In relation to both Jaide and Kartik's points

I am in agreement with your interpretation of Sartre’s example of the women been in bad faith. Guignon (2004) gives in my opinion a strong definition to being-for itself and being-in-itself. When someone is being-for-itself means that we are a being in transcendence that we do not see our selves as the object, but that we are in constant flux. What Sartre is doing in this example is saying that this women is in bad faith because she is doing a number of things that are keeping her in bad faith, in that she is denying her transcendence, she is a being a being -in-itself as she is seeing herself as the object. This is because she is seeing herself as a being that is static, because she leaves her hand when the man with her takes her hand, although she does not realise it is still there, this is not what keeps her in bad faith although this is part of it. I believe Sartre is pointing out that the bad faith is when she starts to talk about her ‘personality, her life’ etc… This is what keeps her in bad faith, as according to Sartre we cannot have a personality as we are always in flux we are not out past or our present because every minute something can change, we can change our minds or do something that is totally different to what we have done in our past, and therefore who we are will always keep changing, which is where I am in agreement with Kartik that what Sartre is saying is that what bad faith is, is the fact that we cannot reduce ourselves down to facts or a ‘personality’. We cannot just be one thing and stay one thing, what I think one minute may change in the next and as such I am then a being-for-itself rather than a being-in-itself. Although in your discussion of lying to one’s self, I do believe this has an important part in what Sartre is saying, as Sartre does state that this is part of bad faith although not all of it as I have discussed above and so Simone de Beauvoir’s work should not be so easily dismissed as she has a good insight in my opinion to part of what bad faith is although not all of what bad faith is, as she misses the transcendence and facility of a being and being for and in-itself.