In so reflecting upon or transcending myself, objects etc, I am not identical with them. With respect to ourselves, the existence of Nothingness in relation to consciousness guarantees Freedom. It is, as mentioned above, an existential structure of human being in the world. We do experience Nothingness, it is a lived experience and phenomena.

Pierre fails to arrive and the café melts into disappointment, melts into Nothingness. Sartre gives the famous example of waiting in a café for his friend Pierre to arrive. It can arise from disappointment, from failure, from negations, from emotions and so on. Nothingness can arise in the world in many ways. Nothingness is at the heart of Being, there is an interplay between the two - hence the book title. By so breaking with Being, Nothingness emerges. But consciousness is not a thing, it is a Nothing. What is it that transcends? It is consciousness. I can transcend and thereby reflect upon my being. I’m not in a condition of Being in Itself. If my Being can become an issue for me, I am not identical with it. My Being can be an issue for me - hence we are a Being-for-Itself. In the jargon, we can ‘transcend facticity’.

We can think about thinking, we can think about our actions, we are distinct from ourselves. This makes us distinct from ourselves, others and from objects. In other words, we possess Consciousness. Unlike unconscious, inert things (a condition which Sartre terms Being-In-Itself), humans exist in a condition of Being-for-Itself. It is these modes of being or structures that Sartre examines with a reference to human Freedom. These are not limited to the reductive view that there are just objects in space and time but account for actual, lived human existence. Unlike Descartes, who stands apart from the world to dispassionately ponders the existence of the world of objects to ask ‘What can I know? Or unlike a scientist who limits being to the quantitative measurements of things for Existentialists, we are already in the world, living and practising many modes or ways of being in the world, of interacting with ourselves, others, objects and things. It is examining how the phenomena of the world (including ourselves) disclose themselves to us and how we interact, respond to them. To explore this, he undertakes a phenomenological analyses of human ontology - what it is actually like to be a human being, being in the world. The central issue for Sartre, is human Freedom. Russell, Being and Nothingness is a difficult but rewarding read. I was wondering if there are any tips to better understanding the large work? Depending on who sees this, Thank you. I am trying to do an analysis on the dualist essay of Being and Nothingness by Jean-Paul Sartre.

Sartre being nothingness