Essence precedes existence?

[davedat]

How might you know if essence precedes existence?

 

[mathematician]

How might you know if essence precedes existence?

I suppose for a theist essence precedes existence because you are created with the attributes God intended you to have. “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee… and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations,” God tells Jeremiah.

In the existentialist view, of course, you are born a blank slate, and then create your own essence.

 

[Leela]

Cool topic. I hope we get some interesting Existentialist quotes to think about.

 

[Detales]

This is a very good question, one of the few on here meriting attention as semantically sound.

There are two ways of approaching this. One is an intellectual, argumentative approach, dealing strictly with formalized chains of thought proceeding from an accepted premise. The other is experiential.

Such religions as the Catholic and other christianist religions, including the Abrahamic religions, are primarily ascending/exoteric faiths which rely on the addition or modification of information within awareness as content. The formalized argumentations here will proceed from premises, or arguments about premises, such as Biblical authority, tradition, etc. and will claim intellectual knowledge as “proof” of Essence as an abstract.

On the other hand, such systems as have been the outgrowth and explication of interior experience, such as the Perennial Philosophy, proceed outward from an experience of Essence as a living Reality. These are the systems which may be called descending/esoteric. Most popular religions, on examination, are devolved from an original revelation of this type that is consequently misinterpreted by followers who have not had the experience. Christianism is a typical example familiar to Westerners, their Bible containing Identity statements relating to Essence which are yet misunderstood because of the historicization of the prime Figure pertinent to that story.

The reports and exegesis from original experiences regarding Essence are remarkably consistent regardless of time, place, culture, gender, intellect, even religion. This is in contrast with the divisions and differences fostered by the ascending/exoteric factions.

I feel I have some say-so in this matter due to having experience of both. I was, until a persistent attempt within the Church to explain a radical “spiritual” experience of my own, a devout, well catechized, and proselytizing Roman Catholic. After the failure of the Church, or my commensurate failure in research of it, to find a reasonable answer to my questions, I discovered that there is an ancient explanation pre-dating Catholicism that furnished an appropriate and practically functioning model for what had transpired within my own experience. That model has increasingly unfolded as a correct and accurate working paradigm inclusive of the existence of the Church and other belief systems in general.

Based on that experience, I would state that Essence is First, as God and the, at least, seven synonyms for God. Essence has no need of expression, Being sufficient unto Itself, yet there is the existence we call Creation. Creation depends on, and yet is enfolded in Essence, not separate from it.

An excellent treatment of this idea accessible to Western minds is the work of Franklin Merrell-Wollf. It may first be found in his diary of transformation in awareness, Pathways Through to Space, and in a more formalized way in The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object. Comparisons of those works with experience and the contemporary to ancient works of a similar nature result in a survey of what is surely the most consistent understanding of the root of Spiritual experience available. In fact, if understood as intended, this system yields a radical re-interpretation and insight into even the sayings attributed to Jesus, His Identity statements in particular.

 

[Areopagite]

How might you know if essence precedes existence?

It depends what you mean by “existence.” Existence is subdivided in many ways. The most common and primary way to refer to existence is, more narrowly, actual existence. This is contrasted to potential existence, as well as ideal existence. Potential and ideal existence are really the same thing. All true essences (i.e. those essences that have intrinsic possibility … that is, those essences that are not self-contradictory like a square circle) have potential and ideal existence. However, not all true essences have actual existence. From here, it is easy to see that essence precedes actual existence. For example, one may have a concept of a unicorn (and for that to be possible, a unicorn must have potential and ideal existence), though it is also true that a unicorn does not actually exist (although … perhaps it does … I’m personally open to their actual existence … both the medieval Europeans and Chinese talked about them … but … let’s assume they don’t actually exist). The reason we can have a concept of a unicorn (a thing that does not actually exist) is that a unicorn has an essence … it has a thing that makes it what it is (which is the definition of essence). If we didn’t know what makes a unicorn a unicorn (if we didn’t known the unicorn’s essence), then we couldn’t say anything about unicorns because we wouldn’t know what a unicorn was.

Hence, since we can conceptualize unicorns, unicorns have an essence, and since unicorns don’t actually exist, it follows that a unicorn’s essence precedes its actual existence.

I think the same can be said about everything else.

