Now, first of all, evidence for Democritus. Democritus wrote more works than anyone who preceded him. So you will have noticed in the supplementary reading at the end of the biographical information, there's a list of his writings, and over 100 writings that were attributed to him. Now, compare that with someone like Socrates. Socrates is a very influential philosopher, right? He wrote nothing, not a single word. He never bothered to write anything. So Democritus is essentially a contemporary of Socrates, but one who did write something. And this is why I'm so interested in him. Lots of people write books about Socrates, who himself wrote nothing, and how influential he was. Well, that situation should be compared with Democritus, who we actually have writings, and we have testimony directly about his influence. So where do we get evidence for him if none of his works have survived? Well, Diogenes Laerges tells us some facts about his biography. A guy named Thracilus preserved a list of his writings, which Diogenes Laerges quotes. That's basically what you read for today. Then there is testimonia, descriptions of his views by Aristotle and the doxographic tradition to which Aristotle gave rise. Then there are fragments. Most of these are devoted to his ethics, whereas most of the testimony about his views is devoted to his physics. But there are fragments of his ethics contained in a very late anthology of philosophy produced in the fifth century AD. So basically way after the Hellenistic age into the period of late antiquity or verging on middle ages. There are also imitations of his work. There are people that wrote works either attributed to a democratist or in a democratian style that have survived. There are also lots of people who have attacked him, especially early church fathers who rejected the materialism and atheism and hedonism and empiricism of this school of philosophy. Also his influence on other writers, most obviously Epicurus and Lucretius, but also Cicero, Seneca, Plutarch, and so forth, as I'll show. Now you write about his biography, so I'm not going to spend much time on it. One thing is that there's confusion about his birth date. We don't know exactly when he was born or when he died. He is said to have lived a long life, something like 100 years. There are some descriptions of his early education in Darjean's lairishes, which are in fact impossible, because they're anachronistic about the time period when Persians were traveling through democracy's hometown of Abdurah. There's also confusion about his later or higher education. He's said to be a pupil of Anaxagoras, but also said to have rejected everything that Anaxagoras said. He has said to have been a pupil of somebody named Lucipus, but other people denied that there ever was a philosopher named Lucipus and may have been a fictional figure in a dialogue written by a democratist. We have reports of his travels, but then we also have reports that he didn't go to all these places. So it said that he went to Athens, and there it said that nobody recognized him, and there's even a famous quote, I went to Athens and nobody recognized me. But then there's other people who have reported denials that he ever went to Athens. He's also supposed to have traveled to Persia, Syria, Egypt, India, and even Ethiopia, and there's a quotation of him saying, I have traveled much further than anybody else in the world, and I have gone to these places and gathered more from their wisdom traditions than anybody else has ever done. Now we don't know if that was just made up by a later biographer or if he really said that. Furthermore, there's questions about his interactions with the philosopher Protagoras, who's also from Abdurah, about whether he ever directly interacted with Socrates. The quote about, I went to Athens and no one recognized me, seems to be a reference to Socrates, not recognizing him. Also about Plato. It said, Plato never mentions the name Democritus in any of his works, and yet they were contemporaries. Democritus a little bit older, but we know he was an extremely influential philosopher. And you may have noticed the crazy quote about Plato expressing a wish to burn all of the books of Democritus and buying up from the bookstores all of Democritus' work so they could be destroyed, but then a couple of Pythagoreans persuaded him, no, they're already too widely dispersed, you can't possibly do it that way. So he did it the way that's really affected, which is never mentioned the guy's name. If you wanna kill someone in philosophy, what you do is don't cite them. Don't ever mention them. Like Kant tries to do this with Plato, right? He writes this entire giant, idealistic work, 800 pages long, and mentions Plato twice in it as a size. And he also wrote this critique of teleology that goes on for hundreds of pages about teleology. Never once mentions the name Aristotle. So whoever your main influence is, and the person who you have anxiety about how much influence they've had over you, tends to be somebody whose name you just completely submerge and never mention it. At least that's how ancient philosophers do it. Why was Plato so antagonistic against democracy in the first place? Well, one, the most interesting way to think of it is that because their views were different. So, Demacris was a materialist philosopher, and Plato was an idealistic philosopher, and Demacris was a naturalistic, inclined philosopher, and Plato believed in intelligent design, creationism, and their theology, and every aspect of their philosophy is different. That's the interesting distinctions. The last interesting one would be something like I was just alluding to, that it was some kind of rivalry, and even including a source that was contained in this reading saying that Plato didn't mention him because he didn't want to go up against the biggest, strongest philosopher at the time. I don't think there's much to those. I think it's more like the situation with Kant. You're really influenced by somebody, you're writing these ideas up yourself, and so you don't mention them because you want it to be assumed that this is your set of views. So, people don't often talk about this, but for example, in Plato's work on natural philosophy called the timeus, there's an account of atoms there. So, the basic elements of Plato's view is that there are atoms. Well, that's a view of democracies, and that was put forth by Demacris much earlier than Plato ever started writing philosophy. There's also questions about his interaction with the leading physician and medical writer of the time, Hippocrates, in fact, there was a fictionalized novel kind of dialogue about an interaction between them that I'll say more about in a little bit. But as you can see, this slide is mostly question marks, and that's appropriate. We just don't really know much about the biography in the strict sense, and Diogenes Lyarchus's work, biography or the lives of the ancient philosopher, again, don't assume that that means something like what we would, an historian would write, a biography of Abraham Lincoln or something, where we would expect it to be based on facts and so forth. In fact, the very idea of writing a lives of someone is more about writing a story that tries to encapsulate what their way of life was. And so, you try to depict the actions that they took in their own life and somehow embodying the philosophical ideas that they have, and that's more the point of that genre than actually telling us reliable facts about these people, which is why there are so few of them even in biographers. Now, here's a summary of why I consider him an archetype of the philosopher in the Hellenistic Age. First of all, because he had a direct influence on every organized school in the Hellenistic Age, and I could demonstrate that in those slides at the end of the presentation. The second is because of an image of him in the Hellenistic Era as the so-called laughing or cheerful philosopher as opposed to perichlitus, the crying philosopher, and I'll show you an illustration of that. And the reason this is important is because identifying a democrat is the laughing philosopher and the cheerful and tranquil philosopher is really important because almost all of Hellenistic ethics is oriented towards trying to find a way to be a cheerful and not anxious person, someone who has a tranquil life. That's a goal of almost every other school, and if democrat is supposed to be the emblem of a philosopher who's actually like that, that suggests his influence. Also, the idea of democratist turning the tables on Hippocrates who's supposed to have come to diagnose some mental problems of democratist and then ends up getting diagnosed and admitting that it's actually his problem, and I'll show you some illustrations about that. That's important because a lot of Hellenistic ethics is oriented around a therapeutic ideal, an idea that philosophy is analogous to medicine. Medicine treats illnesses of the body, philosophy treats illnesses of the soul, and they're exactly parallel. We all accept that there's a legitimate art of treating illnesses of the body, and we all accept that there's not just a body but a soul, and therefore, we all accept that there must be a form of therapy for this, and this has an impact on almost all the schools, including skepticism, and so this anecdote about democratist being a very early person to practice that conception philosophy again suggests his influence. Now, here's one of many, many illustrations that compare the sorrowful, sad, herapitis to the cheerful democratist, which became a subject for art, and there are hundreds of these paintings in the late middle ages, Renaissance, and into modern art because it is a challenge for the artist to depict emotion, and these are like paradigms of emotional state, sadness, and cheerfulness. But here's the philosophical content of this comparison. It's that heraclitus looking at everything in the world and what's happening and what people are really like, it leads him to weep. It makes him sorrowful because he sees what a horrible, pitiful, miserable world we actually live in, and it drives him to tears as he thinks about it. Democritus looking at the very same things is driven to laugh at them and take nothing seriously. Looking at the follies of human beings and how everything's set up and just the crazy absurdness of it all, his reaction is a cheerful laughing at it all. Now, which of these people do you wanna be like? It's sort of the idea. Do you wanna be somebody who, with respect to everything you see, it turns you miserable and sad or someone who can look at that all and laugh at it? Well, there's a serious question in there and the point I'm making now is that Democritus is associated with a latter kind of philosophy and as we'll see, the Stoics also want you to be in that state and the Epicureans also want you to be in that state and even the skeptics want you to be in that state with respect to things because there's a big problem. If wisdom ends up making you more miserable, not more happy, cheerful, tranquil, et cetera, but more miserable, if what wisdom consists in is realizing how horrible it all really is, then most people aren't gonna want to pursue wisdom, be a sort of discouragement from doing philosophy, discouragement from doing science. And I think this is a discouragement for a lot of people to this day to do philosophy and to do science because when we start discovering what we're really like and what the world's really like and it's seeming to be indifferent to our needs and things like that, it is a kind of depressing thing. So, but if we could find a way to be realistic about what the world's like and what we should do