Does one have to happen before the other? or are they mutually intertwined?
2006-09-27 05:25:53 · 8 answers · asked by Balaboo 5 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
I suspect that this primordial level is logically “prior to” temporality and causation, so questions of which comes first are probably illegitimate. I believe that the ultimate ground of everything is beyond the categories of existence and essence. Heidegger tried to call this primordial level “Beyng” – which is the common ground for both Being and Nothingness. This level is indeterminate, and thus is not an essence of any sort, but rather, it is the ground out of which essences arise (as they become determinate). If you want to say that Beyng “exists” then we would have to say that it is prior to essence, but since Beyng embraces both Being and Nothingness, I don’t think it is very useful to apply the category of existence to it.
2006-09-27 06:03:33 · answer #1 · answered by eroticohio 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
It depends what you are talking about.
If you are talking about a living thing such as a human or a tree, then existence came first. It had to exist before it can posses an essence.
If you are talking about a piece of artwork, a book, a building or anything that has not spontaneously come into existence of its own accord, then essence comes first as the creator of that object or idea has to feel the essence of the idea before they can solidify it and bring it into existence.
If you were religious you might say that essence always comes first, as God, the all creator, grasped us in essence before he created us. But I am not so I won't.
Existence first for natural things, essence for man-made.
2006-09-27 05:53:59 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Essence does not necessarily exists. it is logically possible that essence may be a pseudo-category in itself or it may be conceivable without actual having real being (e.g. triangularity is conceivable, even if triangles do not exist).
Which comes first? It depends on your presuppositions and whether essence itself is a legitimate concept. Do entities have essences or should we speak in terms of voces/nomina or typicality conditions?
2006-09-27 08:14:24 · answer #3 · answered by sokrates 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe Essence comes first, it would be the ingredients to create existence.
2006-09-27 05:31:25 · answer #4 · answered by barn_goddess 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Existence first, then you build up an essence.
2006-09-27 06:50:17 · answer #5 · answered by James P 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Essence exists, right? The existence of existence is implied; therefore, existence is always first.
2006-09-27 05:36:52 · answer #6 · answered by Display Name 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
im going to follow the great Sartre and say that existence precedes essence
2006-09-27 07:06:31 · answer #7 · answered by vick 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
doesn't something have to exist before it has an anything .?
2006-09-27 05:52:50 · answer #8 · answered by jsjmlj 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