[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 240 KB, 873x873, satrte.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16277571 No.16277571 [Reply] [Original]

What is the difference between essence and being?

>> No.16277576

>what is the difference between water and drinking

>> No.16277579

>>16277576
how is drinking being?

>> No.16277588

>>16277579
They're both actions. When one is 'being' in the essence of life (or whatever) one engages in and consumes that essence.

>> No.16277597

>>16277588
So is essence not being, meaning it is not? There is no essence?

>> No.16277603

>>16277588
oh okay that makes more sense thank you.
So let me see if I got it:
Essence= the thing
Being= the thing in motion

>> No.16277620

>>16277597
Bitch now I'm even more confused kek

>> No.16277621

>>16277597
>there is no essence
How do you come to that conclusion. For me to consume or be-in there must be something to be consumed or to be being-in. Ya dig?

When water goes into a cup, it becomes the cup. Yes. But conversely, when water goes into a cup, the cup becomes a cup of water and water is what actually counts in that regard. Thus, when water goes into a cup, the cup becomes water. It's called a paradox.

>> No.16277629

>>16277603
That's a solid distinction. I highly advise to look into the hermetic principles if you want to get a better grasp on this because it deals directly with the reconciliation and distinction of opposites.

>> No.16277630

>>16277621
>When water goes into a cup, it becomes the cup. Yes. But conversely, when water goes into a cup, the cup becomes a cup of water and water is what actually counts in that regard

So its becoming, not being. So what does being mean?

>> No.16277634

>>16277629
>I highly advise to look into the hermetic principles if you want to get a better grasp on this because it deals directly with the reconciliation and distinction of opposites.

Will do! Any place you advise me to start?

>> No.16277635

compare them both as nouns

>> No.16277642

>>16277630
Being is the meta alpha-omega end/beginning point. Becoming is what's between. To be is to have no concern for becoming, for you already are, and are not striving to be what you want to be.

Look this shit can get schizo fast because it's an ancient question, just fyi

>> No.16277652

>>16277634
The Kybalion for a description of the principles, the corpus hermeticum and the emerald tablet for the actual text as it was written way back when.

>> No.16277657
File: 311 KB, 1000x1000, bee.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16277657

>>16277635
being
/ˈbiːJŋ/
noun

"the nature or essence"

>> No.16277665

>>16277621
I came to that conclusion because you said essence is not being, or being is not essence. If essence is not, then there is not no being.
> When water goes into a cup, it becomes the cup. Yes. But conversely, when water goes into a cup, the cup becomes a cup of water and water is what actually counts in that regard. Thus, when water goes into a cup, the cup becomes water. It's called a paradox.
This is honestly retarded. Explain how, in your mind, h2o going into a cup turns h2o into class, ceramic, or plastic.
I can agree that water + cup = (cup of water) OR (water with shape of cups internal volume) but I wi never concede that the water becomes the cup or vice versa

>> No.16277670

>>16277657
Looking into the semantics abyss, are we ? Don't worry, at some point it becomes fun.

The being is being, in and around its essence.

>> No.16277674

>>16277665
...then there is not essence.
Botched that pretty badly

>> No.16277679

>>16277576
>>16277579
>>16277588
>>16277597
>>16277603
>>16277620
>>16277621
>>16277629
>>16277630
>>16277634
>>16277635
>>16277642
>>16277652
>>16277657
>>16277665
Alright I think I fucking got it.
Being= The essence being present (Existing in the present moment)
Essence= The thing
Becoming= The Essence undergoing change

>> No.16277689

An essence would be the idea of a thing, its conceptual nature or that non-material idea of which the particular object is a reflection. Existence is that which physically materially exists within empirical intuition. When they say existence precedes essence they’re going against idealism, idealism stating that the idea of the object (whether as a form, a idea in the mind of god, a category within the mind or the like ) comes prior/before the existence and experience of the actual object. Thus to the existentialist existence comes before the idea, but the idea-essence is also the meaning, the context of a thing. If we create the essence (meaning, idea) upon essenceless existent matter, there is no meaning or context or category for anything. Thus the existential crisis occurs of ya know, all being meaningless, which they try to get around by saying, being doesn’t need a meaning because it isn’t a question or a problem, it’s just something you be, it’s something you do.


Imo existentialism doesn’t get it enough critique and that’s often because it’s putting itself up against a platonic strawman which doesn’t exist in the more refined ideal systems. Example in Husserl the existence and essence occur at once through intentionality, in Hegel the Concept and the actual are both a part of a broader category he calls Idea(usually translated with a big I, but doesn’t denote ideas as we normally mean them, this is because to Hegel if something is rational it is actual.) in both of these mature ideal and phenomenological systems existence and essence occur at once.

>> No.16277702

>>16277689
So Satre is saying we attatch the essence to the material while The Idealists claim the material is the manifestation of the essence?

>> No.16277724

>>16277665
>This is honestly retarded. Explain how, in your mind, h2o going into a cup turns h2o into class, ceramic, or plastic.
I can agree that water + cup = (cup of water) OR (water with shape of cups internal volume) but I wi never concede that the water becomes the cup or vice versa
No no you misunderstand. I'm not saying when h2o goes into ceramics, the ceramics magically turns to h2o. Just as the h2o doesn't magically turn into ceramics. What I mean is that basically it goes both ways. When water goes into a cup it's still water. And when a cup holds water, it now holds water. The contents of the cup are what matters. It is a cup of water now, and if I were to say 'give me that water over there' you would of course (hopefully) know that I mean the cup WITH the water, and not that I want you to pour the water into your hands or something. Yeah? What is meant by
>when water goes into a cup
Is a description of the adaptability of water, nothing more.

>I came to that conclusion because you said essence is not being, or being is not essence. If essence is not, then there is not no being.
Funny semantics are funny, aren't they. Essence is not equal to the action of being, just as much as being is not equal to essence. I didn't say that essence is not, I said more or less that essence is an object/subject thing, and being is (as another anon said) the object-in-motion. The everchanging neverchanging, so to speak. Does that make sense?

At the risk of it confusing you more: think of it as a wheel. The wheel is the essence, and when it turns very fast it looks as if still. Thus we call it being and not becoming. It is, and not becomes, in motion. And when the same wheel is not turning at all, then it is in a different state of being. The wheel is now not in motion, or rather, it is in not-motion. This would be the distinction (to my mind) between essence and being. Essence can be(-ing) sad, but it can also be happy and still be the same essence.

>> No.16277732

>>16277702

Yes, and thus to Sartre the meaning and essence of thing is created by the subjective individual and is itself a construct, and these fundamentally can all be traced down the line back to Heidegger and from Heidegger back to Nietzsche stating that it is the individual Will which defines all And this can be found to root in Schopenhauer stating the thing in itself is the Will.

The Naive basic idealism(which doesn’t really exist in any of the more developed systems) say essence emanates/manifest the existence by spitting/projecting it out somehow. Existentialism logically lends itself more to materialism and absurdism. There’s obviously complex justifications and analysis of both but I think the phenomenological argument is superior to both.

>> No.16277733
File: 177 KB, 1000x1000, c6b.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16277733

>>16277679
You got it

>> No.16277758

>>16277732
>The Naive basic idealism(which doesn’t really exist in any of the more developed systems) say essence emanates/manifest the existence by spitting/projecting it out somehow. Existentialism logically lends itself more to materialism and absurdism

I mean its pretty useless to try to prove if something exists outside us or emanates from us. At the end of the day the essence does project itself in the material. The process might be different but the concept is the same

