The Other resists concept-status because he radically negates rather than extends my experience.

Evidence

But to the extent that I strive to determine the concrete nature of this system of representations and the place which I occupy there as an object, I radically transcend the field of my experience. I am concerned with a series of phenomena which on principle can never be accessible to my intuition, and consequently I exceed the lawful limits of my knowledge. I seek to bind together experiences which will never be my experiences, and consequently this work of construction and unification can in no way serve for the unification of my own experience. To the extent that the Other is an absence he escapes nature. Therefore the Other can not be described as a regulative concept. Of course Ideas like the World, for example, also on principle escape my experience, but at least they are referred back to it and have meaning only through it. The Other, on the contrary, is presented in a certain sense as the radical negation of my experience, since he is the one for whom I am not subject but object. β€” Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 670

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Distinguishes the Other from regulative Ideas like the World, which still refer back to experience.
  • XREF: This rehearses the core by-itself/for-itself relational structure that Beauvoir inherits and applies to gendered embodiment in The Second Sex. β€” connects to: I negate the Other who is himself negating me; The Other is constituted by negation as the self which is not myself β€” Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 675; The Other cannot coherently organize my experience given the structure of experience itself (+1 more)

Broader Connections