1.

this will be the first of a series of

videos on jean-paul Sartre's Being and

Nothingness this first video will

introduce some of the fundamental

concepts from which Sarge's philosophy

is built on before we get into part one

and the introduction of the text I'm

going to talk a little bit about the

background ideas to help situate us

before getting into the specifics of

Sarge's terminology we are going to talk

just a little bit about Hegel and in

doing so I will provide an example of

what this video series aims to do many

of the concepts we will cover are at

first esoteric and contradictory yet

this is often because they are so

immediate to our experience that we do

not notice them for example Sartre

builds his philosophy out of Hegel's

dialectic of freedom in particular

Hagel's dialectic of subject and object

so if I were to tell you that our

self-knowledge is based in conflict with

the other that all social relations are

based in conflict that as a subject I

attempt to make an object out of the

other that the other can make an object

out of me all of this may sound a bit

weird to you like what what happened to

love and all that stuff that seems

totally out of the picture so it sounds

esoteric and difficult to relate to but

it corresponds to something familiar to

us all something very immediate to us

all that is the perception of the self

as an object and as a subject this is

primary to how we navigate through our

interpersonal lives the difference

between the word me and the word I

demonstrates this when we think in terms

of grammar this distinction seems almost

arbitrary yet when we reflect on how we

use the words we discover the object

subject distinction in them we use the

word eye to denote our agency as a being

that is doing something being something

having something I think I am I know

these are modes of doing being and

having this is the subject when I say me

it is when something happens to me I'd

be common object agency is out of the

picture when a subject does something to

me I am and

object the individual is both a subject

and an object this contradiction is

central to Being and Nothingness it is

built off of Descartes and Hegel and a

Cyril and Heidegger and is often

described in terms formulated by them

but is also so immediate to our reality

because we are talking about

consciousness here Being and Nothingness

as a film as a phenomenological study is

about consciousness and through this

study we can gather a deeper sense of

our predicament as self conscious

transcendent human beings aware of our

existence as a thing among other things

while also isolated from all other

things in the privacy of our own mind

moreover Sartre describes human reality

by its future-oriented projects and

through these projects the individual is

perpetually estranged from apprehending

himself or herself as a totality as it

in itself as an object we are always

pulled apart by our future projects as

we define ourselves by the individual we

have yet to become the other concept I'd

like to briefly introduce in this first

video is a common-sense understanding of

nothingness that we can later map on to

Sarge's philosophy the nest part the

NGSS part of nothingness indicates a

contradiction where through language we

account for the being of nothing being

depends on nothingness and nothingness

depends on being if this weren't the

case everything around us would be

undifferentiated our sensory awareness

would not differentiate the various

objects of the outside world

nor would it differentiate the outside

world from the self in order to

integrate what we see into our practical

reality we have to be able to

distinguish things from each other we

have to be able to see outside objects

as possible instruments from which we

can make our way through the world this

means that we have to be able to

disregard extraneous objects that

provide no use to us we have to be able

to search for things that we have yet to

find all of this requires us to imagine

alternatives to imagine things that are

not there

non beings it requires us to paint the

outside world with a human organization

that stands independent from reality as

it is in itself as it is an

undifferentiated if we think of a

common-sense understanding of

consciousness we will have to account

for the physical reality we experience

and the mental reality of what we are

our inner world is nothing in one sense

because it is instantiated by non

existent entities memories thoughts

about our own possibilities fears and

desires this mental content is obviously

more than what can be described by

simply accounting for the neuro physical

activity of the brain even if we reduce

our mental states and imaginings to the

neurons and dendrites of a strictly

materialist determinist understanding of

the world we are still stranded in a

description of matter that cannot

adequately describe the objects of our

consciousness or one might say the

qualities of things these forms of

mental content are examples of

nothingness but they do not give us a

full sense of the different features of

nothingness as the term is used by

Sartre what we can negate through our

consciousness what we can imagine losing

subtracting our awareness of something

or someone being absent all of these

experiences refer us to nothingness and

for Sartre we are encased in it

it separates us from our past and future

it separates us from what we are as

their totality and it separates us from

each other it is easy to take for

granted the fact that we can even

conceptualize nothing this is a

remarkable cognitive feature yet it is

so obvious that we don't really think of

how mysterious it is nothingness is the

being of the negation nothingness is the

being of nothing nothingness as a

concept is integral to human reality

being depends on nothing so that

it may exist in relation to it before I

end this video I want to speak very

briefly as to why one might want to read

being a nothingness why one would want

to study Sartre

and the answer is simply because it is

profound this is not a self-help book

this will not help you get rich nor is

it fun to read it is profound it will

bring you to tears it will eliminate a

whole new way of reflecting on yourself

and your life as it addresses the most

important dimensions of our experience

as self conscious subjects so in my next

video I will begin to introduce some of

the terms required to understand Sarge's

philosophy especially in the early

stages of the book so if you're

interested in Sartre and you enjoyed

this video please consider liking the

video and subscribing to my channel

there will be more content on Being and

Nothingness coming soon

2.

