Absolute change needs no underlying permanent substratum

Evidence

Moreover resorting to permanence in order to furnish the foundation for change is completely useless. What Kant and Leibniz want to show is that an absolute change is no longer strictly speaking change since it is no longer based on anything which changes—or in relation to which there is change. But in fact if what changes is its former state in the past mode, this is sufficient to make permanence superfluous. In this case change can be absolute; we can be dealing with a metamorphosis which touches all of being; it will be constituted as change in relation to a prior state just as it will be in the Past in the mode of was. — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 489

Categorization

• XREF: Directly relevant to reader’s stated purpose of building the systematic backdrop to Beauvoir’s freedom and situation — the rejection of permanence prepares Beauvoir’s account of ongoing becoming. — connects to: Change presupposes a self-sustained nihilating synthesis rather than mere given becoming; The in-itself has no need of the for-itself to be — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 1439; Transformative change is gradual within continuities, not clean breaks

Broader Connections

• Change presupposes a self-sustained nihilating synthesis rather than mere given becoming #expands (0.85)
• The in-itself has no need of the for-itself to be #corroborates (0.75) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1439
• Transformative change is gradual within continuities, not clean breaks #qualifies (0.75)