Heidegger’s privileged future ecstasy covertly reinstates a figure of subjectivity

Evidence

While we have had to proceed in this way for the sake of clarity in exposition, we should not thereby conclude that being is revealed to a being which would be first presence in order afterwards to constitute itself a future. But being-in-itself is revealed to a being which arises as about-to-come to itself. This means that the negation which the for-itself makes itself be in the presence of being has an ekstatic dimension of the future; it is in so far as I am not what I am (an ekstatic relation to my own possibilities) that I have to not-be being-in-itself as the revealing realization of the this. That means that I am presence to the “this” in the incompleteness of a totality detotalized. — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 604 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Heidegger’s later philosophy drained Dasein of human agency and action — Sarah Bakewell, At the Existentialist Café: Freedom,…, 595; The for-itself’s negation of being has a future-extending ekstatic dimension — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 604; Habit’s virtuality marks the shift from Greek to modern subjectivity — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel: Plasticity,…, 613 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• The for-itself’s negation of being has a future-extending ekstatic dimension #corroborates (0.80) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 604