logo

50 pages 1 hour read

Jean-Paul Sartre

Being and Nothingness

Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 1943

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Part 3Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Part 3: “Being-for-the-Other"

Part 3, Chapter 1 Summary and Analysis: “The Other’s Existence”

After establishing certain truths about existence and consciousness—such as the denial of the pre-reflective cogito and being-for-itself—Sartre turns his attention to the problem of existence. He utilizes shame as an example of this problem. Shame is a part of consciousness; it functions in a similar way. However, the existence of shame is predicated upon the existence of the Other. Sartre points to the Other as the source of the problem of existence, as the comparison of the self to the Other produces shame. The Other makes being aware of itself, its qualities both now and in the past, and it inspires new qualities to emerge. In short, the Other turns the being-for-itself into an object to be judged, quantified, and questioned.

One of the issues with philosophical conceptions of the Other is that they fail to provide room for intuition of the soul of the Other. Sartre points to realism as an example. Realism is not concerned with anything beyond what can be seen and experienced regarding the Other and takes its existence for granted. Sartre proposes that humans must consider one another as objects to make sense of their own consciousness through negation, i.e., “this person is not me, therefore I am.” It is necessary to devote attention to the role of the Other in consciousness because it dominates a great portion of what constitutes being. Human awareness of being observed by others contributes to the understanding of the self. Humans become an object, and how they are perceived as an object becomes part of self-knowledge.

The problem of the Other is inflated by the fact that the minds of others cannot be known. Sartre attempts throughout the work to prove the existence of the minds and consciousness of the Other by overcoming solipsism. To do this, Sartre returns once more to the dissolution of dualities. By blurring the lines between the external and the internal, the Other becomes a part of one’s own consciousness. Negation serves as a useful tool for this unification. Sartre uses the narrative of a man in a park to illustrate this concept. The man observes what is around him in the park and notices another man walking past some benches. When he perceives this man, he perceives him as both an Object and as a man. However, this does not prove that the second man has consciousness or is a being-for-itself. It is only when both men see one another—thereby, objectifying one another—that an awareness of one another’s consciousness becomes a reality. Another way to look at this scenario is through intersubjectivity: Sartre proposes that if the two men notice something in the external world at the same time and share in the observation together, they then become aware of one another as conscious beings.

Sartre’s ideas in this chapter align with the theme Ways of Being. Prior to this chapter, Sartre devotes time to considering how consciousness is the absorption and unification of consciousness. He tackles the Other with the same philosophical approach. The existence of the Other contributes to being and helps to create the self. Humans define their own consciousness by how they are perceived. One way to think about this is through the act of filling out a personality type quiz. Often people find it helpful to survey their friends or family members while answering questions on this type of test. The reality of the self is thereby aided and determined by the perceptions of others.

The secondary way the Other constitutes the self is through shared observation. Sartre carries the park analogy forward: both men take note of their external surroundings together. Many people have had a similar experience. For example, a couple sits at a table, eating dinner together. Suddenly, the dog rolls over and stretches adorably. Both diners look at one another and smile. In that moment, they are acknowledging one another’s consciousnesses by recognizing that each is having the same experience. This principle of intersubjectivity aids in the awareness of one’s own consciousness because it solidifies the reality of experience.

Part 3, Chapter 2 Summary and Analysis: “The Body”

Sartre’s philosophical inquiry of the body begins similarly to the other chapters in the text. He rejects an approach which is reliant upon the acceptance of the body as reality. This acceptance is not based upon personal experience. Instead, it is based upon the experience of the Other. One cannot see one’s own brain or even obtain a collective view of one’s own body. Sartre illustrates this point with vision. One cannot turn one’s eyes upon the self to observe one’s own eyes. There is limitation to the ability of the self. This limitation creates a sense of isolation; it pulls the being-for-itself away from the unity of its consciousness.

Sartre suggests that the reality of this limitation transforms the body into a type of personal negation. Since one can never turn vision toward one’s own body, one is aware of the nothingness of the physical self. This idea correlates with Sartre’s earlier point that consciousness must always be consciousness of something else. For the self to be conscious of one’s own body, it must be able to observe it, to produce a relational value with it, yet this cannot happen because the body is physically incapable of perceiving itself. However, because one has seen other bodies, one makes assumptions about the reality of one’s own physical self. One can see the eyes of the Other and, therefore, becomes aware of the existence of one’s own eyes. Sartre proposes that it makes more sense to understand the reality of one’s own body through the recognition of the world. Humans understand the world cannot exist without its relational value to the physical self.

