The lapse of transcendence into immanence is an absolute evil, whether chosen or inflicted

Evidence

The perspective we have adopted is one of existentialist morality. Every subject posits itself as a transcendence concretely, through projects; it accomplishes its freedom only by perpetual surpassing toward other freedoms; there is no other justification for present existence than its expansion toward an indefinitely open future. Every time transcendence lapses into immanence, there is degradation of existence into “in-itself,” of freedom into facticity; this fall is a moral fault if the subject consents to it; if this fall is inflicted on the subject, it takes the form of frustration and oppression; in both cases it is an absolute evil. — Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 64

Categorization

• DEFINE: Core definitions: transcendence vs immanence, in-itself vs facticity, and why the degradation of one into the other constitutes ‘absolute evil.’
• XREF: The transcendence/immanence distinction directly adapts Sartre’s pour-soi/en-soi — foundational for seeing how Beauvoir builds on and modifies Sartre. — connects to: For existentialist ethics, transcendence collapse into immanence is the absolute evil — Christine Daigle, Jacob Golomb (eds.), Beauvoir and Sartre: The Riddle of…, 427
• DEEPTHINKING: The move — that immanence is evil whether consented to or inflicted, making ‘immanent contentment’ no defense — is genuinely paradigm-defining for the whole work.

Broader Connections

• For existentialist ethics, transcendence collapse into immanence is the absolute evil #corroborates (1.00) — Christine Daigle, Jacob Golomb (eds.), Beauvoir and Sartre, 427