Furthermore, a being-for-itself can distinguish itself from other beings and objects and in doing so discover itself. A being-for-itself has this freedom to choose its essence whereas a being-in-itself does not. A person is a being-in-itself so far as it is a biological organism and it is a being-for-itself in the sense that we can freely choose what our essence is what we are for, what we are about and so on. In this way, a person is both being-in-itself and being-for-itself. These types of objects are locked into their essence and cannot change it.Ī being-for-itself, on the other hand, can define its essence above and beyond what it simply is. A rock, similarly, is a rock no matter what you do to it. No matter how you use a can-opener, its defining quality (i.e., essence) is that it is an object that opens cans. A can-opener is defined by what it does (opens cans) which defines what it is. Things that are not conscious, such as rocks, chairs, or can-openers, are what he referred to as being-in-itself. Jean-Paul Sartre: Being-in-itself and Being-for-itself Rock Carved by Drifting Sand, Below Fortification Rock, Arizona, by Timothy O’Sullivan, 1873, via MoMAįor Sartre, there are philosophically significant differences between the states of being between things in the world and people.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |