2

P295 ‘The for itself does not exist subsequently to know; neither can we say that it exists only in so far it knows or is known…regulated by particular bits of Knowledge.’

P296 ‘to say that there is being is nothing, and yet it is to affect a total metamorphosis since there is being only for a for-itself.

Improve this question
5
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Geoffrey Thomas ♦
    Aug 11, 2019 at 12:37
  • Also if it is the pure negation of being why does he say that there is a being of the for-itself?
    – Prince Deepthinker
    Aug 11, 2019 at 12:38
  • Hi I cannot use the discussion due to the fact my rep is too low, can you please give this question an upvote?
    – Prince Deepthinker
    Aug 11, 2019 at 15:18
  • 1
    Upvote added - okay ?
    – Geoffrey Thomas ♦
    Aug 11, 2019 at 19:27
  • Thank you very much
    – Prince Deepthinker
    Aug 11, 2019 at 23:46

0

Reset to default

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .