It depends if you believe in a soul. I tend to belive I have a soul and so does everyone. There are good ppl and bad ppl (I'm don't want to generalise people just using an example). Goodness or Evilness is a constant struggle inside the soul. Only through knowledge and wisdom both can be balance correctly. Does that make sense? 😕
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yes.
Fair enough. Although the example in question is a persons character or soul. Whether we are born with a set character or soul or (as I believe) our character today is a product of our past and how we internalise it and refer to it when we make decisions in the present.
Originally posted by WhiteEagle
Fair enough. Although the example in question is a persons character or soul. Whether we are born with a set character or soul or (as I believe) our character today is a product of our past and how we internalise it and refer to it when we make decisions in the present.
When you ride in a boat and watch the shore, you might assume that the shore is moving. But when you keep your eyes closely on the boat, you can see that the boat moves.
Similarly, if you examine myriad things with a confused body and mind you might suppose that your mind and nature are permanent. When you practice intimately and return to where you are, it will be clear that nothing at all has unchanging self.
I agree with you there man. I don't think the self ever stops changing until the day we die. All I can do is try to control and/or understand the changes, hopefully they will be for the better. It's always kind of awkward knowing that your perception and your entire way of life could completely change at any moment.
"'Existence precedes essence' … human beings … are not determined to be what they are through a fixed human nature in which they participate; it is their nature not to have a nature in this sense, and their lives are spent in quest of a self-definition which they cannot find in the terms in which they seek it. If they do find a definition, it will be a matter not of discovery but of decision: whatever we are is what we have decided to be, and we cannot therefore really be it since the option is always open to decide otherwise. … Minds … exist different from things or ideas and have virtually no common term with them. They, after all, are what they are, whereas … just the opposite is true of us: we are what we are not, … and we are not what we are."
Originally posted by glassDance
"'Existence precedes essence' … human beings … are not determined to be what they are through a fixed human nature in which they participate; it is their nature not to have a nature in this sense, and their lives are spent in quest of a self-definition which they cannot find in the terms in which they seek it. If they do find a definition, it will be a matter not of discovery but of decision: whatever we are is what we have decided to be, and we cannot therefore really be it since the option is always open to decide otherwise. … Minds … exist different from things or ideas and have virtually no common term with them. They, after all, are what they are, whereas … just the opposite is true of us: we are what we are not, … and we are not what we are."
Not necessarily a pre-determine existence. Meaning that your choices in life will still be there whether you accept them or not. Decisions do play an important role in our lives. But occasionaly certain decisions cannot be open forever. Example: If I'm in college and have an undecided major chances of me losing the opportunity of getting the righ degree decreases as long as I stay undecided. Certain decisions do have a time limit. Without murking the topic the choices I make during my existence will determine the type of being I become. But that doesn't mean that my choices will be available throught my life.
Note: Sorry to dig up an old thread. I'm in a philosophy class. I googled "existence precedes essence" and stumbled onto the discussion.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Essence precedes existence. As I illustrated earlier, it is impossible to exist and not have an essence but it is possible to have an essence and not exist, i.e. the case of the time machine.
This example is only true of things that are thought of and created by someone/something. I don't mean to throw religion into the debate, but this time machine example is really dependent on whether one believes in a creator of man or not.
If one believes in a creator (ie. God), then yes, the essence of man exists in His mind prior to man's existence. It is as if we speak of "man" as a product, like the time machine, and God as the creator, like the creator of the time machine.
However, if one does not believe in a creator and accepts a different theory on how we came to exist (ie. evolution), then man has no creator, and thus, no essence prior to its existence. If you believe that man simply came to be in the universe, then its existence comes first, and its essence is derived afterwards.
Does Existence Precede Essence?
Basically, it seems important to make a distinction between humanity and other nonhuman entities (especially material objects). The creation (read construction) of external objects only comes after one has conceived the nature, fundamental characteristics, and purpose of that object. In this sense, the essence of that object precedes it existence.
But for man, the story may depend on our position on the evolution versus creationism (even intelligent design) debate. If we believe that man was created by God, then we must believe that man's essence already existed in God's mind (presuming God has a mind) before man actually existed in the world. But if we think that man simply exists, and was not created by any God, then we must accept that man's existence precedes his essence, in which case, his essence must depend on his decisions and choices - even if these culminate into a block essence only after death.
It is important that we keep close in mind the fact that whatever position we take has serious implications on responsibility. If man has a preexisting essence, then his responsibility for his actions will be in question. And by this single fact, one will wonder why people are kept in prisons, or punished since they are simply acting according to their fixed essence the control of which they are incapable.
Meanwhile, I believe in God.
Desmond Odugu
Chicago.
Does essence exist ?
If the answer is yes, then it cannot precede existence, since it exists. They would be like the same thing I think. Its strange to think that a "thing"(essence) could not exist, and still precede something(existence) that exists. Unless this existence only means physical existence, and this way essence could mean existence in another level.
But what level ?
Sometimes the essence/existence question is interpreted as, What is the "ultimate stuff" of which all things are made?
A materialist/reductionist/epiphenomenalist would respond, Matter, ie, the physical universe of matter, energy and spacetime, the world as revealed by empirical science. Specifically, the brain gives rise to mind, and the existence of the soul is questionable, at best. Existence before essence.
A transpersonalist or mystic would say, Consciousness. This is the universe as revealed through meditation, subsuming the universe as revealed by empirical science (though not abiding by its existence-before-essence cause-effect relationship). The lowest/densest form of Consciousness (that which is furthest from "Consciousness as Such"😉 would be the physical universe. The highest/most rarified form of Consciousness would be "Consciousness as Such": God (strictly biblical interpretations here need not apply). Soul exists, and the cognitive reality of mind unfolds through the brain, not from it. Essence before existence.
Personally, I tend toward Essence before Existence.