Lost, Free, and Terrified: Welcome to Existentialism

 Meaning Is Not Given, It’s Made

This Blog is a part of flipped learning activity assigned by Dr. and Prof. Dilip Barad sir regarding Existentialism. Here I will explain certain videos assigned to us and will ponder my thoughts and much down below.

Here is the videographic description of my Blog-

Video 1: What is Existentialism? (Click the link to watch the video)

What is Existenitialism?

In this video, I was able to understand how the idea of existentialism gradually came into being. Although Jean-Paul Sartre is often regarded as the founder of the existentialist movement, he was not the first thinker to engage with existential concerns. The roots of existentialism can be traced back to Søren Kierkegaard, and the tradition was later shaped by thinkers and writers such as Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, Kafka, Heidegger, Jaspers, Hermann Hesse, Camus, and Simone de Beauvoir, who remained a lifelong intellectual companion of Sartre.

What unites these thinkers is the belief that philosophical thinking begins with the thinking subject—the individual. Existentialism does not start from abstract systems or universal truths but from lived experience. For existentialists, existence is deeply personal, grounded in individuality, self-awareness, and inner struggle. Two crucial elements repeatedly emerge in existentialist thought: passion and freedom. These ideas are inseparable from the individual’s responsibility to choose, to act, and to give meaning to one’s own life. This focus on individuality often forms what can be seen as the core or “triangle” of existentialism existence, freedom, and responsibility.

Albert Camus adds another powerful dimension to this discourse through his idea of the absurd. He argues that the human desire for meaning clashes with the silent, indifferent universe. According to Camus, turning to God or absolute belief to escape this conflict is “the easy way out,” which he famously calls philosophical suicide. Instead of escaping the absurd, Camus insists that one must recognize it fully and live in conscious revolt against it. Because of this position, he preferred to identify himself not as an existentialist but as an absurdist.

What makes existentialism especially compelling and why it remains immensely popular among young people is its direct engagement with the emotional and psychological struggles of youth. Themes such as suicide, anguish, anxiety, absurdity, passion, fear, death, and inner conflict mirror the questions young individuals often wrestle with while forming their identities. Existentialism does not offer comforting answers; instead, it acknowledges confusion, uncertainty, and pain as authentic parts of human life. In doing so, it validates the emotional intensity of youth and encourages individuals to confront their struggles honestly rather than suppress them.

In this sense, existentialism feels less like a distant philosophy and more like a mirror one that reflects the doubts, fears, and freedoms that define the journey of becoming oneself.

• What I personally find most compelling about existentialism is how deeply it resonates with the emotional landscape of youth. At a stage where one is constantly questioning identity, purpose, and belonging, existentialism does not dismiss confusion or emotional intensity as weakness. Instead, it treats feelings such as anguish, anxiety, fear, loneliness, and even thoughts of death or meaninglessness as honest responses to existence itself. This is perhaps why it speaks so strongly to young people who are navigating uncertainty, pressure, and the demand to define themselves in a world that rarely offers clear answers. Rather than offering moral comfort or ready-made meaning, existentialism places responsibility in the hands of the individual. That freedom though frightening feels authentic. For someone drawn to literature, poetry, and inward reflection, existentialism becomes less of a philosophy and more of a language to articulate unspoken emotions. It validates the restlessness of youth, allowing one to sit with discomfort, question deeply, and still choose to exist meaningfully, even in the absence of certainty.

Video 2: The Myth of Sisyphus: The Absurd Reasoning (Feeling of the Absurd) (Click the link to watch the video)

Albert Camus begins his meditation on the absurd by stating that there is only one truly serious philosophical problem: suicide. For him, suicide is not a public spectacle or a dramatic gesture, but an intensely individual act, rooted in personal thought and prepared in the silence of the heart. He examines whether the recognition of life’s absurdity logically leads to death and firmly denies such a conclusion, insisting that there is no necessary common measure between these two gestures. Camus asks whether there exists a logic that leads inevitably to death, and answers that this cannot be known unless one pursues the reasoning of the absurd with clarity and without reckless passion. This method, which he calls absurd reasoning, refuses false consolation and easy escape, including religious belief, which he famously describes as philosophical suicide.

