Does existence precede essence?

[Aemma]

The proposition that existence precedes essence (French: l'existence précède l'essence) is a central claim of existentialism, which reverses the traditional philosophical view that the essence or nature of a thing is more fundamental and immutable than its existence. To existentialists, the human being - through his consciousness - creates his own values and determines a meaning to his life, for in the beginning the human being does not possess any identity or value. By posing the acts that constitute him, he makes his existence more significant.[1][2].

Source

Are you an existentialist?

Discuss.

[Loki]

I would describe myself as a realistic (or partial) existentialist. Instead of:

the individual is solely responsible for giving his or her own life meaning and for living that life passionately and sincerely

I would hold that:

the individual is primarily responsible for giving his or her own life meaning and for living that life passionately and sincerely

[Loddfafner]

Yes, existence precedes essence, if by essence we mean platonic forms or the criteria for Aristotelian categories, but not if we consider the finite, limited number of possibilities as the source of essences.

No, I do not identify as an existentialist although I do see ourselves as generators of meaning. From what I understand, Sartre's existentialism overstates our freedom to define ourselves. That leads right into the trap of the most idiotic Carlos Castaneda-league New Age beliefs where one can choose to get, or overcome, some fatal disease.

Simone de Beauvoir's existentialism, though, at least recognizes that there are social limitations on that freedom. A female becomes a woman because of the historical pressures at work in a particular time and place. An individual has much more leeway in redefining their situations than they might think but that freedom is not unlimited.

I cannot, for example, choose to become Queen of Romania and expect Romanians to pay me tribute or expect anyone to keep a straight face.

[Joe McCarthy]

This description sounds very much like what one would see from atheist existentialists like Jean-Paul Sartre. Kierkegaard (probably best classified as a pre-existentialist) had a bit of a different view, thinking that meaning had relevance with God and a leap of faith. Here's an extract from his Fear and Trembling:

If there were no eternal consciousness in a man, if at the foundation of all there lay only a wildly seething power which writhing with obscure passions produced everything that is great and everything that is insignificant, if a bottomless void never satiated lay hidden beneath all–what then would life be but despair? If such were the case, if there were no sacred bond which united mankind, if one generation arose after another like the leafage in the forest, if the one generation replaced the other like the song of birds in the forest, if the human race passed through the world as the ship goes through the sea, like the wind through the desert, a thoughtless and fruitless activity, if an eternal oblivion were always lurking hungrily for its prey and there was no power strong enough to wrest it from its maw–how empty then and comfortless life would be!

[Loddfafner]

No, existentialism is not necessarily atheist. In addition to Kierkegaard, the theologian Jacques Maritain comes to mind.

[Eldritch]

To existentialists, the human being - through his consciousness - creates his own values and determines a meaning to his life, for in the beginning the human being does not possess any identity or value.

Um, what would an alternative to, or the opposite of this be?

[Joe McCarthy]

Um, what would an alternative, or the opposite of this be?

This idea is found in Sartre's theory of abandonment and assumes there is no deity, thus we're left lost in a world we don't understand to craft our own values. The opposite would be a more theistic view that holds that God creates values that we must adhere to, rather than creating our own.

[Loddfafner]

I suppose a polytheist existentialism might presuppose that the Gods are themselves at war (as in the Iliad), and that it is up to us mortals to make our own peace.

[Liffrea]

Up to a point.

The premise of Nietzsche’s philosophy when he wrote “God is dead” wasn’t a matter of fact statement, Nietzsche more-or-less shrugged his shoulders over the metaphysical, what his statement meant was that purpose defined in a God with a divine plan for the world is no longer really tenable in a nihilistic age and consequently we have to develop a new meaning of being in the world free of metaphysical beliefs, particularly those that reject life. The overman differs from the normal man in that he doesn’t have “faith” in a God, science or philosophy. His “faith” is rested solely in himself.

Whilst I very much accept Nietzsche’s overman of self creation and definition I none-the-less hold that we are not entirely self creative agents, to suppose we are is to buy into the blank slate belief of psychology, we have imperatives that play upon us, instincts that motivate us. We are products of our own ancestry and environment, conditions that limit what we are capable of doing and our development.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Loddfafner
I suppose a polytheist existentialism might presuppose that the Gods are themselves at war (as in the Iliad), and that it is up to us mortals to make our own peace.

As above so below?

The Homeric hero’s were in contest themselves, competition was the life blood of pre-Socratic Greece. The Gods reflected this.

I suppose the problem is when there was no more mortal competitors the only thing left was the immortal. Greek myth is full of warnings over mortals who challenge the Gods…