Knowledge is a form of appropriation by the for-itself

Evidence

It is at this point that we encounter the similarity to scientific research: the known object, like the stone in the stomach of the ostrich, is entirely within me, assimilated, transformed into myself, and it is entirely me; but at the same time it is impenetrable, untransformable, entirely smooth, with the indifferent nudity of a body which is beloved and caressed in vain. It remains outside; to know it is to devour it yet without consuming it. We see here how the sexual and alimentary currents mingle and interpenetrate in order to constitute the Actaeon complex and the Jonah complex; we can see the digestive and sensual roots which are reunited to give birth to the desire of knowing. Knowledge is at one and the same time a penetration and a superficial caress, a digestion and the contemplation from afar of an object which will never lose its form, the production of a thought by a continuous creation and the establishment of the total objective independence of that thought. The known object is my thought as a thing This is precisely what I profoundly desire when I undertake my research—to apprehend my thought as a thing and the thing as my thought. The syncretic relation which provides the basis for the ensemble of such diverse tendencies can be only a relation of appropriation. That is why the desire to know, no matter how disinterested it may appear, is a relation of appropriation. To know is one of the forms which can be assumed by to have. — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1354 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

In Part Two Sartre, using this view of the For-itself as a Nothingness and as an always future project, discusses the For-itself as a pursuit of Being in the form of selfness. This involves the questions of possibility, of value, and of temporality, all of which prove to be integrally related to the basic concept of the For-itself as an internal negation of Being-in-itself. But if the For-itself is a relation to the In-itself, even by way of negation, then we must find some sort of bridge. This bridge is knowledge, the discussion of which concludes Part Two. — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 37 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: The for-itself learns what it is by recovering its being through the world — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 605; Knowledge is not a property but is the ekstatic being of the For-itself — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 651; Knowledge of being presupposes the knower’s separation from the being known — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 653 (+8 more)

Broader Connections

• The desire to know is ultimately a relation of appropriation #corroborates (0.92) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1354
• The for-itself is defined as an internal negation of the in-itself, bridged through knowledge #expands (0.85) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 37
• Absolute Knowledge arises from being’s own self-systematizing, not from the I #complicates (0.75) — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel, 1090
• Some knowledge forms are intrinsically resistant to being wielded as power #complicates (0.75)
• Reflection aims impossibly to unify the for-itself with itself into a totality #expands (0.72)
• Knowledge and objectivity are only knowable in relation to humanity #expands (0.72)
• The For-itself is responsible for how it apprehends qualities of things #expands (0.70) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 598