 Welcome to this lecture series on aspects of western philosophy module 36 and lecture number 36. So, this lecture is going to introduce existentialism focusing on its main features and some of the important concerns of existentialism as a I do not want to call it a philosophical moment because there was not such a moment as such. In that sense existentialism is a very unique and a very different approach to philosophy or has a place in the history of philosophy because these pictures you can see the you if you can identify them the first one is Nietzsche, we have already examined some of his views this is Heidegger and third one is this is Sartre, Rand Paul Sartre. And here comes this is Sorin Kierkegaard, so they are all different types of philosophers for instance Kierkegaard is Sartre would call him a theistic existentialist and Sartre would define himself or understands himself as an atheistic existentialist and Heidegger is one person who would not probably like to associate himself with existentialism, he rather hated that label of existentialism and Nietzsche is a one person who was active in philosophy when the moment called existentialism was not was yet to come out. So, in that sense you know you can see all these diversity in existentialism and probably one philosopher who claimed himself as an existentialist in this picture is Sartre who actually claimed that he is an existentialist and he has also written a book existentialism and humanism which is a defense of existentialism, a defense in the sense you know it is an answer to various critics from various directions from the communists from the Christians from various other directions. So, in this lecture we will see some of the important features and try to situate it in the context of historical development both in philosophy as well as in western history. So, it is very difficult to say that existentialism is the result of the works done by a group of philosophers who agreed upon certain common notions and all that very difficult to identify such common themes yet there were there were attempts even including Sartre try to sort of identify something which can be understood as the most important feature of existentialism which is according to Sartre the dictum existence precedes essence. We will discuss that later, so here there is some sort of a definition or some sort of a description of existentialism which is given by Charles Worth he says I quote it was one could say more an intellectual mood or atmosphere than a coherent creed or body of doctrine more an outlook or mindset than a philosophical party line more a method or approach than a school of thought and it was very much a creature of the wasteland that was Europe during and after the last two last world war. So, this is a this keeping this in line this is mind this particular description of existentialism in mind let us move on to identify some of the important features though as I mentioned earlier this is not an attempt to identify some of the common features which which are said to be essential for all philosophers who would identified themselves as existentialist, but just to see some of the features first one is characterized by a reaction of the philosophy of man against the excess of the philosophy of ideas and the philosophy of things. So, the in one sense this statement implies that traditionally western philosophy has been mostly a philosophy of ideas and philosophy of things where in that process man get neglected. So, existentialism can be seen as a kind of a response a reaction to this feature it understands existence in a concrete sense of living or lived reality. So, this is another there are certain terms like lived experiences or living reality these are some of the terms which you will find repeatedly figuring in when you read existential literature because the focus is on the individual and the concrete manifestations of human existence. What I mean by a concrete manifestations are like you know the kind of experiences human concrete human beings have rather than problems of humanity or universal humanity there are problems which each individual a concrete individual phases in his or her life day to day life problems in relationships and various other issues traditionally philosophers have never dealt with such issues. Traditional philosophy has always been a philosophy of ideas or philosophy of things, but here these thinkers these 20th century philosophers sort of try to argue that what is more important is man himself or herself accuses philosophical traditions of ignoring the concrete man and his problems. So, this is what I mentioned the concrete man and his problems are ignored completely by these traditional thinkers. Now, let us see what is meant by understanding human existence when existentialist say that what is important is existence of man they are not interested in an a priori an impersonal conception of human reality. This is again a very important aspect of existentialism there is a kind of turn towards concrete human existence the man who exist the man who live his lived experiences his anxiety his dread his worries and problems. So, these are the concerns of existential thing is not an a priori an impersonal conception of human reality they are concerned with again it is not to understand man in terms of some fundamental rational concepts like what was advocated by philosophers like Plato, Descartes, Kant, Hegel etcetera. For example, in the case of Plato you have this notion of essence. So, Plato as a philosopher conceived what is philosophically relevant what is philosophically significant is the idea the essence of man is important not concrete human beings concrete human beings he conceived are imperfect copies of that idea of man. So, all substantial philosophical problems deal with these abstract universal ideas for Plato where does the concrete human being figure in such a situation again Descartes where he begins with the thinking the cogito the thinking I which is again not a very concrete individual who lives in a world, but it is a very abstract entity Kant and Hegel all of them you know there is a emphasis on structures of universal rationality in Kant the structures of mind the twelve categories and Hegel talks about an absolute in which everything is consumed under everything is brought under that absolute for Hegel where there is no scope for anything which is concrete and particular. So, this overdose of universalism and absolutism and abstract theorization would eventually neglect the human situatedness the human worries the concrete human being what Heidegger would term as the being in the world the world where in the midst of you know things and objects and other human beings with a lot of problems and worries. Focus on the concrete living individual in his actual preoccupation with himself and the world. So, this is what I said the actual relationship between the world of objects and other people and again you know how I preoccupy myself I mean when I live in this world myself conceptions what I do the kind of worries I have I mean the kind of being I create out of this world in which I live. So, through my lived experiences I can put it in that way. So, these things are the focal concern and to derive the meaning of the individual man from living or lived experiences of concrete individuals and their surroundings. Now, let us come to some important concerns again not to identify common concerns, but some important concern which appear here and there in the work in the writings of these thinkers live one's life. This is very important because the moment you emphasize on concrete existence of man you know what you mean by each individual's concrete existence is unique. So, this is what Heidegger means by authenticity when he says that when he distinguishes authentic human existence from inauthentic ways of existing which is again rearticulated by Sartre through his concept of bad faith which is where you inauthentically exist. So, where the emphasis is that you should live your own life do not try to imitate others you live in a concrete situation you have to take decisions you cannot blame others for your life what is happening to your life take responsibility. These are some of the important concerns associated with this then again existential questions are important death meaning of human existence God and man values in life nature of relationships etcetera. So, these are considered as existential problems rather than universal problems concerning human essence or universal human nature or anything of abstract nature these problems are very concrete you know when I say I am concerned about death it is about death which affects me my death or death of those people whom I know. So, it is a concrete reality for me it is not an abstract philosophical concept again meaning of human existence what is that meaning when I raise this question I would eventually have to find an answer to this question from the context in which I live in this world. So, what things happen to me all those things that happen to me my historicity is very important in finding answers to these questions like values in life for instance my relationship with other people my relationship with God all these are problematized and in all such problems you can see the concrete human being comes to the forefront rather than an abstract universal humanity. Questions on the universal and objective values are suspended like essence of man value and meaning of life etcetera and concern for human freedom and choices and other issues related to this like direct anxiety etcetera concern for human freedom and choices like what do you mean by freedom freedom is essentially understood by existential thinkers as something which the ability and the freedom to make choices in your life. So, when you make a choice naturally you know you know that you are making the choice and you are anxious about what is going to happen. So, there is anxiety there is dread there is a lot of anxiety about what would be the impact or the result of the choice which you are going to make. This is a quote from a Jasper's book who himself is a very important prominent member of this existential movement the books title is philosophy of existence I quote already in the 19th century moments with this turn of mind kept recurring people wanted life wanted reality to live wanted really to live they demanded realism instead of wanting merely to know they wanted to experience for themselves everywhere they wanted to genuine wanted the genuine searched for origins and wanted to press on to man himself superior men became more clearly visible at the same time it became possible to discover the true and the real in the smallest particle and quote. So, the catch word is instead of wanting merely to know they wanted to experience for themselves I would rather identify this as the most important statement in this paragraph which I read out. So, here existentialism has been divided into two classes two types of existentialism mostly done by Sartre it is theistic and atheistic. So, the theistic existentialist are people like Saur and Kierkegaard who is also being understood as the founder of which is not a real apt expression the most important thinker in the existential movement that is in Kierkegaard has been regarded by many as the founder of existentialism Martin Buber Paul Thilich Gabrielle Marshall and Carl Jaspers these are some of them they for them God exist and the atheist people prominently are Ron Paul Sartre then Simone de Beauvoir Federich Nietzsche Nietzsche is again as I mentioned you know it is very difficult to classify Nietzsche as an existentialist but still Martin Heidegger. This is also another very condensious issue because whether Heidegger can be treated as an existentialist he himself which he does not want to be categorized as an existentialist then there are others like Albert Camus who are absurdist and also shared a lot of other concerns with the existentialist referred to distance themselves from the existential movement and for them God does not exist or is not problematized for Heidegger for instance it is not problematized at all hence no values and meaning since people like Nietzsche and Sartre since they are visibly atheistic they would deny the conception of values which are transcendental or metaphysical there is no such transcendental and metaphysical values or meaning for human life which is fixed a priori so they would emphasize or rather Sartre would do it more explicitly emphasizing on you know creating one's own essences through existence the way one the exists the choices one makes in one's life and essentially you know one exists by making choices so by making such choices one exists and through which one makes oneself so that is the process which these people would prominently identify as part of their existentialism and absurdity is another concept which I have already mentioned people like Albert Camus and many others again let us come back to common features once again existentialism was not a rational philosophical system like rationalism or empiricism I have already mentioned this it was existentialist ideas were popularized through art and literature as well philosophers philosophizes not with reason alone see for instance Sartre was a novelist and some of his very important philosophical ideas were articulated through novels and short stories for instance his famous novel Nosia which is probably his first philosophical novel is Nosia and there are prominent stories like the world and all where he expresses the ideas of existentialism through these media and Albert Camus is another prominent literary figure who is a Nobel laureate for literature his novels and short stories or they contain a lot of existential elements and another very important aspect as I mentioned you know existentialism is not something which originated with one thinker in the classical sense of the term it is always been there and you know these philosophers particularly Sartre and Camus and many others they were all inspired by not only by philosophers but also by other kinds of intellectuals like poets and artists and novelist and others for instance Shakespeare was a major inspiration Dostoevsky is a very prominent inspiration for existentialist Kafka Franz Kafka his short stories particularly very famous story metamorphosis these are all very important literature for the existential movement and in that sense it is a very different form of philosophy there is no common doctrine which all the existentialist would be arguably advocating begins from man as an existent subject and not just a thinking subject so this is this is a very important concern you know it begins with man man is a not just a thinking substance like Descartes conceived to be but a kind of existent subject not a substance subject which means you know you are living in this world that is why you know this emphasis on lived experiences and lived reality they call it the man who feels wills loves hates and do many other things in this world so it is a being in the world where I exist as a concrete human being by relating myself with others and other objects and the world the world of objects where I hate them love them and do many other things again philosophers who were identified with it were very different from each other as I already mentioned you know Kierkegaard was a theist for his philosophy was predominantly a system where he is one of the major concern Kierkegaard was to the relationship between man and God and for Sartre for that matter there is no God so you have totally different contradictory kind of views and perspectives but still they there are certain very important features which put them all under the umbrella of existentialism theist atheist phenomenologist hermeneuticians absurdist etcetera all these are philosophers who I mean different kinds of people who participated in the movement there are a theist and phenomenologists Heidegger is a phenomenologist for that matter and hermeneuticians Heidegger again is person hermeneuticians absurdist like people like Albert Camus, Inesco, Samuel Beckett all these people were not academic philosophers Beckett and Inesco for that matter they were they were artists but they were and there are a lot of painters and other people against metaphysics that is purely speculative see this is one common feature we can say that you know the overdose of metaphysics which you would find in the philosophical systems of all almost all traditional thinkers you would not find in the these philosophies against systematization of reality because the major aspect of reality which these people are concerned with is the human reality which is a lived human reality which is a concrete human being and it is very difficult to systematize concrete human being because each human being is different and unique