This doesn’t change the fact that all essences (non-contradictory ones, that is) have potential and ideal existence. In fact, in that sense, essence and existence are simultaneous (unless someone can correct me). But in terms of actual existence, essences most certainly come first.

I hope that made any sense whatsoever.

I suppose for a theist essence precedes existence because you are created with the attributes God intended you to have. “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee… and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations,” God tells Jeremiah.

Well, I think even (some) atheists could agree that essence precedes (actual) existence. Many atheists I have come across agree that we can have the form of something in our head (the essence of a something) even if that something doesn’t actually exist in reality. But it probably differs from atheist to atheist.

And of course, there are certain theists who have claimed essence does not precede existence. I was one such person, at one point. I’ve met others. And I think there were some semi-serious philosophers who claimed such things too (but they escape me at the moment).

In the existentialist view, of course, you are born a blank slate, and then create your own essence.

Yeah, existentialists do claim this.

Personally, existentialism is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. There is one thing you have to do in order to enjoy and benefit from reading about existententialism: don’t take it seriously. However, I am one to take things seriously … I’m inclined to take people on their word … and so existentialism is poison to me.

If you start out as a blank slate … then you are actually nothing … and yet you exist. What? If you have no essence to start out with … then there is nothing that makes you what you are … and yet you are? It doesn’t make any sense. You wouldn’t be even human, technically.

Now, existentialists (I hope) are talking about secondary essence (or second nature), as opposed to primary essence (or first nature). That is, they are emphasizing the fact that we get to decide what we become. On the other hand, we can’t be anything other than human. Though on the other hand, we can decide to become … for example, murderers, carpenters, heroes, liars, sycophants, philosophers, etc. But these don’t have to do with first nature (i.e. human nature) but rather second nature (i.e. our habits). I don’t know if any existentialist makes this distinction, but I hope some of them do. If they actually don’t make the distinction, then I suggest throwing their philosophies in the trash. It’s just too stupid for me. I take things too seriously. Perhaps that’s my fault. Perhaps some people can benefit from their words. For me, reading that stuff is a waste of life. It just confuses me and makes me want to cry. Seriously.

 

[Leela]

Well, I think even (some) atheists could agree that essence precedes (actual) existence. Many atheists I have come across agree that we can have the form of something in our head (the essence of a something) even if that something doesn’t actually exist in reality. But it probably differs from atheist to atheist.

My understanding of existentialism is that the slogan “existence preceeds essence” means that we are not essentially good or essentially evil or essentially political or rational or anything that philsophers of the past have claimed. Good and evil are choices that we make. There is no “human nature” or essence of humanity to take seriously. There are countless forms of life in existence and countless more that we haven’t imagined yet. Instead of trying to find eternal principles to justify the notion of the essence of humanity and lend our current practices the prestige of the eternal, we have the ability to imagine and strive for new utopian conceptions. Our future need not be so constained by our past. Instead of asking whether our current ways of being are consistent with the notion of the essence of humanity, we should ask, can our future be made better than our present? In this light, existentialism is a philosphy of hope rather than despair, though “staring into the abyss” is often to be taken as the essence of a philosphy that denies essences.

Best,
Leela

 

[Areopagite]

My understanding of existentialism is that the slogan “existence preceeds essence” means that we are not essentially good or essentially evil or essentially political or rational or anything that philsophers of the past have claimed. Good and evil are choices that we make. There is no “human nature” or essence of humanity to take seriously. There are countless forms of life in existence and countless more that we haven’t imagined yet. Instead of trying to find eternal principles to justify the notion of the essence of humanity and lend our current practices the prestige of the eternal, we have the ability to imagine and strive for new utopian conceptions. Our future need not be so constained by our past. Instead of asking whether our current ways of being are consistent with the notion of the essence of humanity, we should ask, can our future be made better than our present? In this light, existentialism is a philosphy of hope rather than despair, though “staring into the abyss” is often to be taken as the essence of a philosphy that denies essences.

Best,
Leela

Interesting thoughts.

Couple questions:

• When you say “There is no ‘human nature’ or essence of humanity to take seriously,” what do you mean by that? Why can’t we take it seriously? Isn’t there something in humans that make them all … human? And if so, isn’t that something important? If there is actually nothing in humanity that links us … then technically humanity doesn’t exist. It just doesn’t make any sense.
• What determines moral goodness and evil in existentialism? What is it based on? Human nature? Probably not, right?

