 Welcome to this lecture series on the aspects of western philosophy module 38. In continuation with the previous lecture, we will examine Jean-Paul Sartre's existentialism with a focus on three important concepts. The three concepts are being in itself, being for itself and being for others except the last one, the other two we have already introduced, the two concepts and we have already mentioned about them in the previous one or two lectures, because they are so central to Sartre's conception of human existence. Before we actually begin our examination of these concepts, we will try to see what makes their analysis important in Sartre's philosophy. So, it is the problem of being which Heidegger starts with actually and for almost all phenomenologists this is a very central concern, the one which is given directly to consciousness or the question of being as it is framed by Heidegger. So, Sartre also starts with a problem which is very similar to this and he says that he also accepts that the problem of being is the most important phenomenological problem. But Sartre's appropriation of Husserl, particularly Husserl is very careful, is very interesting because he criticizes the Husserlian project that aims at uncovering the meaning or essence of the phenomenon through phenomenological direction. So, this has been the project of phenomenology according to Husserl which we have already discussed when we discussed Husserl's phenomenology in one of our previous lectures. So, uncovering the meaning or essence of phenomenon, this is what Husserl was concerned about and Sartre criticizes this objective he says that phenomenon has no meaning or essence. So, that it needs to be you know its essence can be studied, being is only the ground upon which objects can reveal themselves to consciousness. So, once sense we can say that Sartre is demystifying the concept of being, he is demystifying phenomenology because Husserlian phenomenology as we have already seen concludes in a kind of transcendentalism. It takes us to you know the reduction the kind of transcendental reduction which ultimately concludes in the isolation of the pure ego which is a transcendental ego pure consciousness we can say and in that sense we can say that there is a very strong mystical element in Husserlian phenomenology, it concludes in a kind of mysticism and he conceives this transcendental subjectivity as eternal something which is very similar to the kind of Atman in Indian philosophy. But Sartre demystifies this and he says that being is only the ground upon which objects can reveal themselves to consciousness and what is important is consciousness and ends man's being. This is a very remarkable aspect of Sartre in philosophy, what he says is its consciousness which needs to be studied and consciousness is so peculiar to human beings consciousness comes to the world through human beings. And Sartre in consumption of man we have already discussed in the previous lecture. He also subscribes to something which is very similar to the I mean broadly we can also say that you know Sartre in notion of man human existence is also a being in the world. Of course he elaborates this conception of being with several other you know adding several other aspects see for example this is one way to understand the concept of being and also the concept of human being the being of man according to Sartre. So there are three constituents of being being in itself being for others and being for itself. So these three according to Sartre are extremely important in understanding they are the three constituents of being according to him. So we will see one by one out of these three the first two are very important being in itself and being for itself and among these two being for itself is more important because that is the being of man according to Sartre. So basically there are two modes of existence according to him the being in itself and being for itself these are the two modes of existence possible. Being in itself is objects that are just there I mean this is the kind of being which objects in this world have they are objects like any object chairs tables computers telephones etcetera and to some extent they are fixed they do not they do not change have no awareness of value of themselves like they since they do not have consciousness under the hand being for itself is the being of human beings which are conscious the principle of subjectivity or consciousness. So in that sense being for itself occupies the central role in Sartre philosophy human beings are aware of themselves this their consciousness of their own existence is central to their being. So this is something which distinguishes man the being of man from the being of other entities again being in itself is the principle of objectivity or facticity it is a facticity means it never changes it is what it is there is it is so rigid and it refers to the being of things that is to the essence which they are fixed neither active nor passive under the hand being for itself refers to the being of individuals and their existence. So here there is a reference to individuals and their existences were which are concrete. So concrete human beings and again man defines his own essence and gives meaning to his own existence through the choices he makes. So I mean this is where you know man is different from an object a mere thing in this world because though there is some element of facticity about human existence for instance I belong to a particular place my childhood my past my parents my language the linguistic community all these things I cannot change they are my they are what constitutes my facticity I can see but at the same time I am not stuck with all these pasts I am something who moves on and how do I move on by making choices by taking decisions and acting on the basis of decisions and choices. So by though irrespective of my past irrespective of my facticity I have a future I have plans for my future what I am going to do in another 5 years or 10 years I have decided all those things I can or rather I can in principle decide all those things even you know what I am going to do after one hour after going out of this room finishing winding up this lecture I will straight away go to my office room then I will spend some time there in my office room I have some work