Summary
' Intentional objects' are objects of consciousness; that is to say, physical objects, numbers, value, the psyche, and psycho-physical persons—that Sartre agreed should be studied in their own right. It was also Sartre's view, which differed from Husserl's, that 'intentional objects' are consciousness, and that the value of intended stuffs was in consciousness of them. 'Intentional objects' are therefore both objects of consciousness and consciousness, and this is because consciousness is both itself a reflection of it. Sartre describes the cogito by noting that 'the consciousness which says I think'—this is to the consciousness that can reflect on the mental concept of thinking—is not 'the consciousness which thinks'. So, one can think of one's own thinking, like the idea that a painting of a pipe is not an actual pipe. And, so, consciousness is of its own properties—transcendental, as there is inclusive in it, itself and reflection of it. For Sartre, 'intentional objects' are objects for consciousness and consciousness itself, just as consciousness itself is both consciousness and reflecting consciousness. Moreover, consciousness is in the world as we are conscious of things, but we are also conscious of ourselves being conscious of things, so, things and our own consciousness of the things evoke our own reflective consciousness. Unfortunately, there exists no easier or any less mundane sounding explanation of what is meant here. It remains to be pointed out that the consciousness of reflection is not able to be reflected on. "When an external object is perceived, consciousness is also conscious of itself, even if consciousness is not its own object: it is a non-positional consciousness of itself, whereas, when an object is perceived, consciousness is a positional one. There is no need for a reflection. Consciousness is always aware of its activity and experience. This is what Sartre calls “unreflective consciousness”". In light of this for Sartre, the constitution of the ego is 'states and actions hese intended objects we speak ofit supports'. This is to say, that the material presence of things in turn proves the ontology of the object contemplating them. Ego is then nothing without something in which to contemplate but is reliant on itself and its being. Further, the flexibility of consciousness for Sartre is the ability to contemplate something in its absence, this being special for his idea of reflection.Conclusion
He concludes that though people can contemplate the same thing, we cannot contemplate 'the intuitive apprehension' of another. This connotes the Sartrean idea of becoming apprehensive about the awareness that we are to be responsible for our own doings, and also that we can be conscious of the thing like another consciousness is conscious of the thing, but we cannot reflect on their being conscious of the thing like we can reflect on our being conscious of the thing. In this way we are still only condemned to making ourselves as we battle with our own consciousness, and so we don’t create the world, we are objects in the world.References
External links
Footnotes
{{DEFAULTSORT:Transcendence Of The Ego Transcendence Transcendence Books by Jean-Paul Sartre French non-fiction books