emphasis on individuality again it is a reaction and response to certain important historical and political development like any other philosophy there is a kind of very creative negotiation that happens between what is happening in the historical, political and cultural domain and in the domain of ideas and thinking so here also we can see that it is a reaction and response to certain very important historical and political developments a response to certain dominant approach in ancient and modern dominant approaches in ancient and modern philosophy the importance given to essence of our existence and it is a reaction against the totalizing philosophy of Hegelian idealism which we have already seen Hegel consumes everything under the Hegel the absolute becoming as a passage from non-existence to existence Hegel advocates the absorption of existence into essence everything is absorbed under one entity which is the absolute for Hegel. Now with regard to the social and historical factors the loss of faith is a very important catalyst or rather not just a catalyst very actively you know it contributed to the existential temperament emergence of this kind of a philosophy. Religion losing it power which is being described beautifully by Nietzsche in his expression death of God then again the two world wars gave rise to feelings of despair and disbelief in all established social political and moral order. So, the two world wars shattered European what you call foundationalist values system and this ultimately you know resulted actually in that sense Nietzsche was predicting it the kind of faith in this death of God that what is eventually going to happen and then again this is another important aspect the rise of ideologies like fascism, Nazism and Communism none of them reserve a space a respectable space for the individual in it. So, they are all totalizing systems and you can see the way in which political power is so centralized in these systems in fascism and Nazism you know the fascism which originated in Italy Mussolini was the sole leader of fascism and in Hitler's Germany Nazism Hitler was the sole leader and Communism again we had seen you know what is happened in Russia like people like again dictators like Stalin have emerged they have crushed suppressed all free thinking and there was no respect absolutely no respect for the individual freedom or concerns of the individual or any of those things and modernity is all absorbing absolutism characterized by Hegelianism and industrialization and urbanization which eventually made man a tool see the one of the impacts of industrialization is it is a separating man from nature or the kind of relationship man had with nature has been substantially revised drastically redefined with industrialization and urbanization because that kind of an intimate association with nature complete dependency on nature was revised to a kind of domination relationship where emphasis was more on controlling nature and changing it to one's own requirements. So, this is resulted in a kind of change of value system complete change of value system which ultimately resulted in this kind of you know social political and cultural you know events which Europe has with us in 20th century. So, here let us see this figure this talks about thinking about human existence traditional and modern philosophical categories are inadequate to understand human reality. So, what happens in traditional systems is say for instance here man is understood as a thinking substance or a rational being for instance thinking substance by Descartes rational being which is largely by modern philosophers epistemological subject by rationalism and emperism mind body kind of dualism union whatever which was problematized by the modern philosophers again and then there are this materialistic tendencies which would identify man essentially as a physical entity. So, in all these things you know where is the man the concrete living man who is in the world relationship with things and other people in this world where is that concrete man in this whole picture. So, that is a question existentialist were raising. So, the uniqueness of the concrete and real as over against the abstract and possible and not on existence as such to our way of encountering existence and not an objective interest in an existence which is indifferent in regard to the multiple existence, but a subjective interest in the peculiar existence which everyone of us is. So, this is what when you talk about existence focus of existence does not I mean it does not mean that you know philosophers are concerned about existence as a very abstract philosophical problem or a philosophical idea, but their concern is not on existence as such, but our way of encountering existence and each one of us encounter our existence differently that uniqueness is being emphasized each one of us. So, it is not an objective interest in existence, but which is indifferent and you know there are, but the subjective interest in the peculiar existence each individual what is that kind of concrete human self is the locus where existence is discovered. So, when we talk about the precursors of modern of this existential moment I have already mentioned their names you have Soren Kirkegaard who is the Danish philosopher, then you have Fedor Dostovsky who is a Russian writer and novelist whose novels like Crime and Punishment, Brothers Karamos who more prominently they contain a lot of existential ideas, Frederick Nietzsche which whose philosophy we have already discussed and Kafka is another very important writer. So, when you talk about Kirkegaard he pitched it against the Hegelian absolute system which absorbs all individuals and particularities. So, which does not reserve any space for the individual concrete particular human being. So, this is something which he challenges for Kirkegaard genuine philosophical experience is a personal experience it is a subjective experience opposes the rational explanations to justify God's existence. Because as I mentioned for Kirkegaard the relationship between man and God is a central problem of philosophy and this relationship cannot be theorized it is something which needs to be experienced by every individual it is an experiential problem rather than a theoretical issue in Kirkegaard. So, this is from Anderson's book it say I quote faith constitutes a sphere of a sphere all by itself and every misunderstanding of Christianity may at once be recognized as its transforming it into a doctrine transferring it into it to the sphere of the intellectual. So, this is his complaint about the established Christianity though he himself was sort of concerned about the biblical God Christ experience of God etcetera. And emphasis was on subjective and the personal choice personal things are more important than objective and universal realities everything is subjective and personal and objectivity is a myth and subjective and personal choice is the crux of human existence there are and in this context he refers to three spheres of existence in an individual individual's life which an individual might undergo it is not necessary that each one of us would be undergoing all the three stages, but these are the three possibilities according to him where one or two one has to make choices whether to continue in one particular sphere or move on to the next one and these are the choices the aesthetic the ethical and the religious. So, the aesthetic is where live for physical or intellectual pressure like Don Juan who is completely immersed in the world of pleasures and where it seeks the most immediately pleasing thing there is absolutely no concern for something which is deeper and in ones on life. So, the second one is ethical where there is a recognition of some certain common ethical norms except moral responsibility and lead a life of duty of moral duty to moral law. So, there is recognition of duty recognition of a moral law which is binding to the individual, but even this stage it is also has its problems. So, the next stage is the religious stage where life is completely deported to God and give up everything ethical standards and the universal good everything is given up complete devotion to God. So, that is the highest stage and here the interesting point which Kierkegaard's philosophy tells us is that these spheres of existence or stages of life's ways each containing its own system of values when you are in that particular sphere you follow certain value system. And to move from one to another is a personal choice there is nothing like a common a priori given strategy or requirement that you should go I mean there is no teleology that binds you to make a choice in a particular way it is a personal choice which each person has to experience and do actually make it. A choice not guided by any meta principles and a rational leap. So, he says that from one stage to the next is an irrational leap it is not it cannot be based on certain rational calculations of free choice which cannot be further defended and the individual passionate and discontinuous proceeding by sudden leaps and crisis which he encounters in his life owing to his very peculiar historicities and situativeness. And Dostoevsky as I mentioned is another very important figure very important influence in the extensional moment problematized human limitations, agonies, anxieties and helplessness. The human confusions and problems through his novels this is his masterpiece novel brothers Karamosov. So, conversation between two characters intellectual Ivan and his brother Alyosha. Alyosha is more a kind of a god intoxicated man while Ivan is visibly an intellectual who leaves who theorizes. So, let us see the conversation. So, this is what Ivan tells Alyosha I quote you know dear boy there is an old sinner in the 18th century who declared that if there were no god he would have to be invented and man has actually invented god. So, this question whether man has invented god or god made man that is a question that is a problem and again it says and what is strange what would be marvelous is not that god should really exist. The marvel is that such an idea the idea of the necessity of god could enter the head of such a savage vicious beast as man again Dostoevsky again one more passage from brothers Karamosov and this is again said by Ivan to Alyosha and so I accept god and I am glad to and what is more I accept his wisdom his purpose which are utterly beyond our kin. I believe in the underlying order and the meaning of life I believe in the eternal harmony in which they say we shall one day be blended yet in the final result I do not accept this world of gods and although I know it exists I do not accept it at all it is not that I do not accept god you must understand it is a world created by him I do not and cannot accept unquote. So, this situates the man a concrete man in a context and Kafka is another very remarkable writer isolation of the individual is so prominently characterized by him the individuals plays in the world the anxiety and guilt experienced by individuals all these things are highlighted by him and Nietzsche we have already seen you know the way in which he was declaring that all truth is perspectival and again with this