I am currently struggling my way through the section of Being and Nothingness about temporality, hoping that not too many of the book’s future arguments rest on what is said here. At the moment there is far too much to disagree with, which throws into doubt any arguments that are based on it. Not that Sartre every really argues as such, in any structured logical way. Most of the time it just seems like a stream of consciousness, mildly interconnected.
Other bits I am wondering how it could fit into current understandings about space-time and relativity. Essentially I think Sartre is arguing that people create time through their being, that things don’t have pasts and futures they just have states. I don’t know how I feel about that. The idea about time coming from people might fit in quite well with relativity. However, if time is a dimension in the same way that space is, then surely an object has a progression through time even if it is not conscious of that progression? Sartre would probably reject the scientific interpretation of time because it tries to tie us down to actualities. He wants to the future to be about possibilities. Just because you can accurately predict what state a thing will be in at any particular point in time does that mean the thing doesn’t have a future? I think if you want to say that you have to radically change your interpretation of the word future.
Hopefully that makes some kind of sense. I woke up at 4 am this morning and couldn’t get back to sleep, so I am very sleep deprived.