and what other people are like and react to it with cheerfulness and tranquility, that's kind of an ideal of Hellenistic philosophy. Now, here's how this story, this hilarious ancient novel that's written in the Hellenistic period goes. So the people in Democritus' hometown, the people in Abderah are very worried about Democritus' mental health because he's laughing at everything, everything he sees, he seems to be cracking up when they're saying, and they think, this guy's got some kind of problem with manic depression or something, we've got to deal with this. And so they call on the most famous physician, Hippocrates, to come and treat him. So Hippocrates shows up and finds him doing some solitary researches, hanging around by tombs, doing some philosophical investigations of logic or atomism or possibly dissecting animals and that sort of thing. And Hippocrates himself in seeing this thinks, God, I wish I had time to do this stuff. I'm so busy treating other people and traveling around and writing these books and publishing them and so forth. I don't have any time to investigate nature. And so then Democritus has made to respond with a diatribe about how the only valuable thing is learning about nature. And your condition is what everybody else's is, that they're confused about what they should be doing and they're running around getting themselves worried and bothered about things that don't really matter. And so then he sort of convinces Hippocrates that, yeah, you're the one who's sick and so are all these other people, all the people of Abder and so forth that have reported him and it's actually Democritus's mental state that we should pursue and imitate. Okay, so those are fictional stories and pictures about him, but the fact that that's how he's conceived of in the period shows his importance to some widespread, widely held views. Okay, now let me talk about his natural science and last time two good questions came up about atomistic natural science. Somebody asked about plurality of worlds and then somebody else who was it asked about, well, how do they account for consciousness or sensation? Those are really good questions and what I wanna say is I'm gonna give a really, really brief overview of Democritus's version of this which won't even begin to answer your question and then we're gonna go into more depth about it when we have more text and more time in talking about Epicureanism. But the main thing is that both of those would be good topics for a research project to look at theories of plurality of worlds in the Hellenistic age, why some people accepted them, why others rejected them and for example, how an atomistic and materialistic theory of reality could account for phenomena like life, sensation, consciousness and so forth. Those would be good topics to spend the next nine weeks researching and writing up into a paper. There's a lot of work to be done on those topics to figure out about them. Okay, so here is a very capsule account of Democritus's natural science or physiologia. The first point is that the natural principles of things, there's two principles basically, being and non-being or being and nothingness. And according to Democritus, the one exists no more than the other. They have to exist equally and that's because there's some kind of rational principle that there's no more of this than the other thing. There's no more, there's no sufficient reason for there to be more being than there is non-being or vice versa. And he holds that no being can come to be out of nothing and no being can be destroyed or resolved into nothing. This is an early expression of what we now call the principle of conservation of matter, okay? All there can be is a rearrangement of matter, not a creation out of nothing of new matter or a total destruction of matter into nothingness. Furthermore, beings are not infinitely divisible. They are divisible but not infinitely. At some point we will reach entities which we call atoms and the word atom just means uncuttable from the Greek word ah tomos. Tomos meaning cuttable and then we have an alpha-privileged prefix there, okay? Now, as we know, this is a very influential theory so we also hold, we also believe that there are things called atoms. Do we believe they're still uncuttable? Well, there is a bit of a problem about that. On the one hand, we do because we split the atom, this is what allows us to create nuclear energy and nuclear weapons and so forth. But on the other hand, we still hold the essential philosophical view here that there are entities in our physics that are no longer, no longer further divisible but whose recombination gives rise to all the other phenomenon. So, suppose I can divide a human body into parts like eyes, nose, ears, hearts, liver, arms, hands and so forth and then I can divide those parts into things like tissues and blood and sinews and so forth and then let's suppose I can divide those parts further into molecules, organic molecules and I can carbon, sorry, organic molecules, hormones, things like this, which then can be divided further into elements, atoms like carbon and oxygen and so forth. Well, now it turns out here I've reached what we call atoms using this Greek term by the inspiration of Democritus but we now have this theory about subatomic particles so that we can divide an atom into a neutron, proton, electron and so forth. Now, some people think that electrons are truly indivisible entities, that there's the atoms because you can't divide those anymore but then we also have this new standard theory of subatomic particles, muons, gluons, quarks and so forth, okay? Now, at this point we seem to reach indivisible entities so it's the recombination and how muons, gluons and quarks work that explain to us how atoms work and it's the recombination of atoms that explain how molecules work and it's the recombination of inorganic molecules that explain how organic molecules work and it's the recombination of organic molecules that explain how body parts and so forth come into existence. So you might think that what we've arrived at is just a different level. The atom is now on a lower level because using microscopes and other kinds of technology we're able to get further and further down. Now there's also theories that say, supposedly we could get further. Let's start cutting up muons, gluons, and clerks or conceiving them as being strings vibrating in n dimensional space or whatever. Now, there isn't any empirical evidence for that theory. It's a speculative mathematical idea. And so as far as physics is concerned, we still remain at the level of these indivisible particles of particle physics. But if we can keep dividing down further, then those new levels of division will be the new atoms of our theory. The only thing that would invalidate democracy's theory is if we could somehow show that there is no limit to this process, that we can divide our strings into something else. And we can divide that something else further into something else and this process can go on infinitely. But if we hold a theory that, no, this stops somewhere and we have these basic entities that have these basic properties and it's only their recombination that gives rise to the variety of phenomena, then we believe in atomism still, okay? And so we still believe in essentially the same theory that was advanced back then. And I've written an article called Lucretius and Modern Science in the Cambridge companion to Lucretius that quotes people beginning with Newton but down to Bohr and Einstein and other people paying homage to Democritus and talking about describing their scientific achievements in proving atomistic theory as being vindication of these ancient Greek views of Democritus. Now, being and nothingness exists as atoms and void respectively and everything else, those are the things that exist by nature, everything else is compounded out of their recombinations and exists merely as he says by convention. So this includes things like earth, air, water, fire, the planetary and other heavenly bodies, plants, animals, humans, and also all human artifacts and so forth are just recombinations of this kind of material. So are all qualitative experiences like of red, hot, sweetness and all of our thoughts about them, okay? So our sensation is based on atomic collisions. Our thoughts are basically just kind of attenuated or weakened thoughts and consciousness, if you will, is some kind of awareness of the distinction between our perceptions and our thoughts and so that's one kind of way that we would try to answer the earlier question. The basic theory of perception is that perception happens when objects fall into our sense organs like our eyes. They're either being emitted off of the surfaces of objects or there are rays extending from light sources that bounce off them and then fall into our sense organs. But at any rate, there's a purely materialist explanation of how this all happens by contact of physically hard bodies, atoms of various shapes and sizes. Now the implications of this for is cosmology. We just assume, because we don't have any reason to assume that the universe is finite. If it's finite, it'd have to be a certain shape. What shape is it? Is it a sphere? Is it a dodecahedron? Well, we just assume that it's actually infinite in all directions and infinite atoms are just assumed to have been constantly moving in time infinitely backwards and infinitely forwards have been constantly moving in this void and recombining and this gives rise to an infinite, it gives rise to everything but specifically to an infinite plurality of worlds. Worlds are cosmos being understood to just be temporary envelopments of atoms in large void spaces. And there are supposedly an infinite variety of shapes and sizes of atoms and they're constantly colliding, rebounding with one another, becoming entangled because some of them have shapes with hooks on them and others have shapes with eyelets and those ones, when they crash together end up getting connected and combining and forming larger and larger structures giving rise to visible compounds of things like earth, air, water, and fire, the heavenly bodies, plants, animals, et cetera. And the theory about how worlds are generated is that they get caught in a kind of swirl or vortex in which heavy things like earth fall to the bottom and light things like fire rise out to the surface. And so we can assume that beyond our solar system are not just other solar systems but an infinite number of them in all directions. And so you have a picture that looks something like this. This is actually a diagram taken from Descartes' Principles of Philosophy which depicts his theory of vortices but it's inspired by Democritus so we've got, in Descartes' view, the sun is the center of a solar system here that rotates and has other bodies rotating in its proximity and then it's bounded just by other vortices going in every direction. Very influential view in early modern science here are some diagrams taken from scientific textbooks to try to further visualize this idea of vortices. Here we are in our solar system and then here's other solar systems running up against us. Notice there's no concept of galaxies or clusters or superclusters or void space in between them. This assumes a plenum where all that space is filled. And there's a very psychedelic looking one from a book in 1640. Now any questions about those physics? As I said we're gonna show how that's modified by Epicureanism but spend a lot more time, spend an entire lecture dedicated to talking about this physics later but I wouldn't be surprised that there were just at least clarificatory questions. So would it kind of seem like they were more