to be done then after that I will go home all these things I have a very detailed project in front of me. So if you ask me the question who am I I cannot say that I am such and such a person so and so belonging to such a community such a society such a linguistic community and there are several things about my past about my facticity but who am I the kind of question who am I which the answer to that question also includes what I am planning to do my future is also part of that my existence. So in one sense my essence is cannot be locked into my past my essence is not get I mean it does not get stuck to my past alone it is something which is a moving essence or rather a becoming process and in that process what happens is that I make choices and I make myself I can say. So since my past is yet to be made my past is yet to be uncovered I cannot say that it is a complete facticity it is incomplete. So in one sense I am not a being in the sense a pen or a pencil or a computer is a being where everything is so complete and perfect a pen is a pen there is nothing more than that. So that kind of a completion of being you do not find in me as a human being. Now being in itself and being for itself though mutually exclude are combined in human being. This is another very interesting aspect of Sartre's existentialism what he says is that he makes a fundamental distinction between being in itself and being for itself. Being in itself is a being of entities which have no life which have no consciousness and being for itself are that expression is used to designate the being of man who is a conscious entity. But again Sartre says that in a very peculiar way though they mutually exclude they are in a very peculiar way combined in human existence. Man is both being in itself and being for itself. So there is a kind of ambivalence about human existence or human entity there is a kind of ambiguity about it there is a kind of confusion about it there is a kind of even a contradiction about human existence because on the one hand there is a being in itself which is fixed and rigid on the other hand there is a being for itself which is flexible and moving and dynamic represent facticity and transcendence respectively. So as long as I am a being in itself it is decided and determined by my facticity there are several things about me which I cannot change which determine and decide what I am. I am in Indian for instance that cannot be changed by birth I am in Indian I can change my nationality but still by birth I am in Indian cannot be changed. And there are several other factors about me my complexion my height many other factors which are accidental and it is very difficult for me to change but there are several things I can change I can change my job for instance I can change the kind of things which I do on an everyday basis there are several things I can make choices and change accordingly. So facticity is the givenness of our context which we cannot change and transcendence we transcend our facticity through our choices we are always more than our situation. So this is the element of something which is more than what is given is so peculiar to human being because what I am now need not necessarily be what I am tomorrow or what I am tomorrow need not necessarily reflect or need not necessarily dependent upon what I am today or yesterday. So this kind of a freedom only human beings enjoy. Facticity does not prevent me from being an exercising freedom this is what Sath was trying to highlight they refer to temporality past, present and future and facticity is our past which is unchanging future becomes relevant only for man its man who brings time. The being in itself is beyond time we can say time is not applicable in the case of being in itself but in the case of man time is extremely crucial man is a temporal entity. So it is man who brings time man who brings future to this world man projects himself to the future man is yet to be an incomplete being because tomorrow what I am going to do the decision I am going to take tomorrow something which even I cannot predict today because it depends on the situation and the context I am going to face tomorrow. So based on that I might take a decision and accordingly a choice will be made accordingly you know my essence also will be changed. So what I am the question can never be answered it is an incomplete I mean I am there is a basic fundamental incompleteness about my being. So for that matter there is no essence I can say. So now let us focus one by one being in itself rejection of the Aristotelian doctrine of potentiality. So this is Aristotle has sometime back we have examined it in this lecture series when we discussed Aristotle's philosophy one very important concept in Aristotle is the relationship between potentiality and actuality. He basically subscribed to a teleological conception of reality where he believed that every object is in a process of change in a process of evolution where potentialities are actualized. So there is nothing like you know everything is fixed the potentialities are actualized in that process. So here when it comes to the conception of being in itself Aristotelian theory of evolution or change based on potentiality actuality principles are being denied. Whatever is manifest itself in actuality and there cannot be any potentiality for other than itself. An object is not more than that it is in itself the idea of being in itself refers to the being of objects and entities other than human. So a pen is a pen it is what it is you cannot say that you know there is it is potential to become something else. Of course I can use it even as a weapon but then the pen is not responsible for that it is I am using it. So the focus is on consciousness not on being in itself there again it is being for itself which is a matter of concern. Again neither passive nor active neither an affirmation nor a negation because all these things can be applied only to entities which are conscious and dynamic. But entities which are passive and which are non-conscious we cannot attribute these things it is in itself it is massive rigid and still it is that which it is excludes other being. So what a pen is it is a pen nothing else. So it excludes that certain other possibilities like a computer being a computer being a book being a chair