Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Jean-Paul Sartre, a leading figure in 20th-century existentialism, radically challenged conventional understandings of human consciousness. Traditionally, consciousness is often viewed as a container for thoughts, perceptions, and a stable, identifiable self. However, Sartre rejects this notion, arguing that consciousness is not a substance but rather a process – a ‘nothingness’ that defines itself through its engagement with the world and, crucially, with other consciousnesses. The statement “Consciousness is what it is not and is not what it is” encapsulates this core tenet of his philosophy, highlighting its inherent lack of fixed identity and its constant becoming. This answer will explore the chief features of Sartre’s conception of consciousness, unpacking the complexities of his existentialist framework.
Sartre’s Rejection of Traditional Consciousness
Sartre begins by dismantling the Cartesian dualism of mind and body, and the associated idea of a pre-existing, substantial ‘self’. He argues against the notion of a ‘being-in-itself’ (en-soi) applying to consciousness. The en-soi refers to the full, solid, and self-contained being of objects. It simply *is*, without any internal lack or potentiality. Consciousness, however, is not like a thing; it is not a ‘what’ but a ‘how’ – a way of being.
The ‘Being-for-Itself’ (Pour-Soi)
Sartre introduces the concept of ‘being-for-itself’ (pour-soi) to describe consciousness. The pour-soi is characterized by a fundamental ‘lack’ or ‘nothingness’ (néant). This isn’t a negative quality, but rather the very condition of possibility for consciousness. Because consciousness is not a fixed entity, it is always ‘lacking’ something – it is always projecting itself towards future possibilities. This lack is not intrinsic to the pour-soi, but arises from its relation to the en-soi.
Consciousness and Nothingness
The ‘nothingness’ of consciousness isn’t an empty void, but a capacity for negation. Consciousness can negate the given reality, imagine alternatives, and choose between them. This ability to negate is what separates consciousness from mere being. Sartre illustrates this with the example of a waiter playing the role of a waiter – he is not simply *being* a waiter, but *playing* at being a waiter, constantly enacting a role and thereby creating a distance between himself and his essence. This distance *is* the nothingness.
The Role of the ‘Other’
Crucially, Sartre argues that consciousness only becomes fully aware of itself through its encounter with the ‘Other’ (another consciousness). The gaze of the Other objectifies us, turning us into an en-soi – a thing to be looked at. This experience is often experienced as shame or alienation. However, it is also essential for self-awareness. We understand ourselves, in part, through how others perceive us. The statement "I am what others make of me" reflects this influence, though Sartre would nuance it by saying we are *defined* by the Other's gaze, but not *determined* by it. We retain our freedom to interpret and respond to that gaze.
Freedom, Responsibility, and Anguish
Because consciousness is not determined by a pre-existing essence, Sartre argues that we are radically free. This freedom, however, is not a cause for celebration, but a source of anguish. We are ‘condemned to be free,’ meaning we are entirely responsible for our choices and actions. There is no external authority – no God, no inherent human nature – to guide us. This responsibility is overwhelming, leading to existential anguish. Sartre believed that bad faith (mauvaise foi) – deceiving oneself about one’s freedom – is a common way to avoid this anguish.
Illustrative Table: Being-in-itself vs. Being-for-itself
| Being-in-itself (En-soi) | Being-for-itself (Pour-soi) |
|---|---|
| Full, complete, solid | Lacking, empty, negating |
| Simply *is* | Is what it is not; is not what it is |
| No consciousness or self-awareness | Consciousness, self-awareness, intentionality |
| Determined, fixed | Free, constantly becoming |
Conclusion
Sartre’s conception of consciousness, as articulated through the concepts of <em>being-for-itself</em> and <em>nothingness</em>, presents a radical departure from traditional philosophical views. He portrays consciousness not as a static entity but as a dynamic process of self-creation, perpetually defined by its freedom, responsibility, and its relationship with the Other. The paradoxical statement “Consciousness is what it is not and is not what it is” serves as a powerful reminder of this inherent instability and the constant need for individuals to define their own essence through their choices and actions. His philosophy, while challenging, offers a profound understanding of the human condition and the burden of existential freedom.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.