 

[Leela]

Couple questions:

• When you say “There is no ‘human nature’ or essence of humanity to take seriously,” what do you mean by that? Why can’t we take it seriously?

I’m no expert, but I’ll try to explain my understanding of existentialism.

From an evolutionary perspective, “species” do not exist. There is no fixed notion of “dogness” that a dog needs to conform to as in a dog show. Likewise there is no essence of humanity that humans have a duty to conform to in some human show. We humans are free to create ourselves.

Isn’t there something in humans that make them all … human? And if so, isn’t that something important? If there is actually nothing in humanity that links us … then technically humanity doesn’t exist. It just doesn’t make any sense.

There isn’t one thing that makes us all human, but there are lots of ways to describe humans. We don’t need to limit our futures by these past descriptions. We can endeavor to be better.

• What determines moral goodness and evil in existentialism? What is it based on? Human nature? Probably not, right?

Not sure. I think this may be a “wrong question.” Existentialism doesn’t posit a “basis” for morality, an essence called The Good or The Moral Law to which humans ought to conform. Existentialism isn’t a philsophical system. It is not a version of foundationalism.

Here is a summary of existentialist ethics:
tameri.com/csw/exist/ex_ethics.html

Best,
Leela

 

[Areopagite]

From an evolutionary perspective, “species” do not exist. There is no fixed notion of “dogness” that a dog needs to conform to as in a dog show. Likewise there is no essence of humanity that humans have a duty to conform to in some human show. We humans are free to create ourselves.

There isn’t one thing that makes us all human, but there are lots of ways to describe humans. We don’t need to limit our futures by these past descriptions. We can endeavor to be better.

Thank you for your comments.

“Species” don’t exist though? I think most evolutionists would disagree with you. Especially Darwin. He wrote a book called “The Origin of the Species” or something like that. But maybe I’m missing something.

Also, if there is no common essence of dogness among dogs, why do we call them dogs? That’s a contradiction.

Likewise, of course, if humans do not share in humanity, why do we call them human? You said “We humans are free to create ourselves” but that implies that we are human, of course, and there must be something that makes a human, and hence we must share in a humanity. Otherwise, why are we called “human.” Why do we call dogs “dogs.” Why do we call a cigar “a cigar.” Why do we call a tree “a tree.”

You see what I’m saying?

 

[Leela]

“Species” don’t exist though? QUOTE]

The lines between species are actually fuzzy rather than discrete.

From wikipedia:

“Biologists’ working definition
Some biologists may view species as statistical phenomena, as opposed to the traditional idea, with a species seen as a class of organisms. In that case, a species is defined as a separately evolving lineage that forms a single gene pool. Although properties such as DNA-sequences and morphology are used to help separate closely-related lineages, this definition has fuzzy boundaries.[1] However, the exact definition of the term “species” is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[2] and this is called the species problem.[3] Biologists have proposed a range of more precise definitions, but the definition used is a pragmatic choice that depends on the particularities of the species concerned.[3]”

 

[Leela]

Here is an excerpt from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosphia on species and essences:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/

"Since Aristotle, species have been paradigmatic examples of natural kinds with essences. An essentialist approach to species makes perfect sense in a pre Darwinian context. God created species and an eternal essence for each species. After God’s initial creation, each species is a static, non evolving group of organisms. Darwinism offers a different view of species. Species are the result of speciation. No qualitative feature — morphological, genetic, or behavioral — is considered essential for membership in a species. Despite this change in biological thinking, many philosophers still believe that species are natural kinds with essences. Let us start with a brief introduction to kind essentialism and then turn to the biological reasons why species fail to have essences.

Kind essentialism has a number of tenets. One tenet is that all and only the members of a kind have a common essence. A second tenet is that the essence of a kind is responsible for the traits typically associated with the members of that kind. For example, gold’s atomic structure is responsible for gold’s disposition to melt at certain temperatures. Third, knowing a kind’s essence helps us explain and predict those properties typically associated with a kind. The application of any of these tenets to species is problematic. But to see the failure of essentialism we need only consider the first tenet.

