In my opinion, one of the sharpest and most well-articulated philosophers and thinkers of the 20th century was the Spaniard José Ortega y Gasset (1883–1955). Even though he was considered a liberal of his time, his writings contain wisdom that could be used to debunk today’s leftists and academic pundits, and to enlighten the reader about his own role in life and the world. Ortega’s philosophy was directed towards life itself, often called ratiovitalism, a concept thorougly explained in some of his lessons of the late 1920s and early 1930s, and for the English reader found in the collective posthumous work What Is Knowledge?.
Ortega—who was mainly active in Madrid as a professor of philosophy, but also studied in Germany and lived in Argentina and Portugal—certainly had his flaws, such as the idea that ”man has no nature.” We know from twin studies and comprehensive work in subjects such as evolutionary psychology and behavior genetics that human beings are partly, even largely, affected by their genetic dispositions. In this sense man indeed has a nature and is not born as a blank slate.
On the other hand, some of the core strengths were his balanced views on epistemological perspectivism (no real knowledge, only different perspectives) versus realist objectivism (complete knowledge about reality). A trivial yet enlightening example of Ortega’s sharp mind and didactic skills, explained in one lesson from the late 1920s (and collected in What Is Philosophy?): A person cannot see or grasp an orange in its entirety, even though one may twist and turn the fruit or cut it into thin slices. One might have a concept of the whole of it, but one cannot have the entire picture.
If we cannot even fully understand a trivial thing like a piece of fruit, how can a person understand ”society,” ”economy,” ”culture” and other much more complex and multi-layered phenomena? However, a person can know more or less by taking different positions and collecting reliable data, but must be aware of that any conception of complete knowledge is, most likely, an imaginary state of mind.
Consequently Ortega, who rejected idealism, also focused on becoming rather then being in many of his philosophical works. In the manosphere many focus on becoming, like with regard to various aspects of self-improvement, but perhaps one should find a proper balance between one’s being and to become better throughout various phases of life?
Regardless of how one looks upon that particular aspect, I will focus on some of the major benefits of Ortega’s writings. These are more related to both self-improvement and social analysis, rather than general philosophy, and as such of more relevance for ROK readers. However, the philosophical angle grants these dimensions more depth and wisdom.
1. Take personal responsibility depending on the current circumstances
For men in general, rather than to try to live the perfect life it is more about to do the best under the individual circumstances. Ortega wrote in his first major philosophical work, Meditations on Quixote (1914), “I am I and my circumstance; and, if I do not save it, I do not save myself”. Hence, do not give up on life and yourself, regardless of the current circumstances that you are facing.
Ortega has also asserted that, ”Effort is only effort when it begins to hurt.” Thus work hard and rarely expect anything else than things to be that way if you want to make some kind of difference, or even to keep one’s head above the surface under some circumstances.
On the same topic he also wrote: ”The difficulties which I meet with in order to realize my existence are precisely what awaken and mobilize my activities, my capacities.” Life only becomes trully valuable when people step outside the vegetative consumerist state of being and actually do something at least slightly demanding.
2. Cultivate a strong individual character
The aristocratic mind, in contrast to the mass mind, puts efforts on oneself and tries to complete tasks without having to be pushed around or motivated by various external forces. Ortega wrote in his most famous work, The Revolt of the Masses (1930):
“For me, then, nobility is synonymous with a life of effort, ever set on excelling oneself, in passing beyond what one is to what one sets up as a duty and an obligation. In this way the noble life stands opposed to the common or inert life, which reclines statically upon itself, condemned to perpetual immobility, unless an external force compels it to come out of itself. For there is no doubt that the most radical division that it is possible to make of humanity is that which splits it into two classes of creatures: those who make great demands on themselves, piling up difficulties and duties; and those who demand nothing special of themselves, but for whom to live is to be every moment what they already are, without imposing on themselves any effort towards perfection; mere buoys that float on the waves.”
3. Reason against mob mentality
In the current centrist mass democratic Western societies, as well as in historical socialism and extreme nationalism, the so-called mass man (or massive feminists) have emerged and continuously tried to appeal to the larger masses’ lower instincts by different means. Everyone who does not agree with the current agenda runs the risk of being eliminated (or at least run out of the workplace and mainstream social circles, or having one’s mother’s home address exposed). Ortega wrote in The Revolt of the Masses:
“The characteristic of the hour is that the commonplace mind, knowing itself to be commonplace, has the assurance to proclaim the rights of the commonplace and to impose them wherever it will. As they say in the United States: “to be different is to be indecent.” The mass crushes beneath it everything that is different, everything that is excellent, individual, qualified and select. Anybody who is not like everybody, who does not think like everybody, runs the risk of being eliminated.”
And more specifically, ”under the species of Syndicalism and Fascism there appears for the first time in Europe a type of man who does not want to give reasons or to be right, but simply shows himself resolved to impose his opinions.”
The wise man knows how to identify and hence avoid these ideologies and to cultivate his own self, according to his particular disposition in combination with the circumstances of life, but never let go of reason as a main constituent of existence.
Read More: How Philosophy Can Revive Your Dormant Critical Thinking Skills
Things are not real but they are in their consequences.
” Life only becomes trully valuable when people step outside the vegetative consumerist state of being and actually do something at least slightly demanding.”
I find this quote to be astoundingly true. There are never more often that I feel whole than when I am sweating at physical labor, fighting, or self betterment that I truly feel alive.
The rush of doing something hard is for every man to experience, and central to the experience of being a man.
Thank you. Those are my words, not Ortega’s.
I would like to add a couple of details about the political ideology of Ortega y Gasset. For non-Spanish people, it can be a little difficult to understand.
In Spain, we had traditionally a populist left (like a lite version from the South-American populism) and a aristocratic, monarchic, statist and against-meritocracy right. 90% of people in Spain can be assigned to one of both political positions.
And then, there’s some people in the middle who oppose both right and left in Spain as non-European ideologies. During the XVIII and the XIX, these people were used to be called “afrancesados”, like “french-alike”, because they used France as a goal or image of what Spain should be.
In general, in Spain left and right were busy fighting each other (the famous Spanish Civil War being just an episode, we had like three or four more Civil Wars before that one in the previous 200 years, people have a short memory), but they used to join forces to boycott anybody who tried to bring some Western and more civilized rules to the country.
If you don’t believe me, just imagine that we had two prime ministers/kings who could be considered as “afrancesados” or “french-alike” and who ended up SO SICK of Spain that they just let a letter (saying basically “fuck you all”) and took the train. I’m not kidding. That happened two times: with the king Amadeo I of Spain, and with the republican prime minister Estanislao Figueras.
Of course, back then France was of the one of most politically advanced countries. Nowadays, nobody uses the “afrancesado” word anymore, since France is now seen like a half-African country.
Ortega y Gasset was in that middle no man’s land. He was a liberal (leftist), but he leaned towards nationalism too. And he was anti-statist, so it’s not that simple. He would be very close of Marine Le Pen, for example. It’s not by accident that both share, at least in part, political positions: Le Pen takes after the French intellectual heritage and Ortega y Gasset inherited (at least, partially) from the “afrancesado” or “french-alike” trend in the Spain political tradition.
And what is the view of General Franco in present day Spain, in the eyes of the average Spaniards?
For me, he appears to be a great patriot and a good Christian leader, who loved his country and people, and saved Spain from Communism.
I do not know how you Spaniards view him, but in my view, the people of Spain should thank God daily that He sent this man, so you did not have to suffer under Communist rule, like we did in Eastern-Europe…
Please understand that praising Franco will get you in trouble with most Spaniards. My great grandfather was murdered for the simple reason of not fighting for the regime.
1- The comparison between Ortega and LePen is extremely inaccurate. Even though many intellectuals were inclined towards nationalism or other traditional right-wing principles, they had nothing to do whatsoever with far right as we understand it after the rise of fascism. Take the example of Unamuno and his argument with Millán Astray. “Muerte a los intelectuales, viva la muerte” (Death to intellectuals, long live death)
They were all pro-civil liberties and the vast majority opposed the dictatorship or were exiled from Spain.
2- Franco is extremely unpopular – and for good reason. Saying he saved Spain from communism is an extremely simplistic statement that disregards many of the social liberties achieved during the Second Republic.
I am, by no means, a leftist. There was no “good side”. But I know for sure that a patriot doesn’t murder artists, poets or teachers. The dictatorship was a tremendous burden that we’re still trying to overcome.
Thank you for answering.