all these are possibilities which are excluded by being a pen. A pen excludes all these possibilities by being a pen. It is unrelated to other beings a synthesis of itself with itself fully positivity dense massive and full it is beyond time I have already explained this you know how an object becomes beyond because temporality is something which human beings consciousness has brought to this world. It is the way in which consciousness approaches the world. So now again when you talk about the existence of being in itself there is no ultimate ground for the existence of being you cannot say that I mean here again you can see that is going against Husserlian conception where Husserl conceives that everything manifests for the transcendental ego. Being in itself is radically contingent inexplicable and absurd all meaning and value are something which we human beings conscious creatures are attributing to this world. But otherwise it is absurd it is inexplicable and it is contingent only essences can be explained. Now with this in mind let us move on to the next concept being for itself which is visibly the being of human beings. So here Sartre explains the presence of a free and knowing being such as man in a rigid immobile and deterministic universe. So there is a kind of fundamental dichotomy he maintains being in itself and being for itself man in a world. The world stands for being in itself which we have already seen is immobile this is dense lifeless and non-conscious absurd rigid. In the middle of that you have a being for itself which is conscious and free of course. The ambiguity of man's being involves both in itself and for itself facticity and freedom which I have already explained. So when we try to understand the nature of human being or the existential status of human beings we have to keep this in mind. It involves a kind of contradiction a kind of negation within itself between in itself and for itself between facticity and freedom are both physical objects and hence being in itself and self-consciousness and hence being for itself. So the human beings are both physical objects because we have a body we occupy space. In that sense we are physical objects and we have physical wants and hence we are to some extent being in itself. But at the same time we are self we are conscious we are conscious entities we are self-conscious and hence we are being for itself it is always a subject never an object. Now in this context it will be relevant and interesting to have a very brief comparison with Husserl because as I mentioned in the beginning it all started with Husserl the phenomenological project in a major way began with Husserl and Sartre too acknowledges the importance of Husserl in his in shaping his ideas. Particularly when it comes to the kind of you know phenomenological project which Husserl has undertaken which ultimately led to a kind of overcoming of the epistemological dichotomies which were created by modern philosophy. A Husserlian phenomenological project is in one sense it tries to go beyond the kind of what you call the kind of epistemological dichotomies created by western thought. So in that sense Sartre acknowledges the contributions of Husserl but at the same time he says that Husserl fails to some extent. Consciousness reduces the being in itself to what it is for consciousness. So this is again a very interesting dialectics between consciousness and being or objects in the world. So what he says is that consciousness or being for itself reduces the being in itself the words of objects to what it is for consciousness. So this is a chair for me for my consciousness it presents itself as a chair. So it appears as a chair. So I can rather I mean to put it in other words I can say that I am conscious of a chair. There is consciousness of a chair, there is consciousness of a table, there is consciousness of a computer. It is ontologically united to the things in the world to which it is present to and since consciousness is a being which is present to it cannot be an in itself and passive. So this is the interesting deviation he makes the basis of the distinction because unlike other objects consciousness is a being the being of consciousness is to which is present to a being which is present to beings are present to the consciousness. So in that sense the consciousness is at the other end the subjective form. So it cannot be an in itself and passive in that way because it is receptive it is to which objects are presented to or being is presented to being in itself is presented to that. So in that sense it is receptive hence cannot be passive. Consciousness could not be what it is unless it related itself to a being which is distinct and independent of it. So this is again a very interesting thing it could not be what it is. So even the very identity of consciousness the very nature of consciousness according to Sartre needs to be understood in relationship with the objects about which it is conscious something which we have already examined in the previous lecture where you know in the context of Sartre demystifying Uzurlian conception of subjectivity where for Uzurl scheme of things there is the ego the ego has consciousness about the object and there is the object. So there are three things in Uzurlian project but in Sartre the ego thing distinction is being overcome Sartre would say that instead of saying I am an ego and my ego has a consciousness about an object and there is an object Sartre would say that he would actually bracket the ego the transcendental ego itself is bracketed according to him. So consciousness could not be what it is unless it related itself to a being which is distinct and independent of it. This being is in no need of consciousness it is independent of consciousness actually consciousness is entirely dependent on it because what is consciousness according to Sartre is not an abstract entity something like a pure consciousness or transcendental ego of Sartre but it is always something which is conscious of objects in the world. So I cannot understand my consciousness as an abstract entity but it is always conscious of something of a chair of a pen of a computer of a camera etc. So in one sense it is a reversal of Uzurlian absolutism Uzurl confers a trans phenomenality to consciousness there is a notion of transcendental