Once again, Sartre rejects the duality that appears so often in philosophy. The intuition a person feels about the physical self has little to do with the reality of the body. The text describes this as the first ontological dimension of the body and suggests that humans are their bodies rather than living inside their bodies. Just as Sartre examined the outside world and absorbed it into consciousness, Sartre emphasizes the body as a part of human existence and being-for-itself. The text proposes that the second ontological principle is that the body exists for the Other. These modes of being contrast with the third ontological principle, which describes how the Other can view the body of the self and know it in a way that the self cannot.

One way to think about this is through the modern scientific concept of the “me” illusion. This theory proposes that humans are never fully self-aware because they cannot see their own bodies. The theory suggests that if a person were to encounter an exact replica of the self in the world, they would not recognize the body of that person as being identical to their own. The awareness that the Other is viewing us adds to consciousness, creating in the sense of self feelings of shame or excitement. Sartre therefore views being as a broad and blanketing term that incorporates several concepts previously viewed as dualities, including the internal and external, physical and spiritual.

Sartre’s philosophical approach to the body is important to understand within the context of his personal life. Sartre’s physical appearance was of little consequence to him. He is known for describing his face as ugly. Sartre’s philosophy of the body is about transcendence, moving beyond the body. Sartre proposes that, although humans can never get to know their own bodies fully, they can get to know the body of the Other and begin to understand through reflection what that says about the self. However, he dismisses the idea that humans may be able to know their own bodies, just as he dismisses earlier in the text the idea that one can know that one is conscious. Being is not seen as synonymous with knowledge, because there is no object-reflection relationship between the mind and consciousness. One cannot observe one’s own consciousness. Therefore, one can never truly know that one exists. However, one can be aware that one exists through various processes, including negation. The same is true for the body. By perceiving the Other, one gains a better understanding of one’s own consciousness.

Part 3, Chapter 3 Summary and Analysis: “Concrete Relations With the Other”

The Other is central to Sartre’s argument of consciousness. He proposes that one cannot separate the self from the Other; they are intrinsically connected. Sartre suggests that the relationship between the self and the Other produces two results: flight and pursuit. In this way, the Other contributes to the freedom of the self. When the being-for-itself finds awareness of the self through ontological dimensions of the Other and transcends the physical, freedom is obtained. However, negation is also possible. To better understand this idea, Sartre explains that anything the Other does or can do can also be done by the self.

Sartre presents a new contribution to the Ways of Being through the idea of “being-for-the-other.” This form of being is predicated upon possession. Since the Other can perceive the self in a way that the self cannot, the Other possesses certain secrets about the being of the self. This situation creates a myriad of problems. Sartre views ideas like love, language, slavery, and masochism as examples of the possession of the Other. These ideas are related because all seek the same reciprocation from the being-for-itself. The lover and the tyrant hope to capture the affection of the possessed. This presents one inherent problem of existence that is manifested through freedom. The principle that whatever the Other can do the self can do also contributes to the theme The Importance of Authenticity: The freedom found in the collective consciousness of the Other and the self creates freedom; however, within that freedom, there is also the choice to enslave, to withhold freedom from one another.

These philosophies may have contributed to Sartre’s own personal life and views on love and intimate relationships. He developed a deeply personal relationship with his colleague and fellow philosopher, Simone de Beauvoir, but the two maintained an open relationship. Sartre and his friends enjoyed wild parties and often swapped partners. When his colleague pursued their mutual friend and was rejected, Sartre was angry that she was rejected rather than angry that she had sought to have an intimate relationship with another friend. In the text, Sartre proposes that possession of the Other is one way in which freedom is a form of punishment. The text argues that the being-for-itself seeks to take over another being-for-itself as property and treat it as an object, or a being-in-itself is manifested through free will. The possessor hopes that the being-for-itself will be acceptant of the possession: “The lover demands an oath, and is irritated by the oath. He wants to be loved by a freedom, and demands that this freedom, as freedom, should no longer be free” (487). Sartre’s comparison of love to the restrictive nature of tyranny reflects his personal choices in intimacy.

In the text, Sartre proposes that being-for-the-other always leads to frustration and sadness. Sartre uses the example of possession to show how it never fully obtains the goal that the possessor seeks—the love will always be disappointing, an idea that relates once more to The Importance of Authenticity. Love represents another form of absurdism; one seeks love as a form of meaning in a world that is inherently meaningless. Sartre classifies love in the same realm as truth or fairness; it is an objective ideology that has no bearing on phenomenology. There is no way to quantify love, yet people seek it. They are obsessed with it. Sartre counsels that humans will always feel disappointed by love, because it is absurd. On a deep level, all people recognize the meaninglessness of existence. Although they seek love as a higher purpose, love will always fail to satisfy or fill the void left by nothingness.

blurred text
blurred text
blurred text
blurred text