JeanPaul_Sartre_JeanPaul_Sartre_Basic_Writing

JeanPaul_Sartre_JeanPaul_Sartre_Basic_Writing JeanPaul_Sartre_JeanPaul_Sartre_Basic_Writing

13.07.2015 Views

Temporality171without there being any object of which the reflection would be the reflection. TheFor-itself does not have being because its being is always at a distance: its being isthere in the reflecting, if you consider appearance, which is appearance or reflectiononly for the reflecting; it is there in the reflection if you consider the reflecting, whichis no longer in itself anything more than a pure function of reflecting this reflection.Furthermore in itself the For-itself is not being, for it makes itself be explicitly foritselfas not being being. It is consciousness of —— as the internal negation of ——.The structure at the basis of intentionality and of selfness is the negation, which is theinternal relation of the For-itself to the thing. The For-itself constitutes itself outsidein terms of the thing as the negation of that thing; thus its first relation with being-initselfis negation. It “is” in the mode of the For-itself; that is, as a separated existentinasmuch as it reveals itself as not being being. It doubly escapes being, by an internaldisintegration and by express negation. The present is precisely this negation of being,this escape from being inasmuch as being is there as that from which one escapes. TheFor-itself is present to being in the form of flight; the Present is a perpetual flight in theface of being. Thus we have precisely defined the fundamental meaning of the Present:the Present is not. The present instant emanates from a realistic and reifying conceptionof the For-itself; it is this conception which leads us to denote the For-itself accordingto the mode of that which is and that to which it is present— for example, of that handon the face of the clock. In this sense it would be absurd to say that it is nine o’clockfor the For-itself, but the For-itself can be present to a hand pointed at nine o’clock.What we falsely call the Present is the being to which the present is presence. It isimpossible to grasp the Present in the form of an instant, for the instant would be themoment when the present is. But the present is not; it makes itself present in the formof flight.But the present is not only the For-itself’s non-being making itself present. AsFor-itself it has its being outside of it, before and behind. Behind, it was its past; andbefore, it will be its future. It is a flight outside of co-present being and from the beingwhich it was toward the being which it will be. At present it is not what it is (past) andit is what it is not (future). Here then we are referred to the Future.III. The FutureWe must not understand by the future a “now” which is not yet. If we did so, weshould fall back into the in-itself, and even worse we should have to envisage time asa given and static container. The future is what I have to be in so far as I can not be it.

172Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic WritingsLet us recall that the For-itself makes itself present before being as not being this beingand as having been its own being in the past. This presence is flight. We are not dealinghere with a belated presence at rest near being but with an escape outside of beingtowards ——. And this flight is two-fold, for in fleeing the being which it is not,Presence flees the being which it was. Toward what is it fleeing? We must not forgetthat in so far as it makes itself present to being in order to flee it the For-itself is a lack.The possible is that which the For-itself lacks in order to be itself or, if you prefer, theappearance of what I am—at a distance. Thus we grasp the meaning of the flight whichis Presence; it is a flight toward its being; that is, toward the self which it will be bycoincidence with what it lacks. The Future is the lack which wrenches it as lack awayfrom the in-itself of Presence. If Presence did not lack anything, it would fall back intobeing and would lose presence to being and acquire in exchange the isolation of completeidentity. It is lack as such which permits it to be presence. Because Presence is outsideof itself toward something lacking which is beyond the world, it can be outside itselfas presence to an in-itself which it is not.The Future is the determining being which the For-itself has to be beyond being.There is a Future because the For-itself has to be its being instead of simply being it.This being which the For-itself has to be can not be in the mode of the cc-present initselfs;for in that case it would be without being made-to-be; we could not thenimagine it as a completely defined state to which presence alone would be lacking, asKant says that existence adds nothing more to the object of the concept. But this beingwould no longer be able to exist, for in that case the For-itself would be only a given.This being is because the For-itself makes itself be by perpetually apprehending itselffor itself as unachieved in relation to it. It is this which at a distance haunts the dyadreflection-reflecting and which causes the reflection to be apprehended by the reflecting(and conversely) as a Not-yet. But it is necessary that this lacking be given in the unityof a single upsurge with the For-itself which lacks; otherwise there would be nothingin relation to which the For-itself might apprehend itself as not-yet. The Future isrevealed to the For-itself as that which the For-itself is not yet, inasmuch as the Foritselfconstitutes itself non-thetically for itself as a not-yet in the perspective of thisrevelation, and inasmuch as it makes itself be as a project of itself outside the Presenttoward that which it is not yet. To be sure, the Future can not be without thisrevelation. This revelation itself requires being revealed to itself; that is, it requires therevelation of the For-itself to itself, for otherwise the ensemble revelation-revealedwould fall into the unconscious—i.e., into the In-itself. Thus only a being which is itsown revealed to itself—that is, whose being is in question for itself—can have a

Temporality171without there being any object of which the reflection would be the reflection. TheFor-itself does not have being because its being is always at a distance: its being isthere in the reflecting, if you consider appearance, which is appearance or reflectiononly for the reflecting; it is there in the reflection if you consider the reflecting, whichis no longer in itself anything more than a pure function of reflecting this reflection.Furthermore in itself the For-itself is not being, for it makes itself be explicitly foritselfas not being being. It is consciousness of —— as the internal negation of ——.The structure at the basis of intentionality and of selfness is the negation, which is theinternal relation of the For-itself to the thing. The For-itself constitutes itself outsidein terms of the thing as the negation of that thing; thus its first relation with being-initselfis negation. It “is” in the mode of the For-itself; that is, as a separated existentinasmuch as it reveals itself as not being being. It doubly escapes being, by an internaldisintegration and by express negation. The present is precisely this negation of being,this escape from being inasmuch as being is there as that from which one escapes. TheFor-itself is present to being in the form of flight; the Present is a perpetual flight in theface of being. Thus we have precisely defined the fundamental meaning of the Present:the Present is not. The present instant emanates from a realistic and reifying conceptionof the For-itself; it is this conception which leads us to denote the For-itself accordingto the mode of that which is and that to which it is present— for example, of that handon the face of the clock. In this sense it would be absurd to say that it is nine o’clockfor the For-itself, but the For-itself can be present to a hand pointed at nine o’clock.What we falsely call the Present is the being to which the present is presence. It isimpossible to grasp the Present in the form of an instant, for the instant would be themoment when the present is. But the present is not; it makes itself present in the formof flight.But the present is not only the For-itself’s non-being making itself present. AsFor-itself it has its being outside of it, before and behind. Behind, it was its past; andbefore, it will be its future. It is a flight outside of co-present being and from the beingwhich it was toward the being which it will be. At present it is not what it is (past) andit is what it is not (future). Here then we are referred to the Future.III. The FutureWe must not understand by the future a “now” which is not yet. If we did so, weshould fall back into the in-itself, and even worse we should have to envisage time asa given and static container. The future is what I have to be in so far as I can not be it.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!