subjectivity pure ego in Uzurl it is for consciousness or ego the world exists it is the consciousness it is a transcendental ego which actually brings the world into being according to Uzurl which we have already seen but Sartre says that he confers trans phenomenality to being for him it is the being which is which remains unchanging being does not exhaust itself in its appearing the being of that which appears does not exist only in so far as it appears. So in that sense you know we can even say gives a kind of different importance to the concept of being the being in itself it is independent it is a being of man or consciousness which is dependent on this being because again Sartre is going to tell us that being for itself or consciousness or man's being is has always the nature of a negation and negation consciousness is consciousness of something of being as it appears of pen computer etcetera consciousness must be other than being and it is activity is a process of negation. So when I am conscious of an object say for example the computer or the camera in front of me I am also aware of the fact that I am not the camera I am not the computer. So that sort of negation or nihilation is involved in the process of consciousness which is of course happens a little pre-reflectively I am not always aware of it I do just mechanically sometimes but it is underlying that understanding that awareness underlines all our experiences of objects in the world it arises through a negation or nihilation of being in itself. So when I realize that or when I experience a camera or a computer or a pen or a knife I also realize that I am different from that as a nihilation as a negation while I perceive a pen I am also conscious that I am not the pen the not or nihilation. Since everything which is must be a being man cannot be a complete not being since everything which is must be a being everything which is must be a being. Since that is a case man cannot be a complete not being that is the irony because on the one hand there is a negation of being it is man is in that sense not in being not being in the being in itself man is not in itself man is for itself but at the same time and for itself is what for itself is a negation of in itself which means the negation of being but man cannot be a complete not being. So there is an ambiguity an ambivalence in conceiving human existence in man there is being in itself certain things my facticity cannot be changed I have already discussed this but man's being is not just that fixed some total I mean I cannot say that I am a some total of all these facticity I mean all these facts which are already there about me I am born to this place I speak this language I work in this place there are several things about me which are fixed and I would not want to confine myself to that I would not want to identify myself with the some total of all these things I am definitely more than that because I have I project myself into the future I have certain plans to do certain things even if I am not you know planning in advance I will have to make choices because life is going to unravel in front of me and giving me lot of choices lot and I have to make decisions in life and by making choices decisions and implementing them acting I will keep on redefining myself I will keep on changing my my identity or my essence we can see he is not just his facticity he projects himself to the future he is not a being in itself not a thing among other things but his consciousness so this is what he talks about he says about man man is a project he projects himself to the future because there is a future for man and only man has future again hence man's being can only be non-being and therefore must consist in nothing so this nothingness is an aspect which you cannot avoid which is an inevitable aspect of human human being or human existence man is nothing we can say because if man is something then that something is fixed it is rigid it cannot change like a knife like a computer but man is nothing because man changes there is flexibility there is dynamism nothing comes into the world through man nothing nothing the very concept of nothing the very idea of nothing comes to the world through man the human self is both itself and not itself it is paradoxically present to itself in a mode of negation so man finds himself always in a mode of negation and that is being for itself consciousness is distanciation or separation from being so man always finds himself as consciousness which separates itself from the being around it the being which it encounters around it and is conscious of it is the being of which it is conscious of and always a distanciation or separation from this being man is the being through whom nothingness comes into the world and without being the nihilation of the in itself there cannot be for itself so for itself is possible because there is a annihilation of the in itself the annihilation happens when there is a confrontation there is an encounter between consciousness and the world the world means the in itself so when this confrontation happens there is a realization that this consciousness is different from the in itself so that negation inevitable it is nothingness places it in a perpetual struggle towards the in itself and again nothingness becomes apparent in man's freedom so it is this nothingness which makes man free if man is something then man gets fixed to that something I get hooked to that something I cannot change it I am stuck there is something which determines me but since I am nothing I am nothing there is no thing or no essence to define and determine me I am free so that is what makes me free if you are determined by our past we could not choose so but the fact is he does choose man chooses all of us make choices whether consciously or unconsciously we make choices and even on occasion when we say that we are not making any choice that itself paradoxically is a choice I am not making a choice that it is that is my choice at that moment and thus he negates his past so by making choices new and new choices every day every moment I am redefining myself I am changing myself I am negating my past following Heidegger's Sartre considers itself as a project so the being for itself is a project for the future a projection to the future by virtue of negation of facticity and freedom now what is freedom we have already discussed the concept of freedom in the previous lecture and we have seen this famous statement which Sartre makes man is condemned to be free because there is no way man can run away from freedom and freedom the reason is that you know freedom naturally brings responsibility since we are free we are completely free there is boundless freedom so whatever happens to us whatever we do whatever choices we make and decisions we make and actions we perform we alone are responsible for that you cannot blame anyone so this is the very peculiarity of the conception of freedom advocated by Sartre so what he says is that since it is separated from being it cannot be determined by being and is essentially free so there is no thing which determines it there is no essence which will condition it there are no guidelines which would say that it has to or the consciousness human consciousness has to follow the dictims of so it is completely free human freedom precedes the essence of man and makes it possible and man makes himself through his choices so something which we have already seen that make I make a lot of choices in my life sometimes conscious choices and sometimes unconscious choices sometimes some choices are good some are bad but the unfortunate thing is that or rather I mean I do not want to call it unfortunate the fact is that that is human facticity the fact is that I cannot help there are no guidelines available I have to make a choice concrete choices depending on the situations man is nothing else but what he makes of himself and there is something called an inescapability of freedom I cannot escape my freedom because I am not a thing I am nothing I am not in itself if I am in itself then there is no freedom then I am fixed but since I am not in itself since I am not a thing I am completely free so but the when you talks about the inescapability of freedom Sartre is not actually advocating or advancing a metaphysical theory of human subjectivity that is not his intention freedom is an actual feature of lived human experience according to him something which we encounter every moment we encounter our freedom every moment that is the reason why you know we encounter lot of problems anxieties anguish uncertainties all these things are there because there is freedom so freedom in that sense is our ontological condition you which you cannot escape inescapability of freedom does not mean that each individual can choose whatever he wants so again is another possibility of a misconception freedom means freedom to do whatever you want that is not exactly what Sartre wants to advocate he never says that man is free to do anything he wants to do the what matters is not what you do but how you do the way in which you choose whether your choices are authentic or not and the inauthentic choices however you know references you make to freedom inauthentic choices are going to be bad choices so choices should be authentic freedom is inescapable as it determines the nature of our being and not to make choices and choose to be a slave of someone else blindly imitating others are all instances of freedom I can say that this is a paradox I can say that I am I do not want to make any choice or I do not want to exercise my freedom I will just obey whatever you say so I am ready to I surrender in front of you and say that I am your slave but even that involves a choice it is I am consciously choosing I am exercising my freedom to choose to be your slave so there is it is inescapable freedom is linked with the possibility of authentic or truly human life what is important is not what is chosen but in what manner it is chosen how you choose how you make a choice whether you make a choice on the basis of what others say or you know you what someone else's commands you or suggest you then it is not an authentic choice to have an authentic life one has to recognize the inescapability of freedom and accept the responsibility associated with it one has to conceive anguish also as inescapable as a condition for freedom and action see quite often this happens when we encounter crisis in our life there is a tendency to run away from taking decisions because there is a crisis you are not really sure about what would be the consequences of your actions you have a couple of choices left but you are quite uncertain about what would be the kind of consequences these choices would ultimately lead to so what you normally do is that you take advices from others that is the easiest thing like I can go I can approach my my professor or my colleague or my friend or my parents and ask them what should I do and whatever they say you just follow it this is a kind of surrendering your freedom which is inauthentic so there is an interesting instance which sarth himself sides he sides a personal experience whereas student of him approaches him for an advice this student it was during the second world war when there was resistance then the french resistance against the nazis nazi germany german occupation so this student of sarth wanted to fight the nazis he wanted to be part of the resistance movement because he felt that it is his responsibility and you know being a citizen being a human being it is his responsibility on the other hand he has certain commitments certain family commitments he has an old aged aged mother to look after so if he leaves his mother there would not be anyone else to look after his mother so he feels compelled to stay back and look after his mother so there is a kind of conflict which he encounters the one hand he thinks that it is his responsibility to go and join the resistance forces the other hand look after the mother so he approaches sarth for an advice and sarth says you have to take the decision do not expect me to take a decision for you that is running away from responsibility of course this is a very difficult situation very uncertain whatever I mean apparently you know any alternative you take will have its deep what you call consequences like sometimes any particular choice which you make might lead to disastrous consequences the mother might die if he goes to the resistance or he himself might die whatever I mean so this is a very difficult situation and sarth says that what is authentic is to realize the difficulties in it and understand that this is what is constitute of our human situation we are situated in one sense and free in another sense and our freedom always sort of you know bring anguish and anxieties which you cannot escape so when we talk about inescapability of freedom all these constitute the this inescapability this in one sense we can say that it determines human the ontological situation of man in one sense so since it is separated from being it cannot be determined by being and is essentially free so I have already pointed out this you know being for itself is separated from being in itself and because of this separation it is not determined by being and human freedom precedes the essence of man and makes it possible man makes himself through his choice so this is the point which we have already made it we have already discussed this in the previous lecture the concept of existence precedes essence so in the case of man man creates his essence unlike other entities whose essences are already created a priori there they are coming into existence their essence is created and determined but in the case of man owing to the separation from being the essence of man is not created it is something which man himself creates through his choices through his actions man is nothing else but what he makes of himself and here it is in this context this inescapability of freedom also becomes relevant so freedom is linked with the possibility of authentic truly human life which you have already seen and uncertainty about future as there are no eternal norms and principles to make choices yet we have to choose and in choosing we make ourselves there is no way that man can escape from making choices we have to choose and each choice will have consequences some are better some are some others are not so but which choice is going to be a better choice no one can tell you in advance so as the example cited where saath tells his student you have to make the choice no one can give you a ready made choice a priori our objective situation is we are free and no objective guidelines are available to us so that we can depend on them and refer to them and make choices nothing every situation is contingent every context you will have to make choices in concrete context of human life sometimes crisis written sometimes not so these situations are all unique and each individual will be encountering different situations the same individual might encounter different situations different occasions so you cannot have a ready made formula for addressing crisis in human life choices are not dependent on circumstances external to us so the circumstances in which we find ourselves are extremely important and here again the concept of authenticity becomes relevant to realize that freedom is boundless and make choices so this is what authentic existence in this context needs to be understood in this way one has to realize that freedom is boundless and freedom is inescapable and make choices accordingly there is uncertainty and that something which is again unavoidable except that there is anguish still make choices in act and do not blame circumstances and other factors there is nothing that can prevent one from making choices I cannot say that oh I did it because of circumstances or the heat of the moment I mean all these things we normally site us excuses for doing certain things for certain committing certain blunders but I cannot do that there is nothing like circumstances let me whatever circumstances are there you know that is your condition I mean I can probably say that had I been in a different country had I been born in a different country or had I been in a different institute I would have done several other things had these facilities were available for me I would have performed in a better way all these are excuses which I make the fact is that I am provided with I mean this is my facticity these are my facilities available and what I do with these facilities here that is what is going to matter so there is nothing that can prevent one from making choices and this is how you know authentic human existence needs to be conceived now there is another one more aspect of being which we have discussed which is being for others which is again very peculiar in the case of human beings alone and this is where we encounter other people awareness of another as subject this is again a very important problem philosophical problem in the history of western thought because the problem of other we had seen that you know how Hegel encounters this problem and tries to resolve it with this conception of universal absolute mind and there are some other philosophers who would encounter this problem but just leave it as such how to understand the other is a question now needs to explain the bridge from consciousness to consciousness from one consciousness to another consciousness and the traditional answer is knowledge about other minds knowledge about other people and hence in traditional philosophy this is being presented as an epistemological problem but according to Sartre being is the ground of our relationship to others and hence ontology which deals with the disclosure of being is important not epistemology so for Sartre it is an ontological issue being for others actually becomes part of my being it constitutes my the nature of man's being in one sense relationship to others is of the very essence of man I cannot even when I decide that I will have no relationship with others in this world no relationship with other human beings in this world even then you know it is the context of relationship is presupposed the experience of the other is inevitable we have to confront others the subjectivity of the other is encountered see that is a very interesting aspect even something which has been discussed by other thinkers notably by Hegel because when Hegel talks about is phenomenology of spirit I have discussed it in this lecture series when we have discussed Hegelian philosophy the three stages consciousness self-consciousness and reason the second stage unlike the first stage consciousness where the consciousness just encounters objects in the world and understand them as objects as chairs and tables and pens the second stage is where I encounter the consciousness encounter or subject encounters not just