this is my second video for suckers

introductory chapter to Being and

Nothingness the pursuit of being in this

introductory chapter Sartre sets up the

concept of the in itself and briefly

introduces the for itself the relation

between these two concepts these two

conceptions of being directs the inquiry

of the entire study to come now in every

chapter sarchie

will one in one way or another

reformulate the same description of

human consciousness in a predicament

where the transcendent individual the

self-conscious individual is locked

outside of himself or herself that as

individuals we are alone in the privacy

of our mind alone with our point of view

and so as this crops up over and over

again as we advance through the book we

will augment our understanding of it as

human beings we could conceive of

ourselves as an in itself but we cannot

ever apprehend our being in itself we

cannot ever grasp ourselves as an object

we cannot ever grasp ourselves as a

definite totality this is what it would

mean to apprehend ourselves as an object

because we are always transcending the

absolute terms of the in itself by means

of the for itself we we feel at a

fundamental level that we must exist as

something definite but we can never

cease a definite understanding of

ourselves because we are always a work

in progress we are always being pulled

from the future

towards our being the being we have to

be we define ourselves by the being we

have yet to become this dynamic of the

human being of self conscious

transcendent beings is central to being

a nothingness and the predicament

between these two conceptions of being

unfolds into every dimension of our life

our sexuality our pride our shame our

capacity for love our inclinations

towards sadism and cruelty all of this

unfolds from the relation between the in

itself and the for itself and it unfolds

over the course of this book so I'd like

to discuss a few of his terms and

conceptions that emerge early on in one

sense these early chapters

be more challenging than later chapters

because we are encountering for the

first time a number of ideas that are

repeated in different contexts later in

the book

so as the concepts of the in itself and

the for itself are referred to over and

over again in different formulations in

later chapters we develop a better sense

of them rather early on in this

introductory chapter Sartre introduces a

distinction between the reflective

consciousness and the unreflective

consciousness he uses an example of

counting cigarettes which is an activity

that to put into common sense terms is a

mindless task something you hardly know

that you were doing but when asked while

doing it you could respond that I'm

counting cigarettes so Sartre is

pointing out this dynamic of

consciousness and refers to it as the

unreflecting consciousness verse versus

the reflective consciousness or non

thetic as opposed to thetic

consciousness he then measures this

against decart's cogito and demonstrates

that the certainty of being for a self

conscious individual exists prior to

reflection it is included with the

initial upsurge of consciousness Sartre

is not reflecting on the activity of

counting while he's doing it but when

asked he brings the foundational

awareness to a higher plane of

reflection this foundational awareness

will be referred to as the pre

reflective cogito for the duration of

the book

Sartre writes it is the non reflective

consciousness which renders the

reflection possible there is a pre

reflective cogito which is the condition

of the Cartesian cogito now when Sartre

refers to a single stroke of

consciousness or a single upsurge of

consciousness he's referring to how

consciousness is always of something

this concept follows for Searles concept

of neurosis and it holds that

consciousness is intentional it's a

package deal the spontaneity of our

existence may come in the form of an

action accompanied with a sense of

positionality a sense of time all in a

single upsurge and this awareness has an

intention to it as

specificity that is suited to the ends

we direct ourselves to Sartre writes

that consciousness is consciousness of

something

this means that transcendence is the

constitutive structure of consciousness

that is that consciousness is born

supported by a being which is not itself

in other words consciousness is directed

at something out in the world and it is

instantiated by that something so if we

are to explain consciousness by what a

transcendent being is conscious of then

what about consciousness itself what is

consciousness other than what it is

directed on it is nothing in one sense

because it is supported by everything

outside of it in later chapters Sartre

will refer to this as a hole in being

but we don't need to get too far into

that now now there are a number of

different terms which may refer to what

