so here in a way he's indirectly responding to, you know to carl schmidt's decisionism. but then when you think through this idea of absolute rule as being justified on the basis that, you know the most wise person will know what's best for everyone in society you actually come to a critique or a reversal of the case for absolute rule because what you realize, as strauss takes you through these various steps of the argument, that the people who are likely to want to be absolute rulers are unlikely to be wise people. the traits of wise people are not the kinds of traits that produce ambition to absolute rule. so if you believe in absolute rule based upon the only possible legitimate justification for absolute rule which is that the person ruling is wise or all knowing then you would have to have a significant rethink whether it wouldn't be better to have constitutional rule if the presumption that you are likely to get an absolute ruler who is wise turns out to be false. so we start with, you know, what seems like a case for absolutism for tyranny so that there are interp