Dinesh

Dinesh club

Posted: 14 Jan 2017


Taken: 14 Jan 2017

0 favorites     1 comment    69 visits

See also...


Keywords

Excerpt
Being and Nothingness
Sartre


Authorizations, license

Visible by: Everyone
All rights reserved

Photo replaced on 14 Jan 2017
69 visits


What is Presence? *

What is Presence? *

Comments
 Dinesh
Dinesh club
We have seen that this can not be the pure co-existence of two existents, conceived as a simple relation of exteriority, for that would require a third term to establish the co-existence. This third term exists in the case of the co-existence of things in the midst of the world; it is the For-itself which established this co-existence by making itself co-present at all. But in the case of the Presence of the For-itself to being-in-itself, there can not be a third term. No witness -- not even God -- could establish that presence; even the For-itself can know it only if the presence already is. Nevertheless presence can not be in the mode of the in-itself. This means that originally the For-itself is presence to being in so far as the For-itself is to itself its own witness of co-existence. How are we to understand this? We know that the For-itself is the being which exists in the form of a witness of its being. Now the For-itself is present to being if it is intentionally directed outside itself upon that being. And it must adhere to being as closely as is possible without identification. This adherence, (as we shall see in the next chapter,) is realistic, due to the fact that the For-itself realizes its birth in an original bond with being; it is a witness to itself of itself as not being that being. Due to this fact it is outside that being, upon being and within being as not being that being.

In addition we can deduce the following conclusions as to the meaning of Presence: Presence to a being implies that one is bound to that being by an internal bond; otherwise no connection between Present and being would be possible. But this internal bond is a negative bond and denies, as related to the present being, that one is the being to which one is present. If this were not so, the internal bond would dissolve into pure and simple identification. Thus the For-itself's Presence to being implies that the For-itself is a witness of itself is not. For the negation rests not on a difference in mode of being which would distinguish the For-itself from being but on a difference of being. This can be expressed briefly by saying that the Presence is 'not'. ~ Page 178
7 years ago. Edited 7 years ago.

Sign-in to write a comment.