[theapportioner]

Hmm, good question. I don't know it -that- well so I could be wrong about a thing or two, but... Sartre, and many other Existentialists, do maintain a pretty unambiguous subjective-objective split. Descartes really helped to get this tradition going. Though I agree with Sartre that we are not merely beings-in-themselves (though for different reasons), I do feel that there is something partially ontological about the idea 'being-for-itself', or transcendence. And I've never been able to make sense of this 'nothingness' in its relation to consciousness. I tend to see Existentialism as a type of 'way of life' philosophy, an attitude towards seeing things. In this view then, I don't have a problem with transcendence. But I think Sartre -is- saying more than that, and if he is, I have a hard time swallowing it.