Does existence really precedes essence?

Question

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Have a great day to all!

Answer 1

Yes.

Answer 2

For the individual, yes. Existence is the singular expression for all that is, the totality, but essence is of something particularly peculiar, differentiable, whereas existence is its own essence and we need no differentiation but a concept in language to speak of it or for it. Thinking this way conceptualizing is a describing pointing to no thing in sensibility.

Answer 3

What is the meaning of this question?Do you mean whether all our traits are acquired or are we born with some innate charecterestics?I think genetics has not conclusively proved any theory.It is still a open question

Answer 4

Existence is a state of being, enduring, struggling surviving. Essence is distinction, the identifying uniqueness or quality of matter or thing.

For man to gain awareness is to become an individual unique in virtue and identity. Existence is to merely function as a morphed persona amidst an indistinct and banal world.

This question was difficult to answer.

Answer 5

yes, but essence is illusion, so really there is only existence and nothing else

Answer 6

Yes.  Something has to exist for it to make a smell.

Answer 7

The problem with a lot of philosophical questions is that they treat abstractions as if they were entities.

It is quite possible to assign a defined meaning to 'existence' for things do after all (we believe) exist. With 'essence' we have a problem. Originally (in mediaeval philosophy & theology) it meant something quite similar to 'existence' - from Latin 'esse' = to be/to exist. Since then it has acquired a whole range of connotations derived ultimately from alchemy and from Platonic philosophy - roughly, it has come to mean the active principle or the true nature of something.

So as a first step, decide what is meant by 'essence'. Then the answer to your question will probably stare you in the face. Let's consult a think-tank of philosophers and scientists.

Plato, having wrinkled his nose at the lack of rigour in the phrasing of the question, would sniff and say that the Form must come before anything existing for our senses - the original must come before the copy.  

Sartre, who hardly ever defined his terms and tended to tie himself in existential and methodological knots, would say the opposite: we exist as objects, but form our selves, the essence of our characters, by a sequence of choices - omitting the obvious question: if we have no pre-existing character (or essence), what informs these choices?

The alchemist and the biochemist agree with Sartre, but for a different reason: the vanilla plant exists before we can have essence of vanilla.

Schrodinger would have to ask his cat, whose existence is doubtful, but who is certainly an essential part of modern physics. When in doubt, he says, always consult your cat.

Berkeley would tell you that it's all in the mind, and that the words don't much matter. Buddha, listening from one corner of a parallel heaven, nods wisely; it's all illusion anyway.

Take your pick.

Answer 8

I think so.

Answer 9

So they say.  Then they go on to build an entire philosophical aproach based upon it.  If I want it to not be that way, am I then...still...an existentialist?

Answer 10

Everything is a matter of interpretation, but I'll try to give you my slanted answer :)

If we look at ourselves; the fact that we exist is undeniable to each and all of us. However if I ask you what your essence is, there is not a word we can say about it. We can clothe it our qualities (kindness, cruelty etc) but our very essence remains ineffable.

Anything you know about your own essence is nothing more than a series of actions extending from your essence. It's like looking at a ray of light: we can not say anything about the light itself unless we have an object in front of it to perceive it. (like the dust in the room).

We refer to the upper power as Nature, the Creator, God or whatever suits us but we can never know the essence of this upper power but can only understand its qualities by the way it treats us.

Accordingly, essence and existence can only be perceived together, and we might not necessarily have a good answer for your question then. If there would be no creature how would there be a Creator?

Answer 11

No, that sounds like narrowminded kindergarten philosophy.....

Answer 12

Not necessarily

Answer 13

we create our "personal definition" of existence by how we think..

Personally I believe that, if all three dimensional reality was removed from our view of existence..all that would remain, in essence would be energy...within that "pure energy" exists an active vibration...

Hmm...interesting...certainly made me think...