 Yes, welcome to our inaugural lecture for our lecture series on African philosophy, African contemporary philosophy. And the first speaker I will welcome today is Jonathan Chimacronam, who's a senior lecturer at the University of Calabar, and he's also a research associate at the University of Johannesburg in South Africa. His research interests cover the areas of African philosophy, logic, philosophy of mind, environmental ethics, postmodern and postcolonial thought, and he has published a tremendous amount of papers on a very wide variety of topics. Most interestingly for us today is that he has developed a new conception of philosophy, the conversational philosophy, which also includes a new method of philosophy, which provides a new approach to philosophizing to African and intercultural philosophies, the conversational thinking, and he has produced a system of logic that grounds them both, the Isumezu logic. And this is at least partially also the topic that Jonathan will speak about for us today. I very warmly welcome my dear colleague Jonathan, and I'm very happy that you're here today with us, and we're all looking forward to your talk about the conversational philosophy in Nigeria. Welcome, and the floor is yours. Thank you very much, Bjorn. I'm happy to be here and to give this talk on conversational. Well, school of philosophy, conversational philosophy. Apparently, I thought I was going to give a talk on conversational school of philosophy as a topic you gave to me indicated, but it appears you want me to give a talk on conversational philosophy. There are two different things. Which one should I talk on? The conversational philosophy, I'm sorry. Okay, okay, I have prepared to talk on the conversational school of philosophy, but I can talk on conversational philosophy. The first one is perfect. However, I probably would have to start from the historical backgrounds in conversational school of philosophy itself because there cannot be conversational philosophy without a conversational school of philosophy. And so, I'll start by saying that right about the 1980s, there was this huge dissolutionment that's set in amongst debaters, those who were debating about the existence or otherwise of African philosophy. But in 1980 to be precise, when Quasimodo published his book African philosophy and philosophy and an African culture, there was something that he said in that book. He urged African philosophers at that time who were debating that he told them that time had come for them to stop talking about African philosophy and start doing African philosophy. It was an biblical statement because that meant that that underscored the fact that what most African practitioners of African philosophy were doing before that time were really talking about African philosophy. Whereas what ought to be done was to do African philosophy, to build a system of African philosophy. And I would always say that a system of philosophy has three main components. And normally this thing is not taught in any philosophical module. So it's not strange when most philosophers find it difficult to understand this because it's not taught in basic philosophical modules. There are three basic components of the system. The first one is the foundation. At the foundation of the system, you have logic there, logic that deals with the laws, a guide reasoning, and then you have ontology that deals with realities involved in the reasoning processes itself. And on top of these foundation, you see the structure of a system, which are really methods. And methods are different ways of applying the laws of logic that lies at the foundation. On top of the structure, you see the doctrine itself having like a roof of that house, you know, composed of concepts, principles, theories, and what have you. This gives us a fine edifice of a system of thoughts and philosophy to be specific. Now, of these three components, the foundation and the structure, they are key. Without them, the doctrine cannot hang in the air. The doctrine, the roof of a house needs the structure to support it and the structure needs the foundation as well. So without the structure and the foundation, you really can't talk about a system. And without a system, you can talk about a philosophical tradition. And also we are talking about African philosophy, assumed for those who are promoting it, that such a system existed. All right, but if such a system existed, then there wouldn't have been any need to undertake decades of debate, because they would have straightforwardly pointed it out that it didn't exist. So they needed to build it. And we read it was saying in 1980 that it was time to start building, start doing African philosophy. All of our themes were made, including by Grady himself, that came up with his concept of decolonization. Well, brilliant idea, a couple others, they had into deconstructions and what have you. Interesting points, but they were not building the system. They weren't building the system. As a result, these offered sort of philosophical and historical necessity. For the emergence of the Calabasco philosophically because the system was needed and historically because it was lacking. And by the 1990s, some elements of the Calabasco, notably Panteleon Eurebo, Inocentesos, or Creasy, Gemma, Gottrieu Zumba, and so on, began the attempt to build such a system on which to anchor the tradition of philosophy from Africa. And the importance of this project, building this system, is key in ensuring that what is produced, there will be no doubt whatsoever concerning the existence and the nature of that philosophical tradition. So that someone like Robert Benaskone in 1997 had put across what he called a double bind that goes this way, that either African philosophy is so similar to Western philosophy that it makes no distinctive contribution and effectively disappears, or it is so different that is credentials to be genuine philosophy will always be in doubt. This double bind that was informed by people from different places, those who challenge the existence of African philosophy, and who claim that what they encounter does not seem to be African philosophy. As a discipline that represents a tradition in its own right, rather, in the words of John Hengelbrock and even Heinz Kinele, these could be transliterations of Western philosophy, or Westernized African philosophy, and Inocentesos describes that as copycat philosophy. So the charge of copycat philosophy of transliteration continues to loom large, as far as the discipline of African philosophy to concern, and they make these charges make sense. The moment you cannot identify a system that you anchor the traditional. The practice of those Africans who were tutored, who studied Europe or who were who studied Western philosophy, as well as the Western counterparts who come to the African philosophy by bringing the structure of Western philosophy system of Western philosophy, imposing it on African philosophy, sprinkling in, you know, some concepts from African linguistic resources and then they call such African philosophy continues to plague the discipline, confuse the students and mislead the newcomers in the discipline, because it is the system that gives shape to the philosophical tradition. And until you build that everything you do will continue to raise question one question or the other. And this is what the Calabas school tried to do eminent by constructing the system and anchoring the philosophical tradition of Africa they were building on that. It does not mean that that's the only one that can assist you can have many as many as possible, and they will become some traditions in African philosophy just like you have the analytic continental pragmatic and all these lines of thought in Western philosophy. We need more. So, for the members of Calabas school those I've mentioned, and those that again succeeded them across the three generation that the school has existed. The style of philosophy. Share a lot in common. And that was why, at the point I began personally the project of demonstrating the unity of their approach to African philosophy. And I called it conversational style. But I'll show you why. For example, the philosophy approach of philosophy, promoted by that we continue to promote from Calabas school, and our conversational school these are using touching gently, because at a point. And persons when our work gained international recognition and people from other places wanted to be part of the movement. And we had to, again, create another name to represent the intellect international dimension of the school and that was how conversational school came into being so it is, they are using to change the Calabas who conversational school. So this school. There are many people who have produced ideas and theories and concepts but there is one problem that all of them were attempting to solve and continue to