The for-itself’s project is a concrete individual choice, not an abstract universal
Evidence
It must be understood of course that the project of the for-itself is not to establish a being of reason, that is a being which the for-itself would first conceive—form and matter—and then endow with existence. Such a being actually would be a pure abstraction, a universal; its conception could not be prior to being-in-the-world; on the contrary its conception would presuppose being-in-the-world as it supposes the pre-ontological comprehension of a being which is eminently concrete and present at the start, which is the “there” of the first being-there of the for-itself; that is the being of the world. The for-itself does not exist so as first to think a universal and then determine itself in terms of concepts. It is its choice and its choice can not be abstract without making the very being of the for-itself abstract. The being of the for-itself is an individual venture, and the choice must be an individual choice of a concrete being. … That which it forms the project of being appears to it as an eminently concrete totality; it is this particular being. Of course we can foresee in this project the possibilities of a universalizing development; but it is in the same way as we say of a lover that he loves all women or all womankind in one woman. The for-itself has the project of being the foundation of this concrete being, which as we have just seen, can not be conceived—for the very reason that it is concrete; neither can it be imagined, for the imaginary is nothingness and this being is eminently being. It must exist; that is, it must be encountered, but this encounter is identical with the choice which the for-itself makes. The for-itself is an encountered-choice; that is, it is defined as a choice of founding the being which it encounters. This means that the for-itself as an individual enterprise is a choice of this world, as an individual totality of being; it does not surpass it towards a logical universal but towards a new concrete “state” of the same world, in which being would be an in-itself founded by the for-itself; that is, it surpasses it towards a concrete-being-beyond-the-concrete-existing-being. — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1384
Categorization
- DEFINE: Clarifies that the for-itself’s project of being targets a concrete, particular being-encounter, never a universal concept — the lover-loves-all-women-in-one analogy crystallizes the point.
- XREF: Directly sets up the systematic backdrop to Beauvoir’s ethic of situated, concrete freedom; also resonates with the existentialist claim that existence precedes essence. — connects to: Finitude is the necessary condition of the For-itself’s original project; Original projects of the for-itself are logically irreducible to any pre-existing motive.; The fundamental project is the for-itself’s choice of its own being-in-the-world. — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 1107 (+5 more)
Broader Connections
- The for-itself constitutes itself by choosing and projecting concrete possibles
#expands(0.90) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1509 - The For-itself is a particular privation, not a general Nothingness.
#corroborates(0.85)