en-soi / pour-soi
Facticity is the given of one's situation and past; transcendence is consciousness going beyond it. Shore places them close to Sartre's in-itself and for-itself.
One can walk down the steps or jump off the stage, but not suddenly sprout wings and fly; that lies outside the facticity of the situation.
The image Shore uses for it, in our paraphrase.
In lecture order, as Marci Shore presents each view. The time opens that minute of the lecture on YouTube.
The in-itself (en-soi) is everything already fixed about us: our past deeds, who we have so far been, inert and beyond revision, close to the facticity of our situation.
Put simply Sartre's "in-itself" is the part of us already fixed: what we have done and who we have been so far. It is inert and cannot be revised, much like the given facts of our situation.
The for-itself (pour-soi) is consciousness as an activity, not a thing: a fluid negating of what one has been, reaching past the given into the future to do something different.
Put simply Sartre's "for-itself" is consciousness as an activity, not a thing: it keeps pushing away from what we have been and reaching into the future to do something different.
Sartrean freedom, like Heidegger's, operates inside a situation already given: I may walk, run or jump, but not fly. Within those limits, though, possibilities never run out.
A rarer, second form of bad faith overlooks facticity: fantasizing that wishing makes anything possible, one makes a decision that is no real decision at all.
Put simply Sartre: a rarer way of lying to ourselves ignores the hard facts of our situation. Like a child demanding to fly to grandma's, we pretend wishing makes anything possible, so our "decision" is no real decision.
Nobody chooses from a blank slate: a person decides what to become "on the basis of what he has been," starting inside a world and a past already given.
Put simply Beauvoir: nobody starts from a blank slate. A person decides what to become "on the basis of what he has been", inside a world and a past that are already given.
Beauvoir's slogan, "Ethics is the triumph of freedom over facticity": facticity is the thrown, already-there situation nobody can wish away, though anyone can push against it.
Put simply Beauvoir's slogan: "Ethics is the triumph of freedom over facticity." "Facticity" is the situation we are already thrown into, which nobody can wish away, though anyone can push against it.
Beauvoir's immanence and transcendence, as Shore reads them, work roughly like Sartre's in-itself and for-itself, with a somewhat different twist: immanence is bound up with facticity.
Put simply Shore: Beauvoir's "immanence" (staying stuck, passive) and "transcendence" (going beyond) work roughly like Sartre's fixed "in-itself" and free "for-itself." The twist: immanence is tied to the given facts of one's situation.
2 links between claims that both use the term. Each shows the earlier claim, then the later one that answers it. “Our inference” marks a link Shore does not state outright.
SartreThe for-itself (pour-soi) is consciousness as an activity, not a thing: a fluid negating of what one has been, reaching past the given into the future to do something different. L13 · 35:49
SartreSartrean freedom, like Heidegger's, operates inside a situation already given: I may walk, run or jump, but not fly. Within those limits, though, possibilities never run out. L13 · 38:25
Shore grounds Sartrean freedom in consciousness being for-itself, with its limits set by the in-itself.
SartreThe in-itself (en-soi) is everything already fixed about us: our past deeds, who we have so far been, inert and beyond revision, close to the facticity of our situation. L13 · 35:01
BeauvoirBeauvoir's slogan, "Ethics is the triumph of freedom over facticity": facticity is the thrown, already-there situation nobody can wish away, though anyone can push against it. L16 · 23:34
Freedom must prevail over facticity, the given situation
Terms that appear in the same claims.