For Camus, the absurd is neither located solely within the individual nor entirely within the world; it arises only through their confrontation. The world, in itself, is irrational and indifferent, while human beings persistently long for meaning and coherence. It is this clash between human consciousness and an unresponsive universe that produces the absurd. Man is necessary for the irrationality of the world to be perceived, and the world is necessary for human longing to remain unsatisfied. This relationship makes human existence undeniably complex, yet paradoxically easier to bear, because it removes illusion without denying life. The recognition that the absurd is a shared space between human beings and the world transforms despair into lucidity, allowing one to live fully aware of meaninglessness without surrendering to it.

• I am drawn to the complex relationship between human beings and the world precisely because it refuses simplification. In Albert Camus’s idea of the absurd, neither man nor the world is blamed alone; meaninglessness is born only when the two confront each other. This appeals to me because it mirrors your own way of understanding life not as a problem to be solved, but as a tension to be lived through. The human mind longs for order, clarity, and purpose, while the world remains indifferent and silent; the absurd emerges in this very clash. I like this idea because it legitimizes confusion without turning it into despair. The confrontation makes life intellectually complex, yet emotionally easier to endure, because it frees one from false expectations and comforting illusions. Instead of demanding answers, it allows you to remain honest with uncertainty. For someone reflective, literary, and inward-looking like me, this space “in between” where meaning is neither given nor entirely denied feels truthful. The absurd, then, is not a flaw in existence but a shared ground where human consciousness meets reality as it is, and that recognition itself becomes a quiet form of clarity.

Video 3: The Myth of Sisyphus: the notion of philosophical suicide (Click the link to watch video)

In his exploration of the absurd, Albert Camus introduces the idea of philosophical suicide a move that does not destroy the body, but abandons honest thinking. According to Camus, once an individual recognizes the absurd the clash between the human longing for meaning and the world’s indifference there is a temptation to escape this discomfort by appealing to transcendence, faith, or absolute belief. This escape, Camus argues, is a kind of suicide of reason: the philosopher “kills” their own inquiry to avoid living with the absurd. Instead, Camus insists that one must confront the absurd directly and struggle with it, fully aware that this struggle involves a total absence of hope, a constant refusal of false consolation, and a conscious acceptance of life as it is. Crucially, this stance should not be confused with despair, renunciation, or emotional unrest; rather, it is a disciplined lucidity that refuses illusion without rejecting life.

Camus famously resisted being labelled an existentialist, largely because of his rejection of what he saw as existentialist “leaps” into faith. In thinkers like Søren Kierkegaard, faith is offered as a response to the absurd a leap beyond reason. Camus sees this as escapism, a way of dissolving the absurd instead of living with it. He extends this critique to philosophers, whose thought relies on God as a necessary grounding even when God does not fit within rational categories. For Camus, such moves replace honest confrontation with emotional or intellectual comfort. Reason, for the absurd mind, has limits, but nothing lies beyond those limits that can legitimately resolve the absurd. To leap whether into faith, abstraction, or metaphysical certainty is, for Camus, the easiest way out. What is truly difficult and dangerous is remaining in the fragile moment before the leap: enduring uncertainty without appeal, refusing false hope, and continuing the inquiry without surrender. This refusal to escape, this sustained confrontation with the absurd, defines Camus’s philosophy and distinguishes it sharply from existentialist solutions that seek resolution through transcendence rather than revolt.

• I find myself agreeing with Albert Camus’s idea of philosophical suicide because it names a temptation I recognize the urge to escape discomfort once the absurd is clearly seen. For me, philosophical suicide is not about ending life, but about ending inquiry. It is the moment when one abandons the honesty of questioning and chooses transcendence, faith, or absolute meaning simply to silence anxiety. Camus’s refusal of this escape feels intellectually and emotionally truthful. I agree with him that leaping into belief after recognizing the absurd does not resolve it; it dissolves it artificially. What resonates most with me is his insistence that the struggle with the absurd must continue without hope, illusion, or consolation and that this persistence should not be mistaken for despair. On the contrary, I see it as an act of courage. Remaining in that fragile space before the leap, enduring uncertainty without surrendering reason, feels far more demanding than choosing comfort. In accepting Camus’s position, I accept that meaning is not discovered beyond the absurd but lived within it, through clarity, resistance, and an unflinching commitment to lucidity.

Video 4: Dadaism, Nihilism and Existentialism

The video presents Dadaism as a radical cultural response born in 1916, amid the devastation of World War I. Founded in Zurich by artists such as Hugo Ball and Tristan Tzara, the movement emerged from a deep disgust with the war and the “old values” of Western civilization believed to have enabled it. Rather than offering solutions or ideals, Dadaism attacked the very foundations of rationality, nationalism, and cultural authority. It was a refusal an artistic and philosophical protest against a world that had proven itself capable of mass destruction.

Although Dadaism is often mistaken for nihilism because it positioned itself “against every existing value and rule,” the video argues that it was not nihilistic at its core. Dada did not reject meaning altogether; instead, it sought to clear the ground for change. Its aim was not to replace old values with new doctrines but to relentlessly question and dismantle inherited assumptions. In this sense, Dadaism functioned as a method rather than a message a tool for unsettling complacency and exposing the fragility of cultural norms.

This approach is especially visible in the movement’s treatment of art. Dada was never “merely” an art movement; it rejected rules, definitions, and aesthetic hierarchies. Through deliberately unconventional works most famously those of Marcel Duchamp Dada forced viewers to confront a disturbing question: What is art, and who gets to decide? By undermining the authority of traditional art institutions, Dadaism destabilized the values they represented, revealing art itself as a constructed and contested category.

The video also draws a compelling parallel between Dadaism and existentialism. Both arose not as rigid doctrines but as movements shaped by global crises World War I for Dadaism and World War II for existentialism. Each challenges imposed meanings and urges individuals to question inherited values in order to become authentically themselves. Where existentialism philosophically interrogates freedom and responsibility, Dadaism performs that interrogation through disruption, satire, and negation.

Finally, the video turns to the theme of individual freedom and the absurd. Drawing on Hugo Ball’s writings, it highlights a desire to escape journalism, moralism, and even language itself  “words that other people have invented.” Tristan Tzara’s embrace of the absurd encapsulates this stance: the absurdity of life does not frighten him because, to him, everything is already absurd. In this light, Dadaism appears as the “Socrates of the War years” a necessary destructive force that questioned everything, not to end meaning, but to make freedom and new possibilities thinkable again.

• I am personally drawn to the interconnectedness between Dadaism and existentialism because both refuse to accept inherited meanings as natural or sacred. From what I understand of myself as a reader of literature and philosophy, I am less interested in systems that provide ready-made answers and more compelled by movements that begin with questioning. Dadaism’s destructive impulse its urge to dismantle language, art, morality, and cultural authority feels closely aligned with existentialism’s insistence that meaning is not given but must be confronted and chosen by the individual. What attracts me is not the chaos of Dadaism, but its honesty: its recognition that the world produced by “old values” led to war and devastation, and therefore those values deserve suspicion rather than reverence.
• I also resonate with how both movements place the individual at the center of meaning-making. Dadaism clears the ground by breaking structures, while existentialism asks what one does once those structures collapse. This sequence feels psychologically true to me. First comes negation, doubt, and refusal; then comes responsibility, freedom, and choice. The shared engagement with the absurd deepens this connection. Like existentialism, Dadaism does not fear the absurd but embraces it as a condition of modern life. I find comfort in this confrontation not because it simplifies existence, but because it removes false certainty. In that space between destruction and creation, between absurdity and freedom, I see a way of thinking that allows one to live honestly, question deeply, and remain faithful to one’s own inner experience rather than borrowed truths.

Video 5: Existentialism - a gloomy philosophy (Click the link to watch the video)

Existentialism is often misread as a philosophy of darkness because it openly engages with anxiety, despair, and absurdity. The video clarifies that these themes are not celebrated for their own sake but examined in order to confront and overcome them. Existentialism is ultimately concerned with finding meaning whether through faith, personal truth, or the conscious acceptance of the absurd. What matters most is that individuals critically examine inherited values, choose their own meaning, and take full responsibility for those choices. Freedom, in this sense, is inseparable from responsibility, and meaning is something actively created rather than passively received.

The video also corrects common misconceptions by emphasizing that existentialism is neither narcissistic nor nihilistic. Its focus on the individual is not self-obsession but inward reflection aimed at self-discovery what Friedrich Nietzsche describes as “becoming who you are.” Historically, existentialism gained prominence after World War II as a response to widespread despair and moral collapse. Far from deepening hopelessness, it offered a way to confront post-war emptiness by encouraging individuals to create values, identity, and purpose in a world where traditional meanings had failed.

• I personally feel drawn to Friedrich Nietzsche’s idea of “becoming who you are” because it captures what I find most honest and liberating about existential philosophy. This concept does not assume that identity is fixed or already known; instead, it treats the self as something continuously shaped through choice, struggle, and self-examination. In the context of existentialism, this idea feels especially powerful because it places responsibility back onto the individual not to discover some hidden essence, but to actively form oneself through lived experience. I like this because it accepts uncertainty as part of growth and does not demand perfection or clarity from the beginning. Becoming who you are is not about comfort or self-indulgence; it is about confronting one’s fears, contradictions, and freedom, and still choosing to live authentically. For me, this makes existentialism feel less like a theory and more like a deeply personal practice of becoming.

Video 6: Existentialism and Nihilism: Is it one and the same?

The video clearly distinguishes existentialism from nihilism, arguing that they are not only different but fundamentally opposed. Far from collapsing into nihilism, every major existentialist thinker actively struggled against it. Søren Kierkegaard understood nihilism as the loss of individuality, and his philosophy was a sustained effort to restore subjectivity and personal commitment as an antidote to meaninglessness. Friedrich Nietzsche diagnosed nihilism as the moment when “the highest values devaluate themselves,” and his work can be read as a radical attempt to overcome this crisis by re-evaluating values rather than surrendering to their collapse. In contrast, the video presents Emil Cioran as an example of what it calls “nihilistic consent” a passive acceptance of life’s futility. Although Cioran often wrote provocatively about suicide, it was precisely his passivity and rejection of rebellion (which he dismissed as a kind of immature impulse) that kept him from any life-affirming resistance.

Against this passive nihilism, Albert Camus offers a sharply different response. In The Myth of Sisyphus and The Rebel, Camus argues that rebellion is the only philosophically honest answer to the absurd. Rather than escaping through suicide or resignation, Camus insists on an active confrontation with meaninglessness living, choosing, and resisting despite the absence of ultimate justification. This perspective reinforces ideas from earlier discussions: just as Dadaism was a destructive force aimed at clearing space for change rather than denying meaning altogether, existentialism functions as a post-war “cure” not by offering comfort, but by demanding responsibility. The video ultimately emphasizes that overcoming nihilism requires action an engaged, rebellious stance toward life rather than passive acceptance of emptiness or despair.

Video 7: Let us introduce Existentialism again!

The video defines existentialism not as a rigid philosophical system or fixed doctrine, but as a movement or attitude toward life that emerged in nineteenth-century Europe and gained prominence after World War II. Early figures such as Søren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Fyodor Dostoevsky laid its foundations, while thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, and Martin Heidegger shaped its post-war expression. A defining feature of existentialism is its rejection of absolute systems religious, scientific, or philosophical that claim to offer final answers to the meaning of life. Although such systems are comforting because they remove the heavy burden of creating one’s own purpose, existentialists argue that they rely on abstract or divine perspectives and ignore lived human realities such as fear, anxiety, suffering, and mortality. By confronting mortality rather than escaping it, existentialism encourages individuals to break away from mass conformity and live according to values they consciously choose.

