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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_precedes_essence)

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 (http://www.amazon.com/Four-Existentialist-Theologians-Maritain-Berdyaev/dp/0837183030). 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…

[Aemma]

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



I would hold that:

If primarily as opposed to solely responsible, what other factors do you attribute to giving a person his or her own life meaning and for living that life passionately and sincerely? (<<<I like how you put this btw! :))

[Psychonaut]

Does existence precede essence?

I don't think so. I don't think that a separation of that the thatness of anything is separable from its whatness or that either has primacy over the other. If we, as I do, take the event or experience as the fundamental metaphysical substance, then the thatness of each event would necessarily be tied to its whatness, with neither having any reality beyond the event itself in which they are mutually interdependent. This is not to say that there is no free will, since panexperientialists like Whitehead and Pierce demonstrated ways in which this kind of experientiality could be novel—which would actually make for a much more radical kind of free will than in Sartre's model since novelty is held in common by all not just man.

[Loki]

If primarily as opposed to solely responsible, what other factors do you attribute to giving a person his or her own life meaning and for living that life passionately and sincerely? (<<<I like how you put this btw! :))

Things that you can't choose, like your genes and ancestry, and health that generally comes hand-in-hand with that. Also, unforeseen circumstances like accidents happening. An aircraft engine can fall through anyone's house overnight, or a devastating earthquake hit your home town. We have little control over such random influences.

[Aemma]

Gah, not a one of you has addressed the issue of consciousness though! Do we not ourselves give meaning to, indeed define, That-Which-Is? Or does the That-Which-Is precede man's existence rendering this very question moot?

Is there such a thing as a That-Which-Is outside of the Conscious Self? Or is it more so as Psy intimates, the same coin but two sides type of thing?


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.

Hmm polytheist existentialism; now there's a notion! Indeed especially when reading cosmogony myths, one can see that many myths do tend towards creation stories where the world was created from the body of a proto-being (Ymir comes to mind in the Germanic cosmogony myths at any rate).

Hmm good food for thought everyone. Thank you!

[Loddfafner]

According to Jim Morrison, paraphrasing Heidegger,

Into this world we're thrown
Like a dog without a bone.

[Aemma]

According to Jim Morrison, paraphrasing Heidegger,

Gods, you have no idea how much I truly hate The Doors. And for no good reason other than they are played to death on our local Classic Rock station. :D Too flippin' funny!

[Svipdag]

I don't see any difference between essence and a Platonic universal. The question of the relative primacy of existence and essence is nothing but the old dispute between "Universalia sunt ante rem" and "Res sunt ante universalia" which boils down to the question of whether universals can exist independently of specific examples of them.

In more mundane terminology, can "horeseness" exist without horses ? Is not horseness the essence of an individual horse ? Did horseness somehow exist before there were any individual horses to exempify it ? This is, of course, an ontological question and I have always considered it to be a rather absurd one.

It is contrary to human experience. We do not conceive of abstract horseness and then go about looking for examples of it. In practise, we arrive at universals inductively. After observing many similar creatures we started calling them horses and derived from their common traits a concept of horseness. Ergo, inasmuch as horses existed before we devised a concept of horseness , the thing exists before the universal or existence precedes essence.

Now, will someone kindly tell me what in the name of heaven this has to do with "Existentialism" ? I do not see that the tenets of this school of philosophy follow logically from the primacy of existence over essence.

[Aemma]

I don't see any difference between essence and a Platonic universal. The question of the relative primacy of existence and essence is nothing but the old dispute between "Universalia sunt ante rem" and "Res sunt ante universalia" which boils down to the question of whether universals can exist independently of specific examples of them.

In more mundane terminology, can "horeseness" exist without horses ? Is not horseness the essence of an individual horse ? Did horseness somehow exist before there were any individual horses to exempify it ? This is, of course, an ontological question and I have always considered it to be a rather absurd one.

It is contrary to human experience. We do not conceive of abstract horseness and then go about looking for examples of it. In practise, we arrive at universals inductively. After observing many similar creatures we started calling them horses and derived from their common traits a concept of horseness. Ergo, inasmuch as horses existed before we devised a concept of horseness , the thing exists before the universal or existence precedes essence.

