The appearance has its own being and refers to nothing behind it
Evidence
In thus replacing a variety of oppositions by a single dualism on which they all are based, have we gained or lost? This we shall soon see. For the moment, the first consequence of the “theory of the phenomenon” is that the appearance does not refer to being as Kant’s phenomenon refers to the noumenon. Since there is nothing behind the appearance, and since it indicates only itself (and the total series of appearances), it can not be supported by any being other than its own. The appearance can not be the thin film of nothingness which separates the being-of-the-subject from absolute-being. If the essence of the appearance is an “appearing” which is no longer opposed to any being, there arises a legitimate problem concerning the being of this appearing. It is this problem which will be our first concern and which will be the point of departure for our inquiry into being and nothingness. — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 119
Categorization
- DEFINE: Defines the ‘appearing’ — the appearance indicates only itself and the total series of appearances, not a noumenon behind it.
- XREF: This is the move against Kant’s phenomenon/noumenon split, which grounds the phenomenological reduction that Sartre carries through — connects to the broader existential phenomenology reading project. — connects to: Appearance is full positivity, exactly equal to the being of the existent — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 114; An existent is nothing but the totality of its appearances — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 113; An essence is radically severed from the single appearance that manifests it (+3 more)
Broader Connections
- An essence is radically severed from the single appearance that manifests it
#contradicts(0.85) - The being of appearances may differ in kind from appearances of being
#expands(0.85) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 121 - Hyperreal objects resemble nothing but the empty form of resemblance itself.
#complicates(0.70) — Jean Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation, 162