Jean-Paul+Sartre's+Phenomenological+Ontology+Being-in-itself+and+Being-for-itself




 * Overview **

Jean-Paul Sartre was a twentieth century existentialist philosopher. The central theme in his philosophy is that // existence precedes essence //. Sartre did not believe that man was born into an essence, or identity, but rather that he was born with a nihiliation of self. Thus, man’s pursuit is to perpetually look for meaning in his actions in an attempt to create a unified sense of identity. The following shall address Sartre’s ontology, or meaning of being in his work // Being and Nothingness //.


 * Being-in-Itself **

Being-in-itself refers to things; all things non-human. This is because the main distinction between the two types of being is conscious thought; the ability to reflect upon and be aware of oneself as well as one’s own identity. Being-in-itself does not have this ability and thus, refers to all non-human objects: plants and animals, even the deceased human body; “[a] corpse is no longer a for-itself but an in-itself” (Barnes 16).

Being-in-itself is Sartre’s explanation of the // phenomenon of being //, an existent thing. It is simply the act of existing, and is separate from consciousness. Sartre calls being “the ever present foundation of the existent,” and is something which cannot ever be removed nor ever fully made known to consciousness (Sartre 24). This is because consciousness is “the revealed-revelation of existents,” the process of revealing things, of understanding, and is always in the pursuit of meaning (24). Sartre goes on to say that although meaning can become its own being, this is distinct from “the being of existents” (Catalano 42). For example, an apple may be observed in various states of development, and each time may reveal more of itself to consciousness and in turn consciousness creates a meaning, yet the bare existence of the apple remains, independent of meaning.

Furthermore, Sartre is not trying to make a hierarchical distinction between the two. For Sartre there is a fundamental difference, the presence or lack of self-consciousness. It is this distinction that renders the two so different they cannot be related in a hierarchical manner (44).

Sartre’s explanation of being-in-itself is threefold: Being is in itself, Being is what it is, and Being is: 1. Being is in itself- This meant to draw attention to the unity of things in themselves. There is “neither potency nor becoming,” in their being (Catalano 45). It is consciousness which looks for and understands becoming, or growth. At all phases of development, a tree is a unity unto itself. The consciousness understands through relation, by comparing the appearance of the tree of yesterday to that of today. Yet the tree is still the tree, it is “perfectly at one with itself,” it is // in-itself // and thus has no relation to itself. (Catalano 45).



2. Being is what it is- This meant to clarify that the being of “in-itself” is not a “self”, as the “itself” implies. An apple is an apple; it is not a “self”. Neither does it have the task of becoming what it should be. It is not aware of itself or of its own being, there is no selfhood. Beings simply are what they are. Sartre explains that

[B]eing is at bottom beyond the // self //, and our first formula can only be only an approximation due to the requirements of language. In fact being is opaque to itself precisely because it is filled with itself. This can better be expressed by saying that // being is what it is //. (Sartre 28)

3. Being is- By saying “being is” Sartre is saying “that being can neither be derived from the possible nor reduced to the necessary” (29). Essentially, Sartre is stating that things simply are; “things exist without reason or justification” (Catalano 47). The discussion of things existing necessarily involves meaning, which is a function of the consciousness not the in-itself (Catalano 47). Furthermore, one should not speak of the in-itself as “either possible or impossible. It is” (Sartre 29).


 * Nothingness **

Nothingness plays a crucial role in Sartre’s definition of being-for-itself. Yet before he discusses this role, he first challenges the traditional notion of what “nothing” is. Traditionally, “nothing” or “no-thing” is simply a category for the negation of the positive presence of something. Sartre holds that nothingness is itself a phenomenon, and is critical in our understanding of the world.

Sartre explains that nothingness presents itself in the process of questioning. He explains that when one asks a question there is always the possibility of nothingness. “In relation to the possibility the questioner by the very fact that he is questioning, posits himself as in a state of indetermination; he // does not know // whether the reply will be affirmative or negative” (Sartre 36). Sartre feels as though the negative is just as real as the affirmation. Yet, one cannot experience “nothing” without “first posit[ing] them as possibilities” (38). This means that one cannot experience the absence of something if one didn’t expect it to be there; “[i]t is because I expect to find fifteen hundred francs that I find // only // thirteen hundred" (38).

