Germany's 18 Leopard 2 tanks delivered to Ukraine. The 18 Leopard 2 tanks, promised by the German government to Kiev, have been delivered to Ukraine, Duspegel magazine has said, citing its own sources. Approximately two months after the decision by the German authorities to supply 18 Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine, the vehicles have been handed over to Kiev. The last tanks, according to Duspegel, left Germany at the end of last week and have now crossed the Ukrainian border. About 40 infantry fighting vehicles, Mada, also arrived in the combat zone. The German government keeps the exact route of arms supplies secret for security reasons, the magazine says. Initially, Germany promised to supply 14 Leopard 2 A6 tanks to Ukraine. However, there were not enough models for a tank battalion, and Berlin decided to send four more vehicles to Kiev. The government of Germany made a decision to provide Ukraine with the tanks at the end of January. Back then the government stated that Germany and the allied countries would supply Kiev with 112 Leopard 2 tanks in total, and that the delivery of the tanks would begin within three months. At that point in time, Germany's Chancellor Olaf Scholz was talking about 14 Leopard 2 tanks, handed over by Germany. However, a month later, the German government increased the number of tanks to 18. The aid package also includes training Ukrainian servicemen in Germany, logistics, ammunition, and maintenance. Ukrainian soldiers have been trained at German bases in the handling of the Leopard 2 Type 2 A6 heavy battle tanks.


Hey, what's up, folks? Welcome back to another layer by layer. In today's tutorial, we're gonna take a little bit of an exercises in sketches and constraints. So let's jump into Fusion and see what we got today. All right. I got a blank canvas. It could be kind of daunting, but let's start off with a sketch, and I'm gonna draw the sketch here on the floor plane, so let's take it on the floor. All right.  The hot key for that is R, and get familiar with the rectangle tool, that's one of my favorites. And the goal here is to kind of, let's just draw a rectangle, don't give it any dimensions, and then we'll just kind of inspect it. So by default, let's see what sketch constraints did we get to make this shape. We got two of them. Two of them are, one of them is present, the other one's kind of hiding, right? So these little blades here are the horizontal or vertically constrained sketch constraints. They're up here. The full list up here, and if you roll over one, it can give you a little tool tip and gives you an idea of what it is. So let's not read it, let me just tell you what it is. It basically, it applies a rule to a line that says you're either gonna be completely vertically straight or vertically straight, struggling with words. So we know it's always gonna be straight, these lines, no matter what. Next thing I wanna do is kind of talk about these lines versus points, right? So you ever click and drag a line, you notice that it's not snapping to the grid. You might want that, and it's important to kind of know that's the behavior of fusion. And then if you want it to snap to the grid, you actually drag these points, these corners around, and that'll always snap to your grid. And if you wanna change your grid units, you could always do that in your settings, but right now I think one is one millimeter. So let's see, let me drag these corners so they're perfectly lined up with our grid. And yes, if you scroll down here, you click on a line, it tells you the length of the line, and it's one millimeter big. All right, so that's cool to know. So the next thing I wanna do is let's click on a corner or roll over it, a dot, and you'll see that this little icon came up. This little icon is a coincident constraint. Basically it says I'm gonna connect a dot to a line or a dot to a dot and vice versa. So that's what's kind of keeping this shape together, all right? It's kind of like the glue to these points or to the line. So what happens when I click one and delete it? Well, it's no longer connecting to that. Let's do that to every single corner. Let's just delete those, just delete. It don't show up until you roll over, which is fine. And now we have these lines, they're no longer connected. If I try to make this a diagonal line, for example, you can't. Well, how come? Well, because they're horizontally constrained. You see the icons are present. So let's go ahead and delete those, those razor blades. Let's get rid of them. And now we should be able to make different angles. Cool, so now we have just four lines. They have no dimensions, they're completely free. They're bouncing around everywhere. And the point of this exercise is like, all right, let's put it back together. We've taken it apart, right? We can use those two constraints that we just learned about and kind of apply it. So let me connect some dots together, right? Now there's two ways to do that. You can say, let me just bring up my coincident, like tool or constraint, and you'll see my cursor kind of has that icon now.  So let's say I want to connect this corner or this dot, this point to this point. It'll just kind of do that. Let me undo that and say, what if we reverse that? What if we say I want this to go over here? It's actually backwards. So now when I click on this line, this line's actually gonna jump up to that because this is the dot that I clicked on first, right? Ready? There, I did it. Let me undo that and do it again. But this time I want to say this is the first one. I want this line to go here, so I have to click this one first. So that's number one, and that's number two. Number two goes to number one. Ready? Bam, that's just a little kind of a behavioral thing. If you know that and you kind of apply that, it'll get kind of like a muscle memory thing. So you'll kind of understand, right? All right, so I got two lines connected. If I double click on this line, it should have, whatever. I'll hold down the shift key to select both of these and I'll just move these out of the way a little bit. Remember, we're not clicking the dot because we want a free form. We don't want it to be snapped to the grid for now. And then you can just kind of click this around and the other way to do it is just to click one of the dots, and then if you roll over another dot, you'll get this kind of a little icon square. It lets you know that that's going to apply a coincident constraint. Now let me let go of my mouse button and roll over it and there's our coincident constraint. So now it is constrained, it's glued. So let's do it the other way.  Let me undo that, I don't know. I must have had something already selected and it just went to it. So coincident, I want to move this one to here, but I have to click here first, right? So I want, that's number one and that's number two. Cool, and it moved this around, but we'll deal with that later. So now we want to connect this one to this one. So I have to click this one first and then that one. All right, we're back to some sort of square. Not yet though. So you can see here that it's still free form. Nothing's really straight. So how do we do straight? Oh yeah, the horizontal slash vertically constraint. Let's click on that, our cursor update. So I want that to be straight, that to be straight, that one and that one. We're back to where we started folks. How awesome. Well, what happens if we want to make this a diamond? We want to rotate it. Well, we can't do that because they're horizontally constrained. If we wanted to be diagonal, that's not going to work. So let's go ahead and delete these. I'm holding down shift to do multi-select. Delete, now how do I kind of, this is where you could actually use move. So I double clicked one of these lines and it selects all four lines. That's nice. Or you could do a multi-select, whatever way you want to do it. I'm going to go back to my method of double click. Now if I hit the M key, I'm moving stuff. Fusion will just throw this manipulator wherever it sees fit. This is why I don't like it. You can move that. You can say set pivot. I want it to be somewhere else. Maybe I want it to be this corner. That's fine. You hit done here and now you can use this to rotate it. That's cool. We can do that. That's fine. Hit okay. But you'll notice if I move it around now, it's not, let's say we want some really nice 90 degree angles. Instead of using like a sketch dimension to do that, you can just use the perpendicular constraint. And that's just going to say, I need to be perpendicular with whatever line. So let me select that. This one to be perpendicular. And then you get this little icon here. This little T shape. That's a nice, I like that icon that really gives me an idea of like, oh yeah, perpendicular T square kind of shape. Cool. Let me do that here. And then here. And that's really it. We don't need to do one here. In fact, if we try to do one here, I think Fusion will freak out and be like, no. Yeah, it says no. Don't do that. It's over constrained. You don't need to. You only need three. Which is fine. So now it's like a diamond. These lines are perfectly 90 degree angles, as you can see and try to make a sketch dimension. That's cool. There's our diamond shape. And if we want to apply a length to one of these lines, let's say 12, that's cool. What if I want all of these to be the same? Well, we can use an equal constraint. I want all these lines