Sartre 1e
Being and nothingness: the pursuit of being.
V. The ontological proof.
the argument:
being has not been given its due – we thought we’d dispensed with granting the transphenomenality to the being of the phenomenon – by discovering the transphenomenality of consciousness
we see on the contrary that the transphenomenality of consciousness – requires thr transphenomenality of the being of the phenomenon
there is an ontological proof to be derived not from the reflective cogito but from the pre-reflective being of the percipiens
all consciousness is consciousness of something
we can take this two ways
either we understand that consciousness is constitutive of the being of its object
or consciousness is a relation to a transcendent being
the first view destroys itself – to be conscious of – is to be confronted with a concrete presence that is not consciousness
one can be conscious of an absence – but this appears as a pre-condition of presence
the subjectivity that is consciousness cannot go out of itself – to posit a transcendent object – such that it has a plenitude of impressions
if we wish to make the being of the phenomenon depend on consciousness – the object must be distinguished from consciousness – not by its presence – but by its absence – not by its plenitude – but by its nothingness
if being belongs to consciousness – the object is not conscious
not to the extent that it is another being – but that it is non-being
intentions aim at appearances which are never to be given at one time
it is an impossibility on principle for the terms of an infinite series to exist all at the same time before consciousness – along with the real absence of all these terms except for the one which is the foundation of objectivity
if present these impressions – even in an infinite number – would dissolve in the subjective
it is their absence which gives them objective being
thus the being of the object is pure non-being
it is defined as a lack
it is that which escapes – that which by definition will never be given – and that which offers itself only in fleeting and successive profiles
but how can non-being be the foundation of being?
how can the absent expected subjective become thereby the objective?
I may hope for a joy – I may dread a grief – that transcendence in immanence – does not bring us out of subjectivity
things give themselves in profile – that is simply by appearances
but each of them is a transcendent being – not a subjective material of impressions – a plenitude of being – not a lack – a presence not an absence
the objective will never come out of the subjective - nor the transcendent from immanence – nor being from non-being
consciousness is consciousness of something
this means that transcendence is the constitutive structure of consciousness
that consciousness is born supported by a being that is not itself
this is what we call the ontological proof
to say consciousness is consciousness of something – means that for consciousness there is no being outside of that precise obligation to be a revealing intuition of something – i.e. of a transcendent being
not only does pure subjectivity – fail to transcend itself to posit the objective – a ‘pure’ subjectivity – disappears
what can properly be called subjectivity is – consciousness of consciousness
but this consciousness of being conscious – must be qualified – and it can be qualified as a revealing intuition – or it is nothing
a revealing intuition implies something revealed
absolute subjectivity can be established only in the face of something revealed
immanence can be defined only within the apprehension of a transcendent
the point is that consciousness implies in its being a non-conscious and transphenomenal being
there is no point in replying that subjectivity implies objectivity
we have seen that the subjective is powerless to constitute the objective
to say that consciousness is consciousness of something is to say that it must produce itself as a revealed revelation – of a being which is not it – and which gives itself as already existing when consciousness reveals it
thus we have left pure appearance and arrived at pure being
consciousness is a being whose existence posits its essence
and inversely it is consciousness of a being – whose essence implies its existence – that is in which appearance lays claim to being
being is everywhere
we do not apply to consciousness the definition Heidegger reserves for Dasein – and say that it is a being – such that in its being – its being is in question
it is necessary to complete the definition and formulate it like this –
consciousness is a being such that in its being – its being is in question – in so far as this being implies a being other than itself
this being is no other than the transphenomenal being of phenomena – and not a noumenal being which is hidden behind them
it is the being of this table - more generally the being of the world which is implied
by consciousness
it requires simply that the being of that which appears does not exist only in so far as it appears
the transphenomenal being of what exists for consciousness is itself in itself
Commentary:
(1) being
the point about being is that it is the essence of everything that exists – this is the idea
that is – it is the function of the concept – to be the essence of what exists
the issue of being only emerges – if we are looking for an essence –
i.e. that is a way of describing apparently irreconcilable categories of existence – in a way that unites them
‘being’ is a way of describing what is given in a non-differential manner
and – this – ‘what is given’?
what is this – if not that which has being?
what is given here is – the unknown – if you want to strip it all down
by unknown – I mean unknown in the purest of senses –
it is not to be confused with non-being
a way of saying it is this -
the unknown is the object of description –
it is that to which description applies – can apply
what I am saying here is that what is before us is just the world we live in –
but that this presentation is unknown until it is described
but more than this – any description of reality – be that of the man in the street or that of a metaphysician – is no more than a platform for action
it is a platform that has no foundation but the necessity to act
which itself can be described variously
I suppose I could be cheeky and say here – to be is to be described
the point being that the world in the absence of consciousness is unknownable
and if it was not for the fact of consciousness – it would be so eternally –
on my view this means it would not appear
(2) where we begin
always it is a question of where to begin – for the beginning of thought can determine its end
Descartes begins with consciousness – Hobbes and the Materialists begin with the non-conscious
so history of the subject has largely been determined by where one starts
Sartre begins with consciousness – and immediately states a problem -
is consciousness thus constitutive of the being of its object – or is it that consciousness is a relation to a transcendent being?
the notion of being I would argue is misused by Sartre in this argument
consciousness and its object exist – or to put it another way - we cannot begin to speak of either or both – unless this is assumed
unless that is the ground of discussion is already established
and this just is the function of the idea of being – to enable the issue of the relation of the categories of being to proceed
being is this ground - is this commonality that enables the matter to be addressed
that is to say – being is never in issue – or as Sartre says –‘being is everywhere’
ok
Sartre’s own arguments here point in this direction
he says – ‘to be conscious of is to be confronted with a concrete presence that is not conscious’ – ‘the subjectivity that is consciousness cannot go out of itself’
so – if you place the cart before the horse – try that is to bring being about by one of its categories – you will not succeed
you will not be able to show how matter comes from mind or mind from matter – if your idea is that mind and matter are essentially different
to assume that they are essentially different – or even that they are the same - you must already have assumed their being
being cannot be the result of any question of their relation
you can also say that the notion of being – which is essential to the issue even proceeding – must establish an essential unity
and if so – what then is the question?
that is if there is a metaphysical homogeneity – in being – what then is the question?
the question clearly is to account for the apparent difference of the categories of being
and here it is crucial to get the next question right
are we in addressing the issue of difference asking about substance?
this has been the standard view of the argument for both Idealists and Materialists
the idea being we have two fundamentally different substances – mind and matter – how do they relate?
well the question is in fact answered in its formulation –
fundamentally different things only relate as fundamentally different – as separate and apart
end of story – the credits are rolling
Spinoza was the smartest of the lot in relation to this question –
he saw where the answer lay – or the kind of answer that is possible
mind and matter can only relate in a positive sense – if they are expressions of a more fundamental reality
this reality for Spinoza was – substance
this substance was for Spinoza – that which is self-caused – eternal and infinite
ok
brilliant move on an intractable issue
unfortunately – it doesn’t work
for even if we hold to an underlying unity – that of substance – still the question of how different things relate – is still live – is still to be addressed
and the problem is not in the question in itself – but in the terms in which it is couched
different substances will remain different and apart
so – my argument is forget about substance
that is to say substance is not going to be the ground on which this matter can be addressed – let alone resolved
that is the issue is not substance
we need to look at it differently and look at it again –
it’s a question always of definition
what is it that we are trying to explain?
how are we to best describe the issue?
substance doesn’t work – what are the options?
there is as I can see only one –
we need to think in terms of dimensions - not of substances
things fall into place here
clearly consciousness is internal
internal that is to that which is outside of it
the material world as the external world – is outside of consciousness
my view is that that the unity that is reality is as unity - unknown
the distinction between internal external dimensions – really is just a means of enabling us to ‘know’ this unity
that is given this distinction we have a means of dealing with the unknown – we have that is categories that enable us to act in the manner necessary to our nature
so I get back to the question of where you begin
if you begin in terms of the categories of reality – how do you ever get to the underlying unity?
on the other hand to start with reality as a whole – as a unity – as a totality – as the unknown
may seem to be to begin with nothing – but it is really to begin at the begine
the key is reflection
in the moment of reflection we recognize – the fact of reflection – which is consciousness – and by implication the object of consciousness – which Sartre correctly notes – is not conscious
these are the natural existential categories of our nature
they enable us to distinguish what is internal and what is external
the common reality that is expressed in these dimensions is only expressed in these dimensions
in itself it is unknown
real – very real – but unknown
when we face reality first up head on – we face the unknown
our natural and necessary reaction or – if you like metaphysical reflex – is to recognize that we experience this reality in terms of its dimensions
consciousness and non-consciousness are thus – from this point of view - derivations of and from the unknown
they are natural derivations
what happens in the world happens on the level of unity
we break it down – we deal with the events of the world – in terms of their internal and external manifestations
there is no question here of interaction
the internal does not interact with the external or visa versa
internality and externality are the dimensions of metaphysical space for human beings
whatever occurs – that is the unknown event – is ‘known’ in terms of its internal and external manifestations
this is how we operate
this is our reality
(3) intention
any internal act of consciousness will have an external expression
as consciousness being in the world is forever affected by the world
so any event will – for the conscious human being – have an external and internal expression
this is not say though that all events on the surface will immediately register internally
that all knowledge is immediate or direct
i.e what we learn about the body from the physician – is not direct
on the other hand the reason for his knowledge for his explanation – i.e. a physical pain – is direct
in that way – in terms of science – the external world becomes known – is internalized
consciousness as internality ‘looks out’
that is it relates directly to externality
this is really what intention comes to
the relation of the internal to the external
that is – as it were from the point of view of the internal
the action of the internal is outward –
and that is just because it is inside
there is nothing else for the internal to relate to