objects but other subjects who are also conscious beings and this according to Hegel leads to a conflict because the other can actually cancel my subjectivity the other is also a subject is not just an object so I cannot conceive I cannot relate myself with another subject in the same sense I relate myself with a computer or a chair. So, this brings an element of conflict in our relationship or rather exposes the possibility of a conflict in our relationship which leads to a kind of master save relationship according to Hegel and here again Sartre also says something very similar the subjectivity of other is encountered the other is encountered as a subject who can objectify me who can also see me can see me as an object being an object to the subjectivity of the other. So, one experiences oneself as being subjected to the objectification of another subject which is exemplified with the same conscience shame consciousness. So, this is a very interesting aspect of Sartre and philosophy what he says is that with through with the explanation of shame consciousness what he says is he takes up the example of a voyeur who peeps through a keyhole and suddenly realizes that another person is looking at him and judging him. So, looking through a keyhole which is you are not supposed to do that you are actually intruding the privacy of someone else and looking through the keyhole and then suddenly you realize that there is someone behind you who is watching you who is by watching you he is judging you. So, this realization that you are you have become an object of observation and object of judgment by another person that is a very uncomfortable feeling. So, he says that the experience of shame consciousness analogous to the pre reflective consciousness of the consciousness of object if the object is being seen by the subject. Now, another person is seeing me as an object the voyeur have here experiences the subjectivity of the other. So, it is not that you know the voyeur is this person who peeps through the hall is experiencing the other person as an object, but the other person is being encountered as a subject. So, the recognition of others subjectivity forces certain modifications in our existential structure. The possibility of this awareness in my relationship with other people or rather which is an inevitable aspect of human existential situation the others come into picture. So, we can say that the being for others dimension of my existential structure which is inevitable. This its recognition of other subjectivity forces certain modifications in our existential structure itself. My self conception does not depends only on me other subjects are there they would decide they would also be contributing to my creation of what I am others can objectify me. See the problem is that there is a fear the fear is that when other person objectifies me conceive me as an object he is essentializing me he is asserting an essence to me and he is saying that I am this he is judging me. So, this possibility of getting reduced to an object in front of another subject creates a kind of tension between me and others others and me. So, the other is always a problem in that sense the other as subject turns the voyeur in a being as object we want to objectify the other we want to make the other support our own self conscious conceptions I do not want others to oppose my self conceptions I want them to allow accept or agree with me, but that is not going to happen. Hence there are conflicts in interpersonal relationships dominations and subordinations might happen I will try to dominate other persons will try to dominate me hell is the other people this is Sartrean famous Sartrean expression in one of his plays titled now exist one of the characters says hell are other people hell is other people. So, others are hell because others are potentially objectifying you make I mean they are subjects like you. So, they can make you an object they can reduce your status to at the status of an object. So, the relations of domination and subordination this can never be overcome. So, what Sartre says is that this is something which you have to keep in mind that this in our existential situation the relations of domination and subordination in our relationship with others this cannot be avoided this cannot be overcome this can never be overcome and never key be stabilized not no dialectic of relations with the other, but only a circle responsible for the instability of my empirical self being in itself being for itself and being for others. So, let us conclude our discussion on Sartrean philosophy at this point very important and very interesting what Sartre says is that we have to accept that the existential situation of man is crisis written it is anguish it is characterized by anguish there is because freedom is inescapable and when you try to escape freedom by saying that these are expressions typical expressions by means of which I try to escape my freedom say for example, I can say that circumstances let me to do this someone force me to do that I had no choice no I have choices there is no situation where Sartre says that you have no choice you always have choices and you have chosen say that circumstances to blame circumstances and other external factors is according to Sartre bad faith. So, that is to exhibit bad faith and to exhibit bad faith is to exist in authentically to exist authentically one has to exercise choices consciously aware of the limitation consciously aware of the existential situation and it is as in the beaning itself we have mentioned since man is both being in itself and being for itself there is a perpetual conflict between being in itself and being for itself in man and this might also result in a kind of ambivalence ambiguity about human existential situation. These are things which you cannot escape these are things which are your situation your condition of action. So, an authentic existence implies that one has to realize it recognize these limitations and act accordingly and take decisions within that. So, we will wind up our discussion on Sartre in existentialism with this lecture the next two lectures remaining lectures in this series are going to be dealing with new trends post 1950 trends like post modernism and feminism. So, we will wind up this lecture here. Thank you.