In Being and Nothingness, Sartre discusses negation in a number of contexts, but I cannot for the life of me figure out a definition of it--even a rough one. So far as I can tell, it is not merely a logical operation and it is not just a psychological attitude. Does anyone have any insights or suggestions for me to understand this better?

  • 1
    see also philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/40774/28067 – ttnphns Mar 5 '20 at 20:04
  • 1
    Sartre's point is that the self the " pour soi" cannot be itself in the same way as an " en soi" is itself. This table is itself in the sense of a pure logical identity, the traditional transcendental concept of unity as indivisibility ( " Ens et unum convertuntur") perfectly applies here. A thng , an " en soi" is a plenim. But for the self to be himself, he has to be aware of himself, and , in that sense he has not to be himself in order to be the self he is, for the " watcher" ( " spectateur de soi-même") never perfectly " matches" the being that is watched. . – user39744 May 4 '20 at 3:15
  • 1
    It means that, at the heart of the self, there is an internal " divsion", a " crack", a " fissure" : " I am what I am not, and I am not what I am". Note that this internal negation is not equivalent to the subject / object opposition : Sartre explicitly rejects the traditional concept of self-consciousness as knowing oneself , that is, as " being reflectively an object for oneself". Self consciousnesss is " non-positional" consciousness, a consciousness without intentionality. – user39744 May 4 '20 at 3:17

If I understand this correctly, Sartre considers negation (usually as internal negation) as one of the fundamental aspect of humanity, because it reflects the tension between being-in-itself and being-for-itself where the latter is (ostensibly) a feature specific to human consciousness. 'Being-in-itself', for Sartre, is the totality of what someone is: the accumulated sum of one's biology, history, and thoughts and behavior as they manifest in the present moment. 'Being-for-itself', by contrast, is the aggregate of how we perceive ourselves: what we think of ourselves, what we want for ourselves, what we imagine ourselves to be... As you can see, the second of these often amounts to a rejection or denial of the first: we want to be the kind of person who does X, so we reject the fact that (historically) we may have done Y.

That is the sense of 'negation' in Sartre: negating that which is historically (observably) the case in support of an aspirational or ideal view of the self. It's that philosophical tension that drives learning, growth, ethics, and etc.

  • Thanks! That helps a lot! – John Timmers Feb 21 '20 at 20:27

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.