Space is constituted by the For-itself’s organizing of relations between objects

Evidence

It remains for us to consider the second problem which we formulated in our Introduction: If the in-itself and the for-itself are two modalities of being, is there not an hiatus at the very core of the idea of being? And is its comprehension not severed into two incommunicable parts by the very fact that its extension is constituted by two radically heterogenous classes? What is there in common between the being which is what it is, and the being which is what it is not and which is not what it is? What can help us here, however, is the conclusion of our preceding inquiry. We have just shown in fact that the in-itself and the for-itself are not juxtaposed. Quite the contrary, the for-itself without the in-itself is a kind of abstraction; it could not exist any more than a color could exist without form or a sound without pitch and without timbre. A consciousness which would be consciousness of nothing would be an absolute nothing. But if consciousness is bound to the in-itself by an internal relation, doesn’t this mean that it is articulated with the in-itself so as to constitute a totality, and is it not this totality which would be given the name being or reality? — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1437 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Space adds nothing to being but is continuously spatialized through the For-itself’s ekstatic temporalization — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 590; Space and quantity both originate from the for-itself’s free indifference toward unrelated things.; Space is the nothingness of relation seized by a being that relates (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• The for-itself depends on the in-itself through an internal relation #expands (0.85) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1437