Nothingness is logically subsequent to being and always supposes a specified being

Evidence

If we remove from this original emptiness its characteristic of being empty of this world and of every whole taking the form of a world, as well as its characteristic of before, which presupposes an after, then the very negation disappears, giving way to a total indetermination which it would be impossible to conceive, even and especially as a nothingness. Thus reversing the statement of Spinoza, we could say that every negation is determination. This means that being is prior to nothingness and establishes the ground for it. By this we must understand not only that being has a logical precedence over nothingness but also that it is from being that nothingness derives concretely its efficacy. This is what we mean when we say that nothingness haunts being. That means that being has no need of nothingness in order to be conceived and that we can examine the idea of it exhaustively without finding there the least trace of nothingness. But on the other hand, nothingness, which is not, can have only a borrowed existence, and it gets its being from being. Its nothingness of being is encountered only within the limits of being, and the total disappearance of being would not be the advent of the reign of non-being, but on the contrary the concomitant disappearance of nothingness. Non-being exists only on the surface of being. — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 208 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

  • XREF: connects to: Nothingness is logically subsequent to being, not its opposite. — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 205; Negation cannot touch the plenitude of being; nothingness is denied at being’s heart; Hegel holds pure being and pure nothingness to be the same (+11 more)

Broader Connections