this is really a logical relation
the relation of dimensions
to call it intentional
is to ‘take the point of view of the internal’
and to see the external as its object
the opposite in a way is also true
from ‘the point of the external world’
given the fact of consciousness
the object of the external is the internal
thus – you could just as easily say
the non-conscious is intentional
that is in relation to consciousness
again it’s a question of where you begin your analysis
from the point of view of the event in itself – there is just expression – in dimensions - and no intention
(there is no actual non-conscious ‘point of view’)
from the point of view of consciousness
and this is the natural point of view in an operational sense
the point of consciousness is outside itself
so
intention is really just an internal – an ‘in-house’ description of conscious action
it is strictly speaking an operational view of consciousness
consciousness in itself as it were – or in a non-operational sense is not intentional
it is simply the internal space of a two dimensional reality
(4) non-being
just as consciousness does not create non-consciousness – and non-consciousness does not bring into being consciousness –
the application of the negation sign ‘~’ does not create non-being
if as I have put it being is the ground of discourse – then any action to negate being can only mean the decision to end discourse
shut down the shop
this is the only sense you can make of it
while we can here make intelligible the application of the negation sign to being
it is clear that it is an application that is of no use at all
therefore of no value
unless of course your idea is logical suicide
perhaps there have been philosophers who have toyed with this
it may have crossed Wittgenstein’s mind
and it's not inconsistent with some mystical thinking
anyway
the point is in logical terms that the negation sign only validly functions given a platform of discourse
to apply it in such a way that it denies its own platform of discourse is clearly an illogical use
Sartre recognizes at least that non-being does not come from being
my point is more comprehensive
the idea of non-being is a contradiction – a logical absurdity
what it amounts to is saying there is a discourse (non-being) – that has no basis in discourse
if you define being in terms of its categories or one of its categories - and not the other way around - you have to account for a dichotomy – in this case consciousness and non-consciousness
on such an analysis – something has being and something doesn’t
this is Sartre’s big mistake – consciousness and non-consciousness are dimensions of being
there is no question that one has being and the other doesn’t
to explain the dichotomy you can only really state the obvious
one dimension is conscious the other not
I go further and characterize this in ontological terms – as the relation between the internal and the external
my argument is that these are operational categories – whose function is dealing with the unknown
the unknown makes sense – non-being does not
(5) the ontological argument
Sartre says – that consciousness is supported by a being that is not itself – is the ontological argument
on the contrary I say
the ontological argument is that consciousness and non-consciousness are ontological dimensions of a single unknown reality
this is the ontology of consciousness
Sartre mistakes being – for dimensions of being
being if you like is the whole – dimensions are its parts
to identify one dimension as being – is to confuse the part with the whole
this leads to the postulation of the absurd notion of non-being
for how else on this analysis are you to account for the other term in the relation?
he thinks we are talking about different beings – or being and non-being - when in fact it is different dimensions of being
even different aspects if you like
furthermore consciousness is not ‘supported’
consciousness is inside the externality that is the world (outside of consciousness)
there really is no question of support
Sartre says what can properly be called subjectivity is consciousness of consciousness and he describes this as a revealing intuition – and that consciousness implies in its being a non-conscious transphenomenal being
yes this is true if you understand by being here – dimensions of being
the external world is reflected in consciousness
and consciousness reflects on to the external world
it is not consciousness producing in itself a being it is not
this is just garbage
the internal is essentially a different dimension to the external
reality in this sense has two expressions - two modes
two ways of being
two ways of being - that is given the reality of consciousness in the world
as to this – as I have said consciousness is not aware of its origin – or the origin of external world
origin (as with end) is a matter that is properly understood as in the realm of the unknown
Sartre says –
the being of the world is implied by consciousness – and it requires that the being of that which appears does not exist only in so far as it appears
the being of the world is not implied by consciousness
the being of the world – if understood by this - the unity that is reality - is not implied by anything
there is nothing else for it to be an implication of
to use Spinoza's argument regarding the nature of substance -
the world only implies everything – and in that of course the implication is lost
consciousness is aware of itself as internality
it follows as a matter of logic that the internal is internal to the external
therefore the object of consciousness
and therefore the object of consciousness as a dimension
in itself – unknown
unknown that is until the relation consciousness and non-consciousness is operative
it is the operation of the relation that creates the illusion of knowledge – and therefore the means of action
the internal dimension exists for no reason
its existence is not for – the external world
just as the external world does not exist for the internal
the is no end (in view) for existence
what we have with conscious beings is their operation in the world
the action
there is a logic to this action
it is the relation of the internal to the external – or the external to the internal
it is the playing out of this
the playing out of this is human reality
action in itself is unknown
we interpret it in terms of its internal and external expressions
this is the energy of being
(c) greg. t. charlton 2008.