to be equal with that line because that line has a dimension. And if I change that one dimension, all of them will change. So let's use the equal. It's right there, equal. I want equal here, equal. This is equal with that. Oh, it doesn't like it. All right, I don't really need it because that's the way shapes work. You only need two equals. And then because everything's perpendicular, it all has the same length. Cool. So now we got that. And if we ever want to change this to something bigger, the whole shape kind of changes, which is nice. Now I'm not really at a specific angle. Like I'm just all over the place. So we can straighten it out. If we want to make it exactly 45 degrees or something like that, we can use construction lines to do that. So let's, I guess, do that. One thing I really, really like to do when I have shapes is let's define a goal here. I want to have this rectangle to be perfectly in the middle of this center origin, this dot here. If we're doing a design that's very symmetrical, and we want to use mirrors, and we use circular patterns and stuff, it's really, really nice and important, I think, to make your shapes in the center of the origin, right? So how do we do that? I like to use construction lines to do that. So what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna grab my line tool and whenever you roll over using your line tool, another line, if you get to the middle of it, you get this little triangle.  Midpoint constraint will always be in the middle of a line or an object. So with that in mind, let's go ahead and click that. And as I'm moving, you'll see that I get this little, kind of two lines that kind of create a, what I would say, it's basically an icon to say your perpendicular with this line. So that right there, let's me know, I'm always gonna be perpendicular. All of our corners are perpendicular. Yeah, they're all perpendicular. So instead of making a T shape, it just looks like that. All right, so before I actually click anywhere, I'm gonna roll over this line and you see that, oh, I got a rectangle, I got a midpoint constraint there. As I start kind of moving, well, I guess it only works when I have something that's horizontally constrained. That's fine. So let's draw our line and we'll try to kind of be centered with that line there, but let's be aware of our perpendicular icon. So we're gonna make sure that that stays there when I click. So I click here and then you can see here a new line has showed up, or new icon has showed up that looks like it's perpendicular and that's gonna be perpendicular and that's fine. But what I wanna do is I wanna connect this line to the middle of that line and then we'll just apply a perpendicular constraint to those lines once I kind of close this off. So there we go. So now we have these two lines with those points, they're always gonna be in the middle of these. So now I can either apply a perpendicular constraint to these two lines or these two lines, whichever you prefer. I already have these two selects, so let's bring it up and then just apply it and now this corner is in the absolute center of our shape. I'm gonna multi-select these two and hit the X key on my keyboard and then that makes it a construction line. So now I can just select one kind of profile instead of it splitting it into two different shapes. So I got this unified shape and now we need to do to move this whole shape into the center is to not move it, don't do that. Let's just use a coincident constraint. Even though it already has a coincident constraint, we can still apply one to it. We can stack them if we like and we will. So let's bring up our coincident constraint, click on our center and then we'll move it over here. And that is now perfectly in the center. And if we move it around, you can see here I can kind of rotate it and that's kind of fun. And if you're wanting to straighten out, all you need to do is apply one horizontal constraint to any one of these lines and it'll just flow out because perpendicular constraint is applied throughout the thing. But maybe we don't want to do that. Maybe we want it to be exactly 45 degrees. One thing, you could just kind of click and drag, but it's not gonna snap to that. So what I'll do is I'll make another line. I'll connect this center to one of these corners, probably this one. And then I'll say this one needs to be horizontally constrained and just by math it's now 45 degrees. You can see here. And then I can of course make that a construction line. But let's say you wanted this to be a different thing. Maybe it's saying I can't drive it because I need some other way. I need to get rid of this here. Oh, I see what's going on. Yeah, we need to get rid of this line. Let's just make a line that goes straight across like that. No dimension. We'll keep that constraint there, the horizontal constraint. Now I can say I want this to be 60 degrees or 50.  Basically everything is just like connecting here and then the length of this doesn't matter at all. I'm just using this as a way to push, to give a dimension between these two lines and everything else flows. So we're stacking all of these constraints to do something pretty simple, but because you know about it, you have a little bit more control over because you know exactly what the rules are doing. So that's kind of the experiment that I wanted to, the exercise rather, is to kind of take a regular box of rectangle, take it apart, put it back together and then apply different constraints to kind of understand them a little bit better. Yeah, so let's say I wanna move this box away. I can delete this line and you can see, oh, a lot of the time you'll see folks like, I can't move anything, why is it stuck? Well, it's because it's coincidentally constrained to the center of our thing. So if I click on that, you can see when I click on this first icon of the coincident, it highlights these two lines in blue and that lets me know, okay, those two are connecting and then this one here doesn't really select anything because that's the center origin, it's kind of hard to kind of see that. So let me delete that and I should be able to just drag this away from the center and that's all. Very nice. And now there's no constraints here to kind of define a degree or anything. So let's supply a horizontal constraint to any one of these lines and then bam, it's back to being a perfect square. And then you can say, let's say I want it to be back in the center, I'll use a coincident constraint, I'll say this corner goes to the center origin and that's it. So from here, let me add some more features just to kind of close it off. Let's do some circles. So I want a circle on each one of these corners. I can just make one. Let's make it an M3 hole, because that's my favorite. And then instead of drawing it four times, let's just use the mirror or even the circular pattern. So you have the option to either do circular pattern or not because these lines are equal, circular pattern would work well, but if this was more of a rectangle where this edge had a different dimension than that edge, then you would want to use mirror. But because this is all symmetrically the same, I can use a circular pattern. So let's use the circular pattern. So I'll bring that up, click on that, select that. And then for my center point, it's right here in the center origin. You'll want to change the quantity from three to four because that's what we want and hit enter and there you go. So now if I ever change this to a different dimension, it'll always be symmetrical. But let's change it, let's make it a rectangle. Delete that dimension. And then all I need to do to break the relationship, to break the rule from being equal is to select the equal icon in whatever line and just delete it. And now they're not equal. And you can see that our circular pattern has broken. So now we're gonna have to delete these circles. You'll get a little warning saying, hey, that was a part of a pattern, but I don't think there was a better way to delete it than deleting the individual entities. So now I'm gonna use the mirror. So let's bring up our mirror and we'll say I want this circle to be our object that we want a mirror and this line to be our mirror line. You'll get a little preview there, hit okay. In order to do this bottom, we'll need to apply another mirror. So let's do that, select both of these circles and then our line. Instead of this line there, we want this line because that's the way the math is working out. So hit okay. And there you go, you have one circle. Let's say I wanna make this an M5, it's bigger. And now as I move this, it's being very symmetrical, which is nice. And I think that's about where I wanna end it there. We covered a lot of sketch constraints. Midpoint, coincident, horizontal, vertical and perpendicular, right? This is like the main constraints that will take you very, very far. And I think it's important to kind of do a deep dive every now and then to figure out what exactly are these rules doing? So I hope that's insightful. I hope you guys learned something. Let me know if you did, that'd be fun. I wanna do more like this where I kind of do back to the basics and really deep dives into these sketch constraints because I believe that those are the most powerful bits about Fusion 360. That's gonna do it for me, folks. I hope you enjoyed it. I'll see you in the next one, but until then, remember to make a great day. Bye, folks.