attempt to address. And there are also what there's also one challenge for the school, and two cardinal questions. And I'll talk about this and then I will move on to conversational philosophy as briefly as possible. So for those who don't know the Calabas school or conversational school or what we stand for or how the school operates or what inspired the inquiries and investigations of the school is important you listen to this. The main problem that the Calabas identify for the 21st century is the problem of the but is the problem of borderlines. All right, with the word borderline spelled as written as two separate words borderlines. So when this line is drawn between races, he leads to the problem of racism. When it is drawn between sex is he lose leads to sex isn't when it is drawn. When it is drawn between people or groups with different social and economic statuses he leads to classes in when it is drawn among different religious face between it leads to a credo is the mass, and so on and so forth. The challenge, therefore, is how to trace identify the root cause of these problem of borderlines and profile ideas to address is various ramifications. That is a challenge of the philosophical contribution from the Calabas school. The different actors from that school have attempted greater theories to address this to tackle this challenge and address the problem. The Calabas school was able to trace the cause of these problem of borderlines to various totals to value logic, which bifurcates and polarize this reality into to oppose the units binary opposition, as the case may be. And we believe that one way to transcend one that it is important to go beyond this idea of contradiction that is warranted in the thesis of violence and determinism embedded in Aristotle Aristotle said to value logic. And as a result, different members of the Calabas who came up with different theories, Panteleon Urebu for one, created his theory of metaphysis he called the cause of the beam of metaphysis and all that with epistemological and ethical modifications and various ontology is called ontology. And he he used the concept of being belonging to demonstrate how to interpret this binary contradiction. But before I go into that, the two main questions that these actors raised a lot of different questions to enable them drive the theories they were propagating, but I can sum up those two those questions they raised in two, namely, does difference amount to inferiority. And number two, opposites irreconcilable. Okay, so Panteleon Urebu use the concept of being belonging to demonstrate that difference does not amount to inferiority, it amounts to variety and opposites are actually reconcilable. And this again was done by other people in us in tassels use the concept of complementarity. Godfrey was owned by used integrativism. And Chrissie John I used harmony. Chrissie John of course created his theory of logic or harmonious modern and ethics and epistemology. And he called humanistic epistemology. And in us in tassels created his theory of he wanted to know philosophy with epistemological metaphysical ethical logical and methodological, methodological dimensions. And Godfrey Zumba created integrative humanism. And with ethical and epistemological angles to it. And then a couple of other people to the second decade of the 21st century where like a darker who be speaking after myself created his consolation philosophy, and use the concept of mood to demonstrate the possibility of transcending of transcending these binary opposition. Recently, I read the other has created his theory of privilege and mystic historicity, and use the concept of relationality. Madoka and finance mangana, the one year and the rest of them use relationship. Personally, I have all have used complementarity of use integrativity. I've used them relationality of use relationship. I'll get towards demonstrating that difference does not amount inferiority amounts to variety, and although posits are reconcilable. And, but it was in us in tassels when he's complimentary logic. And greasy German he's a money's in system of logic and myself, it is a logic that provided a logical grounding for this train of thoughts that's the calabasco are promoted and continues to promote in this decade of the 21st century. All right, so with this said, one would ask, where does conversational philosophy factor in the group at some point, so that to be known as conversational school in addition. And if there are other scholars and thinkers in the school who have created one theory or the other. Why is the school known as conversational school, in addition to calabasco. Because my primary project, that's a member second generation member of the school was to demonstrate the things that connects all these theories together and show why these approach to philosophizing is a new one. And the one that these people are promoting. And I needed to give it a name. And that was how the name of conversational philosophy came about. That's really conversational philosophy. Eventually I developed as a theory, but I describe the approach to philosophizing as conversational conversational, not in the sense of literal sense of two people holding exchanges as most people assume that philosophy is, but in a technical sense of creative struggle. All right, it is creative because it's progressive and it's a struggle, because it's critical. This creative struggle also known as a room maristics is an approach to a philosophy that is geared towards going beyond binary opposition to reach binary complementarity to demonstrate that opposites can be reconciled should and can be reconciled. And, and then I went ahead to build on the logical templates that as soon as we drama had developed to come up with a zoom in logic that again contains three metaphysical principles and three laws that were not present in the logical template that as soon as we drama had developed. But, but I built on what they developed. So, these laws in Chicago law is actually speaking about the possibility that opposites that the necessity of relationship between opposites opposites necessarily relate. And the law of makeup talks about the context of such relationship is relationships we talk about between opposites or call in contexts and opposites themselves, like beans in context as well. And, and that the goal for the third law for an entity is to transcend contradiction and reach complementarity in other words, that these relationships between two opposites are geared towards complementation and not necessarily contradiction or a contradiction is one possible outcome of such a relationship but the goal. The goal of such relationship according to us is to reach complement that complementation. And so these laws from the explain how variables relate and enable us to again ground the methods that been populated in the, in the school, you know, sent also has his own complimentary reflection method. And, and I had defined this approach as conversational from which much later the conversational method was again teased out accumulating various principles that describe how it's, it, it works. So, with that in view, we'll talk, we'll shift briefly as I watch the time to the trust of conversational philosophy summer late conversational philosophy is concerned with meaning making. We have to understand that there are a lot of technical concepts involved here so I probably will have to avoid some of them and go straight to saying something that will directly make sense. The philosophy itself the doctrine itself a conversational philosophy, the method is conversational method, and at the foundation of fetus is music logic. And all that body, the structure, so to speak, is nowadays this called conversational thinking so when the word conversational thinking is used. It refers to the structure, it also specifically the method involved. So let me talk about conversational philosophy as meaning making. It is not a philosophy that isn't it's not strictly interested in meaning. Okay, what does meaning what what's something means what is there meaning here. No that's not the interest of conversational philosophy is interested in meaning making. Okay, and it conceives meaning making as an existential as well as epistemic activity. Okay, that is conducted through creative struggle, whatever we do in our interactions, interactions we are striving to make meaning. And the existence itself metaphysical metaphysical speaking is meaning making. Right in the sense that think of think of the world without anything except you as a person, and you want to make meaning create something. Act of creation is an act of meaning making. Okay, and how does the first things emerge. Okay, and how do subsequent things emerge subsequently from the first thing that emerged. So conversational thinking conceives of this idea of metaphysics of absence. Okay. If we, if we say that this object. And