Anonymous
7/3/2025, 1:54:26 PM No.17811250
Does essence precede existence or the other way around?
Replies:
Thread 17811250 - /his/ [Archived: 670 hours ago]
Anonymous
7/3/2025, 3:33:02 PM No.17811386
>>17811250 (OP)
Yeah, just like a fart is the essence of a turd
Yeah, just like a fart is the essence of a turd
Anonymous
7/4/2025, 1:48:05 AM No.17812765
Essence comes before existence. I don't see how it could be the other way around. Essence is what something is, existence is simply the instantiations of that whatness. How could something exist before it has being?
Replies:
Anonymous
7/4/2025, 1:50:47 AM No.17812770
>>17811250 (OP)
Abstract concepts do not have physical attributes such as a sequential order in time.
Abstract concepts do not have physical attributes such as a sequential order in time.
Replies:
Anonymous
7/4/2025, 1:51:46 AM No.17812771
>>17811250 (OP)
I don't think this question actually means anything
I don't think this question actually means anything
Anonymous
7/4/2025, 1:59:20 AM No.17812781
>>17812770
You're confusing logical order with temporal order. Not the same thing. There can be a logical order to abstract concepts. For example: If X then Y. Clearly, X comes before Y because Y follows from X and not the other way around. This is known as a conditional statement. X and Y are connected by the binary operator known as the material conditional and produce the output of if X then Y.
You're confusing logical order with temporal order. Not the same thing. There can be a logical order to abstract concepts. For example: If X then Y. Clearly, X comes before Y because Y follows from X and not the other way around. This is known as a conditional statement. X and Y are connected by the binary operator known as the material conditional and produce the output of if X then Y.
࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇
!KNDYqWRDiE
7/4/2025, 2:31:22 AM No.17812854
ESSENCE IS AN ENTITY'S FORM; ONE CANNOT HAVE FORM PRIOR TO EXISTENCE; ONE NEEDS TO ACT, IN ORDER TO BECOME; ONE IS WHAT ONE BECOMES.
TO POSTULATE THAT ESSENCE PRECEDES EXISTENCE ENTAILS THE PRESUMPTION THAT ONE IS BORN READYMADE, WHICH IS ABSURD: ESSENCE IS NOT PERFECT, BUT, RATHER, EFFECTIVE.
TO POSTULATE THAT ESSENCE PRECEDES EXISTENCE ENTAILS THE PRESUMPTION THAT ONE IS BORN READYMADE, WHICH IS ABSURD: ESSENCE IS NOT PERFECT, BUT, RATHER, EFFECTIVE.
Anonymous
7/4/2025, 4:00:42 AM No.17813030
Everything man has made started from as an intangible thought in his head.
Would it be reasonable to extrapolate this to the creation of man? If so, wouldn't that mean we existed prior to our births?
Would it be reasonable to extrapolate this to the creation of man? If so, wouldn't that mean we existed prior to our births?
Anonymous
7/4/2025, 4:35:29 AM No.17813078
What is essence even? Sounds like a made up construct.
Replies:
Anonymous
7/4/2025, 5:44:33 AM No.17813188
>>17813078
Essence is what something is (to ti en einai). But there are differences in how essence has been conceived by philosophers throughout the centuries. For Plato, essence was identical to form, which he saw as the substance of particular things. But for Aristotle, there are actually two different types of substances: primary substances and secondary substances. Secondary substances are defined by Aristotle as the genre of primary substance. So Socrates is a concrete existing primary substance who predicates secondary substance e.g. "Socrates is a man".
But Aristotle thinks that essence is immanent in primary substance, and this is the form of them. Unlike Plato he doesn't think essence exists apart from the particulars that instantiate them, partly because he thinks it's contradictory for universal substance to be able to partake in mutually exclusive properties at once e.g. Socrates is standing but Plato is sitting. Thus substance, and by consequence essence, cannot be universal in the sense that Plato thinks, but must be immanent in concrete, individual, existing things.
Typically, Aristotelians and their derivatives (Thomists and the like) distinguish between essence and existence. Existence is that which actualizes being, and for being to be actualized, it have substance prior to it logically, or else what are you even actualizing? Modern philosophers still tend to agree with Aristotle about this, that essence precedes existence and that existence is a special property of beings that can't be predicated of them in the way other qualities are. The way Aristotle defines essence and substance is all a bit confusing though and there's still debate over what exactly he means, how and if there really is a difference in his thought, or if he's even consistent with the way he uses the terms.
Essence is what something is (to ti en einai). But there are differences in how essence has been conceived by philosophers throughout the centuries. For Plato, essence was identical to form, which he saw as the substance of particular things. But for Aristotle, there are actually two different types of substances: primary substances and secondary substances. Secondary substances are defined by Aristotle as the genre of primary substance. So Socrates is a concrete existing primary substance who predicates secondary substance e.g. "Socrates is a man".
But Aristotle thinks that essence is immanent in primary substance, and this is the form of them. Unlike Plato he doesn't think essence exists apart from the particulars that instantiate them, partly because he thinks it's contradictory for universal substance to be able to partake in mutually exclusive properties at once e.g. Socrates is standing but Plato is sitting. Thus substance, and by consequence essence, cannot be universal in the sense that Plato thinks, but must be immanent in concrete, individual, existing things.
Typically, Aristotelians and their derivatives (Thomists and the like) distinguish between essence and existence. Existence is that which actualizes being, and for being to be actualized, it have substance prior to it logically, or else what are you even actualizing? Modern philosophers still tend to agree with Aristotle about this, that essence precedes existence and that existence is a special property of beings that can't be predicated of them in the way other qualities are. The way Aristotle defines essence and substance is all a bit confusing though and there's still debate over what exactly he means, how and if there really is a difference in his thought, or if he's even consistent with the way he uses the terms.
Replies:
Anonymous
7/4/2025, 7:46:46 AM No.17813322
>>17812765
All the matter in your body existed before it was you.
All the matter in your body existed before it was you.
Anonymous
7/4/2025, 9:04:46 AM No.17813392
Both are contingent Ipm the other and nothing exists independently
Anonymous
7/4/2025, 4:37:04 PM No.17814019
>>17811250 (OP)
Essence is merely a human interpretation of what they see around them and that human's attempt to understand and compartmentalize their surroundings.
It comes after existence.
Essence is merely a human interpretation of what they see around them and that human's attempt to understand and compartmentalize their surroundings.
It comes after existence.
Anonymous
7/4/2025, 9:06:39 PM No.17814701
Deez nuts
Anonymous
7/4/2025, 9:24:05 PM No.17814735
>>17811250 (OP)
>There is no such thing as causality
>You are 100% free, free will is a fact, you are the one who decide what you will do.
>External factors, culture, material condition, education don't exist. Nether does social pressure.
Teenager tier idea.
>There is no such thing as causality
>You are 100% free, free will is a fact, you are the one who decide what you will do.
>External factors, culture, material condition, education don't exist. Nether does social pressure.
Teenager tier idea.
Anonymous
7/4/2025, 9:25:46 PM No.17814740
>>17813078
Because it is. Intelligent people can explain complex ideas simply, idiots who want other to think they are intelligent use confusing terms and phraseology to offuscate the simplicity of their ideas.
Because it is. Intelligent people can explain complex ideas simply, idiots who want other to think they are intelligent use confusing terms and phraseology to offuscate the simplicity of their ideas.
Anonymous
7/4/2025, 9:51:53 PM No.17814808
>>17811250 (OP)
>does essence precede existence or the other way around?
The only way you could possibly make a case for the former being true would be defining “existence” as the sum total of all contingent existent “things” like the Neoplatonic tradition. If you mean to say essence precedes existence in an absolute way, then that’s rather obviously refuted. Does this “essence” exist, is it real in any way? Then existence is at the very least co-arising with essence if not prior to essence. If not, then it makes to sense to speak of a non-existent essence preceding existence.
>does essence precede existence or the other way around?
The only way you could possibly make a case for the former being true would be defining “existence” as the sum total of all contingent existent “things” like the Neoplatonic tradition. If you mean to say essence precedes existence in an absolute way, then that’s rather obviously refuted. Does this “essence” exist, is it real in any way? Then existence is at the very least co-arising with essence if not prior to essence. If not, then it makes to sense to speak of a non-existent essence preceding existence.
Replies:
Anonymous
7/4/2025, 10:04:35 PM No.17814831
>>17814808
>Does this “essence” exist, is it real in any way? Then existence is at the very least co-arising with essence if not prior to essence. If not, then it makes to sense to speak of a non-existent essence preceding existence.
I think you're getting a bit confused about the logic here. Obviously it'd be weirdly redundant to say that essence precedes existence because essence exists before existence... but that's not what's really being said when it's claimed essence comes before existence.
As said here >>17813188 and here >>17812765 essence is that which something is and is intimately tied up with a thing's definition. Existence is just the act of an essence being instantiated. When you say that something exists, it means the same thing as saying something is really instantiated or present in the world or whatever domain of discourse you are talking about. If existence comes before essence then what are you saying? Does this imply something could be instantiated without any properties? So it's not so much that essence is "out there" before it comes into existence since, like I said, that would be a contradiction. You can't exist before you exist lol. Really, it's about definition.
Unicorns have an essence to them because we can define what a unicorn is. But whatever you define a unicorn as, unless that unicorn is instantiated, then it doesn't exist. If I define a unicorn as a horse with a single horn in the middle of its forehead that can fly, well I don't see anything like that actually instantiated in the world, so it doesn't exist. But because it has a definition, a form to it, it does in a sense have an essence to it.
>Does this “essence” exist, is it real in any way? Then existence is at the very least co-arising with essence if not prior to essence. If not, then it makes to sense to speak of a non-existent essence preceding existence.
I think you're getting a bit confused about the logic here. Obviously it'd be weirdly redundant to say that essence precedes existence because essence exists before existence... but that's not what's really being said when it's claimed essence comes before existence.
As said here >>17813188 and here >>17812765 essence is that which something is and is intimately tied up with a thing's definition. Existence is just the act of an essence being instantiated. When you say that something exists, it means the same thing as saying something is really instantiated or present in the world or whatever domain of discourse you are talking about. If existence comes before essence then what are you saying? Does this imply something could be instantiated without any properties? So it's not so much that essence is "out there" before it comes into existence since, like I said, that would be a contradiction. You can't exist before you exist lol. Really, it's about definition.
Unicorns have an essence to them because we can define what a unicorn is. But whatever you define a unicorn as, unless that unicorn is instantiated, then it doesn't exist. If I define a unicorn as a horse with a single horn in the middle of its forehead that can fly, well I don't see anything like that actually instantiated in the world, so it doesn't exist. But because it has a definition, a form to it, it does in a sense have an essence to it.
Replies:
Anonymous
7/4/2025, 10:18:12 PM No.17814861
>>17814831
>Obviously it'd be weirdly redundant to say that essence precedes existence because essence exists before existence...
>When you say that something exists, it means the same thing as saying something is really instantiated or present in the world or whatever domain of discourse you are talking about.
Yeah it sounds to me like you’re making the same move as the Neoplatonists here. Hence the language of “something” as in concrete instantiations or particulars existing. In this way it may make sense to claim that “essence precedes existence”.
>If existence comes before essence then what are you saying? Does this imply something could be instantiated without any properties?
I can’t speak for anyone else, but when I say existence precedes essence I mean that absolute being is always prior to individual, particular, relative beingS. Perhaps I could better state my position as “Being precedes essence” if only to shake off any baggage associated with the word “existence”. This is how the Neoplatonists say that the One is “beyond being and non-being”, because for them, like it seems for you, “being” is conceived of not as the absolute reality underlying the ever-changing phenomenal world, but as the set containing every existing “thing”. Being to me could not be properly considered a “thing”, it is “no-thing” and it is because of this that it pervades every limited being.
>Obviously it'd be weirdly redundant to say that essence precedes existence because essence exists before existence...
>When you say that something exists, it means the same thing as saying something is really instantiated or present in the world or whatever domain of discourse you are talking about.
Yeah it sounds to me like you’re making the same move as the Neoplatonists here. Hence the language of “something” as in concrete instantiations or particulars existing. In this way it may make sense to claim that “essence precedes existence”.
>If existence comes before essence then what are you saying? Does this imply something could be instantiated without any properties?
I can’t speak for anyone else, but when I say existence precedes essence I mean that absolute being is always prior to individual, particular, relative beingS. Perhaps I could better state my position as “Being precedes essence” if only to shake off any baggage associated with the word “existence”. This is how the Neoplatonists say that the One is “beyond being and non-being”, because for them, like it seems for you, “being” is conceived of not as the absolute reality underlying the ever-changing phenomenal world, but as the set containing every existing “thing”. Being to me could not be properly considered a “thing”, it is “no-thing” and it is because of this that it pervades every limited being.
Replies:
Anonymous
7/4/2025, 10:31:11 PM No.17814898
>>17814861
>Yeah it sounds to me like you’re making the same move as the Neoplatonists here. Hence the language of “something” as in concrete instantiations or particulars existing. In this way it may make sense to claim that “essence precedes existence”.
Indeed. Pic rel.
>Perhaps I could better state my position as “Being precedes essence”
>because for them, like it seems for you, “being” is conceived of not as the absolute reality underlying the ever-changing phenomenal world, but as the set containing every existing “thing”. Being to me could not be properly considered a “thing”, it is “no-thing” and it is because of this that it pervades every limited being.
I think I understand what you're saying. I'm not sure if being is really a category of metaphysics though. Maybe it's just a logical category. For Aristotle, being can be said in many different ways. It doesn't necessarily denote existence, which is what you seem to be substituting it for. To be white is not the same as to be a horse. Being, then, is nothing more than a logical connector denoting what can be predicated by substance or accident as I said above e.g. "Socrates is a man" e.g. "Picket fences are white". The real question here is if we have a univocal concept of being like Duns Scotus thought, or if our concept of being really does differ between categories
>Yeah it sounds to me like you’re making the same move as the Neoplatonists here. Hence the language of “something” as in concrete instantiations or particulars existing. In this way it may make sense to claim that “essence precedes existence”.
Indeed. Pic rel.
>Perhaps I could better state my position as “Being precedes essence”
>because for them, like it seems for you, “being” is conceived of not as the absolute reality underlying the ever-changing phenomenal world, but as the set containing every existing “thing”. Being to me could not be properly considered a “thing”, it is “no-thing” and it is because of this that it pervades every limited being.
I think I understand what you're saying. I'm not sure if being is really a category of metaphysics though. Maybe it's just a logical category. For Aristotle, being can be said in many different ways. It doesn't necessarily denote existence, which is what you seem to be substituting it for. To be white is not the same as to be a horse. Being, then, is nothing more than a logical connector denoting what can be predicated by substance or accident as I said above e.g. "Socrates is a man" e.g. "Picket fences are white". The real question here is if we have a univocal concept of being like Duns Scotus thought, or if our concept of being really does differ between categories
Replies:
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 1:11:55 AM No.17815218
>>17814898
>I'm not sure if being is really a category of metaphysics though.
I would say it is. Ontology is primarily concerned with being and its relation to particular beings and existence. What would it mean for being to be nothing more than a logical category? Being must transcend logic, but it is also the ground of all “beings” or “existents”. When you said a unicorn “does not exist”, what is it missing? That is Being, which transcends the unicorn and all other possible beings, but without which they would not appear. It is not like when we say “the cat is fat” where fat is an attribute of the cat, but more like saying “the ring is gold”, gold is the very substance, or being, of the ring, without which it would not appear. I reject the Scotist conception of being, and if we’re staying within the realm of Western philosophy I think Aquinas got it right saying that we can speak of being itself only analogically, not univocally. I’m thinking more along the lines of Parmenides desu, the analog for Neoplatonic philosophy would be the One, except I would disagree with them only on semantics. For me “Absolute being”, is identical to “the One”.
>I'm not sure if being is really a category of metaphysics though.
I would say it is. Ontology is primarily concerned with being and its relation to particular beings and existence. What would it mean for being to be nothing more than a logical category? Being must transcend logic, but it is also the ground of all “beings” or “existents”. When you said a unicorn “does not exist”, what is it missing? That is Being, which transcends the unicorn and all other possible beings, but without which they would not appear. It is not like when we say “the cat is fat” where fat is an attribute of the cat, but more like saying “the ring is gold”, gold is the very substance, or being, of the ring, without which it would not appear. I reject the Scotist conception of being, and if we’re staying within the realm of Western philosophy I think Aquinas got it right saying that we can speak of being itself only analogically, not univocally. I’m thinking more along the lines of Parmenides desu, the analog for Neoplatonic philosophy would be the One, except I would disagree with them only on semantics. For me “Absolute being”, is identical to “the One”.
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 6:30:34 AM No.17815763
>>17811250 (OP)
Matters not. Only the progression and refinement. Trouble is defining optimal refinement and pursuing it.
Matters not. Only the progression and refinement. Trouble is defining optimal refinement and pursuing it.
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 6:55:19 AM No.17815807
>>17812765
what something is cannot be defined before the thing exists
what something is cannot be defined before the thing exists
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 1:19:46 PM No.17816242
Why is there evolution? Why do we have instincts? Why are there laws of physics? How do all the particles and molecules know exactly how they're meant to react to one another?
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 1:23:56 PM No.17816249
> To existentialists, human beings—through their consciousness—create their own values and determine a meaning for their life because the human being does not possess any inherent identity or value
That sounds like the gobbledygook you'd expect to hear at gender studies
That sounds like the gobbledygook you'd expect to hear at gender studies