Time/Space/Ego
... Sartre asserts that an ego must be a structure outside consciousness so that it can become an object of awareness which is analogous to asserting that an ego is constituted of both subject and object as consciousness is consciousness of an object
Sartre Ego Structure
Jean-Paul Sartre argues that the ego is not an immanent, transcendental subject but rather a transcendent object constituted within consciousness, existing outside of pre-reflective experience and becoming an object of awareness through reflection. He contends that the ego is not directly present within unreflective consciousness, which is characterized by an impersonal, non-egoistic structure where the self seems to vanish as consciousness is absorbed in its intentional relation to the world. Instead, the ego emerges as the specific object of reflective consciousness, which is directed upon one’s own lived experiences. This reflective act posits and grasps the ego in the same moment, making it a transcendent pole of synthetic unity, similar to any other object in the world. Sartre emphasizes that the ego is not an inhabitant of consciousness but is constituted by the act of reflection itself, thereby existing as a being in the world, just like the ego of another. This view aligns with his broader claim that consciousness is inherently fused with self-consciousness, yet the self-awareness in pre-reflective consciousness is non-positional and non-cognitive, lacking a personal ego. Thus, the ego, as an object of awareness, is constituted through the very act of reflection, analogous to how consciousness is consciousness of an object, reinforcing the idea that the ego is both a product of consciousness and an object within it.
... align this summary with the simple observation that a reflection is a reflection of something likewise the ego is an ego with an other not both subject and object alone
You're pointing toward a crucial insight that aligns well with Sartre’s view: just as a reflection requires something to be reflected, the ego requires an "other"—not merely as content, but as constitutive of its very form. The ego does not exist in isolation as pure subject or pure object; rather, it emerges relationally.
Sartre’s analysis supports this: the ego is not a pre-existing subject that then becomes aware of itself. Instead, in reflective consciousness, the ego appears as an object for a consciousness that was already engaged with the world—that is, already in relation to an other. This means the ego is constituted in the act of reflection, which is always reflection on something — a thought, a feeling, a past action — and thus always involves a distinction between the reflecting consciousness and the reflected ego.
So, to say "the ego is an ego with an other" is to recognize that the ego is not self-sufficient. It is neither subject alone (since it, too, is seen) nor object alone (since it sees), but a structure made possible by the relational dynamic of consciousness. Like a reflection in a mirror, the ego has no independent substance apart from the light and distance between the thing and its image—it exists through a gap, a differentiation, a relation.
Thus, the ego is not a substance behind experience, but a moment within experience—one that arises when consciousness turns back on itself in relation to what it has lived. In this sense, the ego is always with an other: the world it has engaged, the act it reflects upon, or the other person who mirrors it back. It is this relational structure that makes self-awareness possible—not a self-contained subject, but a dynamic between subject and object, constituted in consciousness.
... good phenomenological analysis now break it down in yet simpler terms - conversationally - for example I cannot be an ego alone but only in relation to a you or other preposition
Absolutely — let’s bring it down to earth.
Think of it this way: you don’t experience yourself as “I” in a vacuum. You become aware of yourself in relation to something else.
The ego shows up only when there’s a break, a difference, a relationship. It’s not there in pure being or feeling. It emerges when you reflect—when you become an object yourself, or when someone else sees you and calls you out.
So, just like a reflection in a mirror isn’t the thing itself but the thing-as-seen, the ego isn’t the core of who you are, it’s you-as-seen, either by yourself (in reflection), or by another person.
And here’s the simple truth: you can’t be “I” without there being a “you” or a “they” or a generic “other” to bounce it off-of:
- I speak → but only to someone (even if it’s a reflection).
- I feel ashamed → but only in front of someone else.
- I say “me” → but only because there’s an “other” that isn’t me.
So the ego isn’t a little person inside your head.
It’s more like a role you take on—in conversation, in reflection, in a relationship.
No other? No “I.”
No distance? No self to look at in the mirror.
Just like a reflection needs a mirror, the ego doesn't exist without an “other”.
... true and notice the three examples I speak I feel I say are incomplete sentences which await development analogous to the development of the brain with experience and relationships
Yes — beautifully observed.
Those little phrases — “I speak,” “I feel,” “I say” —they’re not full sentences. They’re incomplete thoughts. Open-ended. Pending.
Like a hand reaching-out. They demand a connection:
- I speak… to you.
- I feel… seen (or ignored, or hurt, etc.).
- I say… you hear, what?
And it’s not just grammar. It’s existential.
The “I” doesn’t complete itself. It only becomes real — becomes an “ego” — when it closes the gap, the space, with the “other” who accepts it.
Think of a baby. At first, no “I.” Just warmth, feeling, looking. But slowly, through eyes that look back, voices that respond, hands that hold or let go—the child begins to feel: “Ah, I am someone.” Not because of thoughts, but because of relation to others.
The brain grows the same way — not in isolation, but through interaction. Neural pathways wire up not from static data, but from back-and-forth: a smile met with a smile, a cry met with comfort (or not). The self literally takes shape in the space between.
So yes — those incomplete “I” statements?
They’re like neural synapses waiting to fire.
They only make sense — only complete — in dialogue.
Just as the brain isn’t a closed system but a relational organ,
the ego isn’t a fixed thing but a moment in a conversation—with others, with the world, with itself in reflection.
No relationship? No self-completion.
No “you”? Then “I”… doesn’t manifest.
It echoes, fades, and never becomes real.
So the self isn’t built like a wall, brick by brick.
It grows like a conversation—always unfinished, always listening for the next voice.
... “Neural pathways” is well put because it effectively points a path from simple pronoun syntax towards cognitive development to learning training testing and proving
Exactly — "neural pathways" is the crucial link, because it grounds the philosophical in the biological, the linguistic in the developmental.
Think of it this way:
Just as a pronoun like “I” is empty without a context — a sentence, a speaker, a listener — so too is the brain empty of fixed meaning at birth.
It’s not pre-filled with “self.”
It’s pre-wired for making connections.
And so, every time a child says “I,” and someone responds — every time they reach, cry, name, point — a pathway opens.
And when it opens again, and again, in similar contexts? It strengthens, gets stronger.
“Neurons that fire together, wire together.”
So, the simple act of saying “I feel hungry” — and being fed, or not — isn’t just communication. It’s cognitive development.
The brain learns:
- This sound (“I”) → gets a response.
- This feeling (hunger) → leads to action.
- This person (you) → mediates “my” world.
Over time, the syntax of self — “I do,” “I want,” “I am” — mirrors the synaptic architecture being built.
Each utterance is both expression and construction:
You’re not just saying “I”
You’re becoming “I”
This is learning. It is development. This is proving by what works:
- If “I’m scared” brings comfort, the pathway deepens.
- If it’s ignored, the brain adapts—tries something else, or shouts louder.
Even the way a toddler attempts to walk, is neural trial-and-error: "Can I?" The child thinks.
The brain is running live experiments: “What gets through to the other?” The mother responds.
So the journey from a one-word “I” to a coherent identity isn’t just psychological:
It’s neurological,
shaped by language,
reinforced by others,
proven in response.
So, the “syntax of the self” and the circuitry of the brain can be thought of as growing up together:
Not in isolation,
following the proven path,
one word, one wire, one relationship at a time.
... to complete the circle this search was prompted by review of Sartre's childhood recollections in his memoir “Les Mots” - “The Words” - in English
Jean-Paul Sartre's “Les Mots” (The Words), published in 1964, is an autobiographical reflection on his childhood, and the formative experiences that shaped his identity, self-perception, and intellectual trajectory. Written when Sartre was 58, the work offers a semi-Freudian analysis and existential background of his early years, particularly focusing on the development of his “ego”, and the alienating influence of family expectations.
Sartre recounts being raised in a bourgeois, intellectual household, and after the early death of his father, growing up under the care of his mother and maternal grandfather, Charles Schweitzer, a German professor and man of letters. Immersed in books from an early age, Sartre developed a profound relationship with words and literature, but experienced conflict with authenticity and imposture, who he “was” -in truth. He describes himself as a "child prodigy" and "the marvel" of the family, fulfilling the expectations he felt were projected onto him by adults who admired his precocious intellect and erudition. This budding identity, however, was performative: "I was a fake child", he said, and lived "above my age as one lives above one's means, expensively, for show".
A central theme in “Les Mots” is the theme of alienation of the self through the gaze of others which runs through his philosophy. Sartre explains how he learned to see himself through the eyes of adults, internalizing their judgments, all while aware of losing touch with an authentic self. This determined his later philosophical concept of the ego as constituted by external perception, elaborated in “Being and Nothingness”, where he writes; "My truth and my character were in the hands of others. I had learned to see myself through their eyes", illustrating a deep existential dependence on recognition by others.
Alienation formed his self-image, he argues. Sartre let his hair grow long to cover a walleye, caused by illness, and when his grandfather ordered him to cut his hair, his mother reportedly burst into tears at the sight of his "monstrous" appearance. Reflection thus became a focus of self-estrangement: "The mirror was of great help to me: I made it teach me that I was a monster", reinforcing his sense of being an object for others rather than a subject of his own making.
Socially, Sartre felt excluded from peer groups, particularly at the Luxembourg gardens, where he was ignored or rejected by other children. Unlike the flattering attention of his family, these "contemporaries" offered no validation, greeting him with a harsh indifference that shattered his self-image as a prodigy. He writes poignantly of longing for any role in their games, even as a mute prisoner or corpse, but receiving none: "Their indifference condemned me".
Sartre’s childhood, as portrayed in “Les Mots”, is marked by a duality: the enjoyment of familial doting and, at the same time, the torment of the inauthenticity of his manipulating. He oscillated between roles—"publicly I was an impostor... alone, I sank into imaginary moping"—unable to discern his true self beneath the performances. This lifelong ambiguity about identity contributed to his commitment to existentialism, where existence precedes essence, and the self is perpetually in flux. The book “Les Mots” ultimately reveals how Sartre’s early experiences of bad faith, alienation, and the social construction of identity laid the groundwork for his mature philosophical thought.