declaration of the death of god how he propagated a kind of nihilism of morals everything is permitted as truth is perspectival there is nothing like the path ok. So, in that way you know he was also advocating a very unique kind of philosophical position knowledge and truth are provisional and change over time and with the ruling class and there are many kinds of truths and consequently there is no truth unquote this is from will to power. So, you have a very interesting concept of truth here by Nietzsche he says truth is an edifying name for what are really vital lies and what Kierkegaard says is objective truth is existentially irrelevant and what Sarth says is no universal truth. So, with this you know let us revisit the key themes of existentialism there is an emphasis on freedom where we are condemned to be free this is by Sarth very famous statement by Sarth we will address this problem in the next or some of the subsequent lectures. Then the concept of responsibility because we have freedom in our fundamental projects and attitudes we are responsible for the people we become. So, this is again a very concrete problem not a problem which is an abstract philosophical issue which human beings are facing, but a concrete problem which every individual would be face differently or the intensity would also be different. There are different types of people right there are different types people's temperament differ from each other. So, accordingly you know the way in which they conceive their problems also would change. Emphasizing individuality his or her search for authentic selfhood is a major issue ideas of self creation and authentic existence become important in this context. We have already examined how Heidegger problematizes the problem of authentic existence. Then again the this problems like angst, dread, anguish, anxiety when we reflect on our freedom we experience this kind of an inescapable anxiety and inauthentic existence and bad faith we have already made reference to those who refuse to take responsibility for themselves and living an inauthentic existence in bad faith. They are self deluded and again finitude, guilt, alienation, despair, death. They are not topics of discussion in traditional philosophy, but these thinkers take up them with some very remarkable originality. Acknowledgement of the tragic elements of human existence some are even pessimists and absurdists while some others speak about hope. See for instance Albert Camus begins his famous book The Myth of Sisyphus with the statement that the most serious philosophical problem of 20th century is that of murder and suicide. See the kind of tragic element is being highlighted and there are of course philosophers like Kierkegaard who talk about hope. So, you cannot say that you know all of them belong to one particular school, but they all reflect certain common concerns. The best one I mean probably the ideal candidate for a common theme in the works of all existentialist philosophers would be this existence precedes essence which is actually I believe it is coined by Sar because it is in his book in his various articles he has written about it. We do not have a standard existence, but we create ourselves. There is a lot of emphasis on personal freedom. There is nothing like you know I model myself on a universal humanity, but there is nothing like a standard norm given to me on which I can model my existence, but my existence is a very concrete process where because I find myself in a very unique situation which is not there for others and my historicity is different, my relationship context are different everything is different. So, the way in which I create myself since I have freedom to create myself is definitely going to be different from the ways in which other people would be creating themselves. Unlike other entities where their essential properties are fixed a priori human beings make themselves through their choices and actions and again there is no a priori essence like human nature or essence that determine man. We will probably discuss this again in the next lecture when we analyze when we try to understand Sarth's position. Again human beings have no model blueprint, no ideal essence or perfect nature for humans, man makes his or her essence, first man exist and he or she create the essence. So, this is something which characterizes human existence from other the existence of other objects that he first exist and then creates his essence unlike other objects say for example, a pen which initially I mean which first the essence of this pen is already there before its creation. The man who created it the man who produced it must be having a blueprint an idea about it what is going to produce, but in the case of man there is nothing of that sort. Passions, emotions and instincts are not really irrelevant when I create myself. See it is a process in which I create myself through living through various things I do through my actions and thoughts and feelings and emotions. All these things play a very important roles in this process of self creation and there is you know this Nietzsche's concept of will to power becomes extremely relevant in this context and passion to exist Kirkagard says Heidegger says that the Zion is mine and is being in the world and Sartre says being in itself and being for itself. We will explicate what this is in the next lecture, but just to mention being in itself is the things which where essence precedes existence, but being for itself is where you know the being of man where existence comes first and then through living through choices he makes he creates his