Does Existence precedes Essence?

Would not essence *have* to precede existence?

How can one exist, without having essence? That would go against the very definition of essence.

This argument needs to ask the question, has “existence” always existed. If the answer to that question is yes, then it follows that as existence has no beginning, essence could not have come before it. One could define essence as “The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something” or “The inherent, unchanging nature of a thing or class of things”. Since existence exists, it follows that existence must have an essence that describes it. Since existence has no beginning, it follows that it has always had an essence as well. Thus the two are simultaneous, both created by the other and defined by the other.

Emeril has essence.

BAM!

😐

When we consider, for example, a chair, we can understand its nature by listing its properties and examining the purpose for which it was created. Chairs are made by people for certain reasons. The “essence” or “nature” of a chair exists in the mind of the creator before the actual chair exists in the world. When it comes to objects like chairs, essence precedes existence.

But the same is not true of human beings imo. Human beings exist, but it is only after they exist that some “essence” that can be called “human” may develop. Human beings must develop, define, and decide what their “nature” will be through an engagement with themselves, their society, and the world around them.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Here is one question I always have fun with people that believe in Existentialism. Do you think human beings have NO given identity until they have made a specific decision, and have chosen their goals (or work if you like), and have thereby defined themselves?

Or do you think that essence is the chief characteristic, quality, or necessarily function which makes a human being what it uniquely is? Therefore essence precedes existence?

I don't think that there is a right and wrong in this argument. But what are your thoughts on your own ideas of existence and essence. What makes a person unique? Is the essence or their plain existence? Comments?

Um mm you are obviously a bit confused.

This

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Or do you think that essence is the chief characteristic, quality, or necessarily function which makes a human being what it uniquely is?

doesn't logically necessarily mean

This

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Therefore essence precedes existence?

For one its absurd to speculate about something having any characteristics if it doesn't exist !

I think you mean physical existence rather than actual existence ?

Originally posted by Mindship
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.

This = Materialism

Originally posted by Mindship
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.

This = Idealism

This = A Post

ermm

You wild and crazy guys.

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt

I think you mean physical existence rather than actual existence ?

Existance as a whole...I was once the desire of my parents...I was the result of their love.

😉

Originally posted by DigiMark007
This = A Post

ermm

Impressive contribution your mum must be so proud ?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Essence does not follow from existence and in many cases, essence is all there is. For example, the essence of a time machine is "a device by means of which one may travel into the future and the past" but it does not follow from this that because a there is an essence of a time machine that it is also an existent thing.

This example of the time machine had me confused for a while - really good point I hadn't thought of! 🙂 Sartre would agree with you that sometimes all there is is essence, and in the example of the time machine, it's correct, it does not exist but the essence is there. However, I think he would probably say that his idea of existence preceding essence is only applicable to man, which he discussed in Existentialism is a Humanism. I think the idea is, that, unlike the time machine, there is no predetermined idea or conception of what man is or will become, and that it is not until the individual comes into existence and "surges up in the world" (as Sartre puts it) can his essence or purpose be established. He uses the example of the paper-knife - it's conception, the idea of it, it's purpose has already been decided. The same cannot be said for mankind. Through his actions will a man's essence come about. I think that's what Sartre would say on it anyway! Hope I'm not getting confused!! 🙂

fryz

Originally posted by mogwai28
This example of the time machine had me confused for a while - really good point I hadn't thought of! 🙂 Sartre would agree with you that sometimes all there is is essence, and in the example of the time machine, it's correct, it does not exist but the essence is there. However, I think he would probably say that his idea of existence preceding essence is only applicable to man, which he discussed in Existentialism is a Humanism. I think the idea is, that, unlike the time machine, there is no predetermined idea or conception of what man is or will become, and that it is not until the individual comes into existence and "surges up in the world" (as Sartre puts it) can his essence or purpose be established. He uses the example of the paper-knife - it's conception, the idea of it, it's purpose has already been decided. The same cannot be said for mankind. Through his actions will a man's essence come about. I think that's what Sartre would say on it anyway! Hope I'm not getting confused!! 🙂

Good post

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
Here is one question I always have fun with people that believe in Existentialism. Do you think human beings have NO given identity until they have made a specific decision, and have chosen their goals (or work if you like), and have thereby defined themselves?

Or do you think that essence is the chief characteristic, quality, or neccesary function which makes a human being what it uniquely is? Therefore essence precedes existence?

I don't think that there is a right and wrong in this argument. But what are your thoughts on your own ideas of existence and essence. What makes a person unique? Is the essence or their plain existence? Comments?

Both essence and existence are things we humans have made up to describe something we have observed in nature.

yes

I vote that essense is first just as thoughts proceed actions.

Thoughts = Essence
Actions = Existence

Once something has taken on a form then it has reached existence.