we want to create it. We created by meaning making cabinet out of the metaphysics of absence. What that means is that at the, at the promote the primordial states, what exists is something we call open or metaphysics of absence is like a mode to me has no shape is reality but he has no shape. So the creation of each reality from it is follows the process of creative struggle that give that reality shape. Okay, think of clay you want to make a statue. And you get it, you get more the clay and you want to mold a statue out of it. In that clay think of that is there. But each one you know that you give that one a shape. And that one becomes something that exists. You have created it out of the metaphysics of absence. The clay is there. But the pot you can see it in that clay, you can see the statue in that clay, but it's there, until you create it out, it does not exist. The act of creating it out is a great act of creative struggle. It's a struggle, because it's critical is is is creating because it's progressive. This technical is really very difficult to explain in simple language but what I'd like to say on top of these is that coming back to the use of words and language is out of meaning making that everybody would understand. When you be to do whatever you want to do, communicate, teach, explain yourself, express yourself. You are making meaning and this meaning making could be internal or external. In other words, when you are engaged with someone at that level of communication. And the person speaks. The person is a significist, just as you are a significist. The words that a person is using are signifiers, but the words themselves convey ideas that are called signified. But they signify themselves, the words themselves don't carry any meaning. The ideas. So what I am saying now is I'm conveying ideas. I'm not conveying meaning. I cannot convey meaning. The meaning must be met within me and within you, the listener. When you hear the words I'm saying, you would have to take it inside of you, try to process the words and associate the ideas you receive. You don't receive the words, you see the ideas you're associated with your own set of words. And you try to make meaning out of those words, your own meaning and the process there internally is also creative struggle. If you succeed in appreciating what I have said, then you have approximated, then we have created what we have approximated the transference of idea. But it will never be perfect, it will never be complete. What I come there, the meaning I have in mind cannot be exact, same thing with the meaning that you would receive. Have in mind what we can best hope for is the approximated transference of idea. And sometimes when that is not achieved, it leads to collapse in meaning, conversational setting, crisis in meaning setting. And so on and so forth. And that again leads to all kinds of disagreements and quarrels and problems that people have in the society. And the problems that are created everywhere in the society, from the complex ones like racism and sexism and classism to the everyday conflicts between people and between groups and what have you. There are all crises and problems created as a result of failure or failure to create meaning, to mutualize the meaning that is the concept we use for that. And so on and so forth. Perhaps I'll stop there, I can see that I've taken them quite a lot of time and let's see how we can clarify some of these things during Q&A. Thank you very much. What to you, Bjorn. Yes, thank you very much, Jonathan. I think that was a beautiful overview. And it shows the unbelievable richness of that theory because, as I guess some of our guests will know that is literally just a snapshot of all the things that are going on within the philosophy of the conversational society and what what was interesting and helpful for me was to learn a bit more about the history of that school because I don't I have not seen it so far in writing. So that was very instructive for me, but of course I don't want to step into the way of the discussion so dear guests please feel free if you have a question, feel free to use the raise hand feature. But feel free to type it into the into the chat and then I'm happy to take your questions. Just to kick it off with one question from my side. And what I find a particularly interesting and what I find is, is at least in my perception one of the most important features of the conversational philosophy or of the conversational school of thought is the idea that binaries do not necessarily go together with contradiction, or with the relation of contradiction, or to rephrase it in another way that there are more options towards within a binary within a situation where two things are being understood in a binary way. And especially this idea of complementarity is, it seems to me is very important here. And you have mentioned a couple of times the Aristotelian logic which is certainly sort of the origin or that's that's where into a certain degree, this idea of binary T originated, and Aristotle is Aristotle was certainly one of the philosophers who made good use of the idea of inferiority and subsequently of superiority. What would you think is the thought that was taken more seriously within the school of thought of the philosophical of the conversational philosophy that was ignored by Aristotle or by the Western traditions, who had this strong tendency from their weak beginnings until today to understand binary, binary, binary T, more in a belligerent in an aggressive in a submissive and in a dominating way. How do you think, what what do you think is, is this difference that this angle that the conversational philosophy found that was apparently ignored, or where there was an interest not to see it or probably it was just a mistake within the Western tradition. You muted john. Okay. Thank you very much. It wasn't a mistake in the Western tradition. It's about, it's about what works better what some people think what works better for them. And it's also important that I clarify that binary T does not exist in Western thought alone. Yeah, it exists in African thought as well. It exists as an in kinshasa and in Pretoria if you throw down an orange it will fall. All right, if you wish to cross the road you will look left, left and right. That's binary T. Okay. And still obeyed a lot of contradiction in these places in Africa. The idea here that we are contributing is that it is not absolute. Law of contradiction is not absolute. Of course, different philosophers from the West have even criticized it from Hegel to Max to Conor to the rest of them they've all criticized these law of thoughts, but they are really not impeachable, as some people thought. However, they continue to guide reasoning everywhere in the world in the West specifically because Martin is expected to be perfect. The difference and what we are doing is that having surveyed African thought system and different cultures in different places in Africa, we see certain things that continue to repeat themselves in such a good pattern. In the thought systems of these cultures in Africa, and it is the idea that opposites can be reconciled. It is the idea that we can go beyond this line of contradiction. It is the idea that we can go beyond violence and determinism in our reasoning. Very often in different places in Africa you see two people who are quarreling and then you went in to know what the problem was and by the time both of them married the other side of the situation. And then you see the other someone saying, well, you are right and you are also not wrong. What does that mean? It means that there are both of them can meet themselves halfway because they all have legitimate explanation to the situation they are involved in. What does that mean? It means that the strict attributes of violence, that strict jacket, that absolute thing child that is accorded to it, might be wronged after all if it is extended or if it is made to apply absolutely. There are situations where you can have exceptions and the drive towards reconciling opposites is to see if we can widen that space, broaden that horizon, that geography where we can have more exceptions than not. Okay, and so that is what informed the challenge that the theories in the conversational school are attempting to address and make their own contribution to philosophy. And as something again that is quite central to the philosophical thinking in Africa, we know that A and B could be opposite in such a way that they are diametrically opposed. We know that, we practice that in Africa, but we also know that going beyond, rather than focusing on that opposition, all right, and thinking about these two things as elements that can actually complement each other, unravels and opens up completely new vista that has a lot to contribute in the relationships of human beings and society. Thank you. Very