Bad Faith. (Lying to oneself)

In relation to your last question Jaide;

''But how can you trick yourself? How can you at the same time as knowing or desiring so the exact opposite? For Sartre ‘we can neither reject nor comprehend bad faith’.''

According to Mc Culloch (1994) spots that Sartre mentions the liar is different from the person in bad faith as a liar involves 'cynical consciousness, affirming the truth within himself' whereas the person in bad faith 'must know in my capacity as deceiver the truth which is hidden from me in my capacity as the deceived''. Mc Culloch asks the question similar to Jaide, ''How can you trick yourself at chess?'' (p.67) Mc Culloch reaches to the translation that bad faith isnt so different from a 'muddle'. In self deception, truth and falsity are both present, this makes it different to an actual lie to another 'Other'. Self deception Sartre explains are based in the unconscious. "the duality of the deceiver and the deceived, the essential condition lie [with]...the 'id' and the 'ego'. The dilemma is descibed in a very potent way;

"The 'id' tries to make things manifest, the censor see's the damage this would cause to the ego, and so it only allows veiled symbollic expression"

What he is saying is that the 'id' act naturally and is unconscious, the conscious part is the ego and the censor. However the ego is not the problem because the ego 'just wants to know what is going on' (p.55, 1994, Mc Culloch). The censor is what is hesistant or causing hesitation as it knows what implications could take place onto the ego. Sartre however doest want us to solely look from a psychoanalytical standpoint.

Sartre gives us the concepts of facticity and transcendence, facticity being the 'facts' of us prior a new moment and transcendence broadly speaking 'our freedom'. " Bad faith, in sum, essentially involves placing too much emphasis on the facticity or too much emphasis on transcendence. In short what Sartre is recommending is that we stay fluidlike and not make 'facts' about our selves, similarly the woman has presumed that she IS an intellectual, and determining he existence with the other as a Being in itself, therefore violating her transcendence.

Sartre's notions of the lady on a date carries numerous presuupositions however if we take Mc Culloch's understanding that she is in a 'muddle' deciding on a number of truths yet remaining fluid and undecisive, it actually could be seen as empowering her transcendence rather than limiting it.