The for-itself is defined by self-withdrawal rather than self-identity

Evidence

In order not to be a given, the for-itself must perpetually constitute itself as in withdrawal in relation to itself; that is, it must leave itself behind it as a datum which it already no longer is. This characteristic of the for-itself implies that it is the being which finds no help, no pillar of support in what it was. But on the other hand, the for-itself is free and can cause there to be a world because the for-itself is the being which has to he what it was in the light of what it will be. — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1145

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines the for-itself’s existential structure: perpetual withdrawal from its own past, with no support in what it was.
• XREF: 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 the in-itself’s failed self-founding that nihilates it — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 346; The for-itself lacks a for-itself, not an in-itself, in its project of self-identification — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 373 (+9 more)

Broader Connections

• The For-itself’s being consists in internal negation rather than self-coincidence #corroborates (0.95) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 445
• 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 is not a substance but the nihilation of a particular In-itself #expands (0.85) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1432
• The in-itself and for-itself are two radically separated regions of being #qualifies (0.75)