Call the meeting to order at 7 0 7. Start out with a reception of guests. Hello everybody. Hello. How are you? Good. Kate is going to be joining, she is doing a university of Southern Hampshire for administration and so she shadowy needs some things. And then here as the central office administrative. All right. So move on to 1.2 agenda review and revisions. So 5.2 would be except do we need to put the name or just resignation? Which you mean the one that was in the WCSB market? Okay. Any others? No. Okay. Move on to the public comments and correspondence. Hearing none. We'll move along. Future meetings. April 9th will be Berlin School Board meeting at Berlin Elementary. At 5.30. Yes. Thank you very much. The next one will be May 14th at 5.30 at Berlin and June 6th will be the full school board carousel meeting. Do we know what time? 5.30. Okay. All at 5.30. All right. So move on to 2.0 consent agenda. I didn't have any changes for the next. That's good. Well, I was only wondering why under reception of guests that had none, but we had matters he not considered a guest for some reason. Oh, and he actually was up there. He even spoke as other. You're right. So 1.1 under reception of guests that should have, he was there from the beginning of the meeting, he should say Matthew DeGruyte. How do you pronounce his name? Yeah. I think it's right anyway. Do you have any change you had? So I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of March 16th with the one change noted. I'll second. Okay. Everybody that agrees, signal by saying aye. Aye. So move on to 3.0, the discussion agenda, which we will see. Response to the AOE regarding the Act 46 questions. Yeah, go ahead. Well, all I was going to say, and I don't think it really says it anywhere in here, but I assume you guys write it over too. But does it imply, and I don't think it does, but that the efficiency study that we would necessarily be doing all of them?  I think there's a lot of choices that were there. But I would hope it's not with the thought that everything is absolutely going to be done. Because it's really up to the boards to discuss and decide, right? I mean, that's how it did. I don't believe it was ever with the intention that every single recommendation was going to be enacted. I think it was advisory around practices to consider where efficiencies could be made.  So I don't think anywhere in here it's saying that we will for sure be doing this. I think the other thing that's hard to is looking at the date when we did the efficiency study in 2014. For example, audit local board agendas. I think if any individual board did that work, it's hard to put it in this as a collaborative group response. There might have been one or two boards that did it, which I don't know. But I think to also say that some of these responses might say not, but individual boards may have done the work. But I also just wanted to, for your knowledge, Eric, that this is being sent back because the representatives that went to the Act 46 meeting didn't feel like when they walked away that they actually answered in a thorough way. So this response back to some of the questions that were brought up is a more thorough way. So that's why it's on our agenda to accept their responses. Even though they had the open meeting, it's still better presented on paper as well. They did not feel like they had the, you know, necessarily the authority to answer without four individual boards weighing in on that. Okay. On BPR? Have to see if that's available later. It probably will be. So I'm not sure what they said there. That's what I wondered when I heard that yesterday. So are you guys comfortable with moving ahead with us? I am comfortable. Are you? Sure. Do you have any questions about it? No. Do you want me to make a motion? I'll make a motion. Go ahead. There's the motion. Just the discussion. So you're going to skip to 5.1 right now and then we'll back up. That's up to you when you want to do it. Yeah, we can do that. That's fine. I will make a motion to approve the response to the AOE regarding Act 46 questions. You got it? Sure. Yeah. All those in favor? Say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right. I always have it. Okay. So we'll move on to 4.1 reports to the board. The administration. They found out after the fact I had indicated that the junior iron chef, they are going to go down to, I believe, it's just that one group that we had two teams. I believe it's just going to be that one group that it's going to be going down one to one. So we'll get pictures and we'll put that in the next report and in the newsletter. That's great. All right. We're moved to 4.2 finance. I don't think there is any. We have to move on to the action agenda. We've already taken care of 5.1. We'll move on to 5.2 accepting resignation. Did you vote two of them? Okay. We can hear from there. Yes. There's the one that just got passed down to you, but then there was one in the board packet. There's this one on page 19. Oh, thank you. So we have two resignations. One would be Caroline Clifton. She had a half-time in the front office and a half-time care educator and she resigned from both positions. The other position is in the letter. I don't know if you want to read it or just to acknowledge that it's a full-time position because of the location, Travis Popcat is resigning. I'm sorry. I didn't have that. Can you tell me the last thing again, Caroline Clifton? Do I have to read that in a lot? You don't have to know. Okay. And then Travis Popcat, P8, Q3. I don't know if I could read it or I don't know if it needs to be read out loud or not. So we all had the opportunity to read hers in the packet. So it would just be good to read it before we... Sorry about that. My meeting running skills aren't up to par yet. No, no, no. We'll get there. So I'll make a motion that we accept Caroline Clifton's resignation with regret and gratitude for many years at service. All those in favor? Not really in favor, but all those accept the resignation of Caroline Clifton? Say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? All right. So I'll make the motion to accept the resignation from Travis Popcat regrettably. I'll second and just want to say thank you to him for his years of service at Berlin. All right. Everybody that accepts the resignation, please say so by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Moving along. Approve 6.0. Approve board orders. Am I really thinking that Lori had sent out some favor so far? No. The ones that she sent out were for that last Friday meeting. Not this past Friday. Okay, go. And I asked to add to the future agenda items that in the resignation letter of Cindy Gauthier, she asked that she could address the board at a meeting. So if you could put it in an agenda and then someone knows a prior notice of the day, or if you decide now that you would like, but I would think it would be when Chris or Eric make the agenda with Bill Kimball, but she would like to do it before the end of this week. Sure. Yeah. Absolutely. Any other future agenda items that the board has? And 7.7 for any reason? Shouldn't check yet. We added 7.7. And I would then say Farm to School would probably be re-addued as the future agenda item. I just want to, with the Farm to School, if they could possibly do May instead of April, because we really wanted to focus our April meeting on board goal work, would probably be better if they weren't made. So let's make it in Sydney. Not in Sydney. I don't, in Sydney, I'm not sure she probably would be. I think she means for Farm to School. Well, Cindy is part of Farm to School, so I don't know if she would come for that presentation and stay for a discussion. Oh, and stay for both. I see what you're saying. So she wouldn't have to be tonight, but I'm not sure.  Yeah, I think that would be okay if she came one night. So I'll let her know that in May. The 14th? 14th. I will let Cindy know, and I will let Mae know. I believe it's also Alice in the Bin is going to be doing it as well. Any other future agenda items? So, um, policy, I don't know if it would work to have a brief conversation in April or not, but kind of an ongoing question, I hope, just as far as getting a complete set, and it sounded like it needed to be another board conversation, so. So we're going to add that? Yep. Some board not? Okay. Do you think we, and maybe I've missed it, a school safety conversation? We had one, um, what was it, about? Kind of think. February meeting? When did, the month after you started? That was, I started in September. So, then it was a couple of months. So you brought it up? Yeah, that was, when I, when I brought it up, that was certainly before, and the world was going crazy. Yeah, I know, except just, um, I tend to say that there are, the police are going around to every school and doing a full safety check, and I sat down with, um, Officer Dan, with Rowe yesterday, no, the day before, and, uh, we went through the full check. There are a couple of things that we need to add to our student handles, but other than that, he feels really comfortable, and we are talking at the admin team to do district-wide update of, um, our procedures as far as, um, what, what terminology you use when you go into a different phase of need. For example, we do a security building here, they do something else, and we want everything, um, S-U-Y. So we're going to adopt what they're doing here at, um, U-32. Amy Millett. Or Amy Molina. Thank you, thank you. I have, I know another Amy Molina. Amy Molina is, uh, going to be heading that up because she's the, she's kind of the, um, one, uh, guru in the district who is going to all the AOE meetings and keeping up with all of that. You, talking with Dan with Rowe, is that in addition to or instead of the Vermont State Police that are going around, I know CAF just had a segment sometime in the last day or two where they highlighted, um, visiting Brown's Mill with, um, Circuit Lucas. And just kind of going through what those steps are. They have, yeah, he had a checklist here after everything. So I think he's doing a, in conjunction, I couldn't tell you. Definitely. So I don't want to go on the record to say that's what they're doing, but he had a very specific chest with a checklist, which was from the state of Vermont. Okay. Sounds like, um, adding 7.10 school safety after the leadership team has done that work together. We could bring it back. So it might be May or June. And May looks like it's getting full. So you all will have to make that decision. But, um, definitely to put it down for the future. It's, it's relevant and, it's very important. Has the leadership team, um, I'm not sure what their meeting schedule is like, but has that conversation started again or still? No, we started this conversation before that happened in Florida. Right. I understand that part of it. I'm saying like, in addition to the previous conversations that were happening for the school safety, but the other pieces that go with it now. The idea of coordinating more and learning from each other and sort of auditing practices, that's been on the table. And there's quite frankly been a bit of a, you know, we can't send the entire team from the 32 to our meetings because we have to keep people at you 32, right? So, um, so we, it's just been a bit of a scheduling issue too. But it's definitely, I mean it's something that we have discussed. We, we discuss it somewhat routinely, but at this point in time, bringing it back up in looking at, um, more from a systems perspective, as we have, um, just greater of knowledge and capacity is what makes sense. I think, is that an answer to your question here? Yes, mostly. Do you know if there's any student input or students that are looking to give back information to the leadership team? Do you know if that's happened? Around school safety issues. Yeah. Um, I, we could find that out. I'm not sure, um, since the, um, social justice work that was done here recently, I'm not sure what the communication is, but I mean it's certainly something we could find out and bring to you. Is there going to be a table talk exercise or not? I don't know the answer to your question. It's not a thing. It's something we're not always on the throat of emergency management team. It's very helpful to go to a table talk exercise.  You're not really doing anything, but you have a scenario in front of you and it's figuring out what do you do as you read through who is going to be doing that. Yeah, yeah. Quite helpful. There are the, um, agency of education and the safety committee with the agency of education put out the, the scenario and they put it out in their, um, weekly memo. And we do have those safety committee members and so forth with that when it says so. What if, um, an intruder or it was reported to by a parent that there's somebody out in the parking lot who is being very irate and da, da, da, da, what do you do? What is your next step? What is your next step? We make sure that we have all of those in place and all, all of those, um, ideas and it doesn't give you any specific answer. It just is what would you do in your school? And through going through those, there have been some questions that have come up that we've had to, um, get the answers to. So they do have those kinds of things and that might be a good place if we wanted to do a district wide to start. Well, the, the difference between what you're describing and a tablecloth exercise is usually a tablecloth exercise. You actually have the least one evaluator there where there isn't necessarily a right answer, but it's somebody taking notes and kind of keeping track and giving feedback. And so it's not like anybody's being judged on whether they were right or wrong. It's just for that to be followed through. All right. And I think when, when it becomes an agenda item, I think talking about how you want to engage the community around that, bringing that together would be a at that point in time of conversation. So yeah, I think putting it on May or June, like you said, after your leadership team. My turn. Yep. Your turn. 8.0. Board communication. Just went over that. Pretty well. I'm guessing. Yep. All right. So they want to make a motion to it. I'll make a motion to adjourn at 7.33. That, Eric, is the fastest one you've ever done. You're welcome. Congrats. Congrats. You are welcome. Good job.


The novel coronavirus, NCOV, also known as COVID-19, is caused by the SARS-COV-2 virus. It has been shown that this virus can bind to the ACE2 protein on the surface of lung cells, which allows it to enter the cell and replicate itself. In this study, researchers have identified another potential target for the virus, the EGFR protein found on the surface of lung cells. They found that when the virus binds to the EGFR protein, it activates the ERK1-2 and AKT kinases, leading to increase survival expression and ultimately increasing the survival rate of the virus. This could lead to new treatments for NCOV infection, such as targeting the EGFR protein with drugs or antibodies. This article was offered by Abdul Rashid Palakot, Aisha Al-Niadi, Khalid Muhammad, and others.


