SARTRE’S ONTOLOGICAL FINDINGS

Dr. V. K. Maheshwari Pallavi Singh

Former Principal Lecturer, D.I.M.S Meerut

K.L.D.A.V College, Rurkee

Sartre distinguishes between metaphysics and ontology Metaphysics is the

study of individual process which has given birth to the world as a concrete
and particular totality. Metaphysics is thus concerned with the problem of
why concrete existents are as they are ontology is the study of the structure
of being of the existent taken as a totality. Ontology described being itself,
the conditions by which there is a world of human reality etc, Sartre is mainly
concerned with ontology and pay very little attention to the problems of
metaphysics. On the basis of his ontology finding he makes one or two
metaphysics assumption. He accept that what history is too sociology
metaphysics is to ontology; The aim of metaphysics is to framea hypothesis
which can explain and unify the given of ontology his ontological finding are
as follows:-

1. There are two realms of being – being in-itself and being for itself.
Being itself is there massive and absolute contingent. Absolute in
the sense that it cannot be deduced form any other being and
contingent in the sense that there is no reason for its being it can
be and cannot be as well3. It has no inside which is opposed to
outside. The being-in-itself is not totally exhausted in the
appearance we have of it, It is more than the phenomena. In this
sense it is transphenomenal. But is it not Kantian noumenon which
is totality different from the phenomena. Being in- itself is never
revealed completely to consciousness.

2. The other being is being for itself or consciousness. It is posterior to

being –in-itself, because it rises as a negation of being-in-itself ,it is
negation of desire of definition of bring for itself is possible lack-of-
being ,It is desire of being-in-itself, lack of-being, appropriation of
being as value and at the same time it is a capacity of putting itself
at a distance from its objects. As such it is nothingness- freedom. It
is what is not and is. It is bound to fail projects. So it is lonely and
anguished. Man is a useless passion.

1
3. There is no god. Sartre criticisms the traditional concept of god as
ens causa sui. If God causes himself, He must stand at a distance
from himself. This makes god dependent upon something from
which he is at a distance. It means that his existences is contingent
and if god is not contingent, He does not exist. If there is god, He
cannot create being-in-itself exnihilo.”A creation exnihilo cannot
explain the coming to pass of bring, for it being is conceived in a
subjectivity, even a divine subjectivity, it remains a mode of intra
subjectivity being. Such subjectivity cannot have even the
representation of an objectivity, and consequently it cannot even be
affected with the will to cerate the objective”4

Furthermore, god cannot be regarded an intelligent being who both

transcends and includes the totality. “for the god is consciousness,
he is integrated in the totality . And if by his nature he is he is a
being beyond consciousness (that is, an in-itself which would be its
own foundation) still the totality can appear to him only as an object
(in that case he lacks the totality’s internal integration as the
subjective effort to reprehend the self) on as subject (then since
God is not this subject, he can only experience it without knowing
it). Thus, no point of view on the totality is conceivable; the totality
has no outside and the very question of the meaning of the ‘under-
side’ is stripped of meaning. We cannot go further”.

Actually God is the fundamental project of for itself . The for it self
perpetually tries to grasp in it self to get rid of the nothingness which it
carries But it can never be successful, Because it become being in itself it
lose consciousness which is the very negation of bring. So the fundamental
project is to be founder of being of its being i.e. to be for itself-in- self. This
possible combination is, in the theological terms, God is fundamental but
unsuccessful project of for itself, there is no escape from the gratuitous
absurdity of the world and his being.

4. As far as the origin of for itself is concerned, no metaphysical theory

is possible in the light of ontological findings. For-itself as the negation of
being is dependent for its being on being-in-itself. But in-itself cannot be the
cause of for-itself To be a cause requires unity with the effect and being-in-
itself cannot be its own negation without being consciousness. So only as if
explanation is possible. Regarding the origin of consciousness ontology can
declare only that every thing takes place as if the in itself in a project to
found itself gave itself the modifications of for itself.

2
 In the light of those ontological finding we can say that Sartre is not a
dualist. He does not grant equal status to being-for-itself and to being –in
itself. For-it-self would be mere abstraction without in itself because it is
nothing but emptiness of being. “For con- ciousness there is no being except
for this precise obligation to be a revealing intuition of something “His stand
is akin to that of materialistic monism. Being-in-itself is gratuitous and
absolute reality and for-itself anyhow comes as a negation of this massive
being “The for itself is like a tiny nihilation which has its origin at the heart of
being and this nihilation is sufficient to cause a total upheaval to happen to
the in-itself. This upheaval is the world”. The defect of this hypothesis is
obvious. How can being in itself cause a tiny nihilation without itself
becoming nothingness? Sartre is also opposed to the idea of accepting both
the for itself and itself as the two dimension of one encompassing being.
Because the former is the negation of the latter and both cannot be
combined in a comprehensive being simultaneously. So, It is clear that for-
itself is not a parallel reality to being in itself and it is certainly posterior to in
itself Although it comes out of being-in- itself but is unique in its
characteristic. If (for-itself)is desire of denial of appropriation of being etc. But
it is never satisfied in its projects, It can never be one with its values. It is
bound to be discontent and anguished. This Sartre declares on the basis of
phenomenological analysis of our empirical experiences. But if we pass on to
some deeper experience or spiritual experience, We find that there is no
dissatisfaction and those who have gone through such experience enjoy
eternal peace and bliss. Should we ignore this aspect of human experience
while analyzing our consciousness? Sartre has totally neglected this aspect
and has based his analysis on the data supplied by day-to –day experience
only. But we have got the capacity to go beyond this experience which his
based on the subject- object dichotomy. This has been accepted by the seers
and mystics of all the countries from the time immemorial and now this being
accepted by the advocates of modern science too. We are one with the
ultimate comprehensive rtealitywhi8ch cannot be massive and blind being in
itself but transparent eternal consciousness That is why the discontent of
human being is not satisfied only by uniting oneself with the ultimate reality
which will be the state of desire-less where there would be no dualism of for
itself and in-itself.

The metaphysical hypothesis of meteriahsticmonism and dualism fails to

solve the problem of the advent of being for itself. Being- for- itself cannot
come out of being in- it-self because the latter cannot hide the former in itself
without being it own denial, i.e. consciousness. The dualism is also not
acceptable because for itself is posterior to in self. So better we acceptable
the hypothesis of spiritual non-dualistic monism. There is only eternal
consciousness which is not the objective consciousness of something but only
blissful (stage of) consciousness where there in no difference between the

3
knower and the knownand which any how seems to be confine it into several
for- it selves. this hypothesis is corroborated by the mystical experience in
which the oneness of being is realized. There are several spiritual School of
thought which believe in some sort of dualism. The Jaona, Nyaya-Vaisesika
and Samkhya system of the Indian philosophy believe in dualism of mind and
matter, but they too, however, accept that at the stage of salvation when
consciousness is free from the influence of matter, there is no bondage on
limitation over it. On further scrutiny we find the weakness of this hypothesis
of dualism as is shown by Shankaracharya and ultimately we have to accept
the unqualified spiritual monism as the only fact substantiated by reason and
experience as well.

Modern science has not yet solved the problems of ultimate reality.But
the tending towards non-dualistic monism. According to modern
physics, the world of objective is reducibie to certain elements which
themselves are comprised of the uniform units called atoms. The
different elements are made up of the different combination of these
atoms. There atoms themselves are the different combinations of yet
elemental particles called electrons. Each and every Atoms is
comprised of a nucieus having protons and neutrons and around this
electrons revolve in different orbits. This hypothesis about the
structure of atom is fashioned on the model of solar system. The
conglomerations of atoms of the same nuclii are elements. The whole
of the inorganic world is made of those elements and their different
combinations. Those who believe in primacy of matter believe that at
same stage of evolution life life is born out of the inorganic matter.
Sartre is also in the same category of scholar. But now, a pertinent
question may be asked as to how does it so happen that these
fundamental particular which makes the world cannot be called
gratuitous and absurd because it is this combination which gives
meaning and purpose to the wayward particles, For example, proteins
are the essential constituents of all living cells, and they consist of the
five elements, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and suipur, with
possible 40,000 atoms in the nature, all distributed at random, the
chance that these five elements may come together to from the
molecule, the quantity of matter that must be continually shaken uyp,
and the length of time necessary to finish the task, can all be
calculated. A Swiss mathematician, Charles Eugone Guye has made
the computation and finds that the odds against such an occurrence
are 10160to 1, or only chance in10160 that is 10 multiplied by itself 160
times a number for too large to be expressed in words. The amount of

4
matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule of protein
would be millions of times greater than in the whole universe. For it to
occur on the earth alone would require many almost endless billions
(10298) of years. Proteins are made from long chains called amino acids.
The ways these are put together matters enormously. If in the wrong
way, they will not sustain life and may be poisons. Professor J.B
Leather of England has calculated that the link in the chain of quite a
simple protein could be put together in million of ways (10 48). It is
possible for all these chances to have coincided to build one molecule
of protein “8Now we may ask the question whether there is an unifying
ubiquitous reality which is the basic of all the particles and owing to
which they all coalesce and combine to make different things. Any
such co-axis thence of the force of different nature. Is there a basic
identity in the different fundamental particles? The scientists have
given no positive answer bur same recent experiment are gesturing
towards such an unity “At the 17thinternationalconference on high
Energy Physics held at the inpirical college in London in July 1974
physicist from Brookhaven National laboratory in Upton, New York, the
Fermi national acceleration Laboratory at Batavia, Illionois, and the
Rockefeller University in New York city, announced New discoveries
revealing the underlying simplicity of nature deep within the atom. The
experiments concerned measurements of protons and neutrons basic
components of the atomic nucleus, after they were bombarded with six
different particle accelerated to very high energies from 500 to 100
billions electron volts. With the six particles, the measurements of the
protons and neutrons begin to look a like and differences seen
previously at lower energies begin to disappears, suggesting that the
physicist are seeing a new simplicity of nature making sense out the
subatomic zoo ”9.

The scientists have not yet framed a hypothesis about the nature of
unity which that find at micro level of reality Recently Dr. Abuds Salam
of Pakistan and two other scientists of America made a step towards
the unifying field theory which the great Einstein Yearned to propound
and which establishes the basic unity of the different forces of the
nature. For their attempt Dr.A.Salam and his friend were awarded
Nobel prize in physics in 1980. If we have the vision we can realize this
unity at all levels. Mystics and sees have already realized it. They call
the ultimate principal of unity as god or Brahman. They feels the
oneness of being at the highest level of experience 10 We with our body

5
and consciousness are one with the ultimate reality. It is only limitation
of our vision caused by ignorance which makes us dwell on the surface
of consciousness where we can only see diversity of things.

