Being and Nothingness
The pursuit of being.
I. The Phenomenon.
Sartre begins ‘Being and Nothingness’ with the question of the phenomenon –
he begins with the observation ‘modern thought has realized considerable progress by reducing the existent to the series of appearances which manifest it… Has the attempt been successful? In the first place we get rid of the dualism which in the existent opposes interior to exterior.’
appearance I will suggest has the logical status of relation
to say this is to give an explanation of appearance
why do we do this? why is it necessary – surely what appears just is what it is? where’s the problem?
there is only a question if the issue is one of knowledge
the event of the appearance is ‘in itself’ as they say without any issue
it is only on reflection that any question emerges
reflection just is this – the ground that allows for the raising of questions
and – we reflect – I don’t mean to jump the gun here – but it is just what conscious entities do
the question of knowledge only arises because of consciousness
anyway back to relation –
my view is that the appearance is the fact of - even ‘the product of’ the relation of consciousness and its object
now for this to be so – it follows that the object of consciousness is outside of consciousness
given this the appearance is where?
is it in consciousness – or – out of consciousness?
you see we need these categories of internality and externality to explain appearance
now I believe in the reality of the internal and external dimensions of reality
that is a reality that has consciousness in it
in short – conscious reality – and for us human reality
appearance just is – in my view the relation between the internal and the external dimensions of reality
appearance just is what occurs – given this relation
and it is I would suggest - logically necessary
that is the necessity is logical – given consciousness is in the world - appearance is the effect
and so appearance I think is best understood as an effect
but beyond this I say it is unknown
so – to this point I put - if we wish to explain appearance – and this is a natural philosophical reflex – we need to introduce ‘reflection’ – and that is to say consciousness
and consciousness I suggest just is internality
my view is that not all existents have an internal dimension – but given that some forms do – we can say there is an internal dimension to the world
consciousness is this internality – the two terms are synonymous
in a logical sense we can only speak of an internal dimension – given an external reality
the world outside of consciousness is a logical necessity – if consciousness is understood as the internal dimension – as internality
if we remove consciousness from the picture – there is no internal / external dichotomy
there just simply is no question of knowledge
we cannot as a matter of logic conceive of such a world
the relation of the internal and external dimensions is the fact of appearance
appearance does not reside inside or outside – it is a relation between
and it is just in this sense that it is metaphysically fundamentally an unknown
we do not know where to place it
this is not because we haven’t got our philosophical theories quite right
it is rather that appearance – cannot be placed –
what I mean by this is that the categories of internality and externality seem to cover the whole ground – if something is not inside – it’s outside right – or visa versa?
the thing is – with appearance – we don’t know
not I suggest because we have failed – rather because we cannot easily describe that which in itself is neither subject or object - but is the relation between
that is to say appearance is not a dimensional term –
it is a relational term
so in asking the question what is the nature of appearance – we are asking what is the relation between the internal and the external?
we know that – the relation exists – the question is how to describe it
and it is really here that the full possibilities of metaphysics can and have to be exhausted
that is to say all our philosophical theories are valid candidates for explication and explanation
we begin with what we do not know
towards the end of this first section Sartre has this to say:
‘This new opposition, the “finite and the infinite,” or better, “the infinite in the finite” replaces the dualism of being and appearance. What appears in fact is only an aspect of the object, and the object is altogether in that aspect and altogether outside of it. It is altogether within, in that it manifests itself in that aspect; it shows itself as the structure of the appearance, which is at the same time the principle of the series. It is altogether outside, for the series itself will never appear nor can it appear. Thus the outside is opposed in a new way to the inside, and the being-which-does-not- appear, to the appearance…..The genius of Proust, even when reduced to the works produced, is no less equivalent to the infinity of possible points of view which one can take on that work and which we will call the inexhaustibility of that work….Since there is nothing behind the appearance, and since it indicates only itself (and the total series of appearances) it cannot be supported by any being other than its own….If the essence of appearance is an “appearing” which is no longer opposed to any being, there arises a legitimate problem concerning the being of this appearing.’
my point is that the phenomenon is essentially unknown
when we understand that we see ‘an aspect of the object’ – what this points to is that ‘the object’ is outside of our attention – our consciousness – unknown
you do not need to introduce infinity here to explain the unknown
what Sartre means by infinity here is really just the awareness of the unknown status of the appearance
that is to say – as soon as we come to describe – to define the appearance it is clear that any description – and definition is inadequate
the act of description is a reflective act – and as such the attempt to know
the reason for this – and Sartre clearly sees this – is the need to act –
which in practical terms means the need to manipulate and use the phenomenon in question –
the appearance – that is – and this I think is quite obvious - must be determined if it is to be used – if it is to be acted on and with
this determination though is not a determination of the ‘object’- but rather a definition of the action
the question here is action – not knowledge – knowledge is the platform – if you like the illusion that gives action its determination
the point is the act
and it is clear that there is no one point of view that only determines action in relation to appearance –
that there are many only indicates that we have no absolute knowledge – no one methodology
what is possible is always what is not known
‘The legitimate problem concerning the being of appearance’ – is no problem and really illegitimate if you understand that appearance is – in its appearance – pre-reflective action – unknown
problem solved
(c) greg. t. charlton. 2008.
