36 min, listen to 7:30)

4b) Reason TV w/ Nick Gillespie, "Libertarian Postmodernism: A Reply to Jordan Peterson and the Intellectual Dark Web" (video - 40:09 min, listen to 16:00)

• Paul Ratner, "Too far right and left? DC think tank [Niskanen Center] releases manifesto for radical centrism" (Big Think)
• Rick Sint, "Universalism Not Centrism" (Quillette)
• Helen Pluckrose & James Lindsay, "A Manifesto Against the Enemies of Modernity" (Areo)
• Derek Robertson, "Why the ‘Classical Liberal’ is Making a Comeback: A perfect storm of political upheaval has led to the resurgence of a label with centuries-old roots." (Politico)
• Jacob Falkovitch, "In-Groups, Out-Groups, and the IDW" (Quillette)
• Matt McManus, "Critiquing the Intellectual Dark Web: Michael Brooks’ 'Against the Web'" (Merion West)
• Alexander Beiner & David Fuller, "What Happened to Jordan Peterson? A turning point for his audience" (Substack)

............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Sun, Jan 18, 2026 · 3:00 PM EST

•

Online

Bi-Weekly Discussion - Intellectual Virtues for Political Discussions

Online

This is going to be an online meetup using Zoom. If you've never used Zoom before, don't worry — it's easy to use and free to join.

To join the discussion, just click on the Zoom link below at the scheduled time.

***

***

INTELLECTUAL VIRTUES FOR POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS

INTRODUCTION:

Since we're entering a presidential election year where political discussions are bound to become heated and we've gained quite a few new members recently, I thought it would be good to start 2024 with a meta-topic - i.e. what does it mean to be "politically agnostic" and how do we want our members to approach political discussions?

Back in January of 2023, we had a meetup entitled "Can & Should We Be Politically Agnostic?" I encourage people to review the discussion outline, since we'll build on it. In that meetup, we started by defining what it could mean to be "politically agnostic" and we came up with 3 definitions based on the level of doubt one has on our ability to understand & evaluate public policies:

(1) Apathy/Cynicism: belief that knowledge of which policies are better or worse for society is impossible, so it's best to just ignore politics altogether or focus solely on advancing one's self-interest;

(2) Realism: belief that knowledge of which policies are better or worse for society is possible in a limited sense, but trying to create a utopia is bound to backfire, so we're better off just trying to maintain order & economic growth while hedging against dystopian outcomes (e.g. tyranny, anarchy, nuclear war, debt crisis, hyperinflation, depression, etc.);

(3) Pragmatism: belief that knowledge of which policies are better or worse for society can be surmised through policy experiments on a local level, and if we apply what we've learned we can gradually improve our society and advance towards a utopia we can never quite reach.

We also discussed how "moral uncertainty" that falls short of complete moral skepticism can still allow us to construct a pragmatic political philosophy. If we believe that other people's values & preferences matter and that structuring society to promote positive-sum interactions is difficult but not impossible, this can probably justify some of the major tenets of "classical liberalism", the political philosophy of the Enlightenment. Specifically, we talked about how moral uncertainty can justify religious & political tolerance, free speech & freedom of the press, and J.S. Mill's "harm principle" - i.e. not using force against someone except to prevent them from harming someone else.

We'll start this discussion by assuming that our participants are "politically agnostic" to some degree, but that you're not apathetic or completely cynical about politics, since presumably you wouldn't invest your time in intellectual discussions like this.

I'm also assuming our members probably identify with either the moderately conservative "realist" view or the moderately progressive "pragmatist" view, even if that doesn't map directly onto the standard left-right political spectrum. We'll also assume you're okay with living in a pluralistic, democratic society and endorse most of the civil liberties we've inherited from classical liberalism.

Regardless of whether you consider yourself more of a realist or pragmatist, the next question that logically arises is: How should this realistic/pragmatic political stance influence your political behavior as a citizen? There's a variety of ways of trying to answer this question, but one that has received a lot of attention recently is the idea of cultivating a set of "intellectual virtues" that can also serve as "civic virtues". That is to say, we could try to develop mental habits that, provided they were practiced by influential "thought leaders" and a significant portion of the electorate, would allow us to generate more productive political debates & better policymaking.

