Note 1 — Chapter XXVIII
Reading edition
Being (das Seyn) probably conveys much more to an English reader than is here meant or wanted. It is Being, where the distinction between essence and appearance has not yet emerged or been thought of. If being = τὸ ὄν, then essence (Wesen) = τὸ ὄντως ὄν, the being which underlies and yet includes appearance. Wesen has more right to the substantival vocable of Being: Seyn is little better than an 'Is' or 'Be.'
In writers of Locke's time, 'Being seems to mean a reality, an actually existing object, e.g. Clarke: 'There has existed from eternity some one unchangeable and independent Being.' 'What the substance or essence of that Being is, we have no idea.' 'Essence,' says Locke, 'may be taken for the very being of anything, whereby it is what it is.' Of course Aristotle long ago noted Being as one of the terms with variety of implication; and his own fluctuation about οὐσία is an obvious illustration of this.
In the translation of the Logic, Wesen is occasionally rendered by Being (e. g. Supreme Being); Seyn, by existence. Seyn here means so little that one can hardly find any word of sufficiently minimal content for it.