So, it is kind of like you will not get the desired patriotic and nationalist response from Spaniards if you put General Franco on your banner. Just like it would not have the desired effect generally on white populations if White Nationalists used Adolf Hitler on their banner.
But Spain has a great history with lots of Spaniards to be proud of, who are associated with patriotism in the mind of the average Spaniards, right? So for being pro-white, pro-Catholic, and pro-Spanish, you do not necessarily have to be associated with the late General.
Yes, absolutely. I’d say most nationalists despise Franco.
You’re very right when you say we have ancestors to be proud of. This is one of the main problems we’re facing, though:
– You wanna celebrate the day Colombus discovered America? You’ll be called a racist by the leftists.
– You wanna have a banner displaying the current Spanish flag? You’ll be called a fascist.
– You wanna celebrate the Dos de Mayo uprising? You’ll be called an idiot.
So basically, in the eyes of nowadays leftists, either you’re a progressive or you’re a fascist. Because f*** logic.
Thanks for the perspective!
As Daniel Biggie says, he has not a good reputation among the current population.
But since he died, there has been a campaign towards his image, so people just know what they are told.
I’d say without a doubt he was one of the best statesmen in european history, this is a extense subject, but I’ll make a brief report.
He is the youngest general in Europe with the same age as Napoleon, and was the only leader who made Adolf wait and gave him a no for answer.
His regime was not Absolutist, it was an Authoritarianism (no possible equivalence with any other regime in europe).
He created the middleclass, a class who had never existed before in our national history, created free medical system which is still used nowadays even though now it’s worse than 30 years ago, and NEVER authorized any massive purge or slaugther.
According to great grandparents, I wouldn’t say that was about Franco, that was about a civil war(there is no government in a civil war, there are no rules). Franco should be juzged because of: his personal acts as he became a Dictator and because of: his motivations to join a Civil War(that episode will be another day).
According to Unamuno incident writer and supporter of the militar revolution, Millán Astray was a killer, a good killer for an army, and Franco knew it, that’s why he never let him took decisions in the goverment.
To end, just one example of the wrong perception of reality that leftist propaganga has created in our country. The murdered poet Federico Garcia Lorca, who in his closest circle admited he wanted a militar government(audio link down), he also was a close friend of Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, but he is sold to the people as a leftist martyr.
1. Daniel, please don’t bring cheap political labels to a very specific questions. “Far right” is a label that only makes sense when applied to fascisms in Spain and Italy. Fascism in the North of Europe was not associated to the right in such a way, neither could it be considered “far right”. And even in areas in Spain (and likely, Italy) you had nationalisms that were not associated with the traditional right in the way fascism in those countries were and that even opposed and fighted fascism (and now they’re called fascists TOO, because now every nationalism is fascist).
When it comes to Marine Le Pen, you should take as reference people like De Gaulle before any Italian or Spanish fascist movements than she likely dismisses. I remind you that De Gaulle opposed fascism and fighted for liberty, in a similar way to Churchill. Just applying “far right” as a generic label makes your analysis not only shallow, but deeply unfair and wrong.
Kind of similar thing as it happens with the UKIP in England, which has Churchill as a reference and which is called a fascist party. I suppose that as a way to rationalize, Churchill has been lately sold as a “fascist” to fit the narrative. The very same guy who saved freedom in England now is a fascist. Cosas veredes, amigo Sancho.
2. Franco is extremely unpopular and hated in the left, and respected sotto voce (low voice) in the right. In that nowhere land that I was speaking before, Franco is considered good when it comes to his military achievements, but poor as a ruler, having (however) the merit of having been able to step aside and leaving the government in the hands of technocrats during the 50s.
In fact, I wouldn’t call Ortega a leftist. I read La Rebelion de las Masas (in spanish, that’s my first language) some time ago; and even when he talks about his ‘liberal’ position, his critics to modernity, his critics to the hombre-masa, his badly disguised elitism, and the influence of Nietzsche in his writings put him away from modern liberalism.
Think that in Spain the word “liberal” refers to the “Partido Liberal”, which were anti-statist and very influenced by the republican trends in Europe. Kind of something like libertarians in US before Ayn Rand.
I used the word “liberal” in the US sense, since we’re using English as the common language. But in Spanish from Spain, “liberal” has, or better said, had a different meaning. I said had using the past since now even in Spanish some people start to use “liberal” to mean “american leftist” to tell apart from “european leftist”.