into thinking divided by density than gravity or any such force like that? Well they can, it's a complicated matter. So atomism can very well account for the fact that things have different densities because now you can talk about objects being combinations of atoms and void and less dense objects have less atoms. More dense objects have more atoms. And so there's a whole class of phenomena, very important phenomena. Possibly all phenomena can be explained according to that. So that's one thing. Now then you said not gravity. Well there's an issue here. What does gravity really mean? Gravity means something like heaviness and there's a dispute in interpreting democratist's theory as to whether heaviness is recognized as an intrinsic property of atoms. Most of our testimonies say that the only intrinsic properties of atoms are shape, size, and hardness. That some of them are in pyramid shape, some of them are in cube shape, some of them have hooks and so forth. And then how many different sizes of them are there? But then other people interpret this view and this becomes important in a way that how Epicurus uses and modifies this view. Interpreted is being that since they are solid bodies they must have weight and thus they must fall towards the center of the universe or whatever. But there's a huge controversy there and we just don't have enough evidence to resolve his views about gravity. The basic account for democratists of how motion is happening is that we don't give an account of it. We account for everything else by talking about how things move. We assume that infinite time backwards there have been atoms moving in every direction and the cause of a state of atoms at any given time has to do with the previous state of atoms and which ones collided, which ones rebounded, which ones were caught up in a new compound, which ones broke free. And that we can explain any state by going to a previous state of it. And that so everything is therefore necessitated from all time and will be for all time in the future. And it's not clear that he needs a property like gravity to account for how it moves if he can account for it by just assuming motion and then assuming collisions to account for how they get tied up. But we will revisit that issue in due course. Any other, yes, please. Is it just a coincidence that searcher named one of his books, Being and Nothingness, or did he draw some influence from the property? I'm not sure if he was directly influenced by Democritus. I know he says some things about Epicurus, but I think he has a different, more kind of phenomenological take on being and nothingness. Being really, in Sartre, means something more like my existence versus the possibility of my non-existence through death and that kind of absence or negation of being. Whereas here it's really an ontological principle. It's like a basic physical principle, really. And whereas searcher's reaction to contemplating being and nothingness is nausea, Democritus is, of course, cheerfulness, happiness. So the ethics is gonna end up being different. Any other questions? Yeah. And Descartes' book with the image of the solar system in the vortex showed the sun at the center. Right. Does that mean that Democritus had an idea? So Democritus does not seem to have held that view and he has an earth-centric system, but this system is not the center of the universe. Therefore it's not technically a earth-centric view because he doesn't think there is any center since it's infinite in all directions. But he does seem to think that the earth is central to our solar system because his conception of our solar system is that heavy objects like earth have fallen to the bottom of it by some kind of centrifugal motion in this vortex or swirl. And whereas Descartes very clearly does accept the Copernican view that the sun is at the center. So that's right. And the same thing with this diagram. Okay, that was a well established point by the 17th century, but still a huge controversy in Democritus' writing. Yeah. Also for in the picture with the solar system of the vortices outside that all exists within the universe, does he think that there can be void within outside the solar system where there's nothing? Yes, but that's one misleading thing about using this Cartesian picture is that Descartes doesn't actually accept void whereas Democritus does. So the Democritus diagram should have big stretches of void and then little vortices. But maybe there are vortices packed in tightly in certain parts of the cosmos. There's since it's infinite, all of these combinations happen, every possible one. Okay, so his ethics. First of all, they're mostly expressed in the form of maxims or proverbs. If you read my paper called Maxims of Democritus of Abdrah, I explain how one can write ethics in this way and so have it be rational ethics. It's not just memorizing fortune cookie expressions and things like that, but it's actually a very logical and rational way of not only writing ethics, but propagating it. It's very much easier for people to remember proverbs and maxims than it is treatises. He calls the end, euthymia, which here I'll just translate as well-being. And it's clarified that it's not the same thing as just experiencing pleasure or enjoyment, but it turns out to be a calm, stable, tranquil, well-grounded psyche, one that isn't disturbed by fear, jealousy, envy, superstition, or any other kind of passion. It's basically his idea of, that's the point of life is to go through it with your psyche in that condition. And the best means to this, he says, is to not to focus or concentrate on those who have more things than you or better things than you, either by nature or because they've acquired it by convention. So don't spend your time looking at pictures of beautiful people on the internet and looking and following the lives of celebrities and rich people.   So this is, if you're feeling sad because you think I'm an ugly person, think about people who are deformed and paralyzed and so on and then you'll realize I don't, I thank God I'm not in that kind of condition. And the great thing about this is that anyone can do it. Even if you're paralyzed, you can think about people in yet worse conditions that don't even have those limbs that you have that are paralyzed and so on. And there's always more and more miserable things. And further, as an outcome of doing that, it's not just that doing that makes me feel better about myself or some kind of schoolyard in Prado where I actually get off on thinking about when other people are made miserable. It's more that it makes me feel better about my situation and it also generates sympathy and pity and solidarity with these people. And so it actually creates a more tranquil society when we think more about the less fortunate and when we think about celebrities and rich people and beautiful people and that sort of thing, then we create a kind of society that's tied up with pursuing those things and then all of society is worse off. Now I'll just rapidly show you a bunch of slides I've created, all of these are fragments and maxims of democratists and all of them are contained in a handout that I uploaded to Triton Ed. But he has a well-developed view about how education and moral improvement happens and he thinks it essentially happens as a kind of therapy on the one hand, as I've already mentioned, but also this therapy is kind of like psychotherapy and involves talking and speaking and thinking and it's really about changing your mind and you can do that with philosophical maxims. You can get people to look at things differently and think about them differently and in this way we will be able to get them to not only improve their mood and so create the state of euthymia but we'll actually improve societies. The means by which we'll do it will make them more sympathetic and so forth and less competitive and hostile and that sort of thing. Now a large fragment, so the next three slides are actually all a continuous fragment in my view that are the beginning of his treatise on tranquility or on euthymia and it looks from the initial fragment that it's largely prudential wisdom that first of all, if you want to be a tranquil and not an anxious person, here's my first piece of advice for you. Don't try to do too many things, okay? Because the first and most obvious cause of frustration and misery is being too busy and feeling like you're running out of time and you can't actually finish things, okay? And this also stems from misestimating our own capabilities from not knowing ourselves and thinking that we are capable of doing more things than we're actually capable of. So like the idea that, you know, succeeding in school, social life or sleep, pick two, right? That's kind of the idea. There is, everybody thinks they can do more than they actually can and so ends up not succeeding at any of them. And so the first thing we do is learn, is to figure out what we're capable of doing and then not try to do too many things in general. Now the second thing is that, what is key is to experience joy and moderation and balance in life and to go through life relatively tranquilly and he describes this in a way that looks like a kind of physical or material description of the psyche, that you don't want it changing over great intervals and being altered too quickly. You don't want a state like manic depression where sometimes you're in a good mood, sometimes you're in a bad mood. You want a calm, tranquil state throughout. And the way to get that again is to keep in mind what your capabilities are. Don't try to do more things than you're capable of and in general, focus on those people who are not objects of jealousy and admiration but of pity and who are enduring greater hardship than you. And if you dwell on the latter instead of the former, then you will live with more tranquility and you will drive out these emotional defects like envy, jealousy and ill will. Now he argues that the pursuit of euthymia or tranquility in this way will make you a more just person and these fragments explain how that's so. And these fragments explain how by concentrating on those who are more pitiful and in a worse condition will create a kind of solidarity with them which will have positive political benefits. Now one of his most important and innovative ethical views is contained in this first fragment. No one should feel shame before other people more than before himself nor be more prepared to work a bad deed if no one witnesses it than if everyone does. But he should have a sense of shame for himself most of all and institute this law for his own soul so that he'll do nothing mischievous. So what's interesting here is that this idea of one should institute a law for one's own soul. Normally we think that laws are instituted by legislatures not by individuals and they are instituted by governments on the body politic not on a soul and not on my own soul but this literally contains the idea of autonomy or imposing a law on yourself and regulating your ethical behavior yourself by having a sense of shame that I shouldn't do these shameful things and if I allow that not to govern my actions only when I'm in public and can be detected but even when I can't be then I will be a more moral person and a happier person and it will come about without having to worry about laws and the political situation that I exist in. He also lays great stress on distinguishing and choosing between different kind of pleasures and also limiting desires and reconceiving of poverty and wealth as more emotional states of a conception about whether I have much or little and an issue of relative deprivation instead of my objective state of my pocket book.