is outside of us things and appearances

that are both out in the world and in

our perception this is a tricky dilemma

for Sartre to navigate because as a

phenomenonlogical study Sartre is

assessing the appearance of things so

we're discussing the outside world as it

manifests through our perceptive

apparatus so Sartre has to be able to

refer things to things as they are in

themselves and as they are in our

perception you will notice that such a

may refer to an existent an object a

phenomenon the appearance the essence as

well as being in itself these concepts

span each other and often coincide in

what they refer to they are not

necessarily distinguished by the

identity of the existent they refer to

but rather they are distinguished by the

context they are addressed through for

example when Sartre refers to an

existent he is referring to something in

the world without having to implicate it

as something perceived he's using the

word existent to refer us to reality of

independently of consciousness he is

referring to it prior to its

manifestation as an appearance it is

simply there in the world awaiting

differentiation from a

transcended point of view from a subject from

a for itself we do not apprehend the

essence of the existent nor is the

essence of the existent hidden away

behind its appearance the essence of an

existent is conferred on to it by human

reality any given existent can be

perceived in different ways from which

the meaning or essence becomes disclosed

to us through for example the hammer is

illuminated by its use in hammering the

nail its meaning its essence as a hammer

is the meaning of the object essence

does not reside in the object its

meaning its essence is conferred on it

by human transcendence a hammer can be

perceived as a paperweight if there is a

breeze as such a writes the object does

not hide being but neither does it

reveal being when we apprehend the

hammer as a hammer we are not

apprehending it in itself the hammer

exists as a being in itself it is a inert

matter but that is not what we know when

we know it as an object rather what is

illuminated to us is its essence which

is its use to us as a hammer or as a

paperweight

if need be human reality makes the

hammer a hammer another term that needs

clarification in this context is

transcendence

transcendence is not to be

understood in its common notion as part

of a spiritual breakthrough into a

higher order of things that's not quite

how the term is being used here although

this common notion is compatible with

how Sartre uses the word in this first

chapter Sartre is laying out what will

later be described as human reality

insofar as we see a future possibility

to fasten two pieces of wood together we

transcend being in itself towards the

hammer we transcend its being as inert

matter towards its meaning which is its

use its essence it becomes a hammer

because our consciousness surpasses it

as merely inert matter to realize it

through its function thereby conferring

its essence onto it it is therefore an

existent before
is hammer it is an existent before it is

an object it arises within the purity

and totality of the appearance to be

differentiated from other objects and

the appearance is disclosed to us

through the pre reflective cogito the

world around us is illuminated by the

projects which organize our perception

of it this idea will continually crop up

in the chapters to come Sartre is also

introducing the phenomenon of being the

phenomenon of being could be something

like boredom or nausea to use art as

examples they are examples of total

states of mind of being from which the

appearance of everything coincides with

the phenomenon is the objectification of

the appearance it is a totalizing

description of a consciousness so you

can look at an existent in the state of

mordrem anger sadness sadness nausea

this phenomenon of being is projected

with the appearance and is included in

our objectification of it in our

boardroom the hammer may become an

object to play with as opposed to an

object to use in a utilitarian sense now

when we refer to objects we're referring

to the basis of knowledge this requires

the subject the transcendent point of

view in order to apprehend an object

objects only exist to conscious subjects

so when Sargent mentions an object there

is also the implication of a subject now

the question we are dealing with here is

what is the reality of the object is the

reality of the object its essence as we

already covered no the answer is no the

reality of the object is that it is

there and that it is not me

this is our relation to the outside

there is an internal negation of the

appearance it is it is there and it is

not me

but whatever it is we're referring to it

is your consciousness and you are your

consciousness so the content of your

