What do you guys think about the claim that "existence precedes essence"?

[Anonymous No.16938168]

My gut calls bullshit.

[Anonymous No.16938173]

>>16938168
The Archangel Michael told me that essence precedes existence but I think he was lying or at least overgeneralizing.

[Anonymous No.16938188]

>>16938168
>gut feelings
So this is the power of /lit/'s philosophers

[Anonymous No.16938204]

>>16938168
Nah, it's only really possible if you believe in free will. Once you take the atheism pill, then the materialism pill and then the determinism pill how could it be possible? Your essence is everything.

[Anonymous No.16938278]

>>16938188
The solar plexus is more powerful than the mind in finding Truth.

[Anonymous No.16938285]

>>16938168
It's for retards, and Heidegger rightly refuted it.

[Anonymous No.16938307]

>>16938204
But something non-existent has no essence

[Anonymous No.16938323]

>>16938285
What did he have to say about it?

[Anonymous No.16938340]

>>16938307
Essence without existence would just be an idea, like the architecture of a house that hasn't been built yet. But if you exist, you've got to already have essence.

[Anonymous No.16938343]

>>16938323
The question of being precedes any metaphysical questions of essence or existence. I.e. essence > existence.

[Anonymous No.16938371]

>>16938168
What are your guts saying exactly? A child exists in its parent's expectations before being given birth by its mother, for example. Or a novel exists in a writer's mind before it's actually been written.

[Anonymous No.16938379]

>>16938371
But neither of those are the essence of the child or novel.

[Anonymous No.16938404]

>>16938168
It's false, but so is the notion that essence precedes existence. Existence is coeval with essence.

[Anonymous No.16938421]

>>16938168
If you understand "exist" as a synonym for "be", it makes sense in a trivial way, as a claim that Being in general is logically prior to the beings (essences) of particular things. But I don't think that's what Jean-Paul Shart meant by this.

[Anonymous No.16938468]

>>16938421
It is what he means by it

[Anonymous No.16938497]

>>16938204
Materialism excludes essences

[Anonymous No.16938509]

>>16938497
Aristotle refuted this.

[Anonymous No.16938527]

>>16938497
Depends what you mean by both concepts.
Marx's materialism isn't physicalist
Husserl's essences includes idealities and generalities

[Anonymous No.16938544]

>>16938168

Why do Catholics, in particular, have a beef with the claim that "existence precedes essence"?

[Anonymous No.16938547]

>>16938527

Hope you aren't implying Husserl was a materialist, bro.

[Anonymous No.16938557]

>>16938544
Nah, it's just thot patrollers in general.

[Anonymous No.16938587]

>>16938547
no but late sartre is

[Anonymous No.16938652]

>>16938379
If you want to argue another meaning to the words "existence" and "essence" than the one Sartre intented, then of course this won't make sense to you.

[Anonymous No.16938714]

>>16938168
Here's a quick explanation of it by the author himself : "man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards".

[Anonymous No.16938737]

>>16938714
'defines himself'?? who cares how man defines himself. I define myself as a guy with a 12 inch cock. does that make my cock 12 inches? no.

[Anonymous No.16938745]

>>16938737
It's not supposed to mean what you say or think about yourself, but what your actions and decisions mold you to become.

[Anonymous No.16938753]

>>16938745
But those are the only actions and decisions you realistically could have made.

[Anonymous No.16938755]

>>16938745
and what determines how a man acts? his essence

[Anonymous No.16938777]

>>16938755
Not according to existentialism, which is the point of the quote. Sartre basically says that a man's fate is in its hands, and that he is completely responsible for his actions. If you want to believe instead that you're a passive tool in the hands of various kinds of determinism, that's your call (or an unavoidable consequence of your essence, some would say).

[Anonymous No.16938784]

>>16938755
His essence can be lent to him by others. But he will not feel himself to coincide with this. He will always have the freedom to break away from this. It can either be in good faith or bad faith. Man is his situation as a transcendence and facticity indistinguishable in everyday life

[Anonymous No.16938803]

>>16938777
It's not really a faith based position though is it?

[Anonymous No.16938837]

>>16938803
Kind of. You can believe you are born into a determined form, and raised in circumstances outside of your control, while also accepting that the responsability of your being after that is in your hands, that your choices and actions are what mold your essence. Or you can believe full determinism is unavoidable and is responsible for every aspect of your life and being. See yourself as a rolling stone.
I can't prove it's true, but I prefer the first option.

[Anonymous No.16938905]

>>16938837
I think it is possible to come to a definite conclusion about determinism, and based on what we know about physics and neuroscience so far it seems pretty difficult to argue that a materialist universe would be anything but determinist.

As for the behavioural implications of determinism I think that's a non-starter. Assuming determinism is true you can believe you're not responsible for your own self and relegate yourself to the path of least resistance so then in the long run proving you were essentially a loser all along. But, if such a life doesn't sound appealing then it's only inevitable to reject it, and if you do maybe you're not essentially a loser, maybe you're essentially based. Is your will reaching for the based life or the easy life?

[Anonymous No.16938914]

true in one sense
false in another

[Anonymous No.16938928]

>>16938421
>>16938468
I'm pretty sure he didn't mean Being precedes beings, otherwise he wouldn't be must different to the Heideggerian frame. He means any sort of value is preceded by the valueless.

[Brainlet No.16938952]

Can someone tell me what this guy did exactly that earned him a Nobel prize? Preferably in greentext in the most simplest way possible, as well.

[Anonymous No.16938963]

>>16938952
Being a commie Jew

[Anonymous No.16939040]

>>16938168
essence precedes existence

[Anonymous No.16939052]

>>16938952
The words

[Anonymous No.16939056]

>>16938952
He was trendy

[Anonymous No.16939059]

>>16938952
>nepotism
there

[Anonymous No.16939070]

>>16938952
>"for his work, which rich in ideas and filled with the spirit of freedom and the quest for truth, has exerted a far-reaching influence on our age"

[Anonymous No.16939080]

>>16938928
No. It actually means that. And he is close to heidegger at least in being and nothingness. Being for heidegger is not a concept mind you it's there in the judgement and must be elucidated in regards to dasein's temporality through the destruction of metaphysics heideggers thought is a kind of historism. A pseudo-idealism harking on being.
Nothingness to sartre is not a void it is what disperses and questions being into beings through questioning and being in the world. Value is beings lack. Nohingness unveils being from what it is now. My lack or incompleteness my demands of the world creates values

[Anonymous No.16939084]

>>16939080
*from what it is not

[Anonymous No.16939188]

>>16938905
For the based life. It fails, though, sometimes.

[Anonymous No.16939204]

>>16939080
Oh yeah? Seems to me like you've said very little pertaining to the actual meaning of "existence precedes essence", and are also not familiar with Heidegger's response to Sartre in his Letter on Humanism(for you make no mention of it).

What Sartre's philosophy ultimates into, is the utter rejection of Heidegger's lifelong endeavour.

[Anonymous No.16939617]

>>16938168
Makes sense to me. That is prior in the order of being to what

[Anonymous No.16939918]

>>16938204
Why would I take those pills

[Anonymous No.16940129]

>>16938168
I love how he literally looks like Pepe: The Human Being lmao, too bad his transportation to meet with Che wasn't sabotaged.

[Anonymous No.16940687]

>>16938168
Lol, Imagine believing in identities that exist before differenciating themselves from their backdrop. Imagine believing in these identities having a fixed essence. Essence neither precedes nor follows existence, since essence and existence in the traditional way are all made up bullshit, because reality is an everchanging flow of differences who through their interplay form perception.
Sartre drools, Deleuze rules.

[Anonymous No.16940800]

>>16938278
chest and pecspilled

[Anonymous No.16940922]

never read him, but his stuff is really that bad? was he wrong about everything?
anytime I see a thread about him its entirely filled with how wrong was he

[Anonymous No.16940929]

>>16940687
Big ups.

[Anonymous No.16940974]

>>16940922

4chan is filled with young people having a giggle and shitting on physiognomy. I'm not saying he was right but it's easy to dismiss him as wrong in a casual context on account of his lazy eye.

[Anonymous No.16940988]

>>16940922
french jew bourgeois who live to be a careerist intellectual and to have a gullible audience [99% female]

[Anonymous No.16941150]

>>16939204
Existence preceding essence is just one phrase in being and nothingness.
Existence to sartre entails nothingness as a kind of incompleteness of man from which spring values. The expression you talk of is quoted by heidegger strategically. If heidegger wants to write his own way that's fine others write their one way as well
Philosophy is more than hermeneutics to sartre

[doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH No.16941154]

>>16938168
It's a false dichotomy.

[Anonymous No.16941309]

Transcendent being is higher than Essence because essence is form and order. To the Greeks Perfection was form. In some ways It's Unbecoming to an infinite God. but the perfection, beauty, form and order of the revealed part of God is somewhat known.

Things get confusing because people mean different things when they say existence, being, non-being, Essence, energy, freedom, becoming...

Freedom is before things. It is the groundless ground. Freedom is non-being. Freedom is the Eternal now. It's pure potential. It's Moksha, Enlightenment, the godhead and Nirvana. It's the Divine Darkness, the bright blinding light of God.

the Trinity is a summarization of a process of God actualizing himself. It's God thinking about himself, God imagining himself, God knowing himself, God dreaming himself...We each are a being that is being actualized. We are Becoming manifest and becoming more manifest, like a solar flare that goes out of the Sun and then goes back into it.

[Anonymous No.16941643]

>>16939188
But surely being essentially almost based is better than being essentially not based at all?

[Anonymous No.16941650]

>>16940687
Based

[Anonymous No.16942833]

>>16941643
Yes, but being based and feeling based can be two quite different things.

[Anonymous No.16942843]

>>16940687
>essence and existence are made up
> reality is an everchanging flow of differences who through their interplay form perception

[Anonymous No.16942855]

>>16940687
there can be no differences without concepts to apprehend them.