nice. Let me read out a question by Paul Michael and then I'm going to give it over to you Zachary. So Paul Michael asks, what is the role, if any, of other departments of philosophy in Nigeria, for instance, Ibadani fair or like us in the building of the foundation and or structure of contemporary African philosophy. Great. During the 60s, 70s, and 80s, the department of philosophy, departments of philosophy in majoring universities that wafted great intellectual energy included some of these ones that he mentioned. The University of Ibadani, the University of Nigeria and Soka. And then afterwards, you see other universities like the University of Lagos, the University of Portugal joining, and all that. It was when they were in their decline in the 80s that University of Calabar, the Department of Philosophy, came in. The roles they played was in keeping alive the discussion they talk about African philosophy. The department, the actors in these departments as actors everywhere, who are talking and debating about African philosophy, we are keeping alive. That's subjects, they weren't doing African philosophy. We are talking about African philosophy. As difficult as that might sound to hear, it's the truth. They were talking about African philosophy and they contributed, some of them eventually in the 80s and the 90s tried to produce some work, excavate some cultural worldviews and come up, you can see J. He was so deeper and the work that he did with Barry Hallen and a couple of other ones that were. But the question is how much of these works are really, how much of them, how much of these works would you really look at and say, okay, I can, I can, we can say that these works are anchored. It's a system of African philosophical tradition in his own right as I explained at the beginning of my talk. Okay. There were also other scholars from those places who are not really proposing or giving us new ideas but raise questions. Questions in their works that challenged people to think deeper beyond what was common at that time. Some of them try to foresee the project that the conversational school color was will eventually started doing. If you talk of the lives of Godwin Sogolo and what's his name from University of Lagos, the late Momo from University of Lagos and all that and quite a number of people these guys raised questions and made contributions that really indicated that we should be doing things differently. We should be doing things differently. Yeah, and you can see that those were really important contributions as well. Because some of the elements of the Calabas school in their work will always reference them as people who justify the sort of work that they are doing in the Calabas school. So that is it. Thank you. Thank you. Over to you, Zachary. Hi. Thank you again for your talk. I thought that was super interesting. I was just wanting to know a little bit more about this notion of a meaning and meaning making. And I guess, just to clarify, not to impose any kind of material phenomenological distinction, but does the notion of meaning making involve drawing boundaries in and around both entities I guess out in the world, as well as like phenomena within the outside of us is this kind of like a general thing or what can you just talk a little bit more about meaning making. Okay, so two things. If we go back to the old question of metaphysis about where things came from. All right. Where do things can come from. Then conversation thinking tries to answer that by recalls to the idea of metaphysis of absence. In which things that weren't there. brought into existence by means of meaning making that involves the relationship of the meaning maker and the object of meaning itself. If we want to talk about how we create things and ideas on a daily basis, then we use the concepts of creative struggle that is involved in such encounters we make, and to demonstrate how we create meaning. And the implication is that meaning itself will become something relative to some extent, because it is something that you can as an epistemic agent create within you. Like I said, the words I speak convey ideas to you they don't convey any means to you. Whatever meaning you make out of the words I speak you make them yourself within yourself. And this is because, and this also implies that as many as we are here listening to me, each of us is making a different meaning somewhat different from what others are making. Anyone here would make the same meaning from what I'm saying as the other person as the next person. And that is because meaning making could be subjective. All right, first, I'll have to associate you have to associate the ideas I come there with the words you think, you know, capture the ideas I come there. And still do your own meaning to creative struggle. And it happens very fast that you don't even notice it that it happens. But at the end of the day the meaning you make of what I'm saying is different from the meaning the next person makes. But then, insofar as they are mutualized in the orbit of meaning we call it orbit of meaning insofar as they are mutualized, we understand ourselves. We understand with that. But when we don't mutualize, I mean, when the approximated transference of idea was not so successful. That is when we don't, we can understand ourselves conflict will set in because have so often you say something intending something else and someone picks offense out of it. And so in a battle to explain to that person that that wasn't what I intended, but that was the meaning the person made out of it. And the point here is that all manner of problems we have in the world results as a result of failure of meaning making. And it's always subjective. No matter how we clarify ourselves and make it as clear as possible. We understand the way we intend them to understand us. But again, we can communicate and move forward if we move if we're able to mutualize that means. Thank you. Thank you very much. I think Amara Esther you had your hand up. I'm not sure if you lowered it now intentionally again. So if you have a question, please feel free to to answer it. Thank you very much. You have actually hinted on what I wanted to ask, but let me still go ahead with it. My question is this, I was actually thinking about this meaning making that it will do not transfer or pass me from one person to the other and what to pass then I was thinking about can't we have a clash of meaning where different receivers would interpret these the ideas, you know, pass in different ways that it's actually conflicts, not only with what the speaker has in mind, but even with other meanings that others might make out of the ideas that the speaker has passed across. And in this case, if there's something like clash of meanings, then how can we resolve it in such a situation. Thank you. Okay, brilliant. Thank you. That is why we have problems in the world. Unless someone is sick. I do not know of anyone who would like to wake up in the morning and take joy in causing problems everywhere he or she goes unless that person is sick. We have problems in the world because of regular failures in meaning making processes. We fail every day at that. It's become routine for many people. And when we identify those who have meditated habits to not to be able to mutualize meaning, we always say of them that they be careful how you communicate with him or her, you know, if you don't want him or her to misunderstand you. Okay, but then the point is this, the fact that we that we have come to the same linguistic resources and by linguistic here I do not just mean language as a verbal to I mean even gesticulation symbol signs and what have you that we have claim to these linguistic resource. And because we understand the logic at the foundation of that linguistic resource, and we understand the structure, the method of using those tools, enable source to engage in meaning making engage in relationships. Okay. But then that's not enough. Everyone must be able to play his own role as an epistemic agent for an act of meaning making to the successful. When that is not done a conflict problems that is why we say that the moment once we remain in conversation. Okay. Crisis is avoidable. We may have conflicts but crisis will be avoidable. Once we remain in conversation. Okay, because the goal is to constantly try to creative struggle is not going to be easy. Our daily relationship is not an easy one is a creative struggle. Even when you with the love of your life is still a creative struggle. This individual is an epistemic agent that whose total body of meaning making yields something different to that person that he than your own yields to you. These things make conflict inevitable from point to point. But once we remain in conversation crisis, which is a much more serious outcome is avoidable. When we talk of these international bodies, the countries of the