**Key Themes and Concepts:** The provided excerpts delve into fundamental aspects of Sartre's existentialist ontology, particularly the distinction between two modes of being: the **being-in-itself (être-en-soi)** and the **being-for-itself (être-pour-soi)**. Central to the being-for-itself is the notion of **negation (néantisation)** and the experience of **lack**. The text also explores the profound impact of the **Other (Autrui)** on the being-for-itself, the nature of **possession (avoir)** as a project of being, and the existential significance of the **body** and **sensory experience**. **1. The Nature and Primacy of Negation:** Sartre argues against the idea that negation is solely a function of judgment. He posits that negation is a **pre-judicative attitude** and a **relation of being to non-being**. - **Negation beyond Judgment:** "First it is not true that negation is only a quality of judgment... I can question by a look, by a gesture. In posing a question I stand facing being in a certain way and this relation to being is a relation of being; the judgment is only one optional expression of it." - **Questioning and the Anticipation of Non-Being:** The act of questioning inherently involves the possibility of non-being. When questioning an object, like a carburetor, "I am prepared at the same time for the eventuality of a disclosure of a non-being. If I question the carburetor, it is because I consider it possible that 'there is nothing there' in the carburetor. Thus my question by its nature envelops a certain pre-judicative comprehension of non-being." - **Destruction as a Human Manifestation of Negation:** Destruction is presented as another **non-judicative conduct** that embodies the immediate comprehension of non-being based on being. Natural phenomena like storms merely modify the distribution of mass, whereas destruction requires a **witness who can retain the past** and compare it to the present as "no longer." - **Humanity as the Source of Destruction and Fragility:** Only through man, with his capacity for transcendence and limitation, does destruction and fragility enter into being. "In order for destruction to exist, there must be first a relation of man to being—i.e., a transcendence; and within the limits of this relation, it is necessary that man apprehend one being as destructible... Thus it is man who renders cities destructible, precisely because he posits them as fragile and as precious and because he adopts a system of protective measures with regard to them." - **Negation as an Abrupt Break in Continuity:** Negation is not merely an application of a category but an original and irreducible event that tears us away from the "wall of positivity" of being. "For negation is a refusal of existence. By means of it a being (or a way of being) is posited, then thrown back to nothingness... Here we are in the realm of consciousness. Consciousness moreover can not produce a negation except in the form of consciousness of negation... The not, as an abrupt intuitive discovery, appears as consciousness (of being), consciousness of the not." - **Internal and External Negation:** Sartre distinguishes between external negation, a purely external bond established by a witness ("A cup is not an inkwell"), and internal negation, where the denied being qualifies the other being at the heart of its essence by absence ("I am not handsome"). Internal negation is inherent to the for-itself. "By an internal negation we understand such a relation between two beings that the one which is denied to the other qualifies the other at the heart of its essence—by absence." **2. Being-for-Itself: Lack, Transcendence, and Temporality:** The being-for-itself, consciousness, is characterized by its **lack of being** and its perpetual **transcendence** towards what it is not. This lack and transcendence are intrinsically linked to its temporal dimensions. - **Lack as the Core of the For-itself:** The for-itself is defined by what it lacks. This lack is not a pre-existing state but one that the for-itself "makes itself be." "What is lacking is in its very absence still profoundly present at the heart of the existing, it is because the existing and the lacking are at the same moment apprehended and surpassed in the unity of a single totality." - **Value as the Lacked Self:** Value is the "lacked" being; the absolute being of the self, characterized by identity, purity, and permanence, which the for-itself constantly surpasses itself towards but can never fully realize. "Value is “the lacked;” it is not “the lacking.” Value is the self in so far as the self haunts the heart of the for-itself as that for which the for-itself is. The supreme value toward which consciousness at every instant surpasses itself by its very being is the absolute being of the self with its characteristics of identity, of purity, of permanence, etc., and as its own foundation." - **Negation of Negation and the Refused