How do we know Essence and Existence are distinct?

[kill051]

My point is: how can one know the essence of a creature if the creature does not exist? To say it is possible a priori presumes a creature whose essence can be known, thus throwing the entire theorem into logical no-man’s land, in other words ‘begs the question’.

 

[Wesrock]

I provided a geometry example above. However, here I think you’re getting too caught up in the name. Is it possible for a creature otherwise biologically similar to a horse to have a horn on its head? Is it possible for another such creature to also have one additional stomach? We may as well call a lion, a tyranosaurus rex, and a unicorn “hypothetical creatures x, y, and z”. Giving one’s internal biological specifics, dietary needs, genome. Unicorn is just a name being used for one possible creature. The name is just conventional.

 

[IWantGod]

What if I believe in an eternal lion?

The problem is, while i do like your picture, i cannot agree that it is the nature of a lion to exist and therefore be eternal.

If the very essence of what it is to be a lion was eternal, there would be no other lions other than that which is eternal. But we see lions in nature and they live and die and cease to have the nature of a lion. So it cannot be true that the essence of a lion is the same thing as having the act of existence. The two are not identical.

A being whose essence and existence are identical, cannot cease to be or begin to exist or change it’s nature. This is why we say the universe is not God or the uncaused cause, because it is changing. Natures are coming in and out of existence.

 

[Gorgias]

My point is: how can one know the essence of a creature if the creature does not exist? To say it is possible a priori presumes a creature whose essence can be known, thus throwing the entire theorem into logical no-man’s land, in other words ‘begs the question’.

I get what you’re saying. The thing is, you seem to be asking the wrong question. We don’t speak of knowing the essence of ‘this creature’ or ‘that creature’; we speak of knowing the essence of ‘a human’ or ‘a lion’. So, we can know this essence about a lion who lived 100 years ago, or is alive today, or might live in another 100 years.

We’re not asking for the essence that belongs to a single creature, however, and therefore, we don’t rely on ‘existence’ in order to talk about ‘essence.’

 

[o_mlly]

Existentialists, noting that existence always precedes essence, seek to discover, not deduce, knowledge by examining one’s own “lived experience” of things and, inductively, by grouping the common particular experience of many individual things, offer generalized theories about the essence of those things as a group.

We observe the creatures’ existences in order to induce their essence.

 

[thistle]

I think the example of a unicorn shows we can know a creature’s essence without it actually having to exist

What is the essence of a unicorn?

 

[Benadam]

A polygon with 100 million sides of equal length may never have existed, yet we can still know that such a polygon could be and know geometric truths about it.

Then are potential existence and essence distinct?

 

[Wesrock]

The essence is a potential that is actualized by its existence. The existence is considered to be the primary “act” of any being, prior to all other acts.

 

[STT]

This is relevant to Aquinas’ proof of God.

Some say, for example, we can know the essence of lion or a unicorn without knowing whether either one exists.

But wouldn’t fully knowing the essence of a lion, for example, entail knowing its existence? In other words, wouldn’t existence be part of its essence? I could conceive that fully knowing a lion’s essence would include knowing its biological reality, and once I know that reality (say, as a product of evolution, etc.), then I would know lions indeed exist.

I believe that they are same. We have always existed.

 

[Gorgias]

We have always existed.

‘Existence’ is predicated on the level of the individual, while ‘essence’ is predicated on the level of the type of individual.

Are you asserting, then, that you personally – as an individual – have always existed?

 

[veritatisstella]

A unicorn’s essence is the collection of things that are essential to its being a unicorn, namely being a horse and having a single horn growing out of its head.

 

[STT]

‘Existence’ is predicated on the level of the individual, while ‘essence’ is predicated on the level of the type of individual.

Are you asserting, then, that you personally – as an individual – have always existed?

I as a me have always existed. I just have the opportunity to experience Qualia right now.

 

[Gorgias]

I as a me have always existed.

How do you know this?

What is ‘me’? Your physical self? Your soul? The soul-body composite?

 

[STT]

STT:

I as a me have always existed.

How do you know this?

It makes sense to me. Mind is the essence of any being with ability to experience, decide and act/create. Mind is the fundamental entity in reality. You could explain everything with it. You also are included in this definition. The rest is Qualia, space, time, color, shape,…

What is ‘me’?

As a being with identity hidden/apparent.

Your physical self?

My phsical being take care of memory, thought and emotion.

Your soul?

I believe that we are minds. So I is a mind.

The soul-body composite?

We are mind-body right now. I consider it this way because I believe that you cannot create mind. It is fundamental. By definition soul is something created.

 

[Gorgias]

It makes sense to me. Mind is the essence of any being with ability to experience, decide and act/create.

OK. Prior to your physical birth, what did you experience? What did you decide? What did you create? What actions did you perform? If none… then you can’t claim you existed, can you?

As a being with identity hidden/apparent.

Does that include physical being?

I believe that we are minds. So I is a mind.

I thought you used to argue for consciousness as an emergent property. How can you claim it’s eternal, then?

We are mind-body right now. I consider it this way because I believe that you cannot create mind. It is fundamental. By definition soul is something created.

Hmm… so, first you were a ‘mind’. Later, a ‘soul’ and a ‘body’ were created? How can you substantiate this belief?

 

[STT]

STT:

It makes sense to me. Mind is the essence of any being with ability to experience, decide and act/create.

OK. Prior to your physical birth, what did you experience ? What did you decide ? What did you create ? What actions did you perform? If none… then you can’t claim you existed, can you?

I just didn’t have any attachment to Qualia. Now I have.

STT:

As a being with identity hidden/apparent.

Does that include physical being?

Physical being gives personality and nature to us.

STT:

I believe that we are minds. So I is a mind.

I thought you used to argue for consciousness as an emergent property. How can you claim it’s eternal, then?

No, I was arguing against consciousness being a emergent property.

STT:

We are mind-body right now. I consider it this way because I believe that you cannot create mind. It is fundamental. By definition soul is something created.

Hmm… so, first you were a ‘mind’. Later, a ‘soul’ and a ‘body’ were created? How can you substantiate this belief?

No. I was a mind and now a mind and body. You almost believe on the same thing. Do you remember things when you were one day old? You only believe that your soul was created at the moment of conception.

 

[Gorgias]

I just didn’t have any attachment to Qualia. Now I have.

So, Decartes asserted “I think, therefore I am”. What thoughts did you have, prior to existence as a human (i.e., soul and body)? More to the point: according to your very definition, can you demonstrate that you had the “ability to experience, decide, act/create” prior to your physical existence? If not, how can you make the claim that you did?

Do you remember things when you were one day old?

No, but there’s evidence of my existence at one day old. What’s your evidence of your existence prior to your conception?

 

[STT]

Mind is fundamental. Therefore it cannot be created. I was detached from reality. I am attached now.

 

[Gorgias]

Mind is fundamental.

I’m not going to ask you to go down that rabbit hole, but, you would need to define “mind”, why it is “fundamental”, and how it can exist in isolation from the soul.

Short of those, all we have here is a foundationless personally asserted opinion.

 

[TechieGuy]

how can one know the essence of a creature if the creature does not exist?

You just make it up and get people to agree with you, seems like