Perhaps it's unlikely that a significant portion of the electorate would be practice "intellectual virtues" when political debates are raging. However, for the sake of this discussion, we'll simply ask: Provided people are willing to practice a set of intellectual virtues when they approach political issues, what should they be? I've done my best to sort our prospective virtues into 4 general categories, and from the section titles you can see that I'm assuming each requires a balancing act to achieve the "golden mean".

***
DIRECTIONS ON HOW TO PREPARE FOR OUR DISCUSSION:
The videos & articles you see linked below are intended to give you a basic overview of some of the candidates for "intellectual virtues" that can enable more rational approach to politics.

I don't expect you to read all the articles prior to attending our discussion. The easiest way to prepare is to just watch the numbered video clips under each section - they come to about about 33 minutes total. The articles marked with asterisks are just there to supply additional details.

In terms of the discussion format, my general idea is that we'll address the topics in the order they're listed. As you can see, I've listed some questions under each section to prompt discussion. We'll try to address most of them. I figure we'll spend about 30 minutes on each section.

***
I. INTELLECTUAL HONESTY & BALANCING INTELLECTUAL AUTONOMY WITH INTELLECTUAL HUMILITY:

• IS INTELLECTUAL HONESTY MORE ASSOCIATED WITH OPENNESS OR CONSCIENTIOUSNESS?
• EVEN THOUGH MOST POLITICAL KNOWLEDGE IS UNLIKELY TO BENEFIT US PERSONALLY, IS IT IMMORAL TO BE POLITICALLY IGNORANT - OR ONLY IF WE'RE POLITICALLY ACTIVE?
• SHOULD WE ABSTAIN FROM VOTING IF WE'RE NOT WILLING TO DEVOTE A LOT OF OUR FREE TIME TO LEARNING ABOUT POLITICS? OR SINCE WE GENERALLY JUST VOTE FOR REPRESENTATIVES (EXCEPT FOR REFERENDA), IS READING A CANDIDATE'S RESUME & LOOKING AT THEIR WORDS & ACTIONS TO JUDGE THEIR EXPERTISE & CHARACTER ENOUGH?
• IS IT IMMORAL TO ADOPT A BELIEF ON INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, MERELY BASED ON WHAT'S EASIER TO UNDERSTAND OR WHAT SEEMS PLEASANT TO BELIEVE? IS IT ONLY WRONG IN CASES WHERE MISTAKES COULD HARM OTHERS? WHAT COUNTS AS "SUFFICIENT" EVIDENCE?
• IN CERTAIN CASES WHERE THERE'S INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE BUT THE CHOICE IS MOMENTOUS & UNAVOIDABLE, ARE WE JUSTIFIED IN TAKING PASCAL'S WAGER OR INVOKING THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE OR CHESTERTON'S FENCE TO PREFER WHAT IS OLDER/SAFER?
• DOES FREEDOM OF THOUGHT & FREEDOM OF SPEECH MEAN WE HAVE "THE RIGHT TO OUR OPINION", OR MERELY THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO BE LEGALLY PUNISHED FOR OUR OPINION? WHEN DO PEOPLE CONFUSE THEIR RIGHT TO HAVE AN OPINION WITH A RIGHT NOT TO BE CONTRADICTED?
• HOW SHOULD WE BALANCE THINKING FOR OURSELVES WITH BEING CONSCIOUS OF OUR OWN BIASES? HOW MUCH EVIDENCE SHOULD WE REQUIRE TO CHANGE OUR MIND? IS BAYESIAN INFERENCE THE BEST WAY OF FORMALIZING THIS PROCESS?
• HOW SHOULD WE BALANCE DEFERENCE TO EXPERTS WITH SKEPTICISM OF THEIR BIASES? SHOULD WE LOOK FOR EXPERTS WITH "SKIN IN THE GAME" (I.E. SUCCESSFUL TRACK RECORDS)?

1a) Michael Huemer, "The Irrationality of Politics" (video - 14:49 min, start at 5:30)
1b) John Templeton Foundation, "Why Intellectual Humility Matters" (video - 3:28 min.)

