Sartre 1b
The pursuit of being.
II. The phenomenon of being and the being of phenomenon.
the basic question here –
‘Is passing beyond the existent toward the phenomenon of being actually to pass beyond it towards its being, as one passes beyond the particular red toward its essence?’
Sartre goes on to argue -
that the object does not posses being nor does it reveal being
the existent is a phenomenon – this means it designates itself as an organized totality of qualities
being is simply the condition of all existents
by not considering being as the condition of revelation but rather being as an appearance which can be determined in concepts – we understand that knowledge cannot by itself give an account of being
that is the being of the phenomenon cannot be reduced to the phenomenon of being
in a word the phenomenon of being is ‘ontological’ in the sense we speak of the ontological proof of Anselm and Descartes
the phenomenon of being requires the transphenomenality of being
that is the phenomenon exists only qua appearance – that is it indicates itself on the foundation of being
and so the being of the phenomenon although co-extensive with the phenomenon cannot be subject to the phenomenal condition – which is to exist so far as it reveals itself –
and consequently the being of the phenomenon surpasses the knowledge which we have of it and provides the basis of such knowledge
we can begin the assessment of Sartre’s point of view here by asking the question - what are we to make of this term ‘being’ – or to put it sharply ‘being as such’?
‘being’ does not refer to any specific existent
it is rather an open concept – and for that matter you might even say an empty concept
it is best seen as a category – a category of generalization that has no specific content
as to its use - in traditional philosophy this concept functions as an analytical tool
e.g. its function can be to provide an intellectual ground for the analysis of phenomenon –
i.e to enable us to analytically break down a phenomenon while at the same time having a sense of its unity
Sartre refers to it as the ‘condition of all existents’ – and what this really means is that it is a concept used in any argument that requires such generality
it is a tool of argument
Sartre says the existent is a phenomenon and it designates itself as an organized totality of qualities
the idea of an existent ‘designating itself’ is ridiculous
one response to this would be to say only consciousness designates – therefore it makes no sense to say that an existent – that is not conscious – designates
what I put earlier was a different view – it was that what appears is a relation between consciousness and the non-conscious –
between the internal and external dimensions of reality
that is given the existence of consciousness in the world appearance is the necessary ‘reality’ that results
my idea is that appearance is essentially a relation between –
quite apart from its content – it is a logical relation
a necessary relation - given consciousness in the world
so what appears to us is the relation of our consciousness to the world outside of it
it is as it were ‘a third world’
in traditional terms this means that we do not regard the phenomenal world as mental or physical – it is the relation between the two
but how are we to characterize it in a positive sense?
the whole history of thought characterizes it at its first moment as - unknown
and it is as a result of this initial comprehension – and the retreat from it that we have in the history of thought the attempts to reduce the phenomenal to either the mental or the physical – to mind or matter
my view is that it is neither – and as such it is unknown – and I mean ‘unknown’ here in a positive sense - not that is as a failure of comprehension but rather that it is a reality – a fact of the world – which we then go on to deal with
in our attempts to understand the phenomenal world – to define it – to be able to work with it - we bring to it literally whatever conceptions are needed to enable action – to enable us to operate in the world
in effect this means any view of the world is as valid as any other – from a logical point of view
in a practical sense this is of course not so – how people operate at any particular time and place will determine the value of their belief systems
there is no ‘final determination’ here – no absolute standard to appeal to – to assess the utility of any conceptual system
the standards that are applied are those standards that are regarded as having value
and what determines this is always up for grabs
e.g. history shows us that for certain individuals and indeed certain societies and cultures a materialistic view has been predominant
we see too that non-materialistic metaphysics has held sway for other individuals and groups at other times
my bet is that most people operate in uncertainty - that in any descriptive account of an individual's belief systems or a culture's ideologies you will find anything but certainty –
and that most operating belief systems are a plurality of logically inconsistent views
back to Sartre for a minute –
we can ask as Sartre does – what is behind appearance?
the simple answer to this question is – we do not know –
now historically and culturally this plain fact has been the source of anxiety
in response to this anxiety the imagination has gone to work – in overdrive
philosophical responses to this anxiety have been regarded (by philosophers at
least) as being rational and not emotional or superstitious
but all answers can be attempts to avoid the fact – and in so doing provide a false security
a false security that is only needed given a failure to accept the limitations of knowledge
and with this can comes the foolish belief that if we supplement reality with our imaginings we can find certainty
Sartre’s idea of the transphenomenality of being may be just another example of such - bad faith
if on the other hand one rejects any theory of epistemological certainty then one can be intellectually free and open to the full range of possible accounts of the nature of things
that we have this freedom to explore in our life the possibilities that life gives us is the true joy of living
uncertainty is the basis of this joy
(c) greg. t. charlton. 2008.
