PATHMARKS
That to which the relation to the world refers are beings themselves - and nothing besides.a
That from which every stance takes its guidance are beings themselves - and nothing further.
That with which the scientific confrontation in the irruption occurs are beings themselves – and beyond that, nothing.
But what is remarkable is that, precisely in the way scientific man secures to himself what is most properly his, he speaks, whether explicitly or not, 1 of something different. What should be examined are beings only, and besides that – nothing; beings alone, and further – nothing; solely beings, and beyond that – nothing.
What about this nothing? Is it an accident that we talk this way so automatically? Is it only a manner of speaking – and nothing besides?
However, why do we trouble ourselves with this nothing? The nothing is rejected precisely by science, given up as a nullity. But when we give up the nothing in such a way do we not concede it? Can we, however, speak of concession when we concede nothing? But perhaps [4] our confused talk already degenerates into an empty squabble over words. Against it, science must now reassert its seriousness and soberness of mind, insisting that it is concerned solely with beings. The nothing – what else can it be for science but an outrage and a phantasm? If science is right, then only one thing is sure: science wishes to know nothing of the nothing. Ultimately this is the scientifically rigorous conception of the nothing. We know it, the nothing, in that we wish to know nothing about it.
Science wants to know nothing about the nothing. But even so it is certain that when science tries to express its own proper essenceb it calls upon the nothing for help. It has recourse to what it rejects. What duplicitousc state of affairs reveals itself here?
With this reflection on our existence at this moment as an existence determined by science we find ourselves enmeshed in a controversy. In the course of this controversy a question has already unfolded. It only requires explicit formulation: How is it with the nothing?
a First edition, 1919: People have passed off this additional remark following the dash as arbitrary and contrived, without knowing that Taine, who may be taken as the representative and sign of an entire era, the one that still prevails, knowingly employs this formula to characterize his fundamental position and intent.
b Fifth edition, 1949: Its positive and exclusive stance toward beings.
c Third edition, 1931: Ontological difference.
Fifth edition, 1949: Nothing as "being."
84