essence. So, when we try to distinguish these two important terms essence is what a thing is that which is definable in a thing we call its essence. So, when we define an object we often isolate the essence of that object and say that this is what the object is. So, what is intelligible about an object and many considered essence as superior to existence and even absolved it into essence like Hegel. On the other hand existence is that the thing is not easily definable because it is something which keeps on changing. Again existentialism gives priority to existence of our essence and see it is very important to note this distinction that man is rational animal or a thinking substance. There is all an a tendency to essentialize man that man is a thinking being or a thinking animal rational animal where which denies man a freedom narrowing down human existence to that, but what Sartre would argue is that it is not so. So, there is no in the case of man the existence precedes essence and then I make myself whether I am going to a painter or musician or whatever it is my choices which would enable me to achieve my essence. Existence is characterized by concreteness and particularity it implies givenness of a fact the existence of a camera or a pen or whatever you have its existence is not my creation for instance it exist as something it is it is there the camera the pen the book the computer they are all there and to exist is derived from the Latin word existere which means to stand out or emerge to stand out from nothing to exist is to have a place in the world real world concreteness is asserted existence is concrete and particular while essence is abstract and universal. So, in this context I mean it is important to distinguish existentialism from essentialism or essentialism from existentialism. We have seen that you know all this traditional philosophers have been emphasizing a lot on the problem of essence the problem of abstract essences and essences have always been a central idea in traditional philosophy and where predominantly you know these traditional philosophers considered existence is illusory essences are universal and are unchangeable the notable I mean a striking example is that of Plato. Everything is a copy and essences alone are real Plato conceived only essences as realities and treated existence of particular as illusory contingent and changeable and Hegel's totalizing philosophy everything is absorbed into the absolute. So, is absolutism and now when you try to understand the concept of existence in existentialism it is to distinguish the unique way in which man exist in the world only man exist in the case of other objects as I already mentioned essence is prior, but in the case of man existence is prior highlights ontological peculiarity of man's being the being of man is understood in terms of facticity, thronus and particularity we have already discussed these concepts when we discussed Heidegger's philosophy. What do they mean like facticity somewhere thronus I find myself in a world in a world of objects and other people middles of this world and particularity all these are my experiences limitations and scopes of man being are the problems here facticity, thronus, transcendence on the one hand there is facticity I find myself in a particular situation and to some extent I am constrained by I am limited to that situation, but at the same time there is a transcendence like I have certain projects objects have certain meaning forming. So, I approach the world with certain projects I have plans aspirations desires and then again there are problems like alienation and authenticity must be understood in this context. So, existence for Kierkegaard is the contingent the particular that which refuses to fit into some system constructed by rational thought and Heidegger calls it man's being and Sartre concept of existence unfolds with the explication of being in itself, being for itself and being for others this will these concepts we will examine in detail in subsequent lectures. So, this is the let us now wind up this lecture we will just summarize the topics which we have discussed today. We have seen the emphasis the kind of emphasis existential philosophers giving to individuality, particularity and subjectivity and there is no conception of objective truth, subjectivity, disclosure and unconcealment or concepts which were emphasized. We have seen this when we discussed Heidegger how Heidegger conceives truth as disclosure or unconcealment and when it comes to Nietzsche Nietzsche says that all truths are lies truths becomes truth become perspectival. So, and a perspectival truth is not truth at all. So, these are some kind of things which we have examined and emphasis on lived experience like passions, emotions, fears, anxieties, confusions etcetera and then we have seen the kind of tensions between universalities, the situativeness of human experience and the kind of universality which will be further explicated in the next lectures and Throners versus Absolute Existence. Existence precedes essence which is probably arguably the most important concept and freedom and responsibility are emphasized in this context. So, we will wind up this lecture here, this lecture on existentialism and introduction it was basically and now we will see in the next two lectures and out in the philosophy the existential philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre through is probably can be considered as the most important philosopher among the in the in the existential moment. So, we will see that in the next lectures. This lecture we will wind up here now. Thank you.