In the first part of this essay: The Neo-Kantians, such as Natorp and Rickert, held that immediate data (apprehension) could be verified through an understanding of the ways in which we gain knowledge of it. For the Neo-Kantians, we establish the conditions on which knowledge about apprehension can be attained, reaffirming that apprehension post-knowledge. In other words, we would have a science of all science that could take into account the fact that apprehended objects approach their identity, as those things, when they undergo becoming and change in scientific knowledge. Covert elements to apprehension meant that Neo-Kantianism gave way to phenomenology; what was it in apprehended phenomena, now Being, which had the potential to perform this contradiction to itself, a contradiction which is so pivotal to not only our engagement with its Being, but its Being to begin with? What tools does Being offer in its own reversal that it must undertake? Strikingly, despite Nothing being impossible to describe in words, Sartre argues that it is instrumental at the point of Being where Being can fully subtract from itself. Without going outside of Being, a place where we have an impossible and useless excess of Nothing, but where Being terminates at its fullest expression, we find its covert, Nothing. From here we harken back to Kant, and in a way, tether this conception of Nothing inherent in Being to subjective experience, and its negation in Noumena. Much effort will be taken to explain these possible Nothings arising through Being, and impossible Nothings arising beyond Being. The Essay will be posted earlier next week.