The possible is a real lack the For-itself projects beyond itself.

Evidence

The possible is the something which the For-itself lacks in order to be itself. Consequently it is not appropriate to say that it is qua possible—unless by being we are to understand the being of an existent which “is made-to-be” in so far as it is made-not-to-be, or if you prefer, the appearance at a distance of what I am. The possible does not exist as a pure representation, not even as a denied one, but as a real lack of being which, qua lack, is beyond being. It has the being of a lack and as lack, it lacks being. The Possible is not, the possible is possibilized to the exact degree that the For-itself makes itself be; the possible determines in schematic outline a location in the nothingness which the For-itself is beyond itself. — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 387

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Sartre defines the Possible as a projected lack, possibilized by the For-itself, not as an existent thing.
  • XREF: Directly feeds Beauvoir’s account of ambiguity and the projective structure of freedom in The Ethics of Ambiguity. — connects to: Only a being that makes itself its own lack can introduce lack. — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 353; The for-itself is necessarily haunted by value and its own possibilities; The possible is defined as a lack that qualifies the for-itself against its past. — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 624 (+6 more)

Broader Connections