A possibility’s existential weight, not its temporal proximity, determines the present For-itself.

Evidence

The Future thus defined does not correspond to a homogeneous and chronologically ordered succession of moments to come. To be sure, there is a hierarchy of my possibles. But this hierarchy does not correspond to the order of universal Temporality such as will be established on the bases of original Temporality. I am an infinity of possibilities, for the meaning of the For-itself is complex and cannot be contained in one formula. But a particular possibility may be more determinant for the meaning of the present For-itself than another which is nearer in universal time. For example, the possibility of going at two o’clock to see a friend whom I have not seen for two years—this is truly a possible which I am. But the nearer possibilities—the possibilities of going there in a taxi, by bus, by subway, on foot—all these at present remain undertermined. I am not any one of these possibilities. — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 456

Categorization

• DEFINE: Clarifies what it means for a possible to be truly ‘mine’ versus merely nearer in clock time — the distinction between authentic possibles and indifferent filler possibilities.
• XREF: Connects to Heidegger’s Being-toward-death and the authenticity of one’s ownmost possibilities, and primes Beauvoir’s ethics of situated freedom. — connects to: The self I am depends on a future self it cannot determine — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 239; The future is a prejudicative self-relation, not representation or actual potency; The for-itself’s negation of being has a future-extending ekstatic dimension — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 604 (+3 more)

Broader Connections

• The future is what the For-itself has yet to become, its determining possible being. #expands (0.90)
• The for-itself’s negation of being has a future-extending ekstatic dimension #expands (0.82) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 604
• The present is overdetermined yet fundamentally open to contingency #qualifies (0.75) — Stuart Hall, Essential Essays, Volume 2, 1196