• Francisco Mejia Uribe, "Believing without evidence is always morally wrong" (Aeon)
• George H. Smith, "Do We Have a Moral Obligation to be Rational?" (Libertarianism)
• Michael Huemer, "Why People Are Irrational about Politics [and Not Merely Ignorant]"
• Brian Resnick, "Intellectual humility: the importance of knowing you might be wrong" (Vox)
• David Kyle Johnson, "Do You Have a Right to Your Opinion? Probably not. Such rights are earned, not automatic." (Psych. Today)
• Jamie Watson, "Why You Should Usually Trust Experts (But It’s Complicated)" (Phil. Mag)

.
II. ETHICAL INTELLIGENCE, MORAL COURAGE & BALANCING MORAL INTEGRITY WITH PRUDENCE/ MORAL HUMILITY:

• WHAT SHOULD WE MAKE OF THE STUDY THAT ETHICISTS DON'T BEHAVE ANY MORE ETHICALLY THAN NON-ETHICISTS? IS ETHICAL KNOWLEDGE LESS IMPORTANT THAN ONE'S INATE TEMPERAMENT IN DETERMINING MORAL BEHAVIOR?
• IF WE ACKNOWLEDGE SOME LEVEL OF MORAL UNCERTAINTY, HOW CAN WE STILL FORM VALUES THAT ARE COHERENT & RELATIVELY STABLE YET OPEN TO CHANGE?
• DOES "OUGHT IMPLY CAN" - I.E. DO MORAL OBLIGATIONS HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR REALISTIC CONSTRAINTS? IF SO, SHOULD WE JUDGE POLICIES BY THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY "WORK", I.E. SHOULD WE ADOPT SOME FORM OF CONSEQUENTIALISM?
• ARE "TU QUOQUE" (I.E. ACCUSATIONS OF HYPOCRISY) & "WHATABOUTISM" ALWAYS BAD, OR CAN THEY SOMETIMES HELP ENSURE WE'RE BEING MORALLY CONSISTENT?
• HOW CAN WE DISCERN WHETHER AN ACTION AGREES WITH OUR STATED MORAL VALUES WITHOUT SUCCUMBING TO "MY-SIDE BIAS"?
• HOW CAN WE TELL HOW WE'D WOULD REALLY BEHAVE IN A MORAL DILEMMA, I.E. DO OUR STATED & REVEALED BEHAVIORS MATCH? ARE MOST PEOPLE BAD AT THIS DUE TO "MORAL ARROGANCE" - AND IF SO, HOW DO WE INCREASE OUR "MORAL HUMILITY"?
• HOW CAN WE DISTINGUISH BETWEEN MORAL ADVOCACY & “MORAL GRANDSTANDING" (A.K.A. "VIRTUE SIGNALING”) - I.E. USING MORAL RHETORIC FOR SELF-PROMOTION? IS GRANDSTANDING INNATELY BAD OR ONLY WHEN IT'S INSINCERE? HOW CAN WE AVOID THE “PURITY SPIRALS” THAT MORAL ONE-UPMANSHIP OFTEN CAUSES?
• HOW CAN WE DISTINGUISH BETWEEN “PRUDENCE” - I.E. USING FLEXIBLE MEANS TO REACH POLITICAL ENDS - FROM SELLING OUT ONE’S MORAL COMMITMENTS? DOES MORALITY EVER REQUIRE US TO STAND ON PRINCIPLE RATHER THAN COMPROMISE, EVEN IF IT'LL LEAD TO A SUBOPTIMAL OUTCOME?

2a) Michael Cromartie, "Why is prudence a much needed virtue in the political realm?"(video - 1:57 min.)

2b) Nitin Nohria, "Understanding Our Capacity for Moral Failure" (2:32 min.)

• Olivia Goldhill, "A study of ethicists finds they’re no more ethical than the rest of us"(Quartz)
• Frank Guan, "What Could Be Wrong With a Little ‘Moral Clarity’?" (NY Times)
• Nitin Nohria, "You’re not as virtuous as you think" (Wash. Post)
• Justin Tosi & Brandon Warmke, "Moral grandstanding: there’s a lot of it about, all of it bad" (Aeon)
• Ben Yagoda, "One Cheer for Whataboutism" (NY Times)
• Steve Horwitz, "Ought Implies Can: Ethical Pronouncements without Economics Lead to Disastrous Public Policies" (FEE)

.
III. FAIR-MINDEDNESS & BALANCING EMPATHY WITH OBJECTIVITY:

• HOW CAN WE DEVELOP "MORAL EMPATHY" & DISCERN OTHER PEOPLE'S VALUES, PREFERENCES & HEURISTICS? CAN "CULTURAL COGNITION THEORY" & "MORAL FOUNDATIONS THEORY" HELP?
• CAN "RAPOPORT'S RULES" HELP ESTABLISH A FAIR-MINDED DISCUSSION, I.E. RESTATE THE OTHER PERSON'S POSITION IN YOUR OWN WORDS IN A WAY THEY'RE LIKELY TO ACCEPT & NOTE ANY POINTS OF AGREEMENT & THINGS YOU'VE LEARNED BEFORE OFFERING ANY CRITICISM?
• SHOULD WE LOOK AT WHAT PEOPLE HAVE SAID OR DONE IN OTHER CONTEXTS MORE THAN THEIR CURRENT SPEECH TO DETERMINE THEIR BELIEFS? CAN THIS UNCOVER "BAD FAITH" ACTORS WHO IT WOULD BE A WASTE OF TIME TO DEBATE, OR WILL THIS TEMPT US TO FIND ANY EXCUSE TO DISMISS THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH US AS DISINGENUOUS?
• ARE THERE CERTAIN SPECIFIC TYPES OF ARGUMENTS THAT ARE DEAD GIVEAWAYS OF BAD FAITH ARGUMENTS (E.G. KAFKATRAPS, MOTTE & BAILEY, ISOLATED DEMANDS FOR RIGOR)? CONVERSELY, ARE THERE CERTAIN TYPES OF ARGUMENTS WE SHOULDN'T USE BECAUSE THEY PREEMPTIVELY ASSUME BAD FAITH (E.G. COURTIER'S REPLY, CONCERN TROLLING, X-SPLAINING, GASLIGHTING)?
• HOW CAN WE AVOID THE "FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERROR" & DISCERN WHEN BAD BEHAVIOR IS THE RESULT OF A BAD SITUATION NOT BAD CHARACTER? IS THE "ULTIMATE ATTRIBUTION ERROR" HARDER TO RESIST, I.E. JUDGING OUR OUT-GROUP BY ITS WORST MEMBERS, BUT ASSUMING ANY PROBLEMS WITH OUR IN-GROUP IS JUST A MISTAKE OR "A FEW BAD APPLES"?
• DOES UNDERSTANDING SOMEONE'S VALUES & GOALS INEVITABLY MEAN SYMPATHIZING WITH THEM? IF SO, IS IT DANGEROUS TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE MOTIVES OF CRIMINALS, TERRORISTS, RACISTS, TYRANTS, ETC.? IS IT BETTER TO JUST WRITE THEM OFF AS EVIL, CRAZY OR STUPID - OR WILL THIS HANDICAP YOUR ABILITY TO DEAL WITH THEM?
• HOW CAN WE BE EMPATHIC ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND SOMEONE'S POSITION WITHOUT OVER-IDENTIFYING WITH THEM, LOSING OUR OBJECTIVITY & LEAVING OURSELVES OPEN TO "COMPASSION FATIGUE"?
• IS THE “IDEOLOGICAL TURING TEST" A GOOD WAY TO TEST COGNITIVE EMPATHY? IF MOST LAYPEOPLE DON'T HAVE DETAILED OPINIONS ON POLICIES & THINK OF POLITICS MOSTLY IN TERMS OF THEIR GROUP IDENTITY & TRUST IN CERTAIN LEADERS (AS POLITICAL SCIENCE RESEARCH INDICATES), DOES THIS MAKE THE I.T.T. POINTLESS?
• ONCE WE ROUGHLY UNDERSTAND A PERSON'S POSITION, DO WE HAVE A DUTY TO FOLLOW THE "PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY" & GLOSS OVER MINOR ERRORS? IF SO, SHOULD WE "STEELMAN" THEIR POSITION - I.E. TRY TO FIND THE BEST POSSIBLE ARGUMENTS FOR THEIR POSITION, EVEN ONES THEY MISSED? OR IS THIS CONDESCENDING?
• ARE THE "PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY" & "STEELMANNING" SOMETHING WE DO AS A FAVOR FOR OUR OPPONENTS PROVIDED THEY'RE BEING CIVIL? OR IS IT A FAVOR WE DO FOR OURSELVES TO AID OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING BY ACCOUNTING FOR POSSIBLE HOLES IN OUR ARGUMENT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY ARE BEING CIVIL?

3a) Learn Liberty, "Are You An Ideological Robot?" (video - 3:30 min.)

3b) Olga Khazan, "Moral Reframing: A Better Way to Argue About Politics" (video - 3:20 min.)

• Ethan Milne, "Rhetorical Tricks You Could Never Quite Articulate" (Medium)
• Adam Gurri, "Defending the Spirit of the Ideological Turing Test" (Umlaut)
• Edward Clint, "Against Steelmanning" (Skeptic Ink)
• Sam Kriss, "Can The Left Win By Talking Like The Right?" - critique of moral reframing (Politico)
• Sean Illing w/ Paul Bloom, "The case against empathy: Why you should be compassionate, not empathetic" (Vox)

.

IV. EQUANIMITY & BALANCING CIVILITY WITH BLUNTNESS/ FIRMNESS:

• WHY IS IT HARD FOR MANY PEOPLE TO MAINTAIN EMOTIONAL CONTROL IN POLITICAL DEBATES? IS ANGER MOSTLY A REACTION TO COGNITIVE DISSONANCE FROM A CHALLENGE TO ONE'S WORLDVIEW (I.E. BACKFIRE EFFECT), A PERCEIVED THREAT TO ONE'S AUTONOMY (I.E. BOOMERANG EFFECT), AN ATTEMPT TO ENFORCE CERTAIN NORMS VIA THREATS, A WAY TO DISPLAY ONE'S RIGHTEOUSNESS TO PEERS, OR SOMETHING ELSE?
• HOW MUCH OF THE TENDENCY TO BECOME ANGRY WHILE DISCUSSING POLITICS CAN BE CHALKED UP TO "FOLK ACTIVISM" - THE ILLUSION THAT WE'RE PART OF A SMALL GROUP WHO WILL DECIDE WHICH POLICIES TO ADOPT, AND THEREFORE CONVINCING OR SILENCING THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH US IS VERY IMPORTANT?
• CAN SOMETHING LIKE STOICISM'S "SERENITY PRAYER" HELP US STAY CALM BY DISTINGUISHING WHAT IS IN OUR POWER TO CHANGE & WHAT IS OUT OF OUR HANDS? DOES "THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY" FIT IN WITH THIS PERSPECTIVE?
• IS IT DANGEROUS TO BE CIVIL - I.E. WILL OPPONENTS MISTAKE OUR CIVILITY FOR WEAKNESS? HOW CAN THIS BE AVOIDED? OR DOES IT NOT EVEN MATTER WHAT OTHERS THINK OF US?
• IS IT CATHARTIC TO VENT ONE’S ANGER OVER POLITICS, OR DOES IT JUST ENRAGE US MORE? DOES HABITUAL ONLINE VENTING BY MANY PEOPLE “POLLUTE” THE POLITICAL ATMOSPHERE?
• HOW CAN WE DISTINGUISH BETWEEN CALLS FOR "CIVILITY" THAT ARE MERELY A RHETORICAL PLOY TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO AND THOSE THAT ARE MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO KEEP A DEBATE FROM DEGENERATING INTO NAME-CALLING?
• HOW DO WE AVOID THE TYPE OF CIVILITY WHERE SUBTLE NORM VIOLATIONS (E.G. MICROAGGRESSIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES, CLAIMS WITHOUT EVIDENCE) ARE ALLOWED BECAUSE CALLING THEM OUT WOULD SEEM UNCIVIL? CONVERSELY, HOW DO WE PREVENT CIVILITY FROM BECOMING A FORM OF "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS" THAT STIFLES OPEN DIALOGUE?
• IS "AUMANN'S AGREEMENT THEOREM" - A FORMAL BAYESIAN MODEL OF HOW TWO RATIONAL AGENTS SHOULD MUTUALLY UPDATE THEIR BELIEFS - APPLICABLE TO REAL-WORLD CONVERSATIONS WHERE THOSE IDEALIZED CRITERIA AREN'T THERE?
• IF WE ADOPT "CROCKER'S RULE" (I.E. OFFER TO ALLOW THE OTHER SIDE TO SPEAK FREELY & PROMISE NOT TO GET OFFENDED), SHOULD WE ALSO PURSUE "RADICAL HONESTY" (I.E. SAY WHAT WE THINK REGARDLESS OF WHO IT MAY OFFEND)?
• ARE NON-ABUSIVE AD HOMINEM ARGUMENTS EVER JUSTIFIED, E.G. POINTING OUT AN OPPONENT'S VESTED INTEREST OR INADEQUATE EXPERTISE? OR SHOULD WE FOCUS SOLELY ON THE EVIDENCE?