The video further explains Sartre’s famous claim that existence precedes essence by contrasting human beings with objects. Objects are designed with a fixed essence or function before they exist, whereas humans are born without any predetermined nature or purpose. Rejecting classical philosophical and religious views that assume a fixed human essence, Sartre argues that individuals shape who they are through their choices and actions over time. This position also clarifies the difference between existentialism and nihilism. While nihilism holds that life has no meaning at all, existentialism accepts the absence of objective meaning but insists that individuals can create personal, subjective meaning. Nietzsche, in particular, viewed nihilism as a cultural disease and urged individuals to “become who you are” by forging their own values instead of borrowing them from external systems. The video closes by echoing Nietzsche’s warning that those who invent their own virtues often face resistance, isolation, and misunderstanding but that this struggle is inseparable from living authentically.

• I am personally drawn to Fyodor Dostoevsky because his fiction embodies existential theory not as abstraction, but as lived psychological torment. In Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov becomes a powerful example of Sartre’s idea that existence precedes essence. He invents a theory to justify murder, believing himself to be an “extraordinary man,” yet the act itself exposes the falseness of imposed rational systems. His suffering does not come from external punishment alone, but from the internal collapse of meaning once his self-created ideology fails him. Through Raskolnikov, Dostoevsky shows that freedom without responsibility leads not to empowerment but to anguish an idea central to existentialism. Meaning cannot be theorized into existence; it must be lived, endured, and owned.
• Similarly, in Notes from Underground, Dostoevsky presents a narrator who fiercely rejects rational systems, social progress, and utilitarian morality. What resonates with me is the Underground Man’s insistence on irrationality as proof of human freedom. He deliberately acts against reason simply to assert his individuality, even when it causes him pain. This reflects existentialism’s rejection of absolute systems that reduce humans to predictable formulas. Through him, Dostoevsky anticipates the existential idea that humans are not defined by logic, biology, or social usefulness, but by choice even self-destructive ones. I find that Dostoevsky does not offer comfort or resolution; instead, he exposes the cost of freedom, the terror of self-awareness, and the loneliness of choosing oneself against the world. In doing so, his work clarifies existential theory for me not as philosophy to be understood, but as a condition to be confronted.

Video 8: Explain like I'm Five: Existentialism and Nietzsche:

The video offers a deliberately provocative and simplified introduction to Friedrich Nietzsche’s ideas by focusing on the rejection of “made-up rules.” Through everyday examples such as being told to clean one’s room or not wear street clothes to bed the teacher illustrates Nietzsche’s claim that many rules are not universal truths but conventions created by authority figures like parents, teachers, or society. In this context, existentialism is presented as the belief that there is no single, universal morality governing everyone; instead, morality is subjective and shaped by individual choice. The video introduces the concept of the Übermensch (translated as “Superman”) as a figure who takes full responsibility for deciding what is good and bad for themselves, rather than obeying inherited moral codes. To make the idea concrete, the teacher suggests that such a person could act entirely on their own will even doing things others consider wrong.

The reaction of the children becomes a crucial part of the lesson. When the idea of subjective morality is illustrated through an act like taking another child’s toy, the children respond with discomfort and anger, with one openly declaring hatred for Nietzsche. This response highlights the central tension within existential and Nietzschean thought: the burden and social friction that arise when individuals reject shared systems of morality. While earlier discussions framed existentialism as a response to post-war despair or a way to recover meaning after the “devaluation of values,” this video shows how those ideas play out in everyday life. “Becoming who you are” is not a harmless or purely inward process; it can clash sharply with others’ expectations of fairness and order. In this way, the video underscores that existential freedom is not just liberating but deeply unsettling, forcing individuals to confront both the responsibility of choice and its consequences within a social world.

