Even the ontological question reduces being itself to another phenomenon
Evidence
What then is the meaning of the surpassing toward the ontological, of which Heidegger speaks? Certainly I can pass beyond this table or this chair toward its being and raise the question of the being-of-the-table or the being-of-the-chair. But at that moment I turn my eyes away from the phenomenon of the table in order to concentrate on the phenomenon of being, which is no longer the condition of all revelation, but which is itself something revealed—an appearance which as such, needs in turn a being on the basis of which it can reveal itself. — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 122
Categorization
- DEFINE: Explains the inescapable regress: asking about being converts it into a revealed appearance requiring its own being.
- QUESTION: This infinite regress of being-behind-being seems to motivate Sartre’s break with Heidegger — worth tracing how he resolves it.
- XREF: connects to: Ontology cannot prove that being’s self-foundation is the meaning of consciousness’ nihilation — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 1436; The For-itself is not a substance but the nihilation of a particular In-itself — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 1432; In Vitalogy, being reduces first to living, and being itself reduces first to reason. (+1 more)
Broader Connections
- In Vitalogy, being reduces first to living, and being itself reduces first to reason.
#exemplifies(0.80) - The For-itself is not a substance but the nihilation of a particular In-itself
#expands(0.78) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1432 - Ontology cannot prove that being’s self-foundation is the meaning of consciousness’ nihilation
#corroborates(0.75) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1436 - Ontology specifies structures of being while metaphysics questions the existence of the existent
#qualifies(0.72) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 799