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.

  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Geoffrey Thomas Aug 11 '19 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? – Deepthinker101 Aug 11 '19 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? – Deepthinker101 Aug 11 '19 at 15:18
  • 1
    Upvote added - okay ? – Geoffrey Thomas Aug 11 '19 at 19:27
  • Thank you very much – Deepthinker101 Aug 11 '19 at 23:46

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.