Others

=Sartre – Being for Others =  Jean-Paul Sartre’s idea and explanation of Others can be illustrated as the third form of “being”. First, the illustration and explanation of Sartre’s definition of being for itself and being in itself is when the human experience of observation is presented, and this third distinction is “being for others” is the explanation of the relationships we encounter with other beings and how they become self aware of their being. According to Sartre, Being for others is “the same beings whose being is being for itself, ultimately resulting in human beings,” however, this only happens in a state that entails the existence of someone else (Priest 222). Therefore, Being for Others is the state by which you take the self in the perception of others, therefore making the self in the perception of others. This ultimately results in the acceptance and adoption of the perception others, as in not myself have on me, but it also results in the “other” becoming aware of their being also.Sartre explains and focuses a lot of attention to the Other and the relationship and connection it shares with myself, particularly he begins with the body not being the sole instrument of cause and relations with others, but that the body constitutes [its] meaning and marks their limits (Sartre 224). He notes that there is a relation of the for-itself with the in-itself in the presence of the other, so what he means is that in order for there to be a relationship between the for-itself and with the in-itself, conclusions can be formed concerning the fundamental relations of the three modes of being (225). Therefore, when we encounter others and others encounter us, we are engaging in that self-awareness. Basically, when others perceive us in their awareness, they are becoming engaged with their being, but as an individual you cannot perceive yourself, you can only perceive others.

“The Other looks at me and as such he holds the secret of my being, he knows what I am. Thus the profound meaning of my being is outside of me, imprisoned in absence” (226). Sartre further goes on to explain that the other has the advantage over me because they can see you, perceive you, and there is no control over what they can think about you. There is the attempt that you can try to deny the being and flee the in-itself, by making the other an object. You can portray and develop a perception of them, but you cannot influence the perception they have of you. Sartre argues that “I cannot be in the presence of the Other without being that “in-the-presence” form of having to be it (227). This is important because he is specifically explaining that we cannot experience the self awareness and being without being in the presence of the so called Other which means that when we encounter the Other, we are engaging with that presence of being. Furthermore, he continues with the idea of conflict.“While I attempt to free myself from the hold of the Other, the Other is trying to free himself from mine; while I seek to enslave the Other, the Other seeks to enslave me” (227). Conflict is the pivotal milestone for how Sartre effectively illustrates and explains in concrete detail his explanation of Others. For Sartre, conflict is the original meaning of being for others. He explains that we start with possessiveness and he uses the following quote, “I am possessed by the Other; the Other’s look fashions my body in its nakedness, causes it to be born, sculptures it, produces it as it is, sees it as I shall never see it” (Sartre 227). This is the idea of the Other and perception, how individuals are perceived by others, they develop and create the perception and we cannot change or alter it because we do not know what it is. We do not know what it is because the Other “makes me and thereby he possesses me, and this possession is nothing other than the consciousness of possessing me” (227). We have no control over the consciousness of the Other and that is the possession that the Other obtains and holds.The source of conflict is “since I experience myself as an object for the Other and while I project assimilating him in and by means of this experience, the Other apprehends me as an object in the midst of the world and does not project identifying me with himself” (229). The explanation of this is to act on the Other’s freedom when the Other transcends my transcendence and makes me exist for the Other. So, when the Other perceives you, you are in existence and that existence grants you the opportunity to grasp the Other’s freedom and act upon it. The Other’s freedom is the foundation of our being because we observe them when they perceive us and we become fully aware of our being.

Love as conflict, in the explanation of Sartre is that the “Other is not to be identified with love in so far as love is an enterprise; an organic ensemble of projects toward my own possibilities. But it is the ideal of love, its motivation and its end, its unique value” (229). This is the beginning of the dialect Sartre presents to his readers, he continues to explain that there is a relationship between the Other’s freedom and the conflict it represents when we exist because of the means of the Other’s freedom and we have no control over it. The Other creates and as Sartre states, “moulds my being and makes me be, it confers values upon me and removes them from me; and my being receives from it a perpetual passive escape from itself” (230). It is not the loss of freedom, but rather the different kind of freedom that can now be engaged. He progresses to speak about love and why does the lover want to be loved? He explains that if love were just a desire for physical possession, then it could easily be attained and satisfied, however, it is not. It is not easily satisfied or attained because of “the notion” that love is explained. Sartre questions why should I want to appropriate the Other if it were not precisely a certain mode of appropriation; it is the Other’s freedom as such that we want to get a hold of (230). This is love is something that is not power driven, but that lovers do not want to be loved and changed, but rather they want to “possess a freedom within a freedom”. Furthermore he continues to explain this possession of freedom within a freedom as the idea that “he (the lover) wants to be loved by a freedom but demands that this freedom as a freedom should no longer be free” (231). Therefore captivating the essence of capturing itself, turn upon itself, and to will its own captivity. This interpretation relates to the idea that when we engage with the Other, this experience is making our being at the center of this experience, we are hailed by the Other and at the center. “Other’s freedom by itself; this limit of structure is in fact a given, and the very appearance of the given as the limit of freedom means that the freedom makes itself exist within the given by being its own prohibition against surpassing it” (231-232). The fact that our engagement with the other is pivotal to the fact that we are the object which the Other makes come into being that I must be the inherent limit to his very transcendence (231). Our being for others hides our freedom from ourselves (224).

 Criticisms Freedom for Sartre was an absolute, though recognizable only to those who deny human nature. Camus argued that one cannot entirely discard human nature (essence precedes existence for him and not the reverse, as for Sartre); hence one is not entirely free, at least not absolutely free (Curtis 4). Camus criticized the concept of freedom and conflict because he said, “the pretension to resolve which he himself considered inescapable in the context of the human situation that is the psychological discovery of the existence quality of things (Curtis 5). Further, Camus suggests that Sartre should be classified with Huserlian phenomenology and states that his interpretation destroys the equilibrium of life when it derives metaphysical truths from psychological experiences.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5P7PC5KR3I Others - Video on the topic of Sartre's Others

Curtis, Jerry L. "A Camus Commentary: Satre's Debt to Husserl." South Atlantic Bulletin 40.4 (1975): 3-6. Jstor. Web. 7 Dec. 2010. Sartre, Jean-Paul, and Stephen Priest. "12 Others." Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings. London: Routledge, 2001. Print.