Sartre then refutes the notion that the structural foundation of “nothing” is simply a negative judgment. He does this by insisting that “[t]he question is formulated by an interrogative judgment, but it is not itself a judgment; it is a pre-judicative attitude” (38). There is not a negation of what one was questioning, there is its absence. In the aforementioned example, there was not the negation of fifteen hundred francs, but the felt absence of it.

Another example used by Sartre is the non-being of his friend Pierre in a café. Sartre is going to meet him, but is late and fears that Pierre may have left. Once in the café, he looks at everything, quickly disregards all the inanimate objects and begins to scan the faces (41). Each face is not Pierre, and it becomes clear that Pierre is not there (41). After the search is complete, he experiences the absence, or nothingness of Pierre, not in “some precise spot […] [but] from the whole café” (42). He explains that the entire café, its totality, with everyone and everything in it “pursues its nihilation,” it slips to the background of experience and the absence of Pierre is in the forefront (42).

Additionally, in the section, “The Origin of Nothingness,” in his work, // Being and Nothingness //, Sartre details the centrality of nothingness in the human existence. Nothingness is more than just something we encounter, but acts as the foundation of conscious self. In // A commentary on Jean-Paul Sartre’s “Being and Nothingness,” // philosopher Joseph Catalano succinctly summarizes this long and detailed section as the following.

The human reality’s concrete nothingness is its consciousness. Consciousness, or awareness, is a concrete nothingness because consciousness is not perfectly one with itself or its ‘object.’ But consciousness is not thereby separated from itself by a void, for then consciousness would in no way be one with itself. This concrete nothingness cannot be pictured, but an approach can be made to understand it if we repeatedly ask ourselves // what // we are. […] When I question myself […] I recognize that no characteristics define my existence; my existence precedes my essence. […] This ability to question myself is a sign of a basic lack of identity with myself. It is a sign of a constant sliding from perfect identity, a sliding that, for Sartre, is the nothingness within me. (Catalano 64)

Thus, we see that for Sartre, nothingness is more than something we encounter when we question the external world, but is also the starting point of ourselves. The primary questioning inward into the meaning and depth of ourselves reveals the nothingness of our selves.


 * Consciousness **

We have discussed the nothingness of consciousness above; here we shall address the role of consciousness in the being-for-itself. As we have discussed earlier, consciousness is “an activity of revealing; that is, of reflecting, of intending” (Barnes 16). It is dependent upon being in that there must be something to be contemplated, and furthermore, it is the “activity of a […] being-for-itself” (16). This does not mean that it is something separate from being-for-itself, not an appendage, but merely what being-for-itself does; it is a reflective being (16).


 * Being-for-Itself **

Being-for-itself refers to the being of mankind. In describing this being, we arrive at its distinguishing characteristic, consciousness. Sartre is critical of the seventeenth century philosopher Rene Descartes for his failure to move beyond the functionality of the // cogito, // or thinking consciousness (Sartre 119). Sartre says that when Descartes realized “I doubt, I think, {thinking, the meaning and function of cogito} […] he fell into the error of substance” (119). Meaning, that Descartes “conclude[d] that thought was substantive, that the mind was spiritual in-itself” (Catalano 97). Descartes’ conclusion was that man is this cogito, a thinking substance.

To avoid and move beyond this conclusion, Sartre’s being-for-itself, is based upon a pre-reflective cogito. A pre-reflective cogito is the conscious awareness of self, rather than the outward intentionality of consciousness perceiving something. The pre-reflective consciousness is the awareness of what one is doing. Sartre explains that reflective consciousness is the process of counting cigarettes, yet the pre-reflective consciousness is the awareness of the counting (Sartre 13). However, Sartre is very clear in his warning not to mistake this as two separate consciousnesses. He says that the pre-reflective state is that “which renders reflection possible; there is a pre-reflective cogito which is the condition of the Cartesian [reference to Descartes] cogito” (13).