>> No.16277777

>>16277724
I think I understand where you are coming from, though I will clarify my position by saying I think I am equating my “being” with your “essence”, and my idea of “existence” (which I haven’t brought up) with your “being”.
The main contention I have with saying essence is prior to being is that the statement “essence either is, or is not” is intelligible, and, if it is, then it is related to being, or if it not, then there is no such thing as essence (which is obviously ridiculous).
In my mind, being is not an action in any sense of that word, and this is something I have wrestled with many times. Feel free to comment. Metaphysics is always interesting

>> No.16277793

>>16277702

Note as I realized I didn’t get into what being is. Being is existence-in-time, the phenomenological experience of existing, the fundamental structure of being to Sartre and Heidegger is Sorge, care, what you care about. This is the care structure, so how you live your life shapes how you exist dependent on your desires and Will, to the point that your manner of existence(being, dasein) is identical to your Will-desires (this is the Nietzsche connection) so your idea-essences in their relationship with your Will/Care radically shape how you exist, but in this model are not the origin of your existence. So my idea (Knowledge of this essence )of hunger, of strength or of knowledge or anything can radically change how I live my life and how I exist, but my existence comes prior to this. My being-in-time.

To summarize

Essence=ideal conceptions of meaning applied by the individual
Care/Will=the structure of how you exist in relation to the world
Existence=The world as a prior ground of which we are all thrown into, which exists before us and shall exist after
Being=existing as a particular individual thing within existence, which has existence but has peculiar traits due to time, Will, care, etc.

>> No.16277807

>>16277758

I feel where you’re coming from but try reading Husserl’s Cartesian meditations or his book “ideas” They’re both very very strong arguments For both occurring at once being the natural experience of phenomena of which we are given by perception.

>> No.16277817

>>16277571
Seriously how tf does one not become a schizo by studying metaphysics kek

>> No.16277822

>>16277817
You just pretend and eventually forget. It has its advantages

>> No.16277831

>>16277571
Who the fuck cares lol, have sex

>> No.16277845

>>16277831
Are you an actual person?

>> No.16277850

>>16277822
I mean yeah. If you know metaphysics you basically have a much better understanding of literally everything you encounter in your life by the simple virtue of enhanced patter recognition

>> No.16277861

>>16277850
>it's just enhanced pattern recognition
No, it's not. It's more. People aren't joking when they say metaphysics are real

>> No.16277877

>>16277861
I know. What I meant was the ability to detect the underlying structure of the problems/situations you encounter
I'm not disputing the existence of metaphysics in general

>> No.16277899

>>16277877
Ah yes, my bad

>> No.16277936

>>16277845
Incel cope

>> No.16277956

>>16277936
>Copecringecringebasedcringebasedcopecope
Bugman detected

>> No.16277959

>>16277571
Essence is the core of something in the state of being, also essence is permanent, being is temporary, essence is all-encompassing, being is only tied to that which lives

>> No.16278059

>>16277777
> (which I haven’t brought up)
Ah. Well I took it for granted since we're talking about things that may or may not exist.
>The main contention I have with saying essence is prior to being
Did you read that from my post? I don't think I made any claim on primogeniture, although I see how the distinction between object and object-in-motion might be interpreted as such. I have no solid opinion on whether object or motion comes first.
>if it not, then there is no such thing as essence (which is obviously ridiculous)
Tentatively agree but metaphysics that deal with the concept of qlipha (shells/wombs) posit that what is are layers and that in the combination of layers is found essence. In a sense that layers of existence come before and manifest (layers of) essence.
>In my mind, being is not an action in any sense of that word, and this is something I have wrestled with many times
Interesting. To my mind being is a state/action of stillness, of full involvement with whatever the object of being is at that given moment.

Also checked pents of metaphysics

>> No.16278114

>>16278059
Truth is, I’m not up-to-date on metaphysics. I found Plato and some of the Neo-platonics really intuitive and have since ran with their ideas as best as I understood them.
Regardless, I enjoyed our brief exchange but must be going. Good luck in your studies

>> No.16278142

>>16278114
Et tu, anon. I enjoyed it aswell