Biologists have had a hard time finding biological traits that occur in all and only the members of a species. Even such pre Darwinian essentialists as Linnaeus could not locate the essences of species (Ereshefsky 2001). Evolutionary theory explains why. A number of forces conspire against the universality and uniqueness of a trait in a species (Hull 1965). Suppose a genetically based trait were found in all the members of a species. The forces of mutation, recombination and random drift can cause the disappearance of that trait in a future member of the species. All it takes is the disappearance of a trait in one member of a species to show that it is not essential. The universality of a biological trait in a species is fragile.

Suppose, nevertheless, that a trait occurs in all the members of a species. That trait is the essence of a species only if it is unique to that species. Yet organisms in different species often have common characteristics. Again, biological forces work against the uniqueness of a trait within a single species. Organisms in related species inherit similar genes and developmental programs from their common ancestors. These common stores of developmental resources cause a number of similarities in the organisms of different species. Another source of similar traits in different species is parallel evolution. Species frequently live in similar habitats with comparable selection pressures. Those selection pressures cause the prominence of similar traits in more than one species. The parallel evolution of opposable thumbs in primates and pandas is an example.

The existence of various evolutionary forces does not rule out the possibility of a trait occurring in all and only the members of a species. But consider the conditions such a trait must satisfy. A species’ essential trait must occur in all the members of a species for the entire life of that species. Moreover, if that trait is to be unique to that species, it cannot occur in any other species for the entire existence of life on this planet. The temporal parameters that species essentialism must satisfy are quite broad. The occurrence of a biological trait in all and only the members of a species is an empirical possibility. But given current biological theory, that possibility is unlikely.

Other arguments have been mustered against species essentialism. Hull (1965) contends that species have vague boundaries and that such vagueness is incompatible with the existence of species specific essences. According to Hull, essentialist definitions of natural kinds require strict boundaries between those kinds. But the boundaries between species are vague. In all but a few cases, speciation is a long and gradual process such that there is no principled way to draw a precise boundary between one species and the next. As a result, species cannot be given essentialist definitions. (Hull’s argument against species essentialism is very similar to one of Locke’s (1894[1975], III, vi) arguments against kind essentialism.)

Sober (1980) raises a different objection to species essentialism. He illustrates how essentialist explanations have been replaced by evolutionary ones. Essentialists explain variation within a species as the result of interference in the ontogenetic development of particular members of that species. Organisms have species specific essences, but interference often prevents the manifestations of those essences. Contemporary geneticists offer a different explanation of variation within a species. They cite the gene frequencies of a species as well as the evolutionary forces that affect those frequencies. No species specific essences are posited. Contemporary biology can explain variation within a species without positing a species’ essence. So according to Sober, species essentialism has become theoretically superfluous.

In a pre Darwinian age, species essentialism made sense. Such essentialism, however, is out of step with contemporary evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory provides its own methods for explaining variation within a species. It tells us that the boundaries between species are vague. And it tells us that a number of forces conspire against the existence of a trait in all and only the members of a species. From a biological perspective, species essentialism is no longer a plausible position."

 

[Leela]

“Species” don’t exist though? I think most evolutionists would disagree with you. Especially Darwin. He wrote a book called “The Origin of the Species” or something like that. But maybe I’m missing something.

He wrote about the process of speciation or diversification rather than about species as unchanging eternal categories with permanent natures.

Also, if there is no common essence of dogness among dogs, why do we call them dogs? That’s a contradiction.

Likewise, of course, if humans do not share in humanity, why do we call them human? You said “We humans are free to create ourselves” but that implies that we are human, of course, and there must be something that makes a human, and hence we must share in a humanity. Otherwise, why are we called “human.” Why do we call dogs “dogs.” Why do we call a cigar “a cigar.” Why do we call a tree “a tree.”

You see what I’m saying?

We make such generalizations as a matter of convenience, but the boundaries are always funny. For example, when does your cigar become a cigarillo or a cigarette? For some specific examples, distinctions are obvious, while others are less clear. In the absence of such essences for the nature of discrete kinds, existentialism emphasizes the individual.

Best,
Leela

 

[Thing]

There is no such thing as essence or existance.

