Being and Nothingness

Sartre begins the journey of understanding consciousness by attempting to determine the connection between being-for-itself and being-in-itself. He argues that they cannot be considered independently of one another. Doing so would turn consciousness into an abstraction that could never be fully understood, because existence is inherently concrete. Instead of looking at the subject abstractly, he proposes two concrete questions: What does it mean to be in this world, and what are man and world that makes the relationship between the two possible? Sartre suggests that the answer to these questions, like all inquiries, may have a negative quality, such as “nothing” and “nobody.” The philosopher cautions against overlooking non-beings and the role they play in existence. He offers three examples of non-beings: knowledge of man, transcendence, and limitation. All questions are subject to these three non-beings, or negations. The fact that questions are often exchanged between people means that the three non-beings that Sartre outlines may inhibit the ability of humans to ever truly unlock the answer.

This portion of the text provides the latter component of the book’s title—nothingness. Sartre suggests that the human condition is surrounded by and contains nothing. Just as being is an inherent part of existence, nothingness pervades everything. This idea relates to the theme Ways of Being. Sartre argues that non-being is as essential to questioning and to understanding existence as being. Every question can be answered with a “no” or other form of negation. For the philosopher, this solidifies the reality of non-existence and gives it equal weight as existence. A car mechanic is used to illustrate this idea. In order to figure out what is wrong with the car, the mechanic looks at or “questions” various machinery in the vehicle: the engine, the carburetor, etc. He investigates these possibilities knowing that he may encounter a negation—a missing part or a part that does not work. Sartre proposes that all questioning comes with the possibility of negation and that the same is true for the question of existence. To ask about the meaning of life or about consciousness is to understand that there is a possibility of uncovering a negative response. Sartre’s emphasis on negation sets up an argument for nihilism that operates in conjunction with existentialism.

The text then addresses the role of nothingness in relation to being. Sartre warns that it may be tempting to see being and nothingness as two opposing forces that lend meaning to one another, like light and shadows. This would falsely present these two ideas again in isolation, and Sartre has already established the importance of rejecting dualities and considering everything. An example of how abstractions separate ideas from their reality and what they manifest is color. When we isolate color, we fail to realize what the color is attributed to. Concrete objects (balloon) help us to make sense of the nothingness (red) that is the abstraction of consciousness. Sartre points to Hegel, who argued that being could not be separated from everything else, including nothingness. To consider being in isolation would provide an incomplete picture.

Sartre proposes that being and nothingness are, at their core, the same thing. Both mean the absence of external influence; both are the most concentrated form of human existence. Humans are confronted with reality at the same time as being. Reality is human-in-the-world, the interaction between self and everything else. At the same time, however, that world is suspended in nothingness and meaninglessness. Looking for anything beyond reality is to look for nothingness. Sartre submits that the origin of being is nothingness. This is unique to being-for-itself. Other creatures, described as being-in-itself, are not born from nothingness. Sartre makes no argument against the inherent essences of entities that can be described as “being-in-itself.”

The text’s devotion to the subject of nothingness is unique to Sartre’s work. Often ontology focuses only on being and pays little attention to its counterpart. However, Sartre would not say that nothingness is the counterpart to being. Instead, he argues that they are synonymous—they coexist. Nothingness is the origin of being, and it is the way to describe the meaninglessness of human existence. This connects to the concept of Ways of Being: Humans can both be and not be; their lives can have meaning but are also meaningless.

The analogy of the chair clarifies the role of nothingness in existentialism. Imagine inviting a friend to meet you for dinner. As the clock ticks away, you begin to worry that your friend will never arrive. You look at the chair; suddenly, the chair is not just a chair. It is not only its being. It is also the absence of your friend and, therefore, also a negation. In this way, existence encompasses both being and nothingness—both what is there and what is not there.