4a) Eli Pariser, "‘Civility’ is a loaded word, and we need it more than ever" (video - 2:24 min.)

4b) Josh Pelton, "Aumann's Agreement Theorem & Arguing to Learn" (video - 7:11 min.)

*

• ZZ Packer, "When Is ‘Civility’ a Duty, and When Is It a Trap?" (NY Times)
• Fiona MacDonald, "Sorry, But Venting Online Just Makes You Angrier, Scientists Find" (Science Alert)
• Tyler Cowen, "What to make of Robert Aumann’s 'agreement theorem'?" (Marginal Rev.)
• Yvonne Raley, "Character Attacks: How to Properly Apply the Ad Hominem" (Scient. Amer.).

...................................................

Sun, Feb 1, 2026 · 3:00 PM EST

•

Online

Bi-Weekly Discussion - PHIL 401: Leo Strauss & Carl Schmitt

Online

This is going to be an online meetup using Zoom. If you've never used Zoom before, don't worry — it's easy to use and free to join.

Click on the link above at the scheduled date/time to log in...

***

***

This meetup is titled "PHIL 401" like an upper-level college course because I'm tentatively imagining it as the third in a series of discussions where we delve into some lesser known political thinkers that wouldn't typically be covered in an introduction 101-level course on political philosophy. Specifically, we'll look at older thinkers (mostly dead now) whose ideas have recently been revived and try to figure out why some people feel they're relevant to today's concerns. (The previous entries in the PHIL 401 series include a meetup on Nietzsche back in Oct. 2024, one on James Burnham & Christopher Lasch in June, and one on Oswald Spengler & Julius Evola in July.)

This meetup will focus on Leo Strauss and Carl Schmitt, two 20th-century German thinkers whose ideas have become influential among both American & Chinese political thinkers.

In the 1st section,

In the 2nd section,

In the 3rd section,

Please note this discussion will focus on aspects of Strauss & Schmitt's philosophies that have been recently revived or reinterpreted, and why that's happened over the last decade or so, rather than trying for a more comprehensive approach you'd see in a typical college philosophy class. The videos & articles I've linked under each section are intended to give you an idea of how/why some intellectually-inclined conservatives today are attracted to Schmitt or Strauss, but also how today's Chinese intellectuals & CCP party members have been influenced by these two thinkers.

RELEVANT MATERIALS FROM PAST MEETUPS:

In June 2022, we had a meetup entitled "Is 'Constitutional Conservatism' Dying?" In the 3rd section, we looked at the dispute between the East Coast Straussians who are mostly neoconservatives and oppose Trump and the West Coast Straussians (a.k.a. the "Claremonsters" who are based around the Claremont Institute) who support Trump. We discussed whether this split was rooted in the philosophical differences between Leo Strauss's chief disciples (Harry Jaffa & Allan Bloom), or was merely related to the East Coast Straussians living & working closer to the centers of power in NYC & DC where foreign policy issues loom large, while the West Coast Straussians were living in a state (California) where Republicans quickly lost power in the 1990s amid an influx of legal & illegal immigrants from Latin America.

Back in May, we had a meetup entitled "WWII Revisionism & The Right: Why Are Neocons & Populists Debating Churchill and the Holocaust?" In the Intro section, I explained that the recent debates over Tucker Carlson & Joe Rogan hosting podcaster Darryl Cooper to discuss his contrarian views on WWII are part of a "new brand of right-wing historical revisionism, which often includes a rejection of the Founding Fathers & formerly admired Republican presidents like Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower & Ronald Reagan; a sympathetic view of far-right governments of the past like the Confederacy, Nazi Germany, Francoist Spain & Pinochet's Chile; and admiration for a variety of reactionary intellectuals of the past (e.g. Joseph de Maitre, Friedrich Nietzsche, Oswald Spengler, Julius Evola, Martin Heidegger, Carl Schmitt)."

Back in October, we had a meetup entitled "Is America Sliding Into Authoritarianism?" and in the 4th section we discussed the view of some right-wing pundits that what their counterparts on the left perceive as an authoritarian takeover is in fact a "conservative counter-revolution" which draws upon "unitary executive theory" and seeks to reverse the left's "long march through the institutions". This relates to Carl Schmitt's thinking about the "state of exception" and the "unbound executive" we'll discuss in this meetup.

We haven't discussed Chinese political philosophy in past meetups, but we have discussed the ways in which the rise of China had confounded Francis Fukuyama's "end of history" thesis published amid the fall of the Soviet Union that predicted liberal-democracy had permanently won the contest of ideas. China's rise relates to questions of whether authoritarian governments may be better at enabling economic growth than democracy, and whether the citizens of an efficient authoritarian government can be truly happy even if they're not "free". Check out the 2nd section of our 2018 meetup entitled "Are We In a Global Democratic Recession?", the 2nd section of our Jan. 2024 meetup entitled "The Economics & Politics of Happiness", and the 2nd section of our meetup from Mar. 2025 entitled "What Is/Was The Liberal International Order?"

DIRECTIONS ON HOW TO PREPARE FOR OUR DISCUSSION:

The videos & articles you see linked below are intended to give you a basic overview of some of the major debates over some of Leo Strauss & Carl Schmitt's major works and the ideas contained therein, as well as their reception & reintrepretation by both Western & Chinese thinkers. As usual, I certainly don't expect you to read all the articles prior to attending our discussion. The easiest way to prepare for our discussion is to just watch the numbered videos linked under each section - the videos come to about XX minutes total. The articles marked with asterisks are just there to supply additional details. You can browse and look at whichever ones you want, but don't worry - we'll cover the stuff you missed in our discussion.

In terms of the discussion format, my general idea is that we'll address the topics in the order presented here. I've listed some questions under each section to stimulate discussion. We'll do our best to address most of them, as well as whatever other questions our members raise. I figure we'll spend about 30 minutes on each section.

***

I. LEO STRAUSS'S POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY & ITS INFLUENCE ON THE NEOCONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT IN AMERICA:

• SECTION 1, QUESTION 1: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
• SECTION 1, QUESTION 2: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
• SECTION 1, QUESTION 3: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
• SECTION 1, QUESTION 4: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
• SECTION 1, QUESTION 5: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

1.) Jonah Goldberg w/ Steven Smith, "Who Was Leo Strauss?" (video - 1:21:21, listen to 34:00)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWWKgj-K9xA

• Harvey C. Mansfield, "The Legacy of Leo Strauss After 50 Years: Why there are Straussians but not Straussism"
  https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/the-legacy-of-leo-strauss-after-50-years/
• Francis Fukuyama, "A Chilling Prediction by Leo Strauss: Today’s post-liberals hate liberalism but lack a coherent alternative"
  https://www.persuasion.community/p/a-chilling-prediction-by-leo-strauss
• ARTICLE 3 - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
• ARTICLE 4 - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Sun, Feb 15, 2026 · 3:00 PM EST

•

Online

Bi-Weekly Discussion - The Ukraine War at 4 Years

Online

This is going to be an online meetup using Zoom. If you've never used Zoom before, don't worry — it's easy to use and free to join.

Click on the link above at the scheduled date/time to log in...

***

***

THE UKRAINE WAR AT 4 YEARS: (HOW) WILL IT END?

INTRODUCTION:

What you're seeing below is a blank discussion outline. If there's no title listed above for this meetup, it probably means I haven't decided on the topic. If there's a title but not much else, it means I've picked a topic but I'm still looking around for articles & videos clips to stimulate discussion.

If you see the topic and think it's interesting, please RSVP early since this gives me a general idea of about how many people will be showing up.

I typically try to finish up the discussion outline the weekend before a meetup, but sometimes I can't finish it until a couple days before the discussion. Luckily, I only ask that people watch a few video clips prior to attending the meetup and they generally only come to 30-45 minutes total, so even if it takes me until the day prior to finish up the discussion outline you'll still have time to prepare.

• So what's up will all the X's below? Meetup's new format gives me a very short character limit that makes long discussion outline impossible. However, I found a way around it - by copying old meetups before the new character limit was introduced. But there's a catch, if all of the blank space isn't filled when I copy the meetup, the new shorter character limit will be applied, so I'm forced to fill up all the available space with X's. I know that sounds kinda ridiculous, but it's the only way I can still write up long, detailed discussion outlines.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

RELEVANT MATERIAL FROM PAST MEETUPS:

In Oct. 2021, we had a meetup entitled "Can We Predict Geopolitical Conflict?" We looked at how to predict the onset of wars, WMD development & usage, military coups & popular revolts, as well as civil wars & genocide. We tried to apply some of Phil Tetlock's tips for geopolitical forecasting, like: (1) break seemingly intractable problems into tractable sub-problems, using Fermi estimates, (2) strike the right balance between "inside" (event-specific) and "outside" (reference class) views, (3) strike the right balance between under- and overreacting to new evidence, by using Bayesian-style updating, and (4) look for the clashing causal forces at work in each problem, and consider multiple theories & models.

In a meetup back in April 2022, we talked about different frameworks for understanding the Ukraine conflict (neoliberal, critical, realist, constructivist) and noted how they roughly align with different U.S. political factions (establishment Democrats & neocons, progressive activists, establishment Republicans, right-wing populists).

In Feb. 2023, we looked at the probabilities for 4 different outcomes for the "The Ukraine War after 1 Year" - Russian victory, Ukrainian victory, stalemate/frozen conflict, direct NATO-Russian conflict - and then in Mar. 2024 we had a meetup entitled "The Ukraine War at 2 Years" where we reevaluated the probabilities of these 4 outcomes after the failed Ukrainian offensive in summer 2023 and the abortive Wagner Group rebellion.

In Feb. 2024, we had a meetup entitled "The Ukraine War at 3 Years: (How) Will It End?" where we discussed 4 possible endings with Trump in office: (1) peace treaty with some sort of US/NATO "security guarantee" for Ukraine; (2) peace treaty or ceasefire that freezes current battle lines based on Ukraine's "armed neutrality"; (3) slow conquest of southeastern Ukraine, possibly leaving a "rump state", that leaves Russia too exhausted to threaten NATO; (4) Russia completely conquering Ukraine or turning it into a "puppet state" - possibly leading to Russian invasion of a NATO country.

DIRECTIONS ON HOW TO PREPARE FOR OUR DISCUSSION:

The videos & articles you see linked below are intended to give you a basic overview of some of the major debates over xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. As usual, I certainly don't expect you to read all the articles prior to attending our discussion. The easiest way to prepare for our discussion is to just watch the numbered videos linked under each section - the videos come to about about XX minutes total. The articles marked with asterisks are just there to supply additional details. You can browse and look at whichever ones you want, but don't worry - we'll cover the stuff you missed in our discussion.

In terms of the discussion format, my general idea is that we'll address the topics in the order presented here. I've listed some questions under each section to stimulate discussion. We'll do our best to address most of them, as well as whatever other questions our members raise. I figure we'll spend about 30 minutes on each section.

***

I. SECTION 1 HEADING:

• SECTION 1, QUESTION 1: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
• SECTION 1, QUESTION 2: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
• SECTION 1, QUESTION 3: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
• SECTION 1, QUESTION 4: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
• SECTION 1, QUESTION 5: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

1a) VIDEO 1 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (video - XX:XX min)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

1b) VIDEO 2 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (video - XX:XX min)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

• ARTICLE 1 - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
• ARTICLE 2 - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
• ARTICLE 3 - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
• ARTICLE 4 - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

II. SECTION 2 HEADING:

• SECTION 2, QUESTION 1: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
• SECTION 2, QUESTION 2: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
• SECTION 2, QUESTION 3: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
• SECTION 2, QUESTION 4: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
• SECTION 2, QUESTION 5: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

2a) VIDEO 1 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (video - XX:XX min)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

2b) VIDEO 2 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (video - XX:XX min)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

• ARTICLE 1 - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
• ARTICLE 2 - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
• ARTICLE 3 - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
• ARTICLE 4 - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

III. SECTION 3 HEADING:

• SECTION 3, QUESTION 1: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
• SECTION 3, QUESTION 2: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
• SECTION 3, QUESTION 3: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
• SECTION 3, QUESTION 4: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
• SECTION 3, QUESTION 5: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

3a) VIDEO 1 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (video - XX:XX min)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

3b) VIDEO 2 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (video - XX:XX min)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

• ARTICLE 1 - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
• ARTICLE 2 - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
• ARTICLE 3 - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
• ARTICLE 4 - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

IV. SECTION 4 HEADING:

• SECTION 4, QUESTION 1: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
• SECTION 4, QUESTION 2: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
• SECTION 4, QUESTION 3: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
• SECTION 4, QUESTION 4: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
• SECTION 4, QUESTION 5: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

4a) VIDEO 1 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (video - XX:XX min)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

4b) VIDEO 2 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (video - XX:XX min)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

• ARTICLE 1 - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
• ARTICLE 2 - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
• ARTICLE 3 - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
• ARTICLE 4 - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX