The For-itself is not a substance but the nihilation of a particular In-itself

Evidence

Our research has enabled us to answer the first of these questions: the For-itself and the In-itself are reunited by a synthetic connection which is nothing other than the For-itself itself. The For-itself, in fact, is nothing but the pure nihilation of the In-itself; it is like a hole of being at the heart of Being. … The for-itself has no reality save that of being the nihilation of being. Its sole qualification comes to it from the fact that it is the nihilation of an individual and particular In-itself and not of a being in general. The For-itself is not nothingness in general but a particular privation; it constitutes itself as the privation of this being. Therefore we have no business asking about the way in which the for-itself can be united with the in-itself since the for-itself is in no way an autonomous substance. As a nihilation it is made-to-be by the in-itself; as an internal negation it must by means of the in-itself make known to itself what it is not and consequently what it has to be. — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1432

Categorization

• DEFINE: Resolves the earlier dualism worry by defining the For-itself as nihilation, not substance — the precise sense in which it is ‘made-to-be’ by the In-itself.
• XREF: This is the systematic backdrop Beauvoir builds on — the for-itself as nihilation grounds freedom in her ethics. — 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 a particular privation, not a general Nothingness.; The For-itself has only marginal, borrowed being derived from what it nihilates. — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 48 (+30 more)
• ADDENDUM: The hole-in-being motif echoes the image of privation as a defined absence — parallels the sacrifice chapter’s examination of what absence means in ritual structure.

Broader Connections

• The in-itself has no need of the for-itself to be #expands (0.80) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1439
• Substance becomes subject by self-negating into its own content #responds-to (0.75) — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel, 240