Hey there friends. Thanks for checking in throughout the years. I've been accused of not being safe at the range I've done range tests where I was close to a iron target. I shot the target I was trying to make a point trying to see if my firearm would shoot through a car door accurately and looking back It wasn't the safest thing in the world But what you're looking at right now compares nothing to what I'm about to show you Everybody wants to get that viral video the one that's going to be circulated all throughout the the world millions of views and Everybody watching it and talking about it, and they will go to extreme measures to achieve that goal I remember a couple years back a guy had his girlfriend taking 50 action express desert eagle And he held a book and she shot the book and went right through the book and killed him There was another case where a guy was walking through walmart had somebody record the reaction of the people He ended up getting arrested. It was during very turbulent times And it was later revealed in court that he was doing it for that viral video Now what we see here. I don't know if this was in the u.s. I took it off of facebook, but what we see here is Crazy stuff a guy holding balloons with his own body in the way in the center of the range and these very Good shooters. We're shooting at these balloons. It's for that shock value. It's for that You know, I can't believe what i'm seeing kind of thing or you can't tell me that you couldn't tape a balloon up to a Silhouette target, maybe I am even cardboard target and you would get that same effect But no you would not get that same effect because there's that danger involved Now initially the guys holding the balloons outward stretched out arms Away from his body they shoot the balloons then he puts it closer to his chest then he puts it closer to His head as these these guys are shooting now I would never do this. This is to a level. I would never try to achieve I wouldn't trust my shooting. I wouldn't trust the other people shooting This would get somebody kicked out of a range in america. Now if this is in America somewhere, I have no idea But I guarantee that the people doing this They are looking for viral videos. They're looking for that shock and all that thing like that I can't believe what i'm seeing right now. It's crazy now. Thankfully it worked out But imagine if it didn't imagine if he got shot in in the arm Even in the chest Possibly even in the head the way those balloons were so close to his head. It's very dangerous crazy stuff here and The shooters were great But just one little flinch one little Question if I could hit that target even when they backed up a little bit. I would guess that they backed up possibly 12 to 17 yards you really can't tell it's shaky cell phone footage But when they back up like that one little mistake could cost The the man holding the balloons His life and and honestly he put himself in that danger He put extreme confidence in the shooters the shooters put extreme confidence in themselves It reaches the level of stupidity that could have been achieved doing something else But it could cost somebody their lives people looking for that viral video doing whatever they can To garner attention to what they're trying to achieve and build up a youtube channel or a facebook following whatever the case And actually it works you do something stupid you Put yourself in danger you put other people in danger people want to watch some of the most viral videos out there are people who hate The creators and then they end up sharing those and it actually gives the creator more attention and and I think this is Bad light on the gun community. Once again, this is these are professional shooters There's no doubt about that but to put yourself in that type of danger Sheds a bad light on everybody and it really should be avoided You know if you want to build an audience do it organically do it through regular content I don't know just do do your thing But to put yourself in danger like this I just don't think it's necessary and I think it is Well, I know it is very dangerous and it's something that I would never do If you like videos like this, please subscribe and share I always appreciate thumbs up button. Thanks for watching and you guys be safe


When is it the right time to hire a one-to-one coach or mentee? Well, I welcome your comments below if you like. So my opinion about it is, well, the sooner the better if you can afford it without financial stress. I mean, I think it's a bad idea. I really do think it's a bad idea.  Or they get someone to sign up even though they, you know, in the enrollment conversation, they discover that this person has financial stress. And it's like, I don't care.  I think it's a bad idea. I think you should hire a one-to-one coach mentor, one-to-one coach or mentor, counselor, healer, etc. as soon as possible when you don't have the financial stress and without having to borrow money from friends and family ideally as well, which also basically means that you probably shouldn't hire a one-to-one coach mentor who charges a high enough rate that does give you financial stress. Because there are plenty, plenty of one-to-one sessions you can book, one-to-one coaches you can work with to charge a low enough rate where it doesn't give you that kind of financial stress. I highly recommend it because there is no replacement to one-on-one work. You can't join my group program and get one-on-one support, right?  I want to sell you my group program, obviously. My group program comes with 10 Q&A calls a month where I get to interact, but it's not one-to-one, right? It's not a one-to-one experience. And so I think you should hire one-to-one coaches soon as possible. If you are asking the question, if you have an area in your life, your work, your spiritual growth, your relationship, your health, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, that you feel like, you know what, I could probably progress a lot faster or with a lot more confidence and consistency. The answer is yes, you probably can't. And hiring a coach or a mentor or a counselor or healer, facilitator, it's going to give you more of a motivation and more of a consistent focusing and refocusing on that issue to make progress more consistently and probably faster and probably deeper and probably in more, quote-unquote, correct ways or ways that are more effective based on the wide experience, wide and deep experience of your coach or mentor. So and whether you're hiring the right person or not is also a good question. I have, you know, I have a separate segment. You can look it up on my YouTube channel on when is the time to move on from one-to-one coach or mentor. But I think it's a good idea to try different people. Don't just say, great, this person looks great. I'm going to sign up for four sessions a month for a year. I don't think that's a great idea. So I always say, you know, hire, not me, this is an age-old, well-known saying, hire slowly, fire quickly, very wise for business owners, but also for hiring mentors and coaches hire slowly, meaning you just want, right, I just met this person, right? I've been watching their videos for a while. I'm just going to sign up for one year for, you know, four sessions a month. No. Say, why don't I sign up for your four session package first? You know, why don't I sign up for your three session package first? And let's give it a try. And then if it goes really well, we can reevaluate after a natural, you know, temporary completion of three sessions, four sessions before you do something more. Or why not try someone else for three sessions, four sessions that you really see. Oh, I really am eager to try that person because I've been watching their videos for a while as well or whatever.  So I hope this is helpful. And I look forward to seeing your comments below as well.


So cheesy. Uh, thank you for your support on Patreon. You guys are fantastic.  Uh, but, Twitter, we're reacting to a cricket video, but it's a Sochyn cricket video. It's called Sochyn, the best innings compilation. I think it's like almost a documentary, short documentary. Uh, I think I could be totally wrong. Uh, we haven't, we've only reacted to Sochyn's film. Correct. Sochyn Billion Dream. Trailer. The long time ago. Trailer. Uh, this is actually about the player. So we're learning a lot about cricket and... Going to a cricket game. Uh, look out for that. Uh, but, here we go. Because he's known as the God of Cricket. That's what they tell us. Here we go! Legends of cricket! In his homeland, he enjoys a year-glot-like status. Great players hailing as a backing genius. He is intelligent and handsome. Yet decency and humility are his watchwords. Still one of the finest batsmen in the world today. Sasha Ntendulka is one of ESPN's Legends of Cricket. On a seeming wicket, Sasha Ntendulka was promoted to open the batting in a one-day international against New Zealand. He made 84 from 49 balls. Ntendulka will go down in, certainly, in Indian history. I think it's probably their best player. And there have been some very good ones. But this modern Indian generation, where they've been able to see him play all his cricket on television, I think will result in him being remembered forever. I think he's one of those very few great players who started off looking special. At the age of 14, 15, anybody who saw him realised that he was a child prodigy. And he never let anybody down. We had huge expectations when he saw him the first time. And Indian expectations can be quite, you know, heavy at some time. Could be a little impractical as well. But athletes don't live up to the expectations they've found young. Look at that. Just a wonderful player. And we're seeing the rest of him today. I love jerseys. Go back. You're always doing throwback days. Beautiful shot. Wow. Ntendulka said that he's the benchmark for modern batsmen. Don Bradman believed that he was the closest one to himself. The best way to sum up Ntendulka's technique is to go back to what Sir Donald Bradman said about him. And that is that when Bradman was watching him bat one day and he said to his wife, come and have a look at this, this bloke bats like me. And he was talking about Ntendulka. I think he's the most complete batsman of his age and perhaps of all time. Because he scored runs against every kind of bullying, everywhere in the world, every situation, every, all kinds of pitches. And that's something you can't say about everybody in the world. I think he's the best player in the world today. Without a shadow of doubt. Another small man you see like Bradman and... He burns. I was just going to say, it's a great name. I mean, there's so much timing. We used to play the ball. And again, as I said about all greats, tremendous balance. And there's a lot to be said for that. He's close to being the most perfect batsman one has ever seen. His back lift is straight, his balance is unbelievable. He can play off either foot, he can play on either side. And again, that ability that separates the men from the boys. The ability to hit the good ball for boundaries of success. He also influences the game with his skillful bowling and athletic and accurate feeling. He versates bowlers and dominates games. That's a scratching shot through extra cover. Sachin as a batsman is just... You know you're watching someone special. You know that you're photographing someone who will only be coming on. You know, say it once every 100 years. He brought a new dimension to Indian cricket. You had a Gausker on the one hand who grinds bowlers out and brought a lot of pride for us as a world-class batsman. But suddenly here was someone who was taking attacks apart. And I think they looked at the product of his generation. He came in when India were a prouder nation. India as a nation that created self-belief. And he came in at a time when India was looking for that kind of hero. What a shot. Gaur staying up in the port of beautiful on drive. This incredible start. It's crazy. Sometimes they say to stop. They come up with those actions. Performances. It's almost like the whole Indian population wanting him to succeed. What second to say? We're going with that on the shoulders for 20 years. You know, that is the most amount of pressure in cricket. The speed of like it's coming at you. You have a decision about where you're going to place it. He's been the most phenomenal technician that the hunger and drive and passion the guys had to have that longevity. That's a very humble idea too. Yes, it was an ESPN thing. Two things that come to mind immediately when they talked about the expectations since they knew when he