What is the Concept of Being in Sartre's Philosophy?

[Rade]

From this site:
http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/sartre.html

we read:
What is Being? What is Nothingness? How are they related? For Sartre, Being is objective, it is what is. Being is in-itself. Existence, on the other hand, has a subjective quality in relation to human reality. Existence refers to the fact that some individual or thing is present in the world.

But...(here I assume the site is correct about Sartre)...what does Sartre gain by holding on to 'being' since he also rejects, in the introduction to Being and Nothingness, Kant’s concept of noumenon ? So my question, what the difference between the "in-itself" of Sartre "being" and the "in-itself" of Kant noumenon ? If no difference, is philosophy of Sartre then falsified ?

Finally, for Descarte and his "I think therefore I am", is the "I am" of Descarte the "being" or the "existence" of Sartre (or both or neither?) ?

Any thought on either of these two questions is appreciated.

 

[PatHarrington]

Hi Rade,

I would think that, in the "I am" of Descartes, the "I" is existence, as it is existence that is the noun (and is reflexive, in a sense, on the subject using it) and the "am" is Being, as 'am' is the first-person singular of 'to be'. It is 'existence' that 'is', to Sartre. So, whether it is Descartes or you or I (or God) who says "I am", it's another way of saying 'existence is' in reference to oneself.
Sartre does seem a little confused (or, at least, confusing), but then, he's not here to speak up for himself. I suppose he's saying that existence is a quality that something must have in order to 'be', which is why he feels it is subjective to the thing that 'is'. Whilst 'being' is the state of existing, which is objective with respect to everything that exists. But, of course, this begs the question "What is it that exists?" I would say 'energy', as it is neither created nor destroyed. And I can think of nothing that exists that is not comprised wholly of energy in some form or another (and, in most cases, a mixture).
Cheers,
Pat

 

[thomasxc]

i don't see how being isn't existing.

 

[DrClapeyron]

To be or not to be, that is the question. It is a matter of self-preservation above all else. Do you value knowledge because you may do something with it or do you value knowledge because with it you may become something?

 

[PatHarrington]

Agreed. That's why I said Sartre appears either confused or confusing.

 

[thomasxc]

i'd say i value knowledge because i might do something with it one day. who is Sartre?