• I particularly like the idea of using a Superman-like fictional figure to explain Nietzsche’s philosophy to a five-year-old, because it makes an abstract and intimidating concept both accessible and emotionally engaging. The image of the Übermensch as a powerful character who chooses his own rules simplifies Nietzsche’s core idea: that values are not naturally given but created. What interests me is not the childish exaggeration of freedom “doing whatever one wants” but how this metaphor opens a space for questioning authority at a very early stage. It shows that morality is not merely obedience but something that demands thought, responsibility, and self-awareness. By translating philosophy into a story, the idea becomes less about doctrine and more about lived choice, which is precisely what existentialism emphasizes.
• This approach also helps me understand why existential thought resonates so strongly with youth. Adolescence and early adulthood are often marked by an existential crisis a period of questioning rules inherited from parents, teachers, religion, and society. Nietzsche’s call to “become who you are” directly mirrors this stage of life, where individuals begin to feel the weight of choosing their own values and identities. The discomfort and resistance shown by the children in the video reflect the same tension young people experience when freedom clashes with social expectations. For me, this reinforces the idea that existentialism is not a distant or elite philosophy, but one that naturally emerges during moments of self-definition. The Superman metaphor, in its simplicity, captures the thrill and danger of freedom making clear why existentialism continues to speak so powerfully to the youth who are learning to live with the burden of choice.

Video 9: Why I like Existentialism? Eric Dodson

In the video Why I Like Existentialism, the speaker explains that what draws them to existentialism is how the philosophy meets people exactly where they are accepting both strengths and weaknesses without pretension. Rather than offering comforting dogmas or universal answers, existentialism invites honest engagement with life as it is, including its anxieties, flaws, and freedoms. It treats the human experience not as something to be explained away but as something to be lived through with full awareness and responsibility.

• This resonates deeply with me because existentialism like Nietzsche’s idea of “becoming who you are” places the individual at the center of meaning-making. In contrast to systems that promise escape or certainty, it acknowledges that we alone must face life’s challenges and create our own values. That honesty about human limitations and potential is what makes existentialism feel honest, empowering, and relevant, especially during moments of inner questioning or emotional intensity.

Video 10: Let us sum up: From Essentialism to Existentialism

The video explains existentialism by first contrasting it with essentialism, the long-held view associated with thinkers like Plato and Aristotle. Essentialism assumes that human beings are born with a fixed essence or purpose given by God or nature and that being a “good” human means fulfilling that pre-defined role. Existentialism radically overturns this idea through Jean-Paul Sartre’s claim that existence precedes essence. According to Sartre, humans are born without any predetermined purpose and must create their own identity and meaning through choices and actions. This position is closely tied to the idea of the Absurd, which describes the tension between humanity’s deep need for meaning and a universe that offers no inherent answers. This understanding gained urgency after World War II, when events like the Holocaust shattered faith in a rational or morally ordered world.

The video further explores Sartre’s idea that humans are “condemned to be free,” meaning that in the absence of cosmic rules or absolute morality, individuals must design their own values. Living authentically requires accepting this freedom fully, while following paths imposed by society, religion, or authority figures is what Sartre calls bad faith. This burden of choice is illustrated through Sartre’s famous example of a student torn between caring for his lonely mother and joining the military; no moral system can decide for him only his chosen values can. Building on earlier discussions, the video shows existentialism as a post-WWII response that confronts meaninglessness directly rather than escaping it. In line with Albert Camus’s view that meaning is whatever keeps one engaged with life, and Friedrich Nietzsche’s call to “become who you are,” the video concludes that justice, order, and meaning exist only if humans actively create them. Existentialism, therefore, is not a denial of meaning but a demand for responsibility in a world that offers none ready-made.