I would call Ortega a leftist nationalist. Unfortunately, it happened during the 30s a bloody psychopath asshole with a moustache that founded a “National-Socialist” party to basically commit mass genocide in his spare time. And that (unfortunately) aborted any growth of any democratic leftist nationalism, letting open field for the growth cultural marxism in the left. I must say that this is a personal theory (so likely wrong, though I think it’s quite close from the truth).
I agree, but academic lefists like Nietzsche as well, such as Foucault who was also influenced by Nietzsche’s perspectivism.
Academic leftist misread and misunderstand Nietzsche. Check this:
http://www.anthonymludovici.com/mw_int.htm
They did to Nietzsche the same thing they did to Hegel, they turned upside down.
I don’t see the relationship between the rise of Nationalsocialism and the growth (or not) of a ‘democratic leftist nationalism’. By definition, leftism is not nationalism: the basic premise of the left since the French Revolution is to abolish all kind of identity. The slogan ‘liberte, egalite, fraternite’ means exactly a ‘united colors of benetton’ world, with no countries, no races, no cultures, and no identity.
However, you check Marine Le Pen program and it’s closer from leftists parties than from the right. And kind of similar happens with UKIP. And check Trump: for the left, he’s far-right, but for the conservative wing in the Republican Party, he leans left.
So, that’s the questions: could we have had democratic nationalist left if Hitler wouldn’t have existed?
So your right can’t even manage meritocratic monarchism? So they are, frankly, more backwards than Russia in the 1600’s?
Well, “backwards” is not the most accurate word. Think that US and European countries as Germany, France or UK are going towards being less and less meritocratic societies.
So we’re not really backwards. We’re really ahead of our time. We are what US will become in a couple of centuries from now. We’re not backwards in 1600s Russia, we’re forwards in XXIIth century US.
(The answer is black humour, just in case it wasn’t clear. Better laugh than cry. Sadly I think I’m likely right).
unsuscribe
It wasn’t badly disguised. He did it on purpose specifically to annoy the Spanish Republicans.
I apologize, either way it’s a great sentiment
Thanks.
And every single day, if possible.
And *never* bored.
Amen.
“epistemological perspectivism versus realist objectivism”…..yeah, I was lost before I even got that far. I tried though.
I have now included brackets that contain brief explanations to make these concepts much easier to understand:
“On the other hand, some of the core strengths were his balanced views on epistemological perspectivism (no real knowledge, only different perspectives) versus realist objectivism (complete knowledge about reality).”
I think this is why Kant is so important. The binary between these two has buttfucked philosophers since the time of Plato. What Kant realized is that there is a universality possible with epistemological perspectivism if it is grounded in the pre-cognitive conditions on which thought is made possible: one of which is logic.
The antinomy of subjective versus objective is resolved in the critical project and anyone trying to keep in alive post 1850 is just a silly willie in my opinion
“Epistemological perspectivism versus realist objectivism”
Translation for non pretentious d bags: “the idea that our thinking makes reality versus the idea that reality exists separate from us and we just objeserve it”
Source: before growing up and getting a real job I used to be a professor of this nonsense
Thanks. That helped a lot.
I still don’t get it. I’m a simple man who acts,speaks and thinks in simple terms. Reality is what is without me trying to figure out why it is.
I get that. And I think food comes from grocery stores. And some people just think stars are pretty. There are a million things in this world and different people are interested in different aspects of them. I don’t give a fuck how tides happen, I just like swimming in the waves. If I was in the ocean swimming around and some scientists started explaining how waves were made possible I would probably drown them. The human’s place in the world is a very interesting topic to some. It can be totally avoided, like the way I don’t give a crap about where waves come from, but that doesn’t mean that people who are interested in these things shouldn’t delve deeper and try to understand them. The line is drawn when they become total shitcunts and act like they are some kind of gods because they read a few books. I don’t care what a man is curious about or where he finds his meaning….shit, there are entomologists out there who study bugs…bugs…it is only when they take their personal passions and think somehow it should be important for everyone that it gets cunty
Did I get an A professor Knee?
In my world bugs are important lol. A friend of mine is one of those brilliant sorts, he spends his time breeding new varietys of peanuts. Doesn’t sound like much to most folks but very important work to some so I see where you’re coming from.
of course lol.
I think here you hit the nail on the head. Whether or not there is a pre-cognitive condition which makes the possibility of thought real (and whether there is a difference between the reality and possibility of that thought) and whether it can be used to ground a subjective ethics and aesthetics in basic universal logical concepts such as the law of non contradiction making a 2000 year long debate over whether truth and reality and ethics and beauty are objectively true or subjectively true moot but saying the distinction itself isn’t valid because it is a subjective phenomenon which holds objectively for all cognitive beings is an interesting and important question for some people and sounds like utter bullshit to most folks. That should be fine. If everyone would just follow their calling and do what they do as good as they can do it and try to stop pretending that their little lives need to be universally significant we could have a nice little civilization here but instead a lot of people start acting like shitfaces
I tell you what, I don’t do much drinking anymore but, if I ever get around to going to New York you and I are going out and getting REALLY fucked up, then we are going to talk about this stuff.
sounds like a good plan.
Spain has produced many outstanding men and women of character. Life-and-death struggle is part of the Spanish character.
Part of any real character.
The Revolt of the Masses is a surgical takedown of the liberal democratic ideology that ruled the world after the French Revolution. I’m surprised people don’t mention it more. Required reading, just like HL Mencken essays. Also, don’t be put off by the philosophical lingo in this article, you’ll rarely find such terminology in Ortega’s work.
Ortega’s philosophical works contain some philosophical terminology here and there, but one finds much less so in The Revolt of the Masses.
Hello William,
After checking the original work, I have to point out the quote “Man has no nature” is incomplete.
“El hombre no tiene naturaleza, lo que tiene es historia”, so literally “Man has no nature, but history”, which I think gives a slightly different perspective on the topic. This quote doesn’t deny the influence of genetics on the individual, but rather establishes a dichotomy between “human life” and “matter”. Nature is made of matter while human life isn’t, thus they can’t be equal. On the other hand, a man is highly influenced by his current and past circumstances.
I know it’s very challenging to discuss any core idea in just a few paragraphs, but I thought it’d be interesting to bring this up. Good job by the way, it was very refreshing to see some Spanish philosophy in RoK.
Thank you.
Yes, I know about this. For instance, he wrote: “Man, in a word, has no nature; what he has is—history. Expressed differently: what nature is to things, history, res gestae, is to man.”
Ortega has also discussed the influence of biological instincts and impulses in human behavior, but could have been much, much clearer in his writings about nature, and being vs. becoming. Although partly flawed, human biology and psychology had emerged and been somewhat developed in the early 20th Century research, and Ortega could have taken these factors more into account.
So what I did in my article was to clarify and contextualize some of his ideas, update them to current times and what we know about human nature by now. Regardless of this particular aspect, Ortega was indeed a great writer and thinker and should definitely not be written off as a blank slatist or nurturist.
>> “For me, then, nobility is synonymous with a life of effort, ever set on excelling oneself, in passing beyond what one is to what one sets up as a duty and an obligation. In this way the noble life stands opposed to the common or inert life, which reclines statically upon itself, condemned to perpetual immobility, unless an external force compels it to come out of itself. For there is no doubt that the most radical division that it is possible to make of humanity is that which splits it into two classes of creatures: those who make great demands on themselves, piling up difficulties and duties; and those who demand nothing special of themselves, but for whom to live is to be every moment what they already are, without imposing on themselves any effort towards perfection; mere buoys that float on the waves.” >>
That’s a gold nugget in Ortega’s broader liberalism. Modern shitlib activists can’t seem to separate truths from the shitlib cultural marxist party line ticket package. I’ve known some liberals who were immensley helpful to me in a narrow specific area of pursuit but sadly they were failures in their own lives with dismembered and wrecked personal lives and families. They subscribed to the whole shitlib schedule of shots in the ass and they ultimately suffered immensely. You have to separate the wholesome from the worthless. You have to filter out the worthwhile and reject the toxic parts that will kill you. All in school isn’t good. Kids need to be taught NOT to open wide and let educators shovel everything in. Never bend over for any teacher. Be like: “prove it is worthwile first otherwise you’re full of shit” . . . or be like: “you the teacher get the brownie points if you prove to me the student that said concept is worthwhile – and it’s not the other way around where the teacher issues the student the brownie points for ingesting and regurgitating everything the teacher shovels in . . . or something to that effect.
under the species of Syndicalism and Fascism there appears for the first time in Europe a type of man who does not want to give reasons or to be right, but simply shows himself resolved to impose his opinions.”