was 14. It was like, here's this 14-year-old kid. Reminds me of when they were talking about LeBron in the NBA. Because they started talking about LeBron when he was playing high school and they already had anointed him. Like he's going to be the next Kobe, the next MJ. It's hard to live up to that. I mean, he did. And he did. I mean, he did. And it's also, it's like, you know, having to replace I mean, this isn't really comparable but when you have to step into the shoes of somebody like a Joe Montana, right? Like Young did. When those kinds of expectations are on you most of the time people don't live up to the expectations. Like Aaron Rodgers. Right. Ken Griffey Jr. had tons of injuries in baseball. There was actually a kid in soccer in the MLS. I don't believe he's actually from the United States stuff. He was a prodigy of soccer. He was 14 years old. Right. And he was going to be like the next Pele. Right. And he was good but then he kind of just fizzled out didn't live up to the hype. Happens more often than not. It happens they don't live up to the hype. And apparently he exceeded the hype. See that God of cricket. Yeah. And the other thing too that we're learning about cricket compared because I've said this before on other reactions we've done to cricket that my sport growing up since I mean so I could hold things might have put a baseball in my hand. So I played baseball was my high school sport. It was my college sport. And I know every little nuance. I can watch a hitter and I can tell like if I'm watching the Yankees and Aaron Judges swinging and his swing is off and he's striking out I can tell what he's doing with his swing based on his hand position on the bat and what he's doing with his right shoulder if he's rotating his hips. I'm not no we're near remotely close to that with this but this has so much more going on because your options of where you're going to swing and where the ball is going to go are infinitely more complex because in baseball the pitchers got to put it in the strike zone. And if it's not in the strike zone you're not swinging. I'm like this. This is pretty much everywhere this thing goes. Swing back. Wherever this thing goes I'm going to hit it and not only am I going to have to make contact I mean baseball players do this too. A good baseball player is going to know I got runners in scoring position. I don't want to force play. I want to hit it to the right side to at least move the men over or I want to hit a fly ball so they can tag up. So they can place the ball and there's a great story of Rod Karoo from The Angels the catcher is talking to him while he's hitting and the catcher is trying to mess with his head and says where are you going to put this rod and as the pitch comes in and he's swinging he says I'm going to put it in right and he hits it to the right field. But this like I remember when we were in the cage it's totally antithetical to baseball swinging because the ball could be coming at you and you've got to hit it somewhere. You can go behind you. You also have to protect the wicket. Right. The ball could be coming behind you and it could be coming behind you but there's a spin on it and it's actually come back toward you and you've got to think and you can see he's like okay in a millisecond I'm going to put this over to the right and I'm going to put it right between these two guys who are standing about a meter apart from each other. I just... Yeah. And they also say there would be no MS Doni without the saw. Right. And those are the two like that I've heard. The great greats. The legends. And there's of course many many others but those are the two that like but they say that MS Doni wouldn't be here without what Sachin did for the game of cricket in India. Right. So that's crazy. I want to know because we've seen Ligand. I want to know what other cricket movies should it be Sachin Abellion Dreams or should it be the MS Doni? The only one. Total story. Right. I think there was a South Indian one as well.  Tell us what we should watch because I'd love to watch more of them want to learn more about the sport. I really enjoyed Ligand. Of course. Yeah. It was great. Yeah. It did teach us quite a bit. It did. I understand more of it now. Like when it's rolling out of bounds and I was like oh that's four points. That's it. I know that. I'm so smart. So it actually makes me feel like I would know what I'm going to watch. If we went to a game. Yeah. Could you imagine what it would be like? If we ever went. If we ever went. Imagine if we could see India play. Wow. Like if they were ever coming to the United States. That'd be crazy. They would never do that. No, no, no.  Yeah, probably.


Hi, in this lecture, we will quickly have an introduction to Python coding. We will use Python language to develop codes for some numerical methods that we will develop in our course. The first question is why Python? We have so many languages, right? One of the main reason for why we choose Python is that it is an open source programming language. Means Python is available for free. In fact, many operating systems come with Python preloaded. The second reason for why we want Python is that it is a cross platform language. You develop your code in one platform, say on Windows and then take the code and run it on another operating system, say Linux. You can do it without making any changes in syntax or any setting. That is what is meant by cross platform language. In fact, it has many inbuilt libraries that makes the programming more simple, especially when we are developing some complicated softwares or working on coding some complicated scientific problems. Python is a very popular language. It is used as a tool in many famous websites and therefore Python has a large user network. This allows us to get some supports like whenever we have problem or doubt, you can go to some discussion forum and pose your questions. It is very likely that you will get reply in that way. We can say that we can get free support when working with Python. So these are the reasons for why we preferred Python as a programming language to learn how to code certain numerical methods. Having said this, the next question is what is the editor that we want to use to write Python programs and execute them? Well, there are many editors like Visual Studio or Anaconda is there which has a collection of editors and different Python distributions. But in our course, we prefer to use Colab. Colab is a Google product and again the question is why we want to use Colab when we have many other editors? One important reason is Google Colab is integrated with Google Drive means whatever program that you write and save will be saved on your Google Drive. This is very comfortable for us. The next thing is Google Colab connects to cloud based running time. It means when you execute a Python code on Colab, it connects to a cloud based machine and executes your program on the cloud machine. This is particularly very nice because you do not need to install any software or libraries on your personal computer because your code is basically going to be run on a cloud machine. And Google Colab has almost all the commonly used libraries already installed in it. In case if you want to use a library which is not found on Colab, you can install it on your Google Drive separately. In that way, you do not need to install any extra software or libraries on your personal machine. And of course, since all your programs are saved on Google Drive, it is easy for you to share your programs with your colleagues or friends just like how you share Google documents. And these are the reasons why we want to use Python as a programming language to learn coding of some basic numerical methods and we want to use Colab as our editor. I will not be introducing Colab because it is very easy for you to understand how to start with Colab and how to use Colab as an editor. You can also find many videos on YouTube to learn Colab within 5 to 10 minutes. In fact, I have also made a short video on how to start with Colab. You can find my video on the link shown here. I will also give this link in the description box. With this, we will directly go into the Python programming. Well, Python is an easily readable programming language. It is not very complicated. Therefore, I will quickly go through certain commonly used tools from Python in our course. The first thing is how to define a variable, store a value in the variable and how to do certain arithmetic operations and print the output. A variable x is defined here and the value 10 is stored in the variable x. For that, we have to write like this. Similarly, y equal to 5 makes the Python to create a variable y and store the value 5 in that variable. Then what we are doing is we are defining another variable c and we are storing the value of the sum of x plus y in that variable c and finally we are printing the value stored in the variable c. Let us see how to run this program. To run the program, we just have to click this play button. For the first time, the Google Colab will take some time to allocate some memory in the cloud mission. The next time onwards, it will run your code more faster. Well, it has established a connection with the cloud mission and it ran your small bit of code and it has shown the output as c is equal to 15. Next let us see how to run a loop. There are two ways that you can create a loop. One is using the for loop and another one is while loop. In this program, we will see how to use for loop. The syntax for for loop is for and then running index and its range given here. You can specify the range in any way. In Python, you have a special command called range which will create a sequence of numbers ranging from 0, 1, 2 up to 1 number less than what you specify here. This is very important to remember. It will not go up to 10 just because we gave 10 here. It goes 1 number less than that. And then it takes the value i equal to 0 and then executes all the lines written below the for loop with an indent here. You can see that there is an indent given here. So whatever line you write below this with an indent will be group executed under this for loop and it will go from i equal to 0 till 9. Let us run this program and see what is the output for the first for loop. Similarly, there are also other two for loops which we will see little later. Let us now concentrate only on the first for loop. In fact, we can command all these lines by just selecting them and pressing command slash. So in Python, if you type a line which starts with a hash then Python will not execute those lines. So here, Python will not execute all these lines. Let us run this code where it will only run the first for loop. As we expected, you can see that it starts with i equal to 0 and every time we are printing the value of i. Therefore, you can see that i equal to 0 up to 9 only it went. That is very important as I shown here. It goes from 0 to 9 not up to 10 as we have written here. That is one thing that we have to remember. Next let us take another for loop where we are going from 3 to 10 range has basically three arguments. The first argument tells you where your range starts and the second argument says where it ends. Actually, it ends one number less than what you write and the third argument is about the step in which the numbers are incremented. If you do not specify anything as a third argument then by default range takes it as 1. Therefore, here writing comma 1 is equivalent to not writing it at all. So, in fact, you do not need to write it at all if it is just incremented by 1. You can see that the second for loop will print j equal to 3, 4, 5 up to 9 again because you have given 10 here therefore, it goes up to 9. What about this? This will make the print to be j equal to 3 comma and then it will not go to the next line whereas, here the outputs are printed one below the other. Now, it will be written one after the other. It is something like this up to j equal to 9 and then this print command will put a carriage written and comes to the next line to print and then this for loop will take up. Now, you can see that I am incrementing the range from 0 to 10 with an increment of 2. Therefore, it will go as 0, 2, 4, 8 and then 10 it will not print because you are allowing it to go only up to 9 therefore, it prints up to 8 only and comes out. Let us run this code. The first for loop we have already seen. In the second for loop if you recall, we asked the for loop to print one after the other that is how it went and in the third for loop we have printed k equal to 0, 2, 4, 6 and 8. In the next program, we will see how to use while loop. The format of the while loop is while and then the condition under which this loop has to run that is as long as this condition is satisfied the loop will keep on running and then this colon is just like in the for loop. It is a format of the while loop as well as for loop also it indicates that the line is ending there and then whatever is given as the indent here that will be considered as the part of the while loop. Here you can see that we have two lines which are written with indent therefore, they are considered as the part of the while loop and these two lines will be executed as long as the loop is going on and once the loop is over that is once if this condition is violated then the control comes out of the loop and prints this line that is what the program does. Let us run the program and see how the output looks like. You can see that first you have taken x is equal to 0 and then you went into the loop first you are checking what is x value x is surely less than 5 therefore, it incremented x by 1 what it means it is equivalent to saying x equal to x plus 1 and then you are printing x therefore, the first print command will print the output as x equal to 1 and then it goes back to the while loop and checks the condition as x is less than 5 because the value of x is 1 again it comes and does this and gives x equal to 2 and it goes on up to x equal to 5 when it comes for 5 it and goes prints and goes back to the while loop it checks whether 5 is less than 5 no therefore, it will come out and then since this print command is not given with an indent it will print not as the part of the while loop, but it will print once it comes out of the while loop. Now, the question is what happens if I also give an indent to this that is if I just put a tab and push it inside and align with these lines then this print will also be a part of this while loop. Now, if I run this code what happens every time it also prints that end of loop command because it is a part of the while loop now, but my aim is not to keep it as a part of the while loop. So, let me remove that let us go on with the next program the next program is an illustration of the if command that is the conditional command if else if and else this is very easy for you to understand therefore, I will leave it to you to understand this program it is not very difficult. The next program is an illustration of creating an array and extending the array length here we have a variable A in that we want to store a vector whose components are 1 2 and 3. So, this can be done by creating an array in python arrays are called lists and then what I want to do is I want to make this vector bigger every time when this for loop runs for that what you have to do is A which is the variable name dot append that will create one more memory space for the variable A and it stores the value of I in that newly created variable that is what it does and every time after extending the arrays length and storing the value of I into the new extended memory it prints the entire array A and then it does it for I is equal to 4 5 6 up to 10. Let us run this code and see how the output looks like you can see that when the control comes for the first time into the for loop the I value is equal to 4 A already had 3 components now it has appended one more component in that it has stored the variable value I into it which is 4 now that is why you see the variable output as 1 2 3 and 4 and then it goes back once again to the for loop now I is equal to 5 when it comes to this line it again extends A by one more memory and puts the value of I which is now 5 into it and then prints it that is why you can see you have 4 and then one more 5 similarly it goes on till I is equal to 10 not 11 again and again I am emphasizing because this is little confusing it goes from 4 till 10 well this is how you create a one dimensional array we will now see the danger in equating an array with another variable name let us consider this program where I am declaring a list or an array A is equal to 1 2 3 and then what I am doing is I am equating B is equal to A normally this should create a memory separately for the variable B and it should store the values of A into B and B should have the same list structure as A but it should have its own memory but in python what happens is B will not have its own memory but it will be mirrored with A and therefore any changes you make in B will also be reflected in A and vice versa let us see this by first printing the values of A and B and then go to store some value in one of the components of either A or B and that will be automatically reflected in the other variable also this is the danger of creating a variable B by equating it with a list let us run this program and see how the output comes well you can see that A is equal to 1 2 3 and then since we have written B is equal to A we also got B equal to 1 2 and 3 and finally I am changing the value of A 0 that is the first component of A is changed at this line as 100 that is correctly incorporated in A now you can see after changing that I am printing the value of A here and that is correctly taking care of the change happened in the first component of A but I never touched B you see I have only created B and stored A into 8 but I have never changed the value of B in any of the three components but since I have changed the first component of A from 1 to 100 it got reflected in the variable B also this is the danger of equating a list to a new variable on the other hand if you just put like this and see what happens now you can see that only A got changed as we wanted B is never touched upon so when you are defining a list and then you want to create another variable which initializes what is there in A then just do not put B equal to A that is very dangerous but you put B equal to A colon this is what is important when you are dealing with lists or otherwise called arrays and now we have understood the one dimensional arrays and their functionality let us go to see how to create and use two dimensional arrays a two dimensional array can be created like this now A can be viewed as a matrix whose elements are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 8, 9 in order to emphasize that you do not need to give a space between comma and the number so I have written the last line without a space okay so that does not really matter so what I am doing here is I am basically defining two matrices A and B and then I want to multiply these two matrices you do not have a inbuilt command in python to multiply two matrices what you can do is you can create two for loops nested for loops and you can directly make the multiplication formula and get the product of two matrices or what you can do is there are some inbuilt libraries in python say for matrix multiplication you can find commands in a inbuilt library called numpy so how will you bring that numpy into your program you have to first import it this is what we are doing in the first line in fact you can do it anywhere before you use any command of that library or generally it is a good practice to define all the libraries that you are going to use in your program at the beginning of the program so I am just defining it at the beginning of the program you can also define it at this level because this is the first time you are using a numpy command right so you can also either put it here or you can put it at the beginning of the program so what it does is it imports all the commands which are written and kept in this library called numpy then whenever you call any of its commands say for instance mat mal will do the matrix multiplication of given two matrices a and b but to execute it you have to say that this command is sitting in the library called numpy so you have to type numpy dot mat mal if you do not want to type this full name then you have to import it as something so what I am choosing is I want to use instead of numpy np I want to use you can give any string here and then you can use that string to call the library I am using np therefore I have to put np dot mat mal this is matrix multiplication of a comma b and that I am storing in the variable c you can also use dot you can also use dot for multiplying a matrix with a vector which I am doing here you can see that I am multiplying the matrix a with x although this x is looking like a row vector in the dot command it will be automatically taken as a column vector and it gives you the correct result of a into x so therefore when you print this you will see the value a into x transpose here that is why I have just printed like this and in fact you can extract one particular row of the matrix a by giving this command remember in python the index always starts with 0 therefore when I give the index as 1 it is basically the second row but not the first row because first row is indexed as 0 in python it is something like c program the index starts always with 0 you have to remember that that is why I have written here print second row of a right but I have given 1 here why because 0 corresponds to the first row of a 1 corresponds to the second row of a now if I am interested in extracting a column can I put a colon 1 well that is not possible because colon 1 is not going to extract a column ok. So, column has to be done in a rather different way in order to extract a column you cannot define your matrix a in the normal list form you have to define it as np dot array of this. So, if this is a special command which is written and kept in the library numpy so you have to use that command to declare the matrix a just to have a different notation let me call this as a np you can see that the matrix a and a np are mathematically the same they are the same matrices, but a is defined using the usual list command of the python whereas, a and p is created using the command which is kept in the numpy why we are doing it with this now you can extract a column otherwise you can only extract rows you cannot extract columns let us print n a and p and now if you want to say extract the third column of the matrix a remember I am putting 2 here, but actually it extracts the third column because again I am emphasizing python will run from 0 to n minus 1 therefore, 2 will correspond to the third column and then a of colon comma 2 this will not extract the column that will not extract the column you can run this program and see what is the output of this you can see that the column extract is possible only with np you can see you get a is given like this and that we are asking it to extract the third column the third column is correctly extracted as 3 6 and 9 with a and p remember this first one is a and p and whereas, the second one is not extracting the third column, but it is still extracted the third row only. So, that is the main drawback of defining a two dimensional array directly with the inbuilt list form you have to define a matrix always with np dot array command we will learn more about handling matrices when we are doing the linear systems part let us now quickly go into the next topic of doing some programs with rounding errors. Let us see this interesting code the code says that I am I am storing the value 0.1 in x y equal to 0.2 and z equal to 0.3 then I am adding a equal to x plus y what will be the value of a mathematically a will be equal to 0.3 right then what I am doing is I am comparing z with a if z is equal to a it should give me yes it is z is equal to a that is what the print command should say otherwise it should say z is not equal to a. Obviously, we will expect that the output of this program should be z is equal to a let us see what is the output of this program the program is executed and surprisingly you can see that the code has written z is not equal to a why this is happening well this is not the problem with python you write the same code in any language that you know you can write it on matlab or any language you will see that the output is going to be z is not equal to a this is because when your processor does this computation it does not do exactly even though the numbers are very very small numbers and they are nice looking numbers also right therefore comparing such things when you are using non integer values are going to be very dangerous never do like this you should always keep a range of numbers and compare them only within that range you cannot do it with absolute comparison for instance if you take x y and z as 1 2 3 instead of 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3 then the output will be as you expect let us see what is the output of this program when I take x equal to 1 y equal to 2 and z is equal to 3 then it will print what you