Bloch and Sartre share a doctrine of the future-directed present.

Evidence

It is instructive to compare this doctrine not only with that of Heidegger, but also, as George Lichtheim has shrewdly suggested, with that of Sartre, or at least with that of the Sartre of Being and Nothingness, to whom Bloch shows some surprising resemblances, in spite of enormous stylistic and cultural disparities, along with some even more revealing differences. For Sartre also insists on this empty nature of the present which pro-jects us forward into the future, but for him the emptiness is one of lacking rather than of wishing; and he shows how temporality is to be seen as the passion of consciousness to overcome this essential ontological lack and to attain that ultimate identity which would be found in the union of consciousness or lack with that being which it lacks, or in other words with the external world. — Fredric Jameson, Marxism and Form, 269

Categorization

• XREF: This comparison directly serves the reader’s stated purpose of tracing Jameson’s Frankfurt-School lineage: Jameson himself is triangulating Bloch against Sartre’s Being and Nothingness, showing the dialectical method at work. — connects to: Sartre’s philosophy prioritized the future over inheritance from the past.; Bloch’s astonishment targets the future’s latency in being, not being itself — Fredric Jameson, Marxism and Form, 245
• QUESTION: Lichtheim’s specific essay comparing Bloch and Sartre is worth tracking down — how early did this comparison circulate in Frankfurt-adjoining criticism?

Broader Connections

• Sartre’s philosophy prioritized the future over inheritance from the past. #expands (0.75)
• Bloch’s astonishment targets the future’s latency in being, not being itself #expands (0.72) — Fredric Jameson, Marxism and Form, 245