Reminds me of Orwell this. When he spake of the coming War in Europe
This is a really nice article on Ortega and I think he is a really cool guy to learn about but I must admit I really cringe whenever I see people talk about “evolutionary psychology” as a science. That is like talking about the statesmanship of Mayor McChesse
It seems that you have a bit of a binary (!) view of this discipline. One does not have to buy all the theories and explanations (rooted in evolutionary theory), but the data provides evidence for many reasonable viewpoints.
One such good scientist is David Buss. His books Why Women have sex (2009, co-authored with Cindy Measton) and The Murderer next door (2006) are quite useful in the task of understanding human behaviors, of both sexes.
I think this is how the silliness gets started. If I discuss with you the relative merits of who would win in a boxing match between mike Tyson in his prime and Elroy Jetson if he was a real boy it simply wouldn’t make sense. There isn’t a valid argument to be made. Evolutionary Psychology is Elroy Jetson if he was a real boy. It simply is a made up thing. You can take any number of things and use scientific method to make it sounds legit. And if you do it enough you may fall upon some bits and bats that happen to be true. However, the idea that evolutionary psychology is a real thing en masse worth being discussed and debated is patently absurd. Want to draw out the couple of premises you think are true and discuss them? Fine. As for evidence. Evidence can show anything depending on who is contextualizing it. This is crackpot pseudo science which has no place for discussion or debate amongst anyone outside of Bullwinkle’s alma mater Whatsamatta U
The McCheese administration was scandal-free.
I don’t know. The fact that Officer Big Mac was never able to secure a conviction of the Hamburgaler is very suspicious to me and stinks of corruption.
Ortega was an existentialist and thus held to the fundamental existentialist belief that existence precedes essence. I’ve always summed up this view as “you are free to become what you want to be and it’s up to you to give meaning to your existence”. I believe this myself and try to practice it in my own life, but I don’t see how this view is particularly useful in defeating leftists.
Most of the existentialists were leftists themselves, including Ortega (as the author points out). Sartre even became a full-blown Communist in his later years.
“Ortega was an existentialist and thus held to the fundamental existentialist belief that existence precedes essence.”
Good point. However, I would like to add a couple of clarifying things.
1. Existentialists like Ortega have made good points about individual efforts in life, and write well. I don’t think that he’s pretentious in a bad way but, like I said, well-articulated.
2. The Revolt of the Masses is more related to politicial philosophy and social psychology, and partly relevant even today. It is this work that I have, obviously, quoted the most.
3. Even though he was a liberal he made some really good points about society and politics. Plus, his political position was – like another person has pointed out – between or beyond socialism and authoritarian nationalism. Quite reasonable.
This quote reminds me of leftists and, well, sometimes those on the right (journalists, SJWs, politicians etc). They don’t wanna be right or reasonable, just impose their petty opinions upon everyone else:
”under the species of Syndicalism and Fascism there appears for the first time in Europe a type of man who does not want to give reasons or to be right, but simply shows himself resolved to impose his opinions.”
This quote reminds of fatties and zombie consumers who don’t take control over their own destiny:
“For me, then, nobility is synonymous with a life of effort, ever set on excelling oneself, in passing beyond what one is to what one sets up as a duty and an obligation. In this way the noble life stands opposed to the common or inert life, which reclines statically upon itself, condemned to perpetual immobility, unless an external force compels it to come out of itself. For there is no doubt that the most radical division that it is possible to make of humanity is that which splits it into two classes of creatures: those who make great demands on themselves, piling up difficulties and duties; and those who demand nothing special of themselves, but for whom to live is to be every moment what they already are, without imposing on themselves any effort towards perfection; mere buoys that float on the waves.”
I took a philosophy class once. Realized it is nothing but professors using vocabulary words to describe what average Joes talk about over a campfire with a cold beer in hand.
Or watch on ‘How I met Your Mother,’ but that’s more sociology.
You must be a scholar.
I was a grad in engineering school. I took philosophy to fill one of those required classes. It was interesting, but little real world value.
I would think man has 1 simple philosophy… Get your piece of the pe.
Item #2 was absolute poetry in reason. Thank you.
I don’t see anything earth-shuttering from this Spanish guy–a talking is a talking.