Now, will someone kindly tell me what in the name of heaven this has to do with "Existentialism" ? I do not see that the tenets of this school of philosophy follow logically from the primacy of existence over essence.

My amateurish interpretation for what it's worth: I believe what underlies an existentialist approach is the notion that consciousness has a legitimate bearing on the process of evaluating both existence *and* essence, inasmuch as without man's existence and his consciousness there is no essence. Therefore given these parameters, one can only follow logically from the other: existence first, essence second, in a very basic and simplified form. :shrug:

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Aemma
Gah, not a one of you has addressed the issue of consciousness though! Do we not ourselves give meaning to, indeed define, That-Which-Is? Or does the That-Which-Is precede man's existence rendering this very question moot?

We define it, I can’t see how it can be otherwise, the anthropic principle is the only reasonable position to take in my opinion. Man created God(s) stuck their face(s) onto various aspects of the world and/or concepts, dreams and fears, created purpose, because we operate, basically, on stories as a medium to understand and develop. People told stories of going to the moon long before we went, in a sense I see these stories as future projections of where man aims to be, a sort of road map of complexity if you will that we paste onto the future (perhaps there is some innate driving force behind that, but that doesn’t have to be mystical).

Now the above point doesn’t negate the possibility of some supernatural force
(call it what you will) but there is no reasonable way we could possibly understand it, we are evolved to handle certain tasks, and sense certain parts of the world, and no more. Man projects purpose but because we need purpose not necessarily because there is a purpose.

Interesting debate, I’m currently developing some solid conclusions from my study in mythology, philosophy and science, I’m pulling it together for a book, the annoying thing is knowing when to stop researching and when to start writing! Some bugger always shoves something new under your nose! My working title is Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!! !!!!!:D

[Aemma]

We define it, I can’t see how it can be otherwise, the anthropic principle is the only reasonable position to take in my opinion. Man created God(s) stuck their face(s) onto various aspects of the world and/or concepts, dreams and fears, created purpose, because we operate, basically, on stories as a medium to understand and develop. People told stories of going to the moon long before we went, in a sense I see these stories as future projections of where man aims to be, a sort of road map of complexity if you will that we paste onto the future (perhaps there is some innate driving force behind that, but that doesn’t have to be mystical).

Yep I heartily agree! It's interesting to consider the role, but more so unconscious impact, that any epoch's literature has in terms of our greater human development. Jules Verne had it right way back when, as quite possibly do current sci-fi/fantasy writers. Hmmm fodder for a different thread. :D


Now the above point doesn’t negate the possibility of some supernatural force
(call it what you will) but there is no reasonable way we could possibly understand it, we are evolved to handle certain tasks, and sense certain parts of the world, and no more. Man projects purpose but because we need purpose not necessarily because there is a purpose.

Interesting and I quite agree here too. As odd as this may sound, I think I've only really come to more fully understand this, more on an animal level if you will, upon having accepted a furry four-legged creature into my life. Yeah I know, it sounds bizarre. What can I say? :P


Interesting debate, I’m currently developing some solid conclusions from my study in mythology, philosophy and science, I’m pulling it together for a book, the annoying thing is knowing when to stop researching and when to start writing! Some bugger always shoves something new under your nose! My working title is Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!! !!!!!:D

LOL I bet I know who that bugger is too! :D

A book! Liffrea that is wonderful! I want to read it one day! :)

Now stop pulling your hair out and retool that title will ya? ;) :P

:)

[NordicPower]

Gah, not a one of you has addressed the issue of consciousness though! Do we not ourselves give meaning to, indeed define, That-Which-Is? Or does the That-Which-Is precede man's existence rendering this very question moot?

Is there such a thing as a That-Which-Is outside of the Conscious Self? Or is it more so as Psy intimates, the same coin but two sides type of thing?



Hmm polytheist existentialism; now there's a notion! Indeed especially when reading cosmogony myths, one can see that many myths do tend towards creation stories where the world was created from the body of a proto-being (Ymir comes to mind in the Germanic cosmogony myths at any rate).

Hmm good food for thought everyone. Thank you!

No, no, no....

"Where heat and cold met appeared thawing drops, and this running fluid grew into a giant frost ogre named Ymir."

