This guest post was written by second-year law student Staniel Brutis.

---

I. INTRODUCTION

“The cornerstone on which all things are based is man’s concept of himself. He acts as he does and has the experiences that he does, because his concept of himself is what it is, and for no other reason. Had he a different concept of self, he would act differently.” – Neville Goddard

Coming into my 1L year, I wanted to understand what it meant to be a law student. Specifically, I looked to become the “ideal” law student. In search of an answer to this question, I interviewed several of Boston College Law School’s professors and members of staff. In that moment, I figured that they were individuals who had accomplished the goals I set for myself, and it would be best to learn from their experiences. Each person was asked the same question,“ What is one word to describe the ideal trait of a student?” Here are their responses:

• Curious, Self-Aware, Resilient, Thoughtful, Growth Mindset, Flexible, Committed, Balance, Calm, Enthusiastic, Humane, Inquisitive 

From their answers, one can see that no specific trait was offered twice as an answer. If there is no single trait or attribute to being a law student, then what is there to attribute to one’s success, enjoyment, and overall experience of law school or even life in general? According to modern existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre, there is nothing. More precisely, “Nothingness lies coiled in the heart of being – like a worm.” 

As a student, a part of humankind, we must understand that it is impossible for us to be definitive things of the world. For instance, I could say that I struggle with understanding Property law, I am a procrastinator, and I wrestle daily with doubt. Sartre would reject these characterizations of myself, arguing that the self is not any of these qualities. Instead, the self is the consciousness observing these traits, associating them with past experiences, and imagining their potential future manifestations. Here, consciousness is an action, not a noun. So now, you are not a tangible thing, you are no thing. This is Sartre’s phenomenological concept of intentionality, whereby consciousness is always conscious (of) something. However, for this to be true, it must also be conscious of its “own consciousness of ‘itself’.” This creates a separation between the conscious, as it is aware of itself, and the specific content that it is conscious of. The gap that is created, is where the nothingness of one’s existence resides. This nothingness is what is at the core of being a Law Student as well. 

The ability to be and to not be. To think positively or to think negatively. To address my weaknesses knowing with effort they will be changed or to accept them as unchangeable. To be a confident law student knowing with conviction you are not just this “law student thing”, but a being with the ability to be for-itself, or to be restricted to the in-itself. To be an individual conscious of happiness or an individual conscious of sadness. Deciding to be, to not be, or even sitting idly, are all decisions in the eyes of Sartre. Decisions that originate from the radial freedom attached to one’s nothingness. 

In Sartre’s existentialist masterpiece, “Being and Nothingness” (1943), nothingness is a core concept that plays a critical role in understanding human existence and radical freedom. 

II. BEING

Within the first chapter ‘Being and Nothingness’ Sartre severs existence definitively into two modes of being: ‘being-in-itself’ and ‘being-for-itself.’

Being-in-itself, as described by Sartre, refers to pure being. While Sartre may not have explicitly identified it as physical matter, it perpetually aligns with that interpretation. Essentially, ‘Being-in-itself’ refers to objects or things that simply exist, without consciousness or self-awareness. 

Being-for-itself represents the mode of existence associated with human consciousness, defined by self-awareness, intentionality, and the ability to negate itself or external objects. As Sartre states, “freedom is actually one with the being of the for-itself; human reality is free to the exact extent that it has to be its own freedom.” Unlike the in-itself, the for-itself is consciousness itself. It is fundamentally different from the in-itself, as it is not a static entity but an active, dynamic process. What does this imply? Consciousness is not a form of being, but rather an empty intangible perspective or relationship to being. It cannot be fully grasped because it is not a thing—it is precisely no thing. 

III. THE LAW STUDENT

For instance, imagine an individual playing at being a law student, a being caught between the strict confines of facticity (According to Sartre, facticity comprises the concrete, unalterable aspects of our existence—such as our physical appearance, place of birth, or our height) and the uncontained potential of freedom. Their GPA stands as an object, a mere being-in-itself, a fixed point in the world that cannot change unless the individual chooses to transform it. It exists with no consciousness or awareness, simply a factoid of past performance—static, concrete, and unyielding. Application rejections are similar beings in themselves, markers of external circumstances, as undeniable as the tick of a clock. They are facticity’s, things that are beyond the individual’s control, simply existing in their own right. These are elements of reality that resist alteration, set in place by forces outside the self.

Yet, Sartre’s philosophy reveals that these external factors, these beings-in-itself, do not define the individual. They are merely the backdrop against which the individual’s freedom unfurls. The individual’s true nature resides not in their GPA or job rejections, but in their being-for-itself, their consciousness, which continually secretes nothingness. This nothingness is not a void, but the very essence of freedom, a space where the individual can negate what they are, and with each instant, choose what they could be. 