world, and conflict and war, we say let's get down to get to the round table and talk, let's change ideas and resolve this, what are they trying to do. And sometimes they say talk has broken down. They've returned to the trenches and they've restarted war. Why. Okay, because of failure to mutualize meaning. Not just in the linguistic sense but in a substantial sense and that is why meaning making is metaphysical is epistemological is ethical and what a view. We must mutualize meaning before we can make progress and move forward otherwise will break off and that is why in the conversational curve, you'll have emotions. Okay, you'll have the conjunctive motion and you have the disjunctive motion. When we are opposed variables are moving together behind conjunctive motion. Why, because ontologically it is a necessity by the principle of relationality that opposites must, but variables must relate interrelates because no variable is an ego solace. There is an entire conjunctive motion, but then there is a point where that conjunctive motion cannot go further. Okay, and that is the Benoke point, because these are different epistemic agents with different compositions once they try to force it beyond that Benoke point crisis crisis in meaning result, because they are there that point pretending, or refusing to be reasonable. And that encounter crisis in meaning making calls. And so, this is some of the basics that can explain why these crisis are inevitable and they will continue to real call, because we are all epistemic agents on in our own with our own peculiarities. And that's a way the circumstances of our unique existence in meaning making it can wish it away. And all that so so those are not that we had come together. This junctive motion we kick in, we'll break apart again we quarrel we separate we got separate ways, we'll fight only to come back again, because necessarily, we must have to interrelates. And, and if you take this to epistemology we try to say that using the principle of context dependence of value ethics, we say that value. Okay, of whatever shape is always contextual. Epistemic claims are always contextual that's always a context. This is a principle of contextuality grounded in the law of makeup that I spoke about in this method logic. Okay, this context are what makes us who we are uniquely and we can wish it away, you can throw it away. And that is why we say that context obsessed facts, context obsessed facts. Okay, there's something that is true, or is in this shape in this context movie to another context it takes another shape all together. Something that is pleasing to you here go somewhere else or be in another situation it becomes this place into you context obsessed facts. The fact of epistemology ethics metaphysis and different conceptions of conversational philosophy. Thank you. Thank you very much Jonathan. I just noticed a versus a you you have a question as well. Maybe it's possible that we address that question after we have listened to other we will have some time to talk together then, but now I would like to introduce our colleague Ada Agana. Thank you Jonathan, so far much. He has received his PhD from University of Nigeria and super he has taught African philosophy and intercultural philosophy classes in universities in Nigeria and Germany. He is recipient of quite a few research grants for example of the john Templeton Foundation, Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and the Johannesburg Institute for advanced studies, and the American Council of Philosophy. He has, he has like Jonathan, widely published, and he has written on African philosophy metaphysics philosophy of religion intercultural philosophy and especially to be mentioned is his book exists and he is inventing ontology agnosis and values in African philosophy which has been praised by African and Western philosophers for its originality and it is one of the few books that luckily enough was also indeed recognized by Western scholars. I'm not sure if it had received the reputation, it should have received, but we will certainly continue to make his philosophy more widely known and this is another beautiful opportunity to do that today. As I said before I'm going to share my screen now and I'm going to present and other is going to present via a prerecorded session to avoid on the one hand any technical difficulties that might occur and to otherwise avoid any problems that might result from a hearing impairment. So, also to remind you, while that video runs for after that radio if you have any questions please put them in the chat so that other might read them out and then he can answer them for us all. Okay, let me quickly start sharing my screen. And let us now welcome other Agata and his talk on consolation is This is Dr. Agata. I'm speaking on the topic, the philosophy of consolationism. Good. Now I proceed with my talk. I'm sharing my screen now objectives of this talk as well as to present consolationism. As a 21st century African certificate synthesis. I also unpack the idea of mood, which undergirds consolationism. As I said, I make it with the idea of good. My talk. It was to explore the concept of a human being as homo-melachonics. Finally, I referred by responding to two basic wishes of consolationism. One is a universal pointless, and two is human-like meaningless. So, you hear this in my side, I proceed with the talk. So, consolationism is a kind to describe the philosophy of consolationism. It is a century African philosophical synthesis that seeks to respond to the two basic wishes of his universal pointless and human-like meaningless. So, the third consolation is a third category that captures the condition of entities that exist in the universe that may be described as tragic. The universe that strives that to this very day of striving, of yearning, even as the goal of this journey can never be attained. So, consolation is a third category that captures the tragic condition of yearning entities that never reaches the goal, that never reaches the goal. Consolidation is the philosophical architecture within which the concept of consolation is articulated. Consolidation captures the condition of entities in the yearning universe. Consolidationism is a metaphysical system, the intellectual architecture within which the consolation is articulated. In this system of consolationism, the idea of mode is piloted. Since everything in the universe is defined as ideal mode or the expression manifestation of mode. So, let us now move to the next section. What is mode? It's a good question. The idea of mode. My idea of mode evolves within the philosophical tradition called African philosophy. It follows from my quest for a fundamental principle, within which I can articulate a comprehensive metaphysics that accounts for the reality of the universe and the condition of human beings. This search for a fundamental principle. It's not entirely a new one. The philosophers bless the tempers. We have the idea of the vital force, the principle that animates the universe, but we try to identify fundamental principles that we enable them to articulate a total going metaphysical system. It has the tempers. We have the idea of the vital force, the principle that animates the universe, because it is issued from God. And life in everything in the universe, animating everything. So, God, human beings, lesser divinities, vegetable life, mineral existence, the opposite is vital force. We have a tempers. We don't go far enough to give the idea of vital force. It compare the philosophical formulation. In JQ, you also find this. You also see the quest for a fundamental universal, fundamental animating principle. A total going principle that can account for the universe, that only in 90s we did it. In JQ, I write that what he calls the soon-soon annoying material principle that animates everything in the universe. He also like tempers because it is issued from God. Ramose, just like JQ, arrives at what he calls being becoming. As universal being, as that which manifests itself as incessant change, eternal becoming. As soon as advances the thoughts of tempers, JQ, Ramose is acting to arrive at the complementary metaphysics that account for the noted African complementary and complementary worldview. Whereas in ourselves, we fail to find a single like that, to capture what this fundamental principle is. We also can find the idea of missing links, which seeks to define the archive for the reality of being. According to ourselves, being is that on account of which whatever exists, serve as the missing link of reality. So we can see that from tempers to ourselves, there has been an attempt to identify what being is. We can see that JQ is being invited by the first, and JQ, which soon-soon, Ramose is being becoming, or eternal becoming, or change, ourselves is not directly forthcoming. It does not identify anything that we can call