`Author:` Jean-Paul Sartre `Availability:` ## Summary ### **Being and Nothingness** ###  **— a brief overview** Jean-Paul Sartre’s _Being and Nothingness_ (1943) is the central philosophical statement of his **existential phenomenology**. Its core concern is **what it means to exist as a human being in a world without pre-given meaning**. Sartre distinguishes between two fundamental modes of being: - **Being-in-itself (être-en-soi)** The mode of objects. Things simply _are_ what they are. They are full, fixed, and unconscious of themselves. - **Being-for-itself (être-pour-soi)** The mode of human consciousness. Humans are not fixed things; they are defined by **lack, negation, and possibility**. Consciousness is always _not_ what it is and _is_ what it is not — it transcends itself toward the future. From this flows Sartre’s most famous claims: - **Radical freedom**: we are always free, even when constrained - **Anguish**: the emotional recognition of that freedom - **Bad faith**: the attempt to flee freedom by pretending we are fixed roles (waiter, lover, victim, etc.) Nothingness, for Sartre, is not a void but the **gap consciousness introduces into being** — the space in which freedom, choice, and responsibility arise. --- ### **The (very relevant) tangent: romantic relationships** Although _Being and Nothingness_ is not a book _about_ love, it contains one of the most unsparing philosophical analyses of romantic relationships in modern philosophy. Sartre’s key insight is this: ### **To love is to want to be freely chosen — but also to want to be necessary.** ##### This creates an unavoidable contradiction. In romantic love: - I want the other person to choose me **freely** - Yet I also want their love to be **secure, guaranteed, unquestionable** But freedom cannot be guaranteed without ceasing to be freedom. This leads to what Sartre famously describes as a struggle between consciousnesses: - I want to be the **centre of the other’s world** - Yet the other remains a free subject who can always withdraw - I therefore try (often unconsciously) to **fix** them — to turn their freedom into something stable Common strategies Sartre identifies: - **Seduction**: attempting to make oneself irresistible without coercion - **Masochism**: surrendering one’s freedom to be defined by the other - **Sadism**: attempting to dominate or objectify the other - **Jealousy**: trying to possess the other’s past, present, and future None succeed. Each is a form of **bad faith**, because they deny either my freedom or the other’s. --- ### **Why Sartre sounds bleak here (and why it matters)** Sartre’s account is often read as cynical, but it is better understood as **diagnostic rather than prescriptive**. He is exposing the hidden structures beneath romantic ideals: - Love fails when it becomes a project of **possession** - Desire fails when it tries to abolish the other’s freedom - Stability fails when it demands necessity instead of renewal He does **not** claim authentic relationships are impossible — only that they cannot rest on illusion. Any durable love must: - Accept the other’s freedom as permanent - Accept insecurity as unavoidable - Be continually _chosen_, not assumed This is why Sartre later softened and clarified these ideas in his ethical writings: freedom must be **reciprocal**, not conquered. If you wish, I can contrast Sartre’s view with: - Simone de Beauvoir’s more relational account in _The Ethics of Ambiguity_ - Kierkegaard’s conception of love and commitment - Or modern relational existentialists who respond directly to Sartre’s severity ## Key Takeaways ## Quotes - ## Notes > [!info] > ![[Being & Nothingness.jpg]] ## Highlights `Concepts:` `Knowledge Base:`