Apart from the testimony of seers and mystics, modern

researches in the field of extra sensory perception (E.S.P) to indicate
towards an unifying and all adsorbing reality which can nothing but all
pervading consciousness. Telepathy and clairvoyance are established
facts now. If we can receive the data from Fat off places without any
physical aid, then can we not say that on the surface there might be
different individualities but at the bottom we are one with the Reality?
Telepatathic powers in men are accepted by the scientists on the basic
of experiments. Soviet Scientists were able to have telepathic contacts
from the distance of 1860 miles11. Telepathic contacts are not possible
only among human being but the trees and plants are also capable of
receiving telepathic messages. “Gleve Backster, An American scientist,
made a discovery in 1966, which could have farreaching effect on our
metaphysics outlooks.” With the help of a polygraph or ‘lie-detector’ he
measured the electrical impulses of indoor plants during moments of
threat to their well-being. He decided to torture the plants on which he
was experimenting. First he dipped one of its leaves in to a cup of hot
coffee; but nothing happened. Next, he decided to get a match and
burn the leaf properely At the instant of this decision, at 13 minutes
and 55 second of chart times, there was a dramatic change in the
psychogalvanic reflex (P.G.R) tracing pattern in the from of an abrupt
and prolonged upwards sweep of the recording pen. I had not moved
or touched the plant. So the timing of the tracing might have been
triggered by the mere thought of the harm I intended to inflict on the
plant”12. Backester repeated the experiment meticulously avoiding all
the other possible causes and come to the conclusion that there is a
possible of communication system which covers all life, if not the
inorganic world. By these experiment and experience at least the unity
of consciousness is proved. Individual consciousness is surrounded and
situated in the world of matter, being-in-itself and if without any
physical contact and without the aid of any physical medium conscious
can communicate with each other, then certainly, there is some
unifying reality which comprehends both mind and matter. The world
can be compared with the ocean on whose surface there are many
ripples and bubbles but at the deep level there is only calm water.
This fact which has been accepted by the modern scientists too In a

6
recently published book, “The Tao of physics” Dr. Fritjof Capra,
professor of physics university of Berkeley, U.S.A, observes, “The most
impotent characteristic of the Eastern world-view one can almost say
the essence of it is the awareness of the unity and mutual interrelation
of all things and events…………the Eastern traditions constantly refer to
this ultimate indivisible reality, which mainifests itself in all things, and
of which all things are parts. It is called Brahman in Hinduism,
Dharmakaya in Buddhism and Tao in Taoism.

The basic oneness of the universe is not only the central

characteristic of the mystical experience but is also one of the most
important revelations of modern physics. It becomes apparent at the
atomic level and manifests itself more as one penetrates deeper in to
matter, down into the realm of sub-atomic particles. The unity of all
things and event will be a recurring them throughout our comparison
of modern physics and Eastern Philosophy”13

The mystics and the physicists arrive at the same conclusion

about the nature of ultimate reality. In the same book on page 305, Dr.
Capra observes, In contrast of the mystic, the physicist begins his
inquiry in to the essential nature of thing by studying the material
world. Penetrating in to ever deeper realms of matter, he has become
aware of the essential unity of all things and events. More than that, he
has also learnt that he himself and his consciousness are an integral
part of the unity. Thus, the mystics and the physics arrive at the same
conclusion, one starting from the inner realm, the other from the outer
world, the harmony between their views confirms the ancient Indian
wisdom that Brahman, the ultimate reality without, is identical to
Atman, the reality without, is identical to Atman, the reality within.

In the light of the above described facts, how can we agree with
Satre that man is a useless passion? Life is not a futile attempt of
giving meaning and imparting values to the world, but it is itself the
meaning of the world. The whole world is the manifestation of the
comprehensive Reality which is nothing but consciousness. The
alienation and anguish is not the destiny of human being. He is divine
and his goal is to this realize this divinity. There is no difference
between value and being. The alienation is not caused by the other but
by the ignorance of our true nature. Our true self can be realized and
this realization is the ultimate end of our life. The picture of life
delineated on the basis of day-to-day experience whether empirical or

7
phenomenological fail to represent life in its full dimensions. To
understand the mystery of life we will have to dive deep into our
consciousness and this Sartre has ignored. Therefore, his conclusions
are only partly true and require emendation in the light of mystical and
spiritual experiences,

Notes and References

1. Being and Nathingness, P. 619.

2. Ibid.,p. 621.

3. Ibid, p. Lxvi.

4. Being and Nathingness, p. Lxiv.

5. Ibid, P. 302.

6. Ibid.,p. 611

7. Ibid., p. 618

8. From the essay, ‘The orgin of the world by chqance or Design’ by

Frank Allen, Former Proffessor Bio-Physics, University of
Manitoba, Canada and recipient of Tony Gold Medal, Royal socity
of Canada,

9. The Tao of Physics by Dr.F. Capra, pp 130-31.

8
9
10
11