actually expect therefore this simple and interesting program says that computer even dealing with small numbers it has its very serious limitations on the rounding errors let us see this next interesting problem I am taking x equal to 0.8 plus 0.1 into 0.3 I am only 0.3 I am only 0.3 problem I am taking x equal to 0.8 plus 0.1 into 0.3 I am only bracketing the sum in a different way otherwise you can observe that x and y are going to be the same and then I want to find x by y right. So, I want to find x by y since x is equal to y this will be mathematically equal to 1, but since you are doing the arithmetic with real numbers they both may not have exactly equal value therefore this may not be exactly 1, but only approximately equal to 1. Now what I am doing I am subtracting 1 from x by y mathematically this should give me the value 0 and then just to have a catchy output I am multiplying it with a big number. Now whatever may be this big number it is finally a finite number therefore 0 into a finite number should be equal to 0 right. So we expect this print command to print z equal to 0 right. Let us see what is the output of this program you can see that the output is significantly large number you see we expect the output to be equal to 0, but computer made a huge error in this simple computation and this shows how dangerous it is for us to deal with computation especially when we do such computations blindly we may very likely land up with some disastrous answers. This also gives us a strong motivation to do a deeper analysis on numerical methods that we do before going into the implementation of those methods. We have to be very clear about how this methods are going to work and how we implement this methods on a computer. The next is let us take this another interesting program let us execute this program and see what is the output of this program. Well as expected you can see that a and b should be mathematically equal and that is what is also shown in this program. Now instead of 10 to the power of 15 let me make it as 10 to the power of 16 here and similarly here minus 10 to the power of 16 and run this program now you can see that a is still equal to 1, but b is not equal to 1. What happened is 10 to the power of 16 is something which has gone beyond the memory of the computer and that made this huge error between a and b. Let us try to understand this more closely let us take this program I have taken e is equal to 1 0 to 1 and we have x is equal to 2 to the power of e. Now I am going to increment my exponent e and every time I am going to save x is equal to 2 to the power of e this 2 stars means it is rise to the power it is equivalent to saying that this is nothing but 2 to the power of e mathematically. So therefore you have a loop running from 0 to 2 every time I am incrementing e by 1 and then rising 2 to the power of e and saving that value into x and then I am finding y equal to 1 by x z equal to x by x and then printing all this. Let us see what is the output of this program well the program gave a error that is because you are explicitly rising 2 to the power of e where this e is going beyond the memory capacity in the theory class we have seen that this is what we call as overflow of memory. When you are rising 2 to the power of e and the e is going beyond the maximum memory capacity of the computer then python is automatically recognizing it and giving a error command. Let us fool the python by not putting this command but define the same expression in a different way that is now what I am going to do is I am not going to increment e and then rise 2 to the power of e what I am going to do is I already have x equal to 2 to the power of e where e is 1 0 2 1. Now what I will do is every time I will multiply x by e this is nothing but x equal to x into e this one. Now, let us see what happens now python will not recognize it as an error it runs because you are not defining it in a nice way like 2 to the power of e you are not doing it with that it is able to recognize the overflow of memory but with this it is not able to recognize the overflow of memory it went on and computed it got x as infinity if you recall if the overflow of memory happens then the computer processor will treat it as infinity then y equal to 1 by infinity which it has printed as 0 and z is equal to infinity by infinity which is called as not a number n a n it has printed it as n a n from here you can see that the overflow of memory happens when the exponent is 1 0 2 4 this is 2 to the power of 1 0 2 4 is the limit of the memory of the computer in terms of 10 it is 10 to the power of 16 in terms of 2 it is 2 to the power of 1 0 2 4. So, that is what is happening here. So, there was a overflow of memory similarly you can also play around with the under flow of memory I leave it to you to play around with this code you just write this code and test it on your computer or on any programming language this will happen not only with python not only on colab it will happen with any programming language on any operating system as long as you are using a 64 bit processor this kind of overflow and under flow will always happen. Finally, we will try to understand what is machine epsilon python always deals with its variable by default in the double precision it means it gives 52 bits in the mantissa. Therefore, in one of the problems that we have seen in the last tutorial class if it is 52 bits it means 0 to 51 it goes. Therefore, from the 53rd digit onwards your processor will make a rounding approximation it takes up to 52 digits and then from the 53rd digit onwards it makes a rounding approximation in the last class we have seen that if such a thing happens then 2 to the power of minus n is the machine epsilon. So, that is what is given here I am taking x u is equal to 2 to the power of minus 53 and x o as 2 to the power of 53. Now, what I am doing is I am computing y as 100 into x o that is a big number into x u plus 1 minus 1. Now, you see this will be understood as 1 only in the computer and therefore, you will see that this is nothing but 1 minus 1 which is equal to 0. On the other hand if this is not there then this and this will get cancelled you are supposed to get the value 100 as the result, but you will get the answer as 0 for this because of this machine epsilon calculation. Let us see the output of this program you can see that y is equal to 0 whereas, it is supposed to give us y equal to 100 these are the limitations of the computer. This is not only for python or colab it is therefore, any program because this limitation is coming from the processor of your computer not from the program part ok. So, these limitations have to be carefully understood while you are working with this scientific computation otherwise you may be doing entirely wrong computation although you are method mathematically may be correct. Therefore, you have to first carefully understand all the limitations of the computer and also you should do the arithmetic error analysis of course, also you have to do the mathematical error analysis coming from the method and then arithmetic error analysis has to be done then you go for the programming of your method. This is the correct approach to numerical analysis with this let us finish this class. Thank you for your attention.


I received several thought-provoking questions from a client of mine who had become a client despite having watched several of my YouTube videos. Talk about indomitable courage. Anyhow, she raised a few fascinating questions related to several of my videos. I would like to respond to these questions as briefly as I can, which means this video is going to be shorter than the normal three hours. Yes, yes, Shoshaneem, I know you don't like long videos. You don't like long anything lately, and we will not go into sordid details. Okay, my name is Samvaknin, I'm the author of Malignan Self-Love, Narcissism Revisited and a professor of psychology. And these are the questions, and really they are very interesting ones. She asks, what does it mean to be a mother? When we say that it is clear that a child needs a mother, is there a marked difference between a biological mother and a non-biological mother? I'm thinking about children born to surrogates, not just those adopted.  And a man, she asks, ever really played the role of a mother? Example, to children of gay male couples, could a man be a good enough mother? These are excellent questions in today's world. When Donald Winnicott came up with the phrase, good enough mother, which embodied a whole conceptual universe of thinking about motherhood, at the time there was no sectional sex fluidity, there were no transgenders, there was no gender fluidity. Everyone knew his place, and your place in society was strictly determined by your genitalia.  There was the belief that optimization of social functioning critically depends on very rigid gender roles. So when he said good enough mother, he was thinking about someone with a vagina who is a woman gender-wise, and who fulfills her domestic roles, because these are the only roles open to her. Things have changed a bit since then, Hillary Clinton. And so we now tend to think in a much less rigid way, much more flexible and transigent. We are more open to fluidity in almost every one of the words I had just mentioned. Let us start with the fact, the fact that mothering is a social function. It has nothing to do with what kind of genitalia you possess. It has nothing to do with your assigned gender role. It has nothing to do with anything except the role assigned to you by society. It is a job, and it has a job descriptions with qualifications, and anyone with any type of genitalia, or in transition between genitalia, or in flux between genders, anyone can fulfill the role of a mother. And this raises, of course, immediately in the minds of those of you who are intelligent, minority admittedly, this raises the question, what is the role of a mother? Mother's main role is to frustrate the child. Her main role in the upbringing of her child, of her offspring, is to push the child away. I'm going to repeat this, because it's counter-intuitive, and many of you will holler, again, vaknin' with his nonsense. Listen well. Mother's main role, the main function of mothering, is to frustrate the child, not to cater to the child's needs, and to push the child away from her. This process is called separation individuation. A good mother, definitely a good enough mother, allows the child to separate from her, encourages the child to separate from her, and by separating from her, the child becomes his or her individual, divisible from her. The individual forms when boundaries form, so a good mother encourages the child to create boundaries, fosters and engenders boundaries in her child, never challenges the emerging boundaries of the child, this nascent adolescence, and never ever breaches the boundaries, never violates the boundaries. Now there are many ways to violate the boundaries, and all these ways put together are known as child abuse. Yes, this is child abuse. Child abuse is when the child is not allowed to separate from the mother, become an individual, and set boundaries separating the child from the world, and from the mother, most importantly. To pedestalize the child, to idolize the child, to pamper the child, to smother, to spoil the child, these are forms of abuse because they don't allow the child to separate from the parent. To instrumentalize the child, to parentify the child, these are forms of abuse because the parent and the child merge and fuse and become a single psychological organism, something that is replicated later by co-dependence, and to some extent, people with borderline personality disorder. The child is not allowed to separate. To sexually abuse the child is of course to breach the child's bodily boundaries, same with physical abuse, same with psychological and verbal abuse, they penetrate, they invade, they vitiate the child's psychological boundaries, everything is about boundaries.  