The For-itself’s being consists in internal negation rather than self-coincidence

Evidence

Concerning the For-itself as such we should never say, “It is” in the sense that we say, for example, “It is nine o’clock;” that is, in the sense of the total equivalence of being with itself which posits and suppresses the self and which gives the external aspect of passivity. For the For-itself has the existence of an appearance coupled with a witness of a reflection which refers to a reflecting without there being any object of which the reflection would be the reflection. The For-itself does not have being because its being is always at a distance: its being is there in the reflecting, if you consider appearance, which is appearance or reflection only for the reflecting; it is there in the reflection if you consider the reflecting, which is no longer in itself anything more than a pure function of reflecting this reflection. Furthermore in itself the For-itself is not being, for it makes itself be explicitly for-itself as not being being. It is consciousness of —— as the internal negation of ——. The structure at the basis of intentionality and of selfness is the negation, which is the internal relation of the For-itself to the thing. The For-itself constitutes itself outside in terms of the thing as the negation of that thing; thus its first relation with being-in-itself is negation. It “is” in the mode of the For-itself; that is, as a separated existent inasmuch as it reveals itself as not being being. It doubly escapes being, by an internal disintegration and by express negation. — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 445

Categorization

• DEFINE: Core ontological definition: the For-itself is defined by internal negation, self-disintegration, and escape from being, in contrast to the in-itself’s self-identity.
• XREF: Sets up the systematic backdrop for Beauvoir’s ethics of ambiguity — freedom as negation of facticity. — connects to: The for-itself is defined as an internal negation of the in-itself, bridged through knowledge — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 37; The For-itself is process rather than entity; The in-itself and for-itself are two radically separated regions of being (+47 more)

Broader Connections

• The For-itself is not a substance but the nihilation of a particular In-itself #corroborates (0.90) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1432
• The for-itself constitutes itself through an original negation of the thing #corroborates (0.88) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 571
• The For-itself adds nothing to being except its own negation #corroborates (0.85) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 652
• Internal negation belongs exclusively to the for-itself, never to being-in-itself #expands (0.82) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 574
• The for-itself depends on the in-itself through an internal relation #expands (0.80) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1437
• External negations leave beings untouched while internal negations constitute the self #expands (0.80) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 573