Welcome to this lecture series on aspects of western philosophy module 37 lecture number 37. This lecture will concentrate on the philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre a prominent existential philosopher French thinker of 20th century. In fact, we have already mentioned in the previous lecture about the importance of Sartre as an existential philosopher because it is actually when we talk about existentialism today there is a by default reference to Sartre because he is so associated with this moment. And if at all there is a philosopher who is a complete existentialist probably we can say that it is Sartre because all other philosophers where sort of you know for example Heidegger. Heidegger is often associated with existentialism and many consider him as an existentialist though Heidegger himself did not want to be considered so. But Sartre was on the other hand Sartre consciously associated himself as existentialism and tried to defend existentialism as a philosophical position apart from his magnum opus being a nothingness. He has written many other works including a small book which actually is a defense of existentialism the title of the book is existentialism and humanism. And the major themes of this lecture would be of following this small book is actually written in order to defend the philosophical position of existentialism from its critics. So, we are going to address some of the important issues which Sartre considered are philosophically central to existentialism in this lecture. Now, when we talk about Sartre's conception of human existence there is a notion called being for itself which he very carefully distinguished from another concept which is being in itself. What are these concepts in detail we are going to address it in the next lecture because the next lecture primarily focuses on these concepts. But being for itself for the time being let us understand it as the being of man. It is something which is very similar to what Heidegger considered as Daseem the being in the world. While Heidegger was emphasizing on the situatedness by saying that you know the Daseem the being of man finds itself in a world which is ontologically related to its being. Sartre is rather trying to analyze the structure of this being of man and he asserts the importance of one aspect of freedom. Comparing the being of man from the being of other entities which he calls being in itself the being of man is essentially incomplete because it exercises freedom and with the exercise of freedom it make choices and through with this making such choices it creates itself. So, in that sense Sartre's conception of human existence is quite unique and it emerges and comes into being by negating its essence. So, this is a very important aspect of Sartre's conception of man because man according to him emerges into being by negating its essence. Any attempt to a priori decide what is man say for instance something called human nature or essence of man these are conceptions which Sartre would deny from the very outset by negating the being in itself. The being in itself is something which is fixed for example the being of this remote controller. It is being pre-decided pre-determined by the creator of this object or any a knife for that another example to take another example or a pen. I mean the uses of these things are pre-decided pre-determined, but in the case of man whatever way in which you try to define man the case of man man's activities in this world after he or she comes into existence what he or she does by exercising this freedom of choice this is what is going to matter and that would decide what man actually is. So, the essence is decided by existence. So, this is what we have already seen in the previous lecture when we discussed this notion called existence precedes essence which is actually coined by Sartre. Freedom and negation are central to the conception of Sartrean concept of man in that sense. So, now the statement existence comes before essence was made by Sartre in his that is book which I refer to existentialism and humanism where he categorically states that in the case of man the being of man is so different remarkably different from the being of other entities which are fixed in advance. What both the Christian existentialist and the existential atheist have in common is this fundamental doctrine that existence precedes essence. This is again an observation made by Sartre because it is Sartre when he writes this book he made a distinction between existential philosophers who are theist for whom God is an important philosophical concern and people like him who are existential atheists who very consciously and deliberately deny the existence of God. So, in one sense as we have seen in the previous lecture that there is a kind of diversity in the conception of man existence or various other things which these thinkers who are labeled as existentialist deal with. But at the same time there is something which is common whether they are theist or atheist there is one aspect that is common according to Sartre and that point is that essence or rather existence comes before essence. And when in developing his philosophical position Sartre was visibly influenced by many thinkers particularly notably by Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Husserl and Heidegger. He himself acknowledges the importance of these thinkers in shaping his ideas. So, let us see one by one let us see Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard is again something which you have already examined in the previous lecture a thinker who has given a lot of importance to man's relationship with God. The third aspect the third stage of life according to Kierkegaard the first two are aesthetic stage and ethical stage. But the third stage is a religious stage which where you know man stands in direct relationship with God and that subjective experience of you know his faith in God is very important according to Kierkegaard. But ironically Sartre is one philosopher who is who has opposed any conception or rather he is a theist he is an atheist to the currentistic thinker. But still he says that you know this notion Kierkegaard's notion truth as subjectivity has influenced him and also according to Sartre influenced and inspired all existential philosophers to conceive their thinking in a particular direction when when Kierkegaard said that truth is subjectivity. He Kierkegaard protested the omission of man in the total unfathomable inwardness of his being from the whole history of the development of ideas. This is Sartre's own words like where he has I mean this protest against the against the omission complete omission of man from the whole history of the development of ideas as we have seen again in the previous lecture that the theory of ideas the the the philosopher the traditional philosophy has always been either a theory of ideas or a theory of the world there is no man figuring in. But Kierkegaard comes with this problem and says that truth is subjective stress on the individual man here and now here now concrete individual man man in his passion and anxiety and emphasis on personal experiences like as we see so yesterday in the previous lecture the the three stages from one to next the passage from one stage to the next stage is actually not a rational not based on any rational universal strategy or plan. But it is a personal choice which each individual has to make his own choice in his life taking into account of several factors that influence and shape his life. So, during the intellectual disorder this is what this is an observation which Sartre makes about the influence of Kierkegaard he says during the intellectual disorder between the two great wars his influence in Germany was associated with certain currents of post Nietzschean thought. So, interestingly Nietzsche is on the other side on the other extreme who was categorically asserted the the death of God and but somehow you know in the he says that during the intellectual disorder between the two great wars somehow the Kierkegaard's conceptions about you know or is associating the concept of truth with subjectivity and the post Nietzschean philosophy they got sort of associated with each other. Now, let us see what is Sartre's take on Nietzsche. Sartre says that Nietzsche was an existentialist in his almost romantic emphasis upon the passion anxiety and decision of individual man and had a sense of the tragic predicament of humanity in modern civilization. So, though it is very it is ironical in one sense to consider Nietzsche as an existential philosopher, but Sartre considers him as an existentialist philosopher and with this as he said you know romantic passion emphasis upon the passion anxiety and decision of individual man and has a sense of the tragic predicament of humanity in modern civilization. So, in all his you know his conceptions of freedom his idea of death of God then again the distinctions he makes between master morality and slave morality and ideas about creating once on self the emphasis on conceptions like will to power all these are concepts which Sartre was attracted towards. Nietzsche's criticism of Christianity particularly because Christianity as a religious institution as an organization of power was criticized by Nietzsche his conception of the transcendence of passion and intellectualism through the power of some purely involved integrity of mastery. This is again this is the kind of will to power he emphasizes on the transcendence of passion and intellectualism through this power something which man finds within himself according to Nietzsche the will to power is a fundamental drive which man has to discover within himself and exercise it and values are estimated based on purely subjective criteria. There is no objective universal measure to decide that a particular set of values are important when we have discussed Nietzsche's contributions in one of our previous lectures. We have identified the kind of evolution which suggests from camel to lion and from lion to the child where at the stage of the lion there is a violent no I mean a kind of rejection of all morality and once all morality is rejected it creates a huge vacuum which needs to be filled in and this is filled in not by a rational conception of morality but by subjective criteria. Now it is very interesting to see how these two thinkers come together the two thinkers are Paul apart Saath himself says of course but that means that the world of ideas which their relative positions define is recognizably the same world and Nietzsche's criticism of Christianity with regard to its negative bearing upon man's complete individuation has points of relation to Kierkegaard's sublime anti-clericalism. So both of them in one sense opposed the established church or the kind of dictum which was projected by the established church as the essence of religion for Nietzsche it was a complete rejection of Christianity as a religion as a moral philosophy but for Kierkegaard it is a kind of you know sublime anti-clericalism and Nietzsche's Superman and Kierkegaard's night of faith are both conceptions of the transcendence of passion transcendence of passion I repeat and intellectualism through the power of some purely involved integrity which we have already seen in the case of Nietzsche when Saath makes such an observation in his existentialism and humanism. Now another very remarkable influence on Saath's philosophy is the phenomenologist whose conception of phenomenology we have already seen as part of one of our lectures in this lecture series. So here again you know like all phenomenologists or for all phenomenologists the central philosophical concern is consciousness its phenomenology is actually basically a study of consciousness and Saath also takes up consciousness as a very important component in this philosophical theory. So but again the interesting aspect of phenomenology is that all phenomenology is right from Usel approach consciousness from a very different angle not from the traditional philosophical perspectives but in a very different way and this is naturally you know influenced many thinkers actually Usel's approach to human consciousness conceiving consciousness as fundamentally intentional in nature I mean when you consider consciousness as intentional it means that consciousness is always consciousness of or about something. So there is a kind of outwardness it points to something else outside itself. So in that sense understanding consciousness in a different light is very important consciousness is first and foremost a consciousness of something. So this is a fundamental Uselian idea and again consciousness is a being such that in its being its being is in question. So far in so far as that this being implies a being other than itself because this is a very interesting aspect when consciousness is a being such that in its being its being is in question this is an observation made by Saath in so far as this being implies a being other than itself because since consciousness is always consciousness of something else it implies always what a being other than itself. It always points to something else and again consciousness is about something this aboutness points to an existence other than its own and to its own existence as a question. So this is what is very interesting aspect very interesting dimension of consciousness which probably one who studies Usel would get enlightened upon. Now Saath was not ready to accept Uselian position in Toto. Saath was very careful when he assessed Usel he was opposing the kind of transcendentalism or the notion of transcendental ego which Usel was trying to advocate or rather that was so central to Uselian phenomenology which Saath opposed. Saath accepts Usel's intentionality principle but demystified consciousness by rejecting transcendentalism and again consciousness is nothing but a consciousness of being conscious of the object before it. So this is how you know Saath is demystifying Uselian notion of consciousness. He is actually trying to argue that this point is very important consciousness is nothing but a consciousness of being conscious of the object before it. There is nothing a mysterious entity like transcendental ego which stands against an object which is the object of consciousness which intentionality principle reveals to us but rather it is nothing but a consciousness of being conscious of the object before it. So it says that consciousness is a being the nature of which is to be conscious of its being and if there is anything as knowing consciousness then it is knowledge of an object. So you cannot really separate consciousness from the knowledge of an object so that is what it says if there is anything as knowing consciousness then it is knowledge of an object. Individual finds himself in the world of objects which constitute the unity of his consciousness and the eye I mean for Usel there is a transcendental eye but here Saath says that the eye appears indistinct through consciousness and is not as a pure transcendental ego. So you cannot separate the eye from the process of being conscious of something. So they are so indistinct according to Saath and there is no ego consciousness distinction ego consciousness distinction. There is no such distinction which was so central for Uselian phenomenology is this is rejected by Saath. Now for Usel again he proposes a method the method of phenomenology is the method of bracketing and ultimately what Usel does is he brackets the world and brackets everything and finally he applies this method to the self itself. Now bracketing the empirical self results in a kind of you know isolation of the transcendental self the transcendental ego in Uselian phenomenology. Hi Saath would say that even this can be I said this can be bracketed not that I have consciousness of this computer which is there in front of me. Say for instance I mean I am conscious of a computer there is in front of me Saath would say that it is not that I have consciousness of this computer rather there is consciousness of this computer. So you cannot separate the I or the me from the me being conscious of something on any occasion for that matter there is no isolation of the pure I possible at all. So it can be like something like this this is the I or ego and this is the object the computer in the world and now what is it I have consciousness of the computer. So here as if there is an ego here on the left hand side you can see the ego then the consciousness of the computer or the object then the object itself. So there are three things apparently here. So here you have consciousness of the computer the ego and the actual computer this is a picture which Saath would reject he says that there is no fixed ego but always consciousness of something say of table of flower of pen of man of computer and various other things we come across. So you cannot separate the I which is conscious of these things from these activities or processes of being conscious of these things that it is a kind of artificial abstraction according to Saath. Now let us see the idea of consciousness and being says that the phenomenon of being is disclosed to consciousness. So this is this is very close to the high degree in notion because there is a idea of disclosure the phenomenon of being is disclosed to consciousness and that is the being is in itself we can say and being is what it is being of phenomenon is radically different from the being of consciousness. So here Saath makes a very important distinction between the being of an object or any phenomenon for that matter and the being of consciousness which is the being of man one can say we have already started discussing the notion of consciousness in Saath the intentional consciousness which is a very different kind of being according to him consciousness is being for itself and here comes Heidegger's philosophy how Heidegger has influenced Saath. Heidegger's work is the principle source of contemporary French existentialism according to Saath. I mean contemporary French existentialism means his theory and many others who were associated with existentialism in France. There is nothing beyond man himself that can solve the problem of man's existence. This is Saath identifies this concept this notion as the center point in Heidegger's philosophy that there is nothing beyond man himself that can solve the problem of man's existence. The concept of being in the world and the existence are so central to Heidegger's philosophy we have already examined this in the previous two lectures that how the being in the world and you know the existence of Dazin existence of being in the world the kind of possibilities Dazin the man can either have an authentic existence or an inauthentic existence. So these possibilities are extremely important for Saath to understand to conceptualize his theory about human existence. Dazin is being's destiny this is again a very interesting Heideggerian idea truth and knowledge are possible because of Dazin and Saath was influenced by the account of human existence as both free and situated as Heidegger conceives it man is both situated and also at the same time free. See there is an account of facticity with Saath himself provides when he discusses human existence or human consciousness separately what he says is that man's existence is situated no doubt about it there is a world in which man finds himself but at the same time unlike other entities which are not just which are neither situated nor free in the case of man man is free because human essence is not predetermined like the essence of other objects like a pen or a knife. So here I mean here he introduces this concept of existence precedes essence the assertion of particularity individuality concreteness and contingency. So when you say existence of man precedes everything you are emphasizing on these aspects the particular man because existence of each man is bound to be different essence you can talk about if at all there is an essence like the platonic essence or any essence I mean notion of essence is always a historical it is not particular it is always universal and it is nothing to do with the individual rather the individual himself is only a copy of this essence that is the way essences are conceived in philosophy but when you talk about existence it is inevitably bound to be a kind of a particular entity you are referring to a particular individual.  Man first is and then he makes his essence through his choices he makes in this world when he leaves and again man is what he conceives and wills himself to be and atheism is natural for such an existentialist like Sartre. So I am just going to discuss Sartrean atheism because that is so central to Sartre conception of existence human existence human destiny and various other things associated or various other problems associated to the problem of human existence according to Sartre. So he says I repeat man first is and then he makes his essence through the choices he make I decide for instance I can decide what I want to do whether I want to be a teacher or a writer or a musician these things are to a very great extent discussed decided by me of course based on my abilities I have to decide things but even see suppose even I am so gifted an artist a musician that does not mean that I should necessarily take up the profession of a musician I can still prefer to be something else and again you know being a honest man for instance or being a crook these are all my possibilities I can be either a crook or a honest person these are my conscious choices.  