being. It tells us that being is that on account of which anything that exists serves in missing link of reality. So with ourselves, we find the question mark. So just that being is that which is incomplete. That whatever is universal, that being, which is indeed universal, is that which reveals itself as an incompleteness. I think that the problem from where these colors don't arrive at the concept of mood as the fundamental principle in the conservationist universe. I realize that for mood to account for the four entities in the universe, to explain the universe in a satisfactory manner, I must be able to tell us account for the reality of physical as well as immaterial or not physical phenomena. The consciousness, I define articulated mood as a consciousness matter principle. The consciousness matter intact is a totality, a unity of the material and the non-material dimensions of the universe. The image is set as being, its essence is being moved on the lines of the entities in the universe. Be it gods, humanities, entities, inanimate things, everything is back an expression of mood. So mood is then a unity, a totality of the material and the non-material. What African philosophers like to call the spiritual. So here we have a precise definition of mood. The mood is the primordial mind matter interface. The source of all intelligence in the world, all emotions in the universe. It is that we are a borderless border. We are borders distinguishing the phenomena of mind from matter are cost-effective. Rather, it makes more sense for us to talk about physics of reality. That is the material and immaterial cases of reality rather strictly mind and material realities. So when you see a rock for instance, we can talk of this rock as a physical thing. But also as an entity with a non-physical dimension which will not consist in its micro-history. In the fact that it's exist to be perceived by a mind and becomes a part of a totality. An expression totality, which is really set as at once material and immaterial. So mood is a primordial mind, matter, phenomena. The principle that an entity universe effects everything in this universe. Nothing escapes mood. As this mood is defined by the essence of reality, it is always an incompleteness. So the incompletes game, which ourselves struggles to articulate and registers the incompletes, mind, matter, phenomena, phenomena of the constellation is pink. Okay, now that I've attempted to give an idea of what mood is, as a mind, matter, anything. The universal animated principle, which is material and immaterial dimension, which underlies everything, informs everything, and defines the universe as genuine. Let us see how mood is related to God. The question of God, the theme of God, occupies a place of pride in the conservationist universe. So we are now moving on. In African philosophy, we can broadly identify two views of God. The transidential and the limitation views. Proponents of the transidential view put that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipotent. That is a perfect and necessary being. of the limitation here. Words that God, traditional African thought conceives God as only a high deity, limited, put in power and knowledge are not only this, but God is also limited in goodness. I see that the conservationist idea of modes in this literature. We take ideas for the initial view since I've already considered mode as a universal digital circle, having the essence of incompleteness. Since this is a case, the universe is incomplete, it's imperfect. If the universe is incomplete, it's imperfect, it creates it, or it's architect, or it's designer must, by that reason also be imperfect in. Now, we don't consider limited in power, knowledge and goodness because see that it is mode that limits God. If mode limits God, then mode is the supreme being, mode is rather the most universal and the basic reality. It is what we call being, with a capital D and God is the supreme being, but it's not the type B. God is not the first cause. If by first cause we mean a creator, ex nihilo, or if he that creates the universe out of nothing, mode is external. As all this existed, God creates the world out of materials supplied by modes. With mode, it was set as external, it limits, it automatically limits God. So we now see that God is also a creature of modes. He does not predicts modes, but see, he's powerful and know that he can expect it as a being who is able to manipulate the resources of modes and in the process create the universe at all. So why mode is the universal limiting principle that also be explored? It's not that entity. However, God is an entity, one that is limited by modes. Thus, the word that God creates out of resources of mode is a dead word. Within the universe, that is a term and are limited by the phenomenon, the principle of modes. Having discussed, having accepted the relationship between mode and God, I will proceed with this, the next important type of tactic in conservationist philosophy, which is the human being. But before that, I will emphasize that the universe of mode is a tragic universe. Because it is the universe of game, one in an eternal process of becoming, with a goal, which we might not be able to say but which is which was in there all the same since this universe released the character of striving. They cannot strive in gaining that the purpose. Although we cannot identify exactly what this purpose is, it must exist for yet to be in becoming. However, there is no harm in speculating. Consolationist philosophy speculates that the goal of the universe is perfection. The attainment of perfection or completeness. They are the elimination of moral evil as well as physical evil. Yet, since the universe is eternal becoming, continuous change on end is driving. This goal, according to the speculative system of conservationism is unattainable. If the goal of perfection is unattainable in its tragic universe, such an universe is a tragic universe. In such an imperfect universe, the one in which we find ourselves, evils are real, both physical and physical evils. Harm that may be caused by factors beyond the control of human beings, as well as moral evil, which is harm caused by factors instigated by human beings. In such an universe, these evils are real. They are illiterate, although perhaps through our human efforts, we can ameliorate these evils. So we then have a tragic universe, but not a pointless universe. A pointless universe would be one without the purpose. But now the universe is seeking strategy in the universe. It was then having a purpose. We may not know what this purpose is, but it is certainly out here. As this universe cannot attain its self-indicated purpose, it is a tragic universe. At all these activities in such an universe are tragic beings. Articulates the concept of homo-melacolicus. The term homo-melacolicus simply means the melancholy being that is specifically to describe the human being as a conscious being because, of course, they extend it to all the types of universe that are capable of feeling and thinking or have the ability to feel and think just like human beings. So the homo-melacolicus is the entity that finds itself in that imperfect universe why it did not create. Whose purpose the being does not know? Although such a being can speculate about the purpose of the universe as perfection, the term melacolicus in a technical sense to describe the fact that the homo-melacolicus is a being fit for conservation and not perfection. It's in its capital of evil. It is a victim as well as a perpetrator of evil. In a world in which its existence is detailed, it exists for a while, actualize some of its goals, and then it moves out of existence without reaching any knowledge of why it did, it exists at the focus of the universe in which it found itself just a question about perfection being the goal of this universe. For the being of conservation, his condition is melacolic and melacolic involves the capacity to balance the aspects or emotional joy and sadness for though the melacolic game is able to actualize joy. In its many creation processes, sadness is always its condition. It always falls back on the mood of sadness. Its joy may be highlights, the ever-presence, many sadness. So melacolic describes the balancing act of joy, of the acts of balancing joy as sadness of continuously seeking to maximize the emotion of joy while diminishing the emotion of sadness. It did condense to such a balancing act is a melacolic game. Such a game, as I said, is the homo melacolicuse. If you might be, it's precisely such a game. Homo melacolicuse, the meaning of life is the purchase of the maximization of the emotional joy from moment to moment and such a game is also a game of conservation. The meanings we create in our lives which enhances, increases our joy, constitutes all that we have. They constitute our conservation. But there why we