"Ymir slept, falling into a sweat. Under his left arm there grew a man and a woman. And one of his legs begot a son with the other. This was the beginning of the frost ogres."

Every living being including deities, humans, animals, plants and rocks are part of God. If you imagine God as an anthropomorphic body formed out of energy, some lifeforms are from this or that part of the body, and others from other parts, that's why we are different in nature and quality. But all made from the same energy, ultimately. So we are all interconnected, yet different.

So we, er...God... made an experiment and here we are... each one of us is not God, only collectively we begin to approach Godhood. Perhaps the ultimate goal here was to "reproduce", so that there could be more than one God? Or is there already?

[Svipdag]

According to the adviata vedanta, Brahman, the Absolute, is indivisible. therefore, each of is is not merely part of the indivisible Brahman, but entirely identical with Brahman . "Aham Brahman asmi" = I am Brahman.

Brahman, being that by virtue of which all exists, is then, the supreme being, above the 30,000 gods of Hinduism which are only aspects of Brahman, as are we. The personal "God" of the monotheistic religions is, then, according to the advaita vedanta, one aspect of Brahman.

Therefore, from this point of view, We are each God individually.

[Cato]

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_precedes_essence)

Are you an existentialist?

Discuss.

http://www.chinapage.com/gnl.html#01

The Way that can be experienced is not true;
The world that can be constructed is not true.
The Way manifests all that happens and may happen;
The world represents all that exists and may exist.

To experience without intention is to sense the world;
To experience with intention is to anticipate the world.
These two experiences are indistinguishable;
Their construction differs but their effect is the same.

Beyond the gate of experience flows the Way,
Which is ever greater and more subtle than the world.

[creepy daguerrotype.]

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.

yes, for this reason i prefer gasset's perspectivism: we are at liberty to decide the self, but only in the fatal presence of our circumstances. 'instead of imposing on us one trajectory, the world imposes several, and consequently forces us to choose.' freedom is not unlimited, freedom is the quality of being able to choose from the paths which our circumstances offer.

[Winged Hussar]

Everyone is existential to some extent. We choose our hobbies and values for example. But not everyone has the same ability to do this so some people are more dynamic than others, but does this mean that some people are more human than others?

[GeistFaust]

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_precedes_essence)

Are you an existentialist?

Discuss.

This is an interesting question. It can be taken many different ways there is not one way to approach and their can be many different answers and results. I think it comes down to the context in which you understand the relation between existence and essence. Our essence is quite self evident because it appears in our existence as a thing that exist per se. At the same time it hides itself in an obscurity or void which cloaks over all existence but at the same time also it the locality in which all existence arises from. The thing is essence infers existence not existence in the context that we understand it. But an essence would have to precede existence in the context that existence is entirely dependent upon something underlying to exist. This underlying feature is both apparent in reality and non apparent. The thing is that the essence of life makes a metaphysical divide between the phenomenal and supernatural realms. So whether we want to admit or not space and time are completely different entities that mutually exclude each other but which at the same time mutually include each other.

The mutual exclusion of a being is the result of a perspective in a sense our perspective or perception within space causes us to posit that space and time are completely separate beings when in actuality they are completely united in so far as space is negated from being involved in the context of the perception. The question then should can we perceive the source of existence this is virtually if not impossible to answer. The real issue is that it can not be effected or brought into being through our limited mind and perception but rather is infused into the world. Although it is infused into the world as a limited being this limited being per se is an essence or contains an evidence that is self evident in and of itself. This self evidence needs to make itself apparent through a phenomenal being thus the concept of a phenomenal being is in and of itself possible because essence precedes existence.

Now I can say that my existence is a product of the essence in a sense my existence reflects the nature of the essence which is all and nothing. It is all in the sense that it constitutes the entire phenomenal world as a phenomenal world and as something that appears to be phenomenal when we perceive but it is not. I might be sounding like an Idealist but we need to be cautious at times to do anything more then infer simply that a phenomenal world and that our perceptions are effecting in a sense a direct connection of the senses with the material world. The senses mediate existence and essence but our sense perception is neither purely existence or essence. Neither is our phenomenal being which appears to be real something that is either just existing or not existing it simply is a mediating between a pure state the paradox is that the essential qualities and substance of a thing can appear as something that is mediating as an existence.