The Video I personally liked-

• I personally liked Video 7: Let us introduce Existentialism again! because What resonated with me deeply in the video’s description of existentialism as a hidden treasure we must search within myself is how closely it aligns with what I’ve experienced in reading Fyodor Dostoevsky’s works. Dostoevsky’s characters are not just people in stories; they are vivid explorations of what it feels like to confront meaninglessness, freedom, and personal responsibility without easy answers. In Crime and Punishment, for example, Raskolnikov believes his intellect and theories justify a crime, but the psychological torment and guilt he endures show how abstract theories collapse when faced with the actual human consequences of choice and moral responsibility. This inner conflict between one’s projected purpose and the stark reality of existence mirrors existentialism’s claim that meaning isn’t given, but created through living and suffering.
• Similarly, in Notes from Underground and The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky gives form to the existential crisis that arises when one is thrown back on oneself, demanding choice and authenticity in a world that often feels indifferent or incoherent. The Underground Man’s refusal to act rationally, instead asserting his freedom even to his own detriment, reflects the existential insistence that freedom is both alienating and essential to becoming who you are. And when Ivan Karamazov wrestles with questions of God, freedom, and responsibility in The Brothers Karamazov, his struggle anticipates later existential thought about how individuals must face moral choice without external guarantees.
• I also find a striking parallel with Franz Kafka, whose protagonists live in worlds that are absurd, hostile, and indifferent yet their suffering and persistent striving make their inner experiences profoundly meaningful. Like Dostoevsky’s characters, Kafka’s figures confront an absurd universe that offers no clear purpose, forcing them to carve their own meaning in the face of uncertainty. This blend of inner conflict and existential urgency is exactly what makes existentialism feel not like a distant philosophy but like a personal, lived reality in our own lives, especially in moments of crisis and self-discovery.

My personal reflections-

1. Has your comprehension of Existentialist philosophy improved?

Yes, my comprehension of existentialist philosophy has improved considerably through this activity. Earlier, my understanding was limited to surface-level ideas and famous phrases, but engaging with videos, explanations, and philosophical contexts helped me see existentialism as a well-connected movement shaped by historical realities, especially war and human suffering. I now have a clearer grasp of key concepts such as existence precedes essence, the absurd, freedom, and responsibility, and I understand how existentialism positions itself against essentialism and nihilism. This has transformed my understanding from fragmented knowledge into a more structured and meaningful perspective.

2. Do you feel more confident discussing or writing about Existentialism?

Yes, I feel much more confident discussing and writing about existentialism. Relating philosophical ideas to literary works, particularly those of Dostoevsky and Kafka, made these concepts more concrete and relatable. This connection allowed me to articulate abstract ideas like bad faith, rebellion, and subjective meaning with greater clarity. I now feel capable of explaining existentialist ideas in both academic and reflective writing, without feeling overwhelmed by their complexity.

3. Has this exercise brought clarity to any previously unclear concepts?

This exercise has brought clarity to several concepts that were previously unclear to me. I now clearly understand the distinction between existentialism and nihilism, especially how existentialism responds to meaninglessness through responsibility rather than resignation. Concepts such as philosophical suicide, the absurd, and the burden of choice have also become clearer through repeated engagement and examples. Overall, this activity helped me move from confusion to confidence, allowing me to see existentialism not just as a theory, but as a practical and deeply personal way of understanding human existence.

Here is an ifographic description of what has been written up in this Blog-

References-

Barad, Dilip. “Existentialism: Video Resources.” Dilip Barad | Teacher Blog, 19 Sept. 2016, blog.dilipbarad.com/2016/09/existentialism-video-resources.html.

Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Crime and Punishment. Translated by Constance Garnett, Project Gutenberg, 28 Mar. 2006, www.gutenberg.org/files/2554/2554-h/2554-h.htm.

Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Notes from the Underground. Translated by Constance Garnett, Project Gutenberg, 1 July 1996, www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/600. Project Gutenberg eBook #600.

Dostoevsky, Fyodor. The Brothers Karamazov. Translated by Constance Garnett, Project Gutenberg, 12 Feb. 2009, www.gutenberg.org/files/28054/old/28054-pdf.pdf. Project Gutenberg eBook #28054.

Gallagher, Shaun, et al. “Existentialism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 6 January 2023, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/. Accessed 23 January 2026.