ask this question? If joy is real, does it mean that? In my life, I didn't ask that meaning. We already see that the universe is a tragic expression of mood. Is this universe meaningful or pointless? And is human life also which is secreted in this universe? Is it pointless or meaningless? We are saying that universe is not pointless. What about the human being? Well, the answer is, I'm afraid human life is ultimately meaningless. Why is this the case? Because pain and suffering, the full homo melacolicuse from death to death indeed we create meanings from moment to moment in the maximization of the affect of joy. But for how long can we continue to create this meaning to increase our joy, to prolong our conservation? We can only do that perhaps for not more than 100 years for most human beings. I hope to assume you'll be lucky or maybe you're lucky for not more than 120 years. The monomal lifespan of human beings is probably never straight between if beyond 130 years. So the creation, the many creation processes cannot last beyond 130 years. Eventually, homo melacolicuse is called death to death. But then he said, it is not the event of death. He said that it's a tragedy, the source of the meanlessness. It is a fact that the life of homo melacolicuse comes to an end without this being, which he said it, no, they can't. But why it was born? Why it had to exist? And why this universe in which it exists in its turn has to exist? So we see that there is ultimately incomparance that mines the life of homo melacolicuse. One, it does not know why it was born, why it exists. Two, it does also not know why the universe exists beyond the speculation that the universe might exist to achieve perfection. One, which consolation is in deserts is impossible. So why there is meaning in life? Meaning in the pursuit from moment to moment of the effect of joy, ultimately, human life is meaningless. Consolation is inadequate in the face of human ignorance, the purpose of life. At the ultimate, the final goal of the universe. But then this pessimism, we must take by this pessimism because why life? Why life, but why just life? There's also a practical interest in living. Society said it's good time. It's a commonly research that does not, in any way, improve the human condition. So the interest in practical living compares us to at least overlook the homelessness, which encompasses us. Are the contents with conservation for the sake of living? So the universe is not pointless. Since it is in a state of eternal becoming, becoming is motivated by yearning, by striving, with this striving, pointing at the technological concept of perfection. True, this perfection is impossible. But it is indicated. And even if we leave you wrong, if I can be accused of speaking as a proponent of projecting human purpose and interest into the objective universe, the fact that this universe is eternal becoming indicates that there is indeed a purpose toward which it strives. This purpose, of course, may not be perfection, but the purpose is here. Since there is such a purpose, the universe is not pointless. It is in my life that is pointless as I've already submitted. Thank you for this meeting, my son. I now proceed to the missions, if you have missions to ask. Right, thank you very much. That was a beautiful overview of a very different approach to philosophy, or at least in my opinion, a very different approach to philosophy, even though we, of course, have a couple of premises that are shared. I would like to hand it over to you, Ada. I'm gonna quickly let him know. If you would like to ask other questions, please write them here in the chat. We have our first question from Eva Risters. Ada, if you wouldn't mind, please address this question. And I'm gonna quickly take care of some technical problems that happened here in the background. Check with Ada. Hope he is still with us because we're experiencing some technical problems here. Should be with us in a second. My message now. Beyond, it appears the question under the name Eva Risters is actually meant for me. Are you right? Wait, wasn't there another? Oh, no. Okay, let me, but I'm still quite trying to reach out to Ada. I'm not sure if he is, I still have him here. Yes, please feel free to address that question. I'm sorry, Jonathan. I quickly try to fix this problem here with Ada. Just one second. Okay, but for our viewers, for those who are here as well, Ada has a slight hearing impairment. So he may not be able to hear you if you use the microphones. That is why, Bjorn is asking that you write down your questions there in the chat and Ada will respond. Okay, so briefly, while they sort out those things, let me address the question here. Appears to be a question from Umes Rikezubu. It has to do with what I said about meaning making that it is subjective and cannot, you know, we cannot achieve a situation whereby two people make precisely the same meaning out of the same situation or exchange. Next question. All right. Well, I'm sorry, now he jumped in. I will quickly tell him that you quickly finished the answer. Sorry, Jonathan. Okay. So, Umes Rikez is asking, what of a situation where a teacher scores a student, a 100% does that not imply that both of them achieved precisely the same meaning from the exchange between them? I would not think so. Even if we use the example of the mathematical science, the most precise of all sciences, and the student has followed the formula and made all the deductions and arrived at the expected answer as a result is having 100% of all the marks as scoreable. It does not mean that the teacher and the students share the same meaning of the symbols and numbers laid out in the paper. Um, the student has nearly organized symbols and numbers in a pattern that is expected. But what the students, the meaning the student creates in his or her mind when they look at the sum, they when they look at the answer, when they go through the process of deductions cannot be exactly the same as the one this teacher has in mind. It's impossible. These people have two different minds that scan structural reality and exercise creative struggle differently. Sometimes we think we see the symptoms, but we don't, we may see, we may see the same idea, but we don't make the same meaning out of them inside of our minds. What we make out of them are completely different. A student might see a particular formula and to that student is just another symbol. The teacher might look at that formula in a much more different way and there's no way they will know this since their focus is to see whether someone, the student had arranged the formula and the numbers in a particular way expected. The meaning making is quite subjective because existence is a subjective thing. We live our lives. The circumstances of our lives are quite different and unique from those of other people and they all come together to influence how we make meaning in our day-to-day relationships. Thank you very much. Over to you, Bjorn, appears there are questions, so at the now. I think I'm clear. I think I'm clear. Thank you, Prof. Thank you very much. Thank you, Prof. All right, let me quickly text out of the go. All right, and he should be with us in a second. Okay, this is Dr. Agatha Agatha. I thank you all for listening to my prerecorded speech. I will now proceed to ask the questions already tied to the chat box allowed. I respond to them. Okay, someone has asked, could you elaborate on the existential approach of your philosophy? I'm happy to do this. What constellation is it? Can it be regarded as an African existentialism? To the extent that the human being as homo-mela colleagues takes a pivotal position. I was interested in other studies how the human being can navigate its way in a tragic universe. So this human being now is a homo-mela colleague to the extent that a unique characteristic, a unique way to defend its essence, and this is discontent, because joy is not fully available to this being in the form of happiness, constant bliss. And this being is continuously asserted by sadness. So since this is a being that continues to seek the diminution of sadness from moment to moment, and the maximization of the emotion of joy also from moment to moment, such a being is a homo-mela conicus. So the idea of homo-mela conicus marks constellationism as an existentialist philosophy. And you could perhaps juxtapose this idea with the ideas of Heidegger, such myself, Muna Muno and others in the Western tradition. Okay, let me now move to the second question. I would be interested in the status of your understanding of God and the implicit proof for the existence of God. Well, as I already noted in my prerecorded talk, there are two views of God in African philosophy, one transcendental, which correspond to tradition-tizing. They view that God is only potent, only science, and only body-volunt. My constellationist perspective locates