In Being and Nothingness, Sartre refuses any dualistic thinking of the world, and introduces what he calls “being in-itself” and “being for-itself”. In this short article, what Sartre means by “being in-itself” is briefly introduced and explained.
“Being in-itself” as a response to dualism
Dualism assumes that there are two different and opposed realms that constitute our reality. Plato, for instance, says and argues that the world, in which we live, is a copy of the world of Forms. The difference, for Plato, between these two copies of the world is the degree of their perfection. Our world is an imperfect copy of the perfect world of Forms.
Another form of dualism can be found in the philosophy of Descartes, where he argues that the mind and the matter cannot be thought, approached, considered, or measured comparatively. That is, they cannot be compared to one another. According to Descartes, one can doubt whether one has a body or not, but one cannot doubt whether one has a mind or not. This ability or inability to doubt allows Descartes to assume that the mind and the body are two different things.
Sartre refuses and argues against this thinking of being as that which is composed of two completely different and opposed realms. It is in and through this refusal of dualism that Sartre introduces his notions of “being in-itself” and “being for-itself”, in which not different realms of being are thought, but rather different modes. The word “modes” means that there are different ways and appearances in which being can be, in which being is, in which being makes itself apparent and understandable.
The meaning of “being in-itself”
Sartre argues that it is impossible for us to say more than what only confirms and acknowledges the “in itself” of being. That is, what we can only say is that “in-itself is”, the “in-itself” exists. This impossibility is due to the fact that we cannot experience being “in-itself”.
The “in-itself” of being, or “being in-itself”, extends itself beyond what our consciousness can reach and glimpse. We cannot be conscious of the “in-itself” of being, we cannot reach being “in-itself”, for it lies beyond the limits of our consciousness and our ability to experience.
What our consciousness can meaningfully be conscious of and experience is only the phenomena made possible by, and appearing only because of, being. That is, being shows itself only through the phenomena that it permeates and makes possible in the first place.
According to Sartre, what is revealed in our conscious encounters with the world and in our attempts to be conscious of being is only that the world appears and shines in its appearing and shining because there is being that supports and makes possible this appearing and shining. That is, we cannot say more than that being is, or there is being, “being in-itself”.
Sartre acknowledges the impossibility of experiencing “being in-itself” in his definition of ontology in Being and Nothingness: Ontology is “the description of the phenomenon of being as it manifests itself”. This means that our consciousness can glimpse and describe only the “phenomenon of being”, not being itself or “being in-itself”, for it lies beyond the limits of our consciousness, the limits of what we can experience.
Sartre’s definition of “being in-itself” in Being and Nothingness
“Being is. Being is in-itself. Being is what it is”
Sartre, Being and Nothingness
Although we cannot reach being, yet it is only through this inability that being can be glimpsed in its hiding of itself from us, in its lying beyond our consciousness. Sartre’s definition opens up a space in which this glimpsing could occur.
“Being is” means that there is being, there is something. The “in” of the “in-itself” means that being is completion and fullness and that it is full of itself, of being. Being does not have any lacks, absences, or discontinuities.
Lacks, absences, and discontinuities only occur in our world because our consciousness introduces them in order to make possible and form the world. That is, we encounter discontinuities, which take place in our world as different spaces, times, objects, or categories, because consciousness itself inserts these differences in its generating and understanding of the world, of its world. That is, in order for the world to appear to our consciousness, it must be shot through with differences, distances, or absences.
“Being in-itself”, however, lies beyond our consciousness; it is what we cannot reach, affect, or touch, and it is thus changeless, timeless, uniform, that is, without any lacks. “Being in-itself” is.
Does “Being in-itself” exist?
If “being in-itself” lies beyond our experiences, that is, if “being in-itself” extends itself into the space that our consciousness cannot reach, how could the existence of “being in-itself” be proved?
Sartre’s answer is that the mere existence of phenomena through which meaning occurs and makes it apparent and understandable is an indication that there is an “in-itself” of being that makes possible the being and meaning of these phenomena.
The existence of phenomena points toward what precedes and makes possible this existence in the first place. There is something behind that which appears to us, something that makes possible this appearing to us.
Sartre also argues that the nature of the existence of our human consciousness indicates and proves that there is an “in-itself” of being that exists, that there is “being in-itself”, that is, consciousness, for Sartre, is always, and exists only as, conscious of something.
This means that consciousness occurs only in its being conscious of something. It is the existence of that of which consciousness is conscious that proves that an in-itself of being is or that “being in-itself” is. According to Sartre:
“If you were to take the world away from consciousness, it would no longer be consciousness of anything, therefore no longer consciousness at all”
Sartre, Notebooks for an Ethics
For more articles on Sartre’s philosophy, read Why did Sartre refuse the Freudian Unconscious?