Does existence precedes essence?

[Forkbender]

The rabbit hides behind the tree.

 

[GOD]

He also leaves shit currants everywhere he goes .

 

[greenwizard]

I don't know what a currant is. my english is still limited

 

[GOD]

http://www.crfg.org/pubs/ff/currants.html

But in this case it means rabit shit .

 

[greenwizard]

oh, ok.



to materials and objects have essence?

 

[maxfreakout]

do materials and objects have essence?

not in themselves no, 'essence' is something that consciousness (uniquely) projects onto things

 

[restin]

even dog shit has it ideal form and ideal.


but the essence of dog shit lies in not only itself, but in everything that its a part of it.

but sticking to living beings, specially humans.

my point was, if a human IS, it exists, but how can something merely exist without having an ideal form or OBJECTIVE, PURPOSE.



from the moment, that something IS, its essence is created as well.

hmm, did you read my answer? This quote is very specific and does not talk about purposes !!

Existence = Nurture

Essence = Nature

Sartre says: Nurture > Nature

Because: Every man is the sum of his acts.

His acts = Nurture

 

[greenwizard]

so the essence of something is not by itself real, unless consciously someone projects it.

 

[maxfreakout]

so the essence of something is not by itself real, unless consciously someone projects it.

there is never any 'real essence', essence is ONLY ever 'projected', projected onto things by consciousness, it doesnt become real by being projected, rather its projectedness is its unreality

consciousness ALWAYS projects (completely hollow and unreal) essences onto things, that is just what consciousness does, but the things themselves completely lack any 'real' essence (by 'real' i mean separate from conscious projection)


life is meaningless because things do not possess any inherent essence, people attempt to create meaning, in a neverending, futile attempt to justify their existence in the world. That is the Sartrean 'fundamental project' of consciousness - to forever deny the absolute lack of meaning

 

[restin]

so the essence of something is not by itself real, unless consciously someone projects it.

Not as I see it. Every Thing has an essence and the universal essence unites them all.

consciousness ALWAYS projects (completely hollow and unreal) essences onto things, that is just what consciousness does, but the things themselves completely lack any 'real' essence (by 'real' i mean separate from conscious projection)

You don't mean essence, you mean definition. Indeed, humans tend to give definitions to things but what the essence really is is indeed still disputed.

life is meaningless because things do not possess any inherent essence, people attempt to create meaning, in a neverending, futile attempt to justify their existence in the world. That is the Sartrean 'fundamental project' of consciousness - to forever deny the absolute lack of meaning

essence= causality
meaning= finality

Even if life has no meaning this does not conclude that it has no essence.

Causality=Causa=Cause=where does it come from? = What is the origin?

The essence is therefore the absolute origin of a Thing or, if seen globally, the First (thing).

If you say that a thing has no essence, you say that everything is the same resp. there is no difference in different things. This brings up quite some problems.

If you say that there is no absolute essence (neither common nor different) then you are in trouble. Because then you say that nothing exists and if you say nothing exists then there already is an essence -- nothingness. 8)

 

[poisoninthestain]

Causality is only relevant as long as there is a time component.

I view essence and existance as splitting hairs off the same strand.

If existance were to precede essence of what essence would there be in existance? if essence were to precede existance of what existance would there be in essence?

The moment one is manifest the other is there. Really the only divide is in language or words to refer to or point to the same thing/concept.

 

[significationof?!?]

My view on it tends to agree with Sartre (though I haven't read much of his philosophy, mainly his speech L'existentialisme est un humanisme, which is very clear and goes straight to each point he wants to make, a must-read in my opinion.

I don't however understand exactly what he means by "essence". For example, one's values are determined by his actions (or defined constantly by them). Is there any difference between this person's "essence" and the sum of his actions? If not then there is no real essence, there is only existence, and the sum of existence? Am I getting something wrong here, if simply in terminology?