God in the limitation view, which says that God is limited in power and knowledge because He is not a first being. All right, that He is limited by something that precedes Him, which I have identified in this talk as moods. Talking about the former proof for the existence of God, I did say this is beyond the scope of this particular talk, but I can give a suggestion. In a recent paper at Paris soon in religious studies journal, I argued for what I elaborated, what I called the argument from life, a proof for the rationality of belief in God based on the argument from life. I just, it is, well, you can say, a variance of the cosmological arguments from an African perspective. If life is a common future of the world, then we can add you to a higher being, the highest being in the universe, who maximally exemplifies life and creates living entities from resources. I've been able to disdain in moods. I'm afraid this should be okay because it is complicated since I did not discuss this in the prerecorded, okay, let me move to other questions. Okay, someone is asking, I am wondering whether a transhumanist would agree with you that we cannot attain perfection here on earth. A transhumanist believe that we cannot attain perfection here on earth through the means of science and technology. My response is that science and technology is a creation of the human being and be the creation of the human being subject to the human intellect and the wings of our emotion. Such a creation can never leads to perfection. Human emotion called prehensively manipulates a sense of technology. It might have ever been to its sophisticated football strategy. Here you see science deployed to create atmosphere that magnifies or inflames our emotion with the action of the field, goes called ETC. It may also talk of the television or the comfortable gadgets, the internet that have been created that are only the service of the emotion. What of nuclear weapons looks that have been produced to massage the pride of nations, which not treat itself humanity? So what transhumanist equitments or gadgets, or facilities or whatever can be produced that can reach its perfection? Since it must go to human emotion, it must go to that instinct, that discontent that drives homomilaconicus. The very definition of the human being as homomilaconicus in a tragic universe, automatically means that whatever truth sense of technology can achieve in this world will also be put to the service of evil. For this reason, I will not put my feet in the sense of technology. Okay, here's another question. What is the consolationist view of seaside taking into cognizance the meaninglessness of life in an impact-based universe? Well, seaside is also futile. It achieves nothing. It is a time-nation of human life, but the life that is the self-time-nation of life does not bring us nearer to knowledge of why the universe exists and why human beings also have to exist in this universe. So it is cowardly and futile. It is a braver option for us to live that our days. Seek consolation, be comforted with this and then exceed the stage of life in our ignorance. This is a better option. Okay, there is a question here. What's consolation philosophy? Predispose one to Paulianus syndrome, the tendency of being too optimistic about life. No, I don't think so because we already recognize that we are in a tragic universe. In this search for consolation, we try to harmonize our personal interests with the interests of our fellow human beings. In this search, we are really aware of our limitations as well as the limitations of our fellow human beings. We therefore strive not to be too optimistic, but to be rational and to be good. So I don't think it creates too much of the music. This is a curious question because I've sometimes been accused of being an African pessimist. Somebody's asking, you claim that mood is high and above God. Do you think that Africans would agree with you on this? The traditional Africans believe that God is higher and above everything. If this is the case, don't you think your theory, being African might be misleading? Well, there is no incompatibility. Why mood is the fundamental reality in being with a capital B and what comes before anything else? It is not an entity. Since mood is not an entity, but simply a universal limiting principle. It is not in competition with God. God masters moods, and it is because he's able to master moods that he attains sufficient knowledge to create the world at all. So God remains a highest being even in the consolation system. But moods has a certain primacy to the extent that it comes before everything, but it can be manipulated. Even human beings can manipulate moods too. So my sister remains in agreement with a basic African worldview. Is there any question? Any further question? So someone is asking, but living is more futile and torturous. If one is tired, why can't he or she take the bold step of exiting the stage of existence? Why clean gun? Because suicide's time next life reduces the number of consolations that are available. That fits us to at least ask patients. It is also an act of same violence. It is nothing. Our awareness does not change anything. After we might have time-nated our own life, first of all, the world continues and other lives continue for others. It is more, it is braver for a person to endure and live at his or her limited lifetime that will take the cowardly way out of inflicting the same violence that are based on nothing. The problem is that it involves an act of violence that terminates possible other moments of meaning that may be able to disappear. EG in eating, delicious means procreting, interaction with friends, and other moments of meaning. They are cut short in the most violent way by the option of suicide, which also are based on nothing. Okay, just yet another question. Dr. Agatha, this expository lecture series, is it melancholic or joyful to your estimation? It is joyful. My lecture is an endorsement, an affirmation of the joy side of existence because we are indulging here. We are benefiting from what I call intellectual consolation. First of all, let me define consolation as an intellectual and emotional state of mind that emerges from our realization that we are able to actualize joy to some extent, even in the midst of sadness. So consolation indicates both intellects and emotion. My talk today, Jennifer, is an affirmation of joy. Thank you all for listening. I now turn it my talk. Thank you, John, and all of us participated in this lecture. You're muted, Bjorn. Oh, boy. Thank you very much, Ara. Let me just quickly thank Ada here in writing so that he knows. All right, I've just posted something in case this is a sensitive area. Some of you might not be affected by that. Some of you might be affected by that. There's no shame in that. Just please know that there are resources. Please feel free to reach out to these resources. Do not try to deal with that on your own. There is certainly something that there are resources that will be available to all of us. Thank you very, very much. That was a brilliant insight in contemporary Nigerian-African thought. It was a great overview. It was a lively discussion. I thank you very much. I'm very sorry. This is why I was a bit distracted because apparently a couple of our dear African colleagues could not join. We tried to fix that on the side. If you have colleagues who could not join, just tell them to get in touch with me. I'll try to fix that. I think in most cases, the problem was that you have to log in with your Zoom account before you can join the meeting. As far as I can see, these were the problems. But it would be a shame if this is why I spread this information, but it would be a shame if we lose somebody because of that silly technical problem. All right, Ara, thank you very much. Jonathan, thank you very much. This session has been recorded. It will take a little moment. You know, it has to go through university and everything before it will be made available, but it will be made available at one point. I hope to see you at the next lecture at the moment. It is important to have a lecture with your contemporary philosophy in Ghana in case you would like to reach out. If you have questions, if you have advice for me, what to do better, if you have recommendations or if you would like to speak yourself in this series, please feel free to contact me. Again, thank you very much for our very dear speakers. It was a beautiful event in case you need anything, in case you have any questions, feel free to reach out. Let me quickly thank Ara again. Thank you very much. I hope you all have a great day. Jonathan, thank you very much. It was a beautiful event. I'm very happy that it went the way it did. Thank you very much. See you all. Thank you, everyone. Goodbye. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Thank you. Bye-bye. Love you all.