Lack:** The for-itself constitutes itself as lack by refusing it. The internal connection between the lacking and the lacked is the refusal. "Thus the foundation of the negation is negation of negation. But this negation-foundation is no more a given than the lack of which it is an essential moment; it is as having to be." - **The Past as Facticity:** The past of the for-itself is not something it possesses externally, but something it **is** in the mode of "was." It is a "fatality in reverse," a fixed state in the in-itself which the present for-itself radically transcends. "The Past is a fatality in reverse. The For-itself can make itself what it wishes, but it can not escape from the necessity of being irremediably—for a new For-itself—what it has wished to be... In the past the world surrounds me, and I lose myself in the universal determinism; but I radically transcend my past toward the future to the same extent that I “was it.”" - **Temporality as a Multiplicity of Dimensions:** The for-itself exists simultaneously in multiple dimensions (past, present, future) as various relations to its being. These dimensions are **ekstatic**, meaning they represent a distance from the self. "The For-itself... can and must at the same time fulfill these three requirements: (1) to not-be what it is, (2) to be what it is not, (3) to be what it is not and to not-be what it is—within the unity of a perpetual referring." - **The World as Correlative to the For-itself:** The world is not simply a collection of objects but is revealed as mine in so far as it is the correlative of nothingness (the for-itself's transcendence) and is haunted by possibles which are possible self-consciousnesses. "Thus the world by nature is mine in so far as it is the correlative in-itself of nothingness; that is, of the necessary obstacle beyond which I find myself as that which I am in the form “of having to be it.” Without the world there is no selfness, no person; without selfness, without the person, there is no world." **3. The Look and the Experience of the Other:** The appearance of the Other is a fundamental ontological event that profoundly alters the being-for-itself's experience of itself. The **look** of the Other is the primary manifestation of this presence. - **The Look as a Pure Reference to Myself:** The Other's look, manifested by various signs (rustling branches, sound of a footstep, eyes), is not apprehended as an object but as a pure reference to myself. "Thus the look is first an intermediary which refers from me to myself. What is the nature of this intermediary? What does being seen mean for me?" - **Being Seen as Becoming Vulnerable and an Object:** Being seen means apprehending oneself as vulnerable, as occupying a place, and as having a body without defense. It is the consciousness of being looked at, which suspends the subject's perception of the world. "I am vulnerable, that I have a body which can be hurt, that I occupy a place and that I can not in any case escape from the space in which I am without defense—in short, that I am seen." - **The Original Fall: The Existence of the Other:** The existence of the Other constitutes an "original fall" because it confers an "outside" and a "nature" upon the for-itself, transforming its pure transcendence into a given transcendence, an object. "If there is an Other, whatever or whoever he may be, whatever may be his relations with me, and without his acting upon me in any way except by the pure upsurge of his being—then I have an outside, I have a nature. My original fall is the existence of the Other." - **Shame as the Apprehension of Oneself as Object:** Shame is the feeling of apprehending oneself as a nature or an object for the Other, even though this nature is unknowable to oneself. It is a feeling of being "degraded, fixed, and dependent." "Shame—like pride—is the apprehension of myself as a nature although that very nature escapes me and is unknowable as such... Pure shame is not a feeling of being this or that guilty object but in general of being an object; that is, of recognizing myself in this degraded, fixed, and dependent being which I am for the Other." - **Being Seen as Becoming Spatialized and Assessable:** The Other's look confers spatiality upon the for-itself and constitutes it as an object of unknowable appraisals, particularly value judgments. "The Other’s look confers spatiality upon me. To apprehend oneself as looked-at is to apprehend oneself as a spatializing-spatialized." and "To be looked at is to apprehend oneself as the unknown object of unknowable appraisals—in particular, of value judgments." - **Slavery and Dependence on the Other's Freedom:** Being seen constitutes the for-itself as a defenseless being for a freedom that is not its own, leading to a state of "slavery." "It is in this sense that we can consider ourselves as “slaves” in so far as we appear to the Other. But this slavery is not a historical result—capable of being surmounted—of a life in the abstract form of consciousness. I am a slave to the degree that my being is dependent at the center of a freedom which is not mine and which is the very condition of my being." **4. The Body and Desire in Being-for-Others:** The body plays a crucial role in the for-itself's existence, particularly in its relations with the Other, and is central to the phenomenon of desire. - **The Body as the Undifferentiated Center of Reference:** For the for-itself, the body is not an object among others but the point of reference around which the world is organized. It is the "non-instrumental instrument" and the "being-there" that cannot be apprehended as an object. - **Aberrant Appearance: Seeing One's Own Body as an Object:** While the primary experience of the body is as a lived, non-objective reality, it can appear to the for-itself as an object, analogous to how the Other's body appears. This happens when the for-itself adopts the Other's point of view towards itself. "In this case my hand, for example, appears to me as one object among other objects... This appearance of my hand means simply that in certain well-defined cases we can adopt with regard to our own body the Other’s point of view or, if you like, that our own body can appear to us as the body of the Other." - **Desire as a Fundamental Structure of Being-for-Others:** Desire is a significant mode of being-for-others and is intrinsically linked to sexuality, though it is a more fundamental structure than simply the physiological sex organs. "Infantile sexuality precedes the physiological maturation of the sex organs... The fact of being able to make use of a sex organ fit to fertilize and to procure enjoyment represents only one phase and one aspect of our sexual life. There is one mode of sexuality 'with the possibility of satisfaction,' and the developed sex represents and makes concrete this possibility. But there are other modes of sexuality of the type which can not get satisfaction, and if we take these modes into account we are forced to recognize that sexuality appears with birth and disappears only with death." - **Desire as "Trouble":** Desire is characterized as a state of "trouble," a clogging or opacity of consciousness by facticity. Unlike hunger, which is a pure surpassing of bodily facticity, desire involves a passive consent to this facticity. "Desire is defined as trouble... If the desiring consciousness is troubled, it is because it is analogous to the troubled water... everyone is aware that there is a great abyss between sexual desire and other appetites... desire compromises me; I am the accomplice of my desire." - **The World of Desire and Incarnation:** In desire, the world is radically altered and appears in relation to the for-itself's body as flesh. Objects are apprehended through touch and reveal the for-itself's incarnation. "If my body is no longer felt as the instrument which can not be utilized by any instrument... if it is lived as flesh, then it is as a reference to my flesh that I apprehend the objects in the world... A contact with them is a caress; that is, my perception is not the utilization of the object and the surpassing of the present in view of an end, but to perceive an object when I am in the desiring attitude is to caress myself with it." - **The Project of Desire: Being Absorbed by the Body:** The ultimate project of desire is to be absorbed by the body, to be reduced to pure being-there. This project is lived as "disturbance." "This project, inasmuch as it is not simply conceived and thematically posited but rather lived... is 'disturbance' or 'trouble'... I desire only with my trouble, and I disrobe the Other only by disrobing myself; I fore-shadow and outline the Other’s flesh only by outlining my own flesh." - **Sadism and Masochism as Failures of Desire:** Desire, as an attempt to appropriate the Other's incarnated consciousness, is prone to failure, leading to sadism or masochism. Sadism attempts to incarnate the Other through violence and appropriation, refusing its own incarnation, while masochism seeks to be constituted as an object by the Other and is fascinated by its own objectivity. "Sadism and masochism are the two reefs on which desire may founder—whether I surpass my troubled disturbance toward an appropriation of the Other’s flesh or, intoxicated with my own trouble, pay attention only to my flesh and ask nothing of the Other except that he should be the look which aids me in realizing my flesh." **5. Possession as a Project of Being:** Sartre analyzes the nature of **possession (avoir)**, revealing it as a fundamental project of human reality rooted in the desire to have and ultimately, the desire to be. - **Possession as a Relation of Being:** Possession is not merely an external relation between a subject and an object but an internal, ontological bond where the possessor and the possessed ideally form a unique reality. "To possess