The Buddhistic _negation_ of reality in general (appearance pain) is perfectly consistent: undemonstrability, inaccessibility, lack of categories, not only for an "absolute world," but a recognition of the _erroneous procedures_ by means of which the whole concept has been reached. "Absolute reality," "Being in itself," a contradiction. In a world of _Becoming,_ reality is merely a _simplification_ for the purpose of practical ends, or a _deception_ resulting from the coarseness of certain organs, or a variation in the tempo of Becoming. The logical denial of the world and Nihilism is a consequence of the fact that we must oppose nonentity with Being, and that Becoming is denied. ("_Something_" becomes.) 581. _Being_ and _Becoming._--"_Reason_" developed upon a sensualistic basis upon the _prejudices of the senses_--that is to say, with the belief in the truth of the judgment of the senses. "Being," as the generalisation of the concept "_Life_" (breath), "to be animate," "to will," "to act upon," "become." The opposite is: "to be inanimate," "_not_ to become," "_not_ to will." _Thus_: "Being" is _not_ opposed to "not-Being," to "appearance," nor is it opposed to death (for only that can be dead which can also live). The "soul," the "ego," posited as _primeval facts;_ and introduced wherever _there is Becoming._ 582. _Being_--we have no other idea of it than that which we derive from "_living._"--How then can everything "be" dead? 583. _A._ I see with astonishment that science resigns itself to-day to the fate of being reduced to the world of appearance: we certainly have no organ of knowledge for the real world--be it what it may. At this point we may well ask: With what organ of knowledge is this contradiction established?... The fact that a world which is accessible to our organs is also understood to be dependent upon these organs, and the fact that we should understand a world as subjectively conditioned, are _no_ proofs of the actual _possibility_ of an objective world. Who urges us to believe that subjectivity _is_ real or essential? The absolute is even an absurd concept: an "absolute mode of existence" is nonsense, the concept "being," "thing," is always _relative_ to us. The trouble is that, owing to the old antithesis "apparent" and "real," the correlative valuations "of little value" and "absolutely valuable" have been spread abroad. The world of appearance does not strike us as a "valuable" world; appearance is on a lower plane than the highest value. Only a "real" world can be absolutely "valuable".... _Prejudice of prejudices!_ It is perfectly possible in itself that the real nature of things would be so unfriendly, so opposed to the first conditions of life, that appearance is necessary in order to make life possible.... This is certainly the case in a large number of situations--for instance, marriage.