JeanPaul_Sartre_JeanPaul_Sartre_Basic_Writing

The self161being is failure because it is the foundation only of itself as nothingness. In truth thisfailure is its very being, but it has meaning only if the for-itself apprehends itself asfailure in the presence of the being which it has failed to be; that is, of the being whichwould be the foundation of its being and no longer merely the foundation of itsnothingness—or, to put it another way, which would be its foundation as coincidencewith itself. By nature the cogito refers to the lacking and to the lacked, for the cogitois haunted by being, as Descartes well realized.Such is the origin of transcendence. Human reality is its own surpassing towardwhat it lacks; it surpasses itself toward the particular being which it would be if it werewhat it is. Human reality is not something which exists first in order afterwards to lackthis or that; it exists first as lack and in immediate, synthetic connection with what itlacks. Thus the pure event by which human reality rises as a presence in the world isapprehended by itself as its own lack. In its coming into existence human realitygrasps itself as an incomplete being. It apprehends itself as being in so far as it is not,in the presence of the particular totality which it lacks and which it is in the form ofnot being it and which is what it is. Human reality is a perpetual surpassing toward acoincidence with itself which is never given. If the cogito reaches toward being, it isbecause by its very thrust it surpasses itself toward being by qualifying itself in itsbeing as the being to which coincidence with self is lacking in order for it to be what itis. The cogito is indissolubly linked to being-in-itself, not as a thought to its object—which would make the in-itself relative—but as a lack to that which defines its lack. Inthis sense the second Cartesian proof is rigorous. Imperfect being surpasses itselftoward perfect being; the being which is the foundation only of its nothingness surpassesitself toward the being which is the foundation of its being. But the being towardwhich human reality surpasses itself is not a transcendent God; it is at the heart ofhuman reality; it is only human reality itself as totality.This totality is not the pure and simple contingent in-itself of the transcendent. Ifwhat consciousness apprehends as the being toward which it surpasses itself were thepure in-itself, it would coincide with the annihilation of consciousness. Butconsciousness does not surpass itself toward it annihilation; it does not want to loseitself in the in-itself of identity at the limit of its surpassing. It is for the for-itself assuch that the for-itself lays claim to being-in-itself.Thus this perpetually absent being which haunts the for-itself is itself fixed in thein-itself. It is the impossible synthesis of the for-itself and the in-itself: it would be itsown foundation not as nothingness but as being and would preserve within it thenecessary translucency of consciousness along with the coincidence with itself ofbeing-in-itself. It would preserve in it that turning back upon the self which conditions