 

[Dameedna]

Prior to the discover of the atom…

All physical objects were considered to have an “essence” that made them exist. and qualities that made them appear in a certain way to us. It wasn’t a bad philosophy considering the natural ignorance of the day. They did the best they could.

So, expand that to christianity and it’s rituals and You took the escense of the cracker(which was christ) into your body, but you ate it’s physical presence. The essence changed to christ(very important) and became the physical.

This only worked pre-atom. Becuase we now know, there is no essence. There are particles reacting to each other, in a very uniform way. There is a reason religious leaders tried to deny the truth of the atom and fought against it and what it would mean to people’s faith. They actually believed the 'cracker" became the flesh of christ. it cannot. It’s not physically possible and it has been shown through studies, that the cracker remains a cracker in the stomach.

Yep…once again science has shown it’s beautiful truthful head.

it’s a cracker.

It’s some wine.

No essence…just protons and neutrons and electrons.

Even those that invented this ritual believed the “body” changed upon the accepting. Ooops.

Sigh…but people will believe what they want. At least they get some chow and some vino in the process.

 

[Thing]

Prior to the discover of the atom…

All physical objects were considered to have an “essence” that made them exist. and qualities that made them appear in a certain way to us. It wasn’t a bad philosophy considering the natural ignorance of the day. They did the best they could.

So, expand that to christianity and it’s rituals and You took the escense of the cracker(which was christ) into your body, but you ate it’s physical presence. The essence changed to christ(very important) and became the physical.

This only worked pre-atom. Becuase we now know, there is no essence. There are particles reacting to each other, in a very uniform way. There is a reason religious leaders tried to deny the truth of the atom and fought against it and what it would mean to people’s faith. They actually believed the 'cracker" became the flesh of christ. it cannot. It’s not physically possible and it has been shown through studies, that the cracker remains a cracker in the stomach.

Yep…once again science has shown it’s beautiful truthful head.

it’s a cracker.

It’s some wine.

No essence…just protons and neutrons and electrons.

Even those that invented this ritual believed the “body” changed upon the accepting. Ooops.

Sigh…but people will believe what they want. At least they get some chow and some vino in the process.

Atoms of elements do not exist, really.
One elements atom may change into another element by knocking a few particles from its nucleus.
Elements are just an idea in their Creators mind.
They are whatever He chooses them to be.
Their existance must be maintained from moment to moment, or they cease to exist.
When a man with his Creators permission or on His order speaks the word ‘This…’ the elements which were bread no longer exist for their Creator. He has changed the idea of those elements forever…

 

[Leela]

Atoms of elements do not exist, really.
One elements atom may change into another element by knocking a few particles from its nucleus.
Elements are just an idea in their Creators mind.
They are whatever He chooses them to be.
Their existance must be maintained from moment to moment, or they cease to exist.
When a man with his Creators permission or on His order speaks the word ‘This…’ the elements which were bread no longer exist for their Creator. He has changed the idea of those elements forever…

Are you saying that reality exists only in the mind of God? Reality is really just whatever God thinks it is?

 

[Thing]

Are you saying that reality exists only in the mind of God? Reality is really just whatever God thinks it is?

More or less, yes. Reality, or everything, exists in the mind or will of God. If God ceased to exist everything would cease to exist.

 

[o_mlly]

How might you know if essence precedes existence?

Existence precedes essence for two reasons.

First, on the natural level, essence is nothing more than an abstraction by which the human mind forms a category by examining existing creatures and identifying common attributes. The human mind must exist before it can abstract. Abstraction is man’s attempt to grasp reality through reason. But reality, God’s plan, **exists **and is independent of the human mind’s comprehension of it.

Second, on the supernatural level, God is pure existence (“I am who am”). In God, existence is His essence. The two cannot be separated. God, so to say, is in the business of simply being, existing.

 

[Detales]

Similarly to falsely attributing duration to eternity and person-hood to God, “I AM WHO AM” is a statement of Being, not of existence.

 

[o_mlly]

Similarly to falsely attributing duration to eternity and person-hood to God, “I AM WHO AM” is a statement of Being, not of existence.

Your comment is somewhat confusing in that I see no connection between your sentence’s first phrase and its second. Nor do I see in the first, any connection to the thread. So, I can only address your second phrase with a question: What exists without being?