So I can be either a philanthropist or a miser all kinds of possibilities are open to me for Sartre. Atheism is so natural in the sense so here there is this is what Sartre writes in his existentialism and humanism which he considered was the first principle of existentialism I quote man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself that is the first principle of existentialism and this is what people call its subjectivity using the word as a reproach against us for we mean to say that man primarily exist that man is before all else something which propels itself towards a future and is aware that it is doing so man is indeed a project which possesses a subjective life instead of being a kind of mouse or a fungus or a cauliflower before that projection of the self nothing exist not even in the heaven of intelligence man will only attain existence when he is what he purposes to be.  So I mean through my projects I project myself I do certain things I have certain plans to do so and I will be pursuing those plans and projects and with that I create myself again the human individual is a subject rather than an object a person rather than a thing man's being is being in the world this is again Heidegger once he comes into being he and others will start defining him. So this is a very interactive process a social process a political process and Saat is well aware of it the kind of political social cultural and other aspect involved in creating oneself it is a process where you know man when man comes into being and he and others will start defining him.  So all those factors ultimately define what his actual being is so in one sense we can say that he defines himself he creates himself not fixed and predefined essence in terms of which he understands him and actually his existence is different from a pen or a computer that have fixed essences man makes himself through his choices and actions he creates an essence for him again essence is a product of a person's mode of existence something which the way in which I exist decides my essence the way in which I exist means the kind of person I want to be which I have consciously adopted or there is a possibility of consciously adopting it and if I say that I have not consciously adopted it or I have not consciously done certain things according to Sartre that is bad faith that is something which you are running away from your responsibility which is which is equivalent to exist in authentically. So man makes his essence each man is different there is no common essence so that is what since existence precedes essence and existence of each human being is bound to be different the situations context and everything the context of actions the mode of thinking everything is different since man makes his essence through his actions and choices and the actions and choices of each individual is are bound to be different from each other so there cannot be a common essence which all human beings would be jointly creating essence depends on its subjectivity therefore there is no fixed and ever changing never changing essence which is universal so essence of the other things and of man are in that sense very different because in the case of other objects the essences are defined a priori objects like a paper knife has been made by an artisan who had a conception of it and the paper knife essence which is the sum of the formulae and the qualities which made its prediction and its definition possible precedes its existence this is all examples given by Sartre himself in this book on the other hand he says the conception of man in the mind of god is comparable to that of the paper knife in the mind of the artisan if at all there is a god so once you conceive that there is a god who is a creator of man then god can be compared to a kind of an artisan a person who made the knife had an idea about the knife in his mind so all this you know the sum total of the formulae and the qualities which made its prediction possible so similarly god if at all god exist god also might have had a similar kind of idea about man and produce man accordingly god makes man according to a procedure and a conception here human essence precedes man's existence but here the interesting aspect is that the idea of human nature the conception of human being found in every man is emphasized if the talk about human essence would emphasize would focus on this then there is there is a kind of human nature the conception of human being found in every man each man is a particular example of a universal conception if such an essence exists then it precedes his existence if there is a universal nature if god has created man out of a blueprint that existed in his mind then definitely there is no doubt that essence precedes existence and god in this sense needs to be conceived as a supernatural artisan the will either follows from the understanding or at least accompanies it this is what sard says in the case of god creating man what happens is that he knows precisely what he is creating there is a clear blueprint in his mind each individual man is a realization of certain conception which dwells in the divine understanding so in that sense human essence is predetermined now let us come to sard's position I have already mentioned that sard is an uncompromising atheist he denies god's existence god cannot exist and to demonstrate that there is no such universal human nature sard envisages or sard ventures to prove god's inexistence he demonstrates how human beings are different from other entities like the paper knife to show that while entities like paper knife have a creator an idea before its prediction man does not have a creator god does not exist so this is sard's atheism and he says that human beings have no model or blueprint god does not exist and hence in the case of the being of man existence comes before its essence we will actually discuss in fact for sard when he discusses the problem of being he basically tells us that there are three types of being possible being in itself being for itself and being for others and being in itself is a complete entity like a paper knife whose essence is predetermined it cannot be anything else but a paper knife and being in for itself is the being of man so the idea is that sard is trying to prove that god's existence if god exist then god is at the same time being in itself and being for itself we will discuss the details of this argument in the next lecture and this involves a kind of contradictions no one can nothing can be at the same time being in itself and being for itself if being in itself then it is fixed it has no freedom a knife has no freedom a computer has no freedom it cannot be but a computer it cannot be but a knife but in the case of man it is not so man is free being for itself is free it can be a musician a hindustani musician or a karnatic musician a painter if I decide to be a painter I can be a realistic painter or an expressionist or an impressionist or a cubist or a surrealist whatever mode of expression I prefer I have various choices whether to be a homeless man or a dishonest man or a crook all these are my choices so in my case or in the case of man the existence is prior to essence man is a being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it and absence of a model is the it that indicates the absence of norms and standards see if there is no such idea of human nature there is no such predetermined a priori conception of human essence then there is nothing which regulates human existence I mean there is something which very strongly regulates human existence or our life so we are not free in that sense we are completely determined by this so called human nature or this human essence if that is the case then there is no freedom but Sartre asserts the opposite he says that man is free there is no such human nature or human essence which determines his existence prior to his coming into being so in that sense there is no model there is no standard there is no norms that would tell him very strongly what course of action is the right course of action so in other words we can say that there is the conceptions of good and right the conception of value meaning of life there is nothing which pre exist there is nothing which predetermined human existence value of my life is something which I have to conceive the meaning of my life is something which I have to realize and understand it is I who decide what meaning my life has through my activities through my choices so the absence of a model indicates the absence of norms and standards absence of values and no pre given meanings for human life and this Sartre says is the first effect of existentialism it puts every man in possession of himself as he is so every man in possession of himself as he is so I cannot be someone else I cannot say that I am doing certain things because that is what all humans do I cannot say that there is nothing like something which or a model of man or universal human nature based on which I can say that this is what all human beings do there is nothing like what all human beings do no universal norms and standards of behavior man does things on the basis of his choices conscious choices and he is free to make his choices it places the entire responsibility for his existence wisely upon his own shoulders so I cannot blame others by saying that oh I did it because see this is what often we come across people saying that circumstances led me to do certain things or the kind of pressure of circumstances I did certain things so Sartre says that all these are instances of bad faith which we will discuss in the next lecture the concept of bad faith bad faith so here what he says is that you cannot run away from your responsibilities and this is from existentialism and humanism all the actions a man may take in order to create himself as he wills to be there is not one which is not creative at the same time of an image of man such as he believes he ought to be so he says that there is I mean every action you take you perform may take in order to create himself as he wills to be is based on a choice a conscious choice I decide I am going to be a kind of man like this and based on this conception I make a choice and do act so this brings us to the problem of responsibility when we make a choice between alternatives we are affirming that what we have chosen is valuable so I am making a choice say for instance or to protest against the government for instance the protest against the government policies let us take such a concrete example when we make a choice between alternatives I have alternatives I can either be silent or be part of the protest when I