By pushing the child away, the mother forces the child to get in touch with reality. Initially the child develops grandiosity, he says, I don't need mommy, I can take on the world. That's healthy. That's a healthy form of narcissism, as Jung had observed. But to do that, the child needs to feel safe. He needs to feel that mommy has his back, mommy supports him and eggs him on. Mommy wants him to go away on this enormous adventure called life. Touch upon reality. Create a proper reality testing. Create rhythm of magical thinking. This the child until then believes that if he wants something, mommy will deliver and because he and mommy are one and the same, he develops magical thinking. He just has to think about something or cry and things happen. This is magical thinking. By putting the child through the trauma of separation, because it's a very traumatic event, potentially the most traumatic in life, by forcing this trauma upon the child, the mother actually encourages the child to get rid of magical thinking and to develop a reasonable logical rational way of looking at the world and connecting actions to consequences. So to summarize this paragraph, a mother's main role is to traumatize the child, to frustrate the child, to push the child away, to encourage the child to become separate from her, to render the child an individual, to foster in the child a proper reality testing and to get rid of the child's magical thinking and at the same time, at the same time, there's a fine balancing act, because the mother needs to continue to be throughout this process. A safe, a secure base, a safe base means she needs to be present, she needs to be empathic, attuned to the child's needs and child's fears and anxieties, caring enough to do something about these things, holding and containing, loving unconditionally and yet demanding from the child certain accomplishments, milestones in the child's development and not many mothers know how to do this, not many mothers know how to balance these utterly conflicting demands, on the one hand to be a safe base and on the other hand to push a child away, on the one hand to love and care for the child, on the other hand to frustrate the child, on the one hand to be empathic and loving and on the other hand to traumatize the child, not many mothers know how to accomplish this equilibrium, the child is poised on the cusp of what is called object relations, relations with other people. He needs to say goodbye to mommy, he needs to internalize her, interject her and carry her with him for the rest of his or her life as a mere voice and the mother needs to let go, she cannot allow herself to be absent or selfish or depressed, to infantilize herself to parentify the child, to use the child as an instrument to realize her unfulfilled dreams and fantasies and wishes, she can't do any of this if she is a good enough mother and regrettably few mothers by these definitions, by these criteria few mothers are good enough mothers. The mother should prepare the child on four different planes, four different levels, first of all she should teach the child about physical reality, don't touch the oven, it's hot, the stove is gonna burn you, don't do that, don't drink this, it's gonna have a bad effect on your tummy, don't overeat, I don't know bananas, physical reality, the mother needs to introduce the child to physical reality and physical reality includes the playground, the sandbox and other children at first as objects. Her job is to train the child to survive, corporeally, bodily survive in his environment, most environments today are urban environments so she needs to teach him everything how to cross the street. So physical reality, second level of training, second level of induction into the human race into mankind which is the role of a mother, is social reality, the mother is a socialization agent, she is an agent of society, the father has a similar role but we have discovered recently definitely in the last 15 years what psychoanalysis had discovered long ago that the father's role is much much less important than the mother's role even in social when socialization is concerned. The mother is the agent and representative of society and she inculcates in the child the ability to read social cues and the social skills to respond to them. She integrates the child in peer groups on the one hand and with other adults on the other hand. Socialization teaches the child what are the under with the overriding values of society the universal values, what behaviors are acceptable and which are not, what is empathy and how it manifests in interactions with others, how to interpret body language, facial expressions and micro expressions, advances. So socialization, the third level where a mother has a major function is as a conduit to the hegemonic culture, to the dominant culture, this process is called acculturation. She imbues, she immerses the child in the prevailing culture by telling him stories, fairy tales, fables, exposing him to mass media and social media in gradual way, incremental way and controlled way. And so she exposes the child to the culture, the dominant culture thereby rendering him a part of this culture not necessarily the conforming part, he could be a contrarian, he could fight the culture but he needs to get to know the culture to make a stand, to take a stand later on in his life. And so she channels the culture and brings it to her child. Finally the mother is the one responsible for primitive skills acquisition, basic skills acquisition. Fathers usually assume this role later in the child's life after age five or six, after the formative years but until age five or six the mother is the one who teaches the child all the necessary basic skills, starting of course with walking, walking later on, much later on reading and writing in between talking, walking and talking to critical skills. She teaches him myriad other skills, anything from toilet training, to dressing, to brushing teeth, to cooking with mommy, to eating, how to eat. So she teaches him hundreds of skills and this is an underrated function of motherhood. Is there any of these things that cannot be done by a mother figure? No, any mother figure would do. Is there any of these things that necessitates a biological connection between the mother and the child? No, none of them. Any surrogate mother, any adopting mother, any mother figure like a grandmother or an aunt, they can all carry out these roles to perfection. They need to be good enough mothers and as I said at the beginning of this presentation it's a job. They need to apply for the job, they need to have the necessary qualifications and then they can be good enough mothers. The biological connection is spurious, it is not really an integral part of mothering. Indeed, in many parts of the world children are brought up by uncles or by a whole tribe or a whole village or by an extended family or by their cousins and so on and so forth. Many types of people and institutions and communities carry out the functions of mothering. In the kibbutzim in Israel children, now that's not the case but it used to be the case, the children were taken away from their mothers and raised by professional caregivers, professional caretakers and the mothers saw the children only intermittently once a week on the weekend and yet children who grew up in the kibbutzim are by far the most mentally healthy productive and constructive adults in Israeli society. They constitute a vast majority of all Israeli elites and yet they have not been raised by their biological mothers but by mother substitutes. Okay, we move on and the next question, thought-provoking question from my client. What it means, what does it mean to be a woman? Is there a fundamental biological script that we are overriding or merely social expectations that we are shunning? But before I answer this, I would like to dwell on the question, can a man ever really play the role of a mother? For example in a gay couple, could a man be a good enough mother? I guess that by now you know the answer, of course a man can do all this. Anyone theoretically a computer can do all this, that properly constructed Android with artificial intelligence absolutely can fulfill all these functions. Successfully, anyone regardless of genitalia, regardless of body composition, silicone or carbon, regardless of anything can fulfill this role.  So people with mental health issues, probably an insecure attachment style, probably will have extreme difficulty in being good enough mothers, but men definitely can be good enough mothers. And in the future, 50 years from now, properly constructed robots with human-like skin, indistinguishable from humans and with the right AI, artificial intelligence program, they can be good enough mothers. Good enough mothering is a function, a job. And going, a mother goes to work with her child, it's a workplace. That's what men fail to appreciate. The household is a workplace, perhaps the most onerous and demanding of all workplaces.


Good morning, John. It's a very busy week here. I was out a ton of bunch and now we're having our senior staff summit for Complexly. Which means I have very little time to make a video. So this is what you get and that's fine, right? When I first got sick, people sent me a bunch of hats because I was losing my hair and I was like, it's summer. But now I still have them. That's cold. Getting together with people at Complexly, which is the company that makes Saichu and Crush Course and Eons and Bizarre Beasts and Microcosmos and Study Hall and lots of different shows. It's always really wonderful. I had to give like a presentation and I started it out by saying that I kind of feel like ultimately there's like two kinds of content getting made on the internet. There's like haters and there's fans. And making a hater content works well and is easy. Like, yep, it's pretty easy to make people mad about stuff. Making stuff that gets people positive emotions and is accurate, is more work and takes more time. But you build a much stronger and more stable foundation. During a meeting, somebody brought up the fact that the BBC had recently done a piece on just fake content being made on YouTube, largely with the help of AI. And that content gets watched by a lot of young people, including like pre-teens and they end up believing it. A lot of it's about aliens or climate change not being real, etc. But in the video, they started out by watching a bunch of videos that they said were good and credible. And all of those videos were Saichu videos. Trouble is, if you start out with our content, you still end up getting these other videos recommended to you because they have very exciting and interesting titles about how aliens are real. In a world of stuff that I'm not like super happy exists, there's a lot of stuff I don't love. I think a lot about Taylor Swift and how it is true that it is easy and fast to make content that outrageous people and makes them like sort of like their world and each other less. But just because it's harder doesn't mean it's not actually better to do the other thing where you make things that people love and you create strong foundations and build upon them until you take over the whole damn world, which is what Taylor has done. I don't know why she did it. She had a lot of opportunities to say, this is enough and I'm done. But she kept on pushing. That's amazing to me because I'm sure that there are lots of moments where she dealt with some stuff that was not fun to deal with. I know I make educational media and that's different from pop songs. But I feel like everybody's got a lot to learn from Taylor Swift. And the big piece is even though it's harder, it's a better way to do stuff to make things that will give people positive emotions rather than negative emotions. And that's different from only ever talking about happy stuff like not every Taylor Swift song is happy. You could talk about how massive the world is, but not be sort of driving people toward hopelessness because that's the easiest way to control them. And almost to my destination. So the last thing I will say is that right now you probably need a calendar because it's about to be a new year.  We got one for eons and for bizarre beasts and for microcosmos and for SciShow. And I think that's it. You can go to complexandcalmenders.com and pick the ones that you want. That helps support what we're doing at Complexly and it also will be like a nice little thing with some beautiful art and some cool information that is accurate and fact-checked and vetted. Thanks to everybody working to make Complexly a thing and make it work and make it good. I'm so proud of it. So happy to be a part of it. John, I'll see you on Tuesday. I would prefer the wind to stop. Also, we were having our summit at the Arts Community Center and I saw a fabric scrap and I was like, I recognize that pee from the company that manufactures our shirts. They sometimes like obviously will just do test runs to make sure it works and they do several of them on the same shirt. I just spotted a Pizza John shirt. It was actually a dual Pizza John shirt with three-wolf moon and Pizza John on it. Weird, just weird. I can spot a Pizza John from a mile away. You should definitely have done this with gloves on you guys.