The law student’s freedom lies not in the mere acceptance of facts but in the potential to redefine them. Each moment presents an opportunity to transcend the confines imposed by the Other (Sartre’s concept of the Other refers to any conscious entity that is separate from oneself and whose external observation shapes our self-consciousness and can lead to our objectification, which is intrinsically linked to his idea of “being-for-others,” where our existence is defined by how we appear in another’s consciousness). 

The GPA, the job rejections—these are merely beings-in-themselves, unthinking, unfeeling objects in the world. They are facticity’s, things that are, but they do not dictate what will be. The law student, the individual playing at being one, is not bound by these external markers. The individual exists beyond them, within the realm of being-for-itself, a consciousness that secretes nothingness, that can negate, that can transcend facticity. As Sartre states, 

“In its transcendence, the for-itself is a temporal flight towards the future away from the facticity of its past. The past is an aspect of the facticity of the for-itself, the ground upon which it chooses its future. In confronting the freedom of the for-itself facticity does not limit the freedom of the for-itself.” 

However, here lies the great struggle, as the battle is not just with grades or denials, it is with the thoughts that arise in their wake. The thoughts, the whispers of self-doubt, the creeping weight of negativity—these, too, must be negated. Just as the individual is not their GPA, they are not their worst thoughts. The mind, like existence, is fluid, shifting, and unformed until it is shaped by choice. The law student who submits to failure, who lets the weight of the past define the future, mistakes facticity as fate. They’ve failed to realize that in every moment they have the power to choose a new thought, a new belief, a new self.

Happiness, confidence, or any other similar trait are not things one stumbles upon; they are things one becomes. None of these objects choose an individual. Instead, an individual chooses to become conscious of such, and subsequently, their physical state of flesh and bone is embraced in its essence.

The person who sees themselves as capable, worthy, and brilliant will act accordingly. And just as the world conforms to their chosen perspective, the for-itself takes shape, solidifies, and becomes real. It all starts with a single thought—not a GPA, not a rejection, not an external label—just one thought, held and nurtured, expanding into action and identity.

The law student, the individual striving to shape their future, must understand this fundamental truth: the world will reflect back what they believe themselves to be. The moment they see themselves as strong, as capable, as already triumphant, they will begin to move through life as that person. And once they do, the physical world will have no choice but to melt and reform itself accordingly.

With this, I understand that my mind, body, and soul are all mine. I’m responsible for my own well-being internally and externally. By no means will I ever concede this responsibility to the Other, as I would be living in Bad Faith (Sartre’s concept of Bad Faith describes the self-deception in which individuals deny their inherent freedom to choose, often because they fear the responsibility and potential consequences that come with making a decision.)

I refuse to respond to life’s happenings in a manner that the Other has already dictated for me. I have the freedom to choose and will do so. I used to wonder why, when a situation calls for stress and I decide to be calm, the Other feels challenged. Why does it so earnestly desire for me to fall in line? I’ve come to learn that the Other expects me to reduce myself to a fixed role, to abandon my freedom in favor of what is expected. 

I recall when I experienced failure in law school, and I unknowingly succumbed to the in-itself of existence. I reduced myself to a mere object—an extension of my GPA and my accolades, a being defined entirely by external metrics rather than my own conscious will. The possibilities I envisioned for my future were not my own but those dictated by the limitations I had imposed on myself as if my identity and potential were already determined. It was a comfortable place to be, albeit suffocating: to be a complete thing of the world, shaped and confined by the world, relinquishing the burden of choice to the Other. This, I had convinced myself, was reality. 

Yet, amidst this resignation into the in-itself, I felt an itch at the center of my being, and this itch was my nothingness, my pure potential as a human being, straining against the rigid structure of life that I had accepted. I’ve come to understand that awareness and acceptance of this nothingness is a requirement of human existence, and I must consistently transcend facticity in order to not fall into Bad Faith.

So now, I dream of possibilities, possibilities that are born from intentional thoughts and actions. I am conscious of happiness. I am conscious of actions that may bear good fruit to the world. Consequently, from this intentional consciousness, the Garden of Eden has erupted within my mind, and as Goddard has described, flowers and fruit have suddenly begun to sprout from the ground before me in the physical realm as well. 

Being transported into this garden, I now bear the responsibility of tending to it by striking down negative thoughts as soon as they arise. You, too, hold this responsibility over yourself. At every moment, you must remain vigilant about what you are conscious of. Negative thoughts will sprout like weeds in your mind, seeking to uproot everything. When a situation calls for stress, panic, or sadness; you could decide to say “No, I would like to feel calm, peace, and happiness.” You have that choice. It doesn’t matter if the Other feels threatened by this display of indifference to the influences of life. Like Kierkegaard, you should laugh in the face of theOther, as you are now aware of your God-given ability of free will as a being in existence, acting for-itself.

---

Staniel Brutis is a second-year law student at BC Law. Contact him at brutis@bc.edu.