consciousness must first be separated

from you and in order to do this it must

undergo an internal negation and it is

it is there and it is not me this also

helps us understand what Sartre means

when he refers to consciousness as

positional this internal negation

situates our point of view as a body in

the midst of the world the totality of

the infinite possible manifestations of

an existent escapes us it's reality in

itself escapes us and so the being of

the object is non being

we don't apprehend its reality in itself

rather we apprehend a phenomenon we

differentiate objects within the

phenomenon according to the meaning

placed upon it by human reality we

identify the table as opposed to a

configuration of wood because we are

looking to place a dish now Sartre

sets up his phenomenological project by

pushing off Descartes he introduces take

carts cogito to modify I briefly

introduced Descartes in the previous

video the distinction between starches

philosophy from Descartes I think

therefore I am

is that Sartre identifies an underlying

presence of consciousness that is not

reflected on the pre reflective

consciousness as opposed to the

reflective consciousness as we already

covered Descartes cogito is reflection

on consciousness he is conscious of his

own consciousness and for Sartre that is

a step beyond what is necessary for the

foundation of being consciousness is

first pre reflective the phenomenon that

appears to us is active on the non

reflective ground of consciousness we

are non thetic Li conscious of the world

around us this is what it is immediately

disclosed to us in the moment-to-moment

rhythm of our lives it is through

reflection that we turn back on our own

consciousness of an existent objectify

it to the level of knowledge the

certainty of existence precedes

reflection whereas descartes reflects on

his awareness of thought to conclude

that his existence is certain Sartre

finishes his introduction by describing

being in itself this is non conscious

being I briefly defined it early in this

video all that we could say of what

being in itself is is that it is

Sartre refers to being in itself as a

plenitude

what he means by this is that it's being

is not supported by consciousness in the

sense that the hammer is hammer because

it is perceived as such the physical

world around us exists independently

from us as being in itself one way of

making better sense of this is

demonstrating the dependence of

knowledge on human reality, on

nothingness on the for itself knowledge

depends on nothingness because when we

encounter a table we could perceive it

as a table through its utility but we

can also perceive it as the material it

is made of let's say wood but what does

that even mean

wood is the stuff of trees we're now

perceiving that a table as the stuff of

trees what is that ultimately it's

carbon but in order to understand carbon

we have to have a scientific theory of

matter we need the periodic table of

elements and this exercise could

continue infinitely there is the dualism

of the finite and the infinite here we

are always depending on human reality on

nothingness to objectify the table as

either a table or as wood as carbon as

fuel for a fire whatever it's being in

itself escapes us always all we can say

of it is that it is our past is part of

the in itself when we die we are only

being in itself there is no

consciousness there is no nothingness

the for itself is the opposite of the in

itself in that the for itself is our

consciousness it is transcendence it's

not a plenitude it is a lack it is this

it is the annihilation of our being in

itself this is how nothingness is

introduced into the world we are

separated from what we are in definite

terms we are separated from what we are

in itself we are separated from the in

itself that we are by the for itself we

are separated from the in itself that we

are by the for itself by the internal

negation Sartre elaborates on the for

itself in part two of the book but for

now it helps to set up this relation one

quick note before I finish the video it

is very easy to confuse our notion of

the conscious and the

conscious with the for itself and the in

itself and this is a mistake the the in

itself is not your unconscious it's not

your subconscious such a will critique

Freud later in the book and for now I

just want to establish that because our

Freudian notion of the subconscious

unconscious it's just so commonly used

that they it readily comes up when we're

trying to make sense of Sergei's work as

we read it for the first time so that's

enough for today

I know this is a bit confusing so watch

it a few times and know that the only

way that you can make sense of anything

that I just said is by actually reading

the text if you enjoyed this video

please like and subscribe to my channel

Knife, blade example

The whole intro