JeanPaul_Sartre_JeanPaul_Sartre_Basic_Writing

144Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writingsassigned an objective carefully points his gun in a certain direction excluding all others.But even this would still be nothing unless the being of the gunner’s objective isrevealed as fragile. And what is fragility if not a certain probability of non-being for agiven being under determined circumstances. A being is fragile if it carries in its being adefinite possibility of non-being. But once again it is through man that fragility comesinto being, for the individualizing limitation which we mentioned earlier is the conditionof fragility; one being is fragile and not all being, for the latter is beyond all possibledestruction. Thus the relation of individualizing limitation which man enters into withone being on the original basis of his relation to being causes fragility to enter into thisbeing as the appearance of a permanent possibility of non-being. But this is not all. Inorder for destructibility to exist, man must determine himself in the face of thispossibility of non-being, either positively or negatively; he must either take thenecessary measures to realize it (destruction proper) or, by a negation of non-being, tomaintain it always on the level of a simple possibility (by preventive measures). Thusit is man who renders cities destructible, precisely because he posits them as fragileand as precious and because he adopts a system of protective measures with regard tothem. It is because of this ensemble of measures that an earthquake or a volcaniceruption can destroy these cities or these human constructions. The original meaningand aim of war are contained in the smallest building of man. It is necessary then torecognize that destruction is an essentially human thing and that it is man who destroyshis cities through the agency of earthquakes or directly, who destroys his shipsthrough the agency of cyclones or directly. But at the same time it is necessary toacknowledge that destruction supposes a pre-judicative comprehension of nothingnessas such and a conduct in the face of nothingness. In addition destruction althoughcoming into being through man, is an objective fact and not a thought. Fragility hasbeen impressed upon the very being of this vase, and its destruction would be anirreversible absolute event which I could only verify. There is a transphenomenality ofnon-being as of being. The examination of “destruction” leads us then to the sameresults as the examination of “the question.”But if we wish to decide with certainty, we need only to consider an example of anegative judgment and to ask ourselves whether it causes non-being to appear at theheart of being or merely limits itself to determining a prior revelation. I have anappointment with Pierre at four o’clock. I arrive at the café a quarter of an hour late.Pierre is always punctual. Will he have waited for me? I look at the room, the patrons,and I say, “He is not here.” Is there an intuition of Pierre’s absence, or does negationindeed enter in only with judgment? At first sight it seems absurd to speak here of