is to be united with the object possessed in the form of appropriation; to wish to possess is to wish to be united to an object in this relation. Thus the desire of a particular object is not the simple desire of this object; it is the desire to be united with the object in an internal relation, in the mode of constituting with it the unity 'possessor-possessed.'" - **Possession and the Insufficiency of the For-itself:** The drive to possess stems from the for-itself's lack of being and its need to find its sufficiency and completion in the object. "If the possessor and the possessed are united by an internal relation based on the insufficiency of being in the for-itself... ownership, derives its origin from the insufficiency of being in the for-itself." - **Possession as a Continuous Creation:** Possession is understood as a continuous act of creation where the possessor is the _raison d'être_ of the possessed object, even if this is obscured by the division of labor. "To possess means to have for myself; that is, to be the unique end of the existence of the object... Moreover originally it is I who make for myself the object which I want to possess." - **Money as a Symbol of Creative Power:** Money represents the effectiveness of desire and acts as a symbolic creative force, allowing the for-itself to appropriate the world. "To buy an object is a symbolic act which amounts to creating the object. That is why money is synonymous with power... precisely because it is transcended toward the thing, surpassed, and simply implied, it represents my magical bond with the object." - **Possession as a Project towards Being-in-itself-for-itself:** The ultimate aim of possession is to apprehend oneself as the foundation of a being, to achieve the ideal state of being-in-itself-for-itself (God). "Thus the possessor aims at enjoying his being-in-itself, his being-outside... Thus possession is in addition a defense against others. What is mine is myself in a non-subjective form inasmuch as I am its free foundation." - **Possession and the Appropriation of the World:** To possess is to wish to possess the world through a particular object. This reflects the for-itself's project of possessing the totality of the in-itself as that which is lacking to it. "Thus the relation of possession appears to us clearly: to possess is to wish to possess the the world across a particular object." **6. The Significance of Sensory Experience:** Sartre examines specific sensory experiences, like the tactile experience of **sliminess**, to illustrate fundamental ontological relationships. - **Sliminess as the Agony of Water and Fixed Instability:** Sliminess is characterized as being in a state of process and fixed instability, resisting possession unlike the fleeting nature of water. "Slime is the agony of water. It presents itself as a phenomenon in process of becoming... This fixed instability in the slimy discourages possession." - **Sliminess as a Surreptitious Appropriation:** The experience of touching something slimy is not simply a passive encounter; it involves a sense of being drawn in and appropriated by the object itself. "It is a soft, yielding action, a moist and feminine sucking, it lives obscurely under my fingers, and I sense it like a dizziness; it draws me to it as the bottom of a precipice might draw me... there is underneath this docility a surreptitious appropriation of the possessor by the possessed." - **Tastes and the Assimilation of Being:** Tastes are not mere subjective preferences but reveal a fundamental project of assimilating or rejecting the being of food. "To eat is to appropriate by destruction; it is at the same time to be filled up with a certain being... by tasting them we appropriate them. Taste is assimilation; by the very act of biting the tooth reveals the density of a body which it is transforming into gastric contents... Henceforth, what I accept or what I reject with disgust is the very being of that existent..." **In Summary:** These excerpts highlight Sartre's complex and challenging view of human existence. The being-for-itself is fundamentally defined by its freedom and its inherent lack of being, a lack which drives its perpetual transcendence. This transcendence is intertwined with the experience of temporality and the constitution of a world that is correlative to the for-itself's projects. The arrival of the Other profoundly alters this dynamic, introducing the experience of being-as-object and the possibility of shame and slavery. Finally, fundamental human drives like desire and possession are interpreted not as simple biological or psychological phenomena but as ontological projects aimed at resolving the for-itself's lack of being, ultimately pointing towards the impossible ideal of being-in-itself-for-itself. The exploration of sensory experiences like sliminess and taste further underscores the existential significance of our embodied relationship with the world.