Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

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?

UYou mean no-once can prove a right or wrong- logically speaking, one or the other must be so.

A lot of people would define a soul this way.

I don't think the essence of the person you are is finalised until you actually die, i think that everything that happens to you during your existance helps to build the essence of you.

That's exactly what crossed my mind as I read WD's post.

The essence of existance is the soul, in many people's opinion.

I was trying not to get into the topic of the soul (I don't know how I slip that out). I was aiming more at Existentialism which focuses on the existing individual person; instead of searching for the truth in distant universal concepts, existentialism is concerned with the authentic concerns of concrete existing individuals as they face choices and decisions in daily life. The soul is more complicated than that. Unless you don't believe that a person has a soul.

well..no...you must be thinking at a soul, when you say essence, even if not on purpose. i look at them as the same basic concepts. And i doubt a soul/essence is influenceable by decisions you make. you are born with it.
and how can one not believe ine xistance? ...i exist, don't i?

I have to agree with Corran

Yeah, WD, whatever you were aiming for, essence will more often than not constitute as soul, to many people.

I see what you mean. For me Essence has always been the "ideal nature of something independent prior to existence". More like the identity or feature of someone. True, I can see that some people will connect the soul with essence. In religious terms essence is consider the spiritual entity of a person. Which it was I was trying to avoid.......religious argument.

Existentialism ... ever read The Stranger ... its a philosophy promoted by a guy named Camus in the 40's. Totally self centered existence where only the moment matters.

Existentialism is very true.
because people ARE emty untill they find some aims in their lives.

How do you mean Clovie? I consider myself an existentialist. I just don't understand what you mean by a connection between existentialism and having a goal in life.

Also, I believe existence precedes essence. That is, a person is a culmination of their past experiences and how they refer to them in making decisions in the present. I don't believe human beings are born with a predetermined soul or set personality.

i know that it may sound childish..
but imo the existnce is first, and untill someone has found their goal in life it is devoid of essence.

Not really. I think I understand what you mean. Although I think we have the meaning of 'essence' mixed up a bit. By essence I mean a persons character and qualities. It sounds like you mean the essence of someones life or existence. More like the purpose of it.

yeah. seems so means i didn't understand the topic corectly? shame.

Heh, even so. You made an interesting point.

What came first of Energy and Matter ?

Is not essence and existance just a flip side of the same coin.

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.

By that example do you mean that in the case of a time machine, the machine can have an essence without actually existing?

So you're saying that Energy and Matter balance each other? In a Evolutionary thinking that works (Big Bang and then life on Earth). In this case neither exist without the other. Like thinking and mind which can't be separated. The question in the thread is different. Did my essence came before my existence or did they both arrive at the same into my organic body during birth? Did I have essence before being born?

I'm still inclined to see 'essence' as the soul, the inner light of a person.

They have one, because they are.

The inner light of a person or the Inner darkness of a person. Catching my drift?

Ah, but if you're 'dark', aren't you technically missing that soul?

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?

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.

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.

Interesting idea.Yea I would say I am one of these people.JM

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.

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.

does it really matter that much, which precedes which?

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.

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 ?

existence in another form.

Could someone correct the grammatical error of the question: Does Existence Precedes Essence? I believe it should read: Does Existence precede Essence?

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.

Would not essence *have* to precede existence?

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

Emeril has essence.

BAM!

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.