make a choice either to be silent or to protest I am affirming that what I have chosen is valuable so whatever is the alternate whether to be part of the agitation or just keep mum and silent both are choices which I make which I can make and whatever choice I make I am actually asserting that this course of action is valuable so there is a value I am creating a value which is valuable for me we cannot choose the verse because I am choosing it for me and what we choose is always the better and nothing can be better for us unless it is better for all so when I make a choice I do make a choice in a world where I share with other people so there are others so when I make a choice I am indirectly suggesting that that is the better choice available which means that this is a choice which is available for each one of you for everyone so we are responsible not only for our own individuality but also for all men so this is the problem responsibility the problem of responsibility is that see Sarth takes this example of a general who orders shooting and in that process it is his decision to attack and in that process some soldiers die so in one sense we can say that it is his choice to attack and his decision to attack his decision has led to the death of several number of soldiers so he is responsible for their death but as an officer as a military general he has to take a decision he has to make a choice so you and you cannot blame him but then at the same time he knows that it is his conscious choice he has alternatives either not to attack or to attack whatever choices he makes it is his personal choice in one sense we can say but when he makes a choice it affects others it ultimately resulted in the death of 10 soldiers for instance then he is responsible for that so when he makes a choice he asserts that or he affirms that that is the better choice for others as well so we are responsible not only for our own individuality but also for all men and this creates this awareness that our responsibility concerns mankind as a hall results in a kind of anguish a kind of anxiety it creates in and when I know that I have to act in such a manner that humanity regulates itself by what I do this actually frightens me that my decision I mean I am presenting myself when by making a choice I am presenting myself as a model in front of humanity that humanity all human beings can adopt this model so this actually frightens me the weight of my responsibility not an anguish that leads to criticism or inaction this is something which Sartre would assert because of course freedom brings responsibility if man is free then man is responsible for his actions you cannot run away from your responsibility so even if I remain inactive that itself is a kind of action which is based on a choice a conscious choice I make and an action I perform to be inactive so the example which I have taken to be part of an agitation political agitation against the government whom I consider has done wrongs or not to be part of the agitation whatever decision I take I am responsible for that because I am free to take either this or that so this weight of responsibility creates a kind of anguish a kind of dread in my mind but this does not lead to criticism because criticism is you know that is impossible even to be inactive is a conscious choice and this freedom responsibility and anguish do not separate us from performing the action anguish is a condition of action itself this is what Sartre is trying to argue for every choice human beings make if you are consciously aware of it you can find this element of anguish you cannot avoid it it is a condition of our human action so here he talks about in this connection he talks about abandonment another very important concept in existentialism again from existentialism and humanism what Sartre says is Dostoevsky says that if God did not exist everything would be permitted and that for existentialism is a starting point so from this statement which Dostoevsky makes in his brother's Karamazov God does not exist everything is permitted because there is no moral governance possible then there is nothing which binds man to act in a particular way it is the conception of God which the divine wisdom the divine justice the conception of divine justice upon which you know our conceptions of right good contact goodness all these things of conceptions of value and meaning everything is based upon such a such a notion of God so once such a notion of God such a concept of God does not exist then anything is permitted so this is the implication of Nietzsche's death of God so which according to Sartre is a starting point of existentialism with the disappearance of God all possibility of finding values in an intelligible heaven to disappear so there is no God's world the world of God that exists the previous lecture we have seen how Dostoevsky drives us to that kind of a situation where in a conversation between Ivan and Alyosha so with the disappearance of God according to Sartre all possibility of finding values in an intelligible heaven to disappears there can be no longer be any good a priori there is no universal conceptions of goodness and rightness since there is no infinite in perfect consciousness to think it and in this connection another very important concept is abandonment as I already mentioned it is nowhere written that again Sartre says it is nowhere written that the good exist that one must be honest or must not like since we are now upon the plane where there are only men so there is nothing a universal humanity or God or supernatural realm of which predetermines human morality the choices are ours individuals are concrete each individual is concrete each individuals situation and context of life are different so the decisions and choices they make are bound to be different from each other and in this context Sartre says the famous statement man is condemned to be free because as I already mentioned man is there is freedom because man is not created by God there is no blueprint a priori blueprint that exists in the case of man like unlike other objects so since there is freedom there is responsibility choices are to be made by each individual and there is no model available the individual cannot really go and ask someone else and take a decision accordingly then that would be that someone else's decision each individual has to negotiate with his or his or her life and take decisions accordingly so in that context what happens is that creates a kind of anguish in the mind anxiety uncertainty about future the thinking that the very thought that you know the actions which I perform the choices will which I make have impacts might be having certain impacts and also when I make a choice I actually choose for the entire humanity so I am responsible for the entire humanity in that sense all these things create a kind of anxiety very uncomfortable anxiety and Sartre says that in this context freedom becomes like this man is condemned to be free there is but this is human situatedness you cannot run away from this situation where you find yourself as a free human being we are completely free condemned to be free since there is no God to give us essence we must create our own essence we are completely responsible for our actions and are responsible for everyone else's to because we are free to create our values and our world we must exist in anguish for loneliness and despair Sartre would conclude that man is condemned to be free there is no way you can escape from this situation the existential situation in which man finds himself let us try to wind up this lecture the next lecture we are going to discuss the concept of you know being the three kinds of being being in itself for itself and for others so this lecture is actually an introduction to that we have already seen some of the major concepts of existentialism in the previous lecture and this lecture was concerned was basically trying to understand Sartre's conception of human existence he distinguishes consciousness from other entities being in itself and being for itself consciousness is being for itself which is intentional in nature and from this concept he comes to his atheism he asserts atheism the absence of God and he would say that this absence of God ultimately results in a conception of human being without any model so man is absolutely free freedom makes man responsible and responsibility creates anguish and anxiety hence man is condemned to be free so the situatedness the existential situation the existential context in which man finds himself so or rather the very nature of human existence itself is bearing upon it this weight of responsibility so we will wind this lecture here thank you


Ukraine to receive one million drones from Allies in 2024. Allies are planning to join forces and supply Ukraine with a million drones this year. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said Ukrainian officials have repeatedly emphasised the importance of unmanned systems in the war in Russia. In addition to foreign supplies, President Volodymyr Zelensky said that Ukraine aims to also produce one million drones domestically in 2024. We also met with Ukraine in the NATO-Ukraine Council. Defense Minister Rustem Umarov briefed Allies on the latest developments on the ground and we addressed the importance of our continued support, Stoltenberg said. A group of Allies is coming together with the goal of delivering one million drones to Ukraine. The Secretary General stressed that NATO Allies account for 99% of all military aid to Ukraine. Our commitment is essential to preserving Ukraine's freedom, he said. UK Defense Secretary Grant Shaps announced that London is joining Latvia in leading the drone coalition that coordinates supplies for Ukraine. Shaps also pledged thousands more drones to Kyiv, namely First Person View Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. I'm proud to announce that the UK and Latvia will co-lead an international coalition to build Ukraine's vital drone capabilities, Shaps said. Together we will give Ukraine the capabilities it needs to defend itself and win this war to ensure that Putin fails in his illegal and barbaric ambitions.


Let's go to y'all Chris from Jazz's Breaks doing another recap for Fanatics Live on September 7th. This first three boxes of the E-Tops 2023 Cosmic Chrome Case, three box breaks, random team number eight. Another great start to the case, Joe's hopping on another three boxer right now. It's a nice gold coming in here, nice blue, Josea Brave, former MVP, the Castellano screen. Planetary pursuit, nice rookie here for Francisco Alvarez and Mercury and our first auto of the case Jazz, Chisholm Jr. Extra Terrestrial on the variation auto. Nice first three boxes, thanks y'all.