JeanPaul_Sartre_JeanPaul_Sartre_Basic_Writing

86Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writingsis the appeal to the infinite of which we spoke in the first section of this work. ForHusserl, for example, the animation of the hyletic nucleus by the only intentionswhich can find their fulfilment (Erfüllung) in this hyle is not enough to bring us outsideof subjectivity. The truly objectifying intentions are empty intentions, those whichaim beyond the present subjective appearance at the infinite totality of the series ofappearances.We must further understand that the intentions aim at appearances which are neverto be given at one time. It is an impossibility on principle for the terms of an infiniteseries to exist all at the same time before consciousness, along with the real absence ofall these terms except for the one which is the foundation of objectivity. If presentthese impressions—even in infinite number-would dissolve in the subjective; it istheir absence which gives them objective being. Thus the being of the object is purenon-being. It is defined as a lack. It is that which escapes, that which by definition willnever be given, that which offers itself only in fleeting and successive profiles.But how can non-being be the foundation of being? How can the absent, expectedsubjective become thereby the objective? A great joy which I hope for, a grief which Idread, acquire from that fact a certain transcendence. This I admit. But that transcendencein immanence does not bring us out of the subjective. It is true that things givethemselves in profile; that is, simply by appearances. And it is true that each appearancerefers to other appearances. But each of them is already in itself alone a transcendentbeing, not a subjective material of impressions—a plenitude of being, not a lack—apresence, not an absence. It is futile by a sleight of hand to attempt to found the realityof the object on the subjective plenitude of impressions and its objectivity on nonbeing;the objective will never come out of the subjective nor the transcendent fromimmanence, nor being from non-being. But, we are told, Husserl defines consciousnessprecisely as a transcendence. In truth he does. This is what he posits. This is hisessential discovery. But from the moment that he makes of the noema an unreal, acorrelate of the noesis, a noema whose esse is percipi, he is totally unfaithful to hisprinciple.Consciousness is consciousness of something. This means that transcendence isthe constitutive structure of consciousness; that is, that consciousness is bornsupported by a being which is not itself. This is what we call the ontological proof. Nodoubt someone will reply that the existence of the demand of consciousness does notprove that this demand ought to be satisfied. But this objection can not hold up againstan analysis of what Husserl calls intentionality, though, to be sure, he misunderstoodits essential character. To say that consciousness is consciousness of something means