Thus the essential structure of sincerity doesnot differ from that of bad faith since the sincere man constitutes himself aswhat he is in order not to be it. This explains the truth recognized by all thatone can fall into bad faith through being sincere. … Total, constant sincerity as a constant effort to adhere to oneselfis by nature a constant effort to dissociate oneself from oneself. A personfrees himself from himself by the very act by which he makes himself an objectfor himself. To draw up a perpetual inventory of what one is means constantlyto re-deny oneself and to take refuge in a sphere where one is no longeranything but a pure, free regard. The goal of bad faith, as we said, is to putoneself out of reach; it is an escape. Now we see that we must use the same termsto define sincerity. …

Badfaith is possible only because sincerity is conscious of missing its goalinevitably, due to its very nature. I can try to apprehend myself as “not beingcowardly," when I am so, only on condition that the "beingcowardly" is itself "in question" at the very moment when itexists, on condition that it is itself one question, that at the very momentwhen I wish to apprehend it, it escapes me on all sides and annihilates itself.The condition under which I can attempt an effort in bad faith is that in onesense, I am not this coward which I do not wish to be. But if I were notcowardly in the simple mode of not-being-what-one-is-not, I would be "in goodfaith" by declaring that I am not cowardly. Thus this inapprehensiblecoward is evanescent; in order for me not to be cowardly, I must in some wayalso be cowardly. That does not mean that I must be "a little"cowardly, in the sense that "a little" signifies "to a certaindegree cowardly—and not cowardly to acertain degree." No. I must at once both be and not be totally and in allrespects a coward. Thus in this case bad faith requires that I should not be what I am;that is, that there be an imponderable difference separating being fromnon-being in the mode of being of human reality.<o:p></o:p>

….       Inbad faith there is no cynical lie nor knowing preparation for deceitfulconcepts. But the first act of bad faith is to flee what it can not flee, toflee what it is. The very project of flight reveals to bad faith an innerdisintegration in the heart of being, and it is this disintegration which badfaith wishes to be. …Good faith seeks toflee the inner disintegration of my being in the direction of the in-itself whichit should be and is not. Bad faith seeks to flee the in-itself by means of theinner disintegration of my being. But it denies this very disintegration as itdenies that it is itself bad faith. Bad faith seeks by means of"not-being-what-one-is" to escape from the in-itself which I am notin the mode of being what one is not. It denies itself as bad faith and aims atthe in-itself which I am not in the mode of"not-being-what-one-is-not." If bad faith is possible, it isbecause it is an immediate, permanent threat to every project of the humanbeing; it is because consciousness conceals in its being a permanent risk ofbad faith. The origin of this risk isthe fact that the nature of consciousness simultaneously is to be what it isnot and not to be what it is. In the light of these remarks we can approachthe ontological study of consciousness, not as the totality of the human being,but as the instantaneous nucleus of this being.<o:p></o:p>