Yet, in discussing the pre-reflective cogito, we return to the concept of nothingness. The pre-reflective cogito is nothingness. It is the awareness of reflective consciousness, of what we are doing, yet these actions are not our identity. Furthermore, it is also attempting to find a unity of meaning in our actions. In discussing our presence to ourselves, the manner in which the pre-cogito is aware, or present to the self, he explains the nothingness of the pre-cogito.

Thus the for-itself must be its own nothingness. The being of consciousness qua consciousness is to exist // at a distance from itself // as a presence to itself, and this empty distance which being carries in its being is Nothingness. Thus in order for a // self // to exist, it is necessary that the unity of this being include its own nothingness as the nihilation of identity. (125)

Essentially, Sartre is explaining that the pre-reflective cogito, the awareness of self, is “nothing,” it is the nothingness or lack of identity.

Sartre goes onto paradoxically defines being-for-itself as “a being which is not what it is and which is what it is not” (127). He explains that it “is” in the fact that “it appears in a condition which it has not chosen” (127). Meaning, that man is born into certain conditions, man appears to others in certain forms, various roles (doctor, nurse, or schoolteacher, etc.) and in that respect for-it-self man “is”. Yet, saying that it is what it is not refers to the nothingness at the base of our existence. This is the nothingness of the pre-reflective cogito; the nothingness of our identity and our struggle to achieve a unified meaning of self (Catalano 99).

Thus it is clear that being-for-itself is the opposite of the being-in-itself. The in-itself is not self aware because it is completely contained within itself. The for-itself is self aware because it exists in the nothingness that is the pre-reflective cogito’s awareness of self. While the in-itself exists independent of meaning, it is the for-itself which is creating meaning of the in-itself. Yet, is itself a nihilated self looking for meaning.


 * Criticism **

Hazel E. Barnes, both the translator of the original English translation of Sartre’s // Being and Nothingness //, and the author of the article “Sartre’s Ontology,” in // The Cambridge Companion to Sartre //. In her article, she points out that many philosophers have accused Sartre’s philosophy of being dualistic (Barnes 14). They feel as though his formulation of the being-for-itself, its emphasis on consciousness in the centrality of man, takes the form of a separate material being.

She explains that in his // Critique of Dialectical Reason. Vol. I // ., Sartre explained that his philosophy was what he called a monistic materialism (14). Sartre does not believe that “spiritual or mental reality […] exists independent of matter” (14). The argument of Sartre is that “[c]onsciousness is neither thing nor spirit,” and that while he does not understand how, it becomes a part of the body (14). It exists as something generated by the brain, and is not the matter that makes up the brain, yet does not have is own complete separate identity. This slight separation, of the consciousness and the self, the detached questioning of the consciousness is possible because of nothingness (15). Nothing becomes the shell that envelopes consciousness and makes its existence, as neither matter nor spirit, possible.


 * Works Cited **

Barnes, Hazel E.. “Sartre’s Ontology: The Revealing and Making of Being.” // The Cambridge to // // Sartre //. Ed. Christina Howells. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Print.

Catalano, Joseph S.. // A Commentary on Jean-Paul Sartre’s “Being and Nothingness.” // Chicago, Il: The University of Chicago Press, 1974. Print.

Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness. Trans. Hazel E. Barnes. New York, NY: Washington Square Press, 1956. Print.

__Print Sources__: I found Joseph Catalano’s // A Commentary on Jean-Paul Sartre’s “Being and Nothingness” // to be a great help in digesting the material in Sartre’s // Being and Nothingness //. This work is organized exactly like the original and he provides an insightful and easy to read commentary on each section.
 * Additional Resources **

__Video__: A BBC production on Jean-Paul Sartre, “Human, All too Human,” it gives a thorough account of Sartre’s life, major influences and account of his existentialist philosophy. [] [] [] [] []

media type="youtube" key="PxbkPCLlXII" height="385" width="480" media type="youtube" key="YZgs4TmcL44" height="385" width="480" media type="youtube" key="KyHuHUk6Zkk" height="385" width="480" media type="youtube" key="qgJbxgl_iTI" height="385" width="480" media type="youtube" key="rt_wLdVhyVY" height="385" width="480"