The for-itself is a relation to the world, not a separate entity

Evidence

Furthermore we ought not to take this as our point of departure but rather our primary relation to the in-itself: our being-in-the-world. We know that there is not a for-itself on the one hand and a world on the other as two closed entities for which we must subsequently seek some explanation as to how they communicate. The for-itself is a relation to the world. The for-itself, by denying that it is being, makes there be a world, and by surpassing this negation toward its own possibilities it reveals the “thises” as instrumental-things. — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 831

Categorization

• XREF: Core of Sartre’s anti-Cartesian ontology; directly establishes the for-itself/in-itself structure that Beauvoir’s ethics of ambiguity presupposes. — connects to: The For-itself derives all its powers precisely from not being Being; The For-itself is process rather than entity; ‘Being is what it is’ names only the in-itself, not all being. (+10 more)

Broader Connections

• The For-itself is not a substance but the nihilation of a particular In-itself #corroborates (0.95) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1432
• The for-itself constitutes itself through an original negation of the thing #expands (0.90) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 571
• The for-itself depends on the in-itself through an internal relation #expands (0.85) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1437
• The in-itself has no need of the for-itself to be #corroborates (0.85) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1439