What comes first: the: the essence or the existence?

Question

By essence I mean - paraphrasing the most intelligent person who has ever lived on this Earth (named Aristotle) - that abstract thing that permeates/that is throught/that is "in" the specie; and by existence: the concret thing itself (and, after, the abstraction we humans do from it, which is not the essence but merely a representation [image] of that thing or a concept [idea]).

Ok. What comes first for you, according to your understanding of these things...?

Ie.
I've a personal answer fot that.

Answer 1

I think, using your definitions, that Aristotle would say the "existence" comes first. The reason for this being that the essence, again using your definitions, is something always predicated of an existent (or the concrete things itself) and never the other way around. If you take a particular man, for example, the essence "man" is predicated of that particular man. But that particular man is not predicated of "man" itself. Because of this, I think he would say that because if no particular men existed at all, there would be nothing to predicate the essence, man, of at all, and therefore the essence would not exist. Put in plain language, if no men existed at all, then the essence "man" would not exist, therefore the essence is dependent upon the concrete thing, what you call the "existence", for its own existence, and therefore essence is secondary.

This is my limited understanding of what he was saying, correct me if I am wrong. Do I agree with him? Hmmm . . . I must admit I don't fully grasp the distinction between the abstract image of things and "essence". If essence is transcendental, I fail to see how the "essence" of a computer keyboard could have existed prior to the actual existence of the first computer keyboard. If it is conceptual, then clearly the idea of a computer keyboard existed before the first actual computer keyboard, because by virtue of what was the keyboard made? But if concepts are abstractions derived from a concrete thing, how did the concrete thing known as a computer keyboard come into existence prior to an idea of how to make it? How can a man-made form come into existence prior to any idea about that form? If both the essence and the abstract idea were dependent upon the concrete thing itself for its existence, then how did the idea of the computer keyboard that was necessary to construct it arise in the first place? If essence is separate from the abstract idea, where does it exist, where can it be found, what evidence is there of it?

It seems to me that what Aristotle refers to as a particular thing, or an existent (existence, to use your term) is the conceptual idea of a particular thing. In no place does he, to my knowledge, convincingly demonstrate a knowledge or proof of the independence of the idea of an individual thing from the individual thing itself per se, even assuming there is such a thing. When we see a particular man, for example, and know that that is "John Doe", how do we, or anyone else, know this except conceptually? And apart from concepts, where can John Doe be found? How would we know of John Doe as a singular unit without concepts, without ideas? How would we know where John Doe began and where he ended? How would we know his legs, torso, head, speech, personality, etc, all belonged to John Doe? Indeed, Aristotle's very idea that a primary substance is that which everything is predicated of only makes sense conceptually. We predicate all these qualities of John Doe conceptually, why should we assume that just because that is how we conceptually organize single units, like John Doe, that those single units are most real . . . apart from our minds? What would John Doe be apart from all the constituent parts we predicate of him? And aren't those parts generals (i.e., essences)? If John Doe had no flesh, bones, thoughts, personality, actions, behavior, sound, appearance, or anything else, what would John Doe be, how would such a thing even exist? On the otherhand, if we did not have this singular unit, John Doe, upon which we predicated all these attributes, to what would we predicate them?

I have to wonder if entire distinction between what you call essence and existence is just the human conceptual distinction between particulars and generals, with Aristotle making the simple point that generals are conceptually dependent upon conceptual particulars. But is that even true? Perhaps, but then one must ask if a general idea of a new creation, like a computer keyboard, is not first generated in the mind, how do any particular computer keyboards or ideas of computer keyboards come into existence? On the otherhand, how do we imagine computer keyboards in general if we do not envision a particular keyboard?

Conceptually, there is nothing to say that the idea of a unicorn cannot exist independently of an actual existing unicorn. There is also nothing to say that an actual existing unicorn, as a single unit, is not also merely an idea (where is the proof of its actual singular concrete existence, even assuming it did exist). But if we do not imagine a particular unicorn, how do we imagine unicorn in general? And if we cannot imagine unicorn in general, how do we imagine particular unicorns when no particular unicorns exist?

When you say the "individual man" or a "particular man" where is the man? Where is the particular? How do you find these things apart from the general concepts? To say that the existent man is prior to the general categories under which he falls is to imply that without these categories the idea of a particular man could still exist, whereas we wouldn't even know what a man, or a particular, was. On the otherhand, if there were no particulars, how could there be generals? How could we imagine "man" in general without imagining particular men?

All this makes me think that neither essence, nor existence, are prior, and that they are co-dependent and co-arising.

Answer 2

The essence of any object precedes that object by definition. The object's ‎‎‎substance must be there to start building the object. Example: wall and bricks. ‎‎‎The concept of the wall may precede the brick, but there must be bricks to start ‎‎‎building a wall. Similarly, no material "object" exists before its substance. ‎

However, your question does not ask about "existing objects"; it asks "What ‎‎‎comes first: the essence or the existence?" ‎

Now, to "exist" means to occupy a "space" and take a "form" and have ‎‎‎‎"dimensions". Without shape or form, or any other tool or measuring device ‎compatible with our mind's workings, the concept of "existence" is hard to grasp, ‎if not impossible. "Matter" is difficult to ‎‎grasp too. The "essence of matter" is ‎even more difficult to grasp, because our mind ‎‎forms concepts by imagining ‎relations, and relations denote separate forms or ‎‎shapes, i.e., separate objects. ‎Therefore, you can imagine a hollow triangle or ‎‎square, but you cannot imagine ‎‎"matter" or "substance" or "essence" without ‎‎shape or form. The reason why you ‎can perceive a hollow triangle is that it has ‎dimensions, borders, lines that denote ‎the existence of matter (the lines are the ‎matter), while "essence" has no identity, ‎no lines, no borders, no dimensions - ‎hence, no perceived existence. We can only ‎say an object exists "as soon as" it ‎has ‎assumed a shape and taken space. But we ‎cannot say "its essence" exists as ‎long ‎as it cannot be perceived by the senses.‎

If, however, your argument is about "existence" as an abstract concept, the logic ‎‎‎of our minds says "the act of existing cannot be performed without an essence to ‎‎‎exist. Nor essence can be perceived if it does not exist". Thus, even by using ‎‎‎abstract logic, essence and existence take place instantaneously and ‎simultaneously. In other words, they exist at the same time, and can be perceived ‎as two "co-existing" identities only after they have existed. ‎

Imagine creating an "essence". What do you perceive? ... The moment the ‎‎‎essence is created, it exists. Before it is created, "its existence" is still unnoticed; ‎‎‎hence does not exist. None of the two can exist independently. ‎‎Looking at the ‎problem this way, we cannot say that "existence" has a concept ‎‎without its object, ‎nor the object without existence. It might be more logical; ‎‎however, to say that ‎existence is a concept "resulting" from the concept of the "‎‎just being created" ‎essence or object.‎

To sum up, "Essence and existence co-exist by an act of creation. But not before ‎‎‎the essence has taken a shape and occupied a space, that we can recognize its ‎‎‎existence.‎ Remember, all the above argument is within the limitations of the ‎‎mind. If philosophy takes us further, and wants to know which exists first, ‎‎essence or existence, BEYOND our mind's limitations, then any answer will be ‎‎hypothetical; a theory that can be proved right or wrong AFTER the mind crosses ‎‎the borders of its limitations, and not before. And to get to know THAT answer, ‎‎you have to wait until the mind has discovered more of its magnificent potentials ‎‎‎- two to three thousand years from now - or maybe longer.‎

Answer 3

Existence. "Essence" is the thing that forces a definition. Definitions are not "real" attributes of objects, that is to say that a cat does not posess "essence of cat" which makes it a cat. If it did then it wouldn't matter if the cat barks and p*sses on trees, if it had "essence of cat" it would be a cat! If it barked and p*ssed on trees I could call it a "dog" if I liked. I could call it a wallaby if I realy wanted to: there are no universals in nature that force definitions on us.

Essences do not exist.

"But surely!", you'll say, that would mean that everything Satre, Hegel, the Phenomologists, Heidegger and, basically, anyone outside of English language or Vienna Circle philosophy since Kant must have been talking utter rubbish".

Yup.

Answer 4

No, The essence of a being is id, character. without the essence there could be no life or manifestation. The essence has no beginning up or end, it relatively is eternal, the place life shows a beginning up and an end. additionally be conscious that each and each word gets a distinctive meaning while used in the context of rely or while used in the context of spirit, on condition that spirit and rely are 2 distinctive energies with distinctive characteristics. not understanding the version suitable, we usually exchange into trapped in word-jugglery.

Answer 5

According to Sartre "existence precedes essence." In his eyes, existence is an abstraction that is impossible to completely be understood by the human mind, yet, he did said that objects are created and then and only then is their essence provided to them. He said that essence is a human concept, that in reality without us, objects wouldn't have essences, only existence, since we are the ones who provide names, meanings, definitions (the essence in things) etc... For example, it is impossible, philosophically, to contemplate the true essence of something, like a chair (the name, its meaning) without having the object first, the existence of it. This concept is the base of modern existencialism, putting existence and its understanding above everything else.

Answer 6

I never got to hang out with him,,,sigh,,, but my personal feeling is that an essence, in the strict sense of the word, likely happens at the moment of conception, or certainly, birth.

By existing then, we have the opportunity to evolve with, grow into, mature through, and enjoy OUR individual essence as well as share it, and relate to anothers.

Steven Wolf

BTW,,, The jury is still out on WHO might be the most intelligent.

Answer 7

well if we assume that mathematics works-(ie that abstact thing)
then that nature of space itself, must predate the application of that nature to that which exists within it -(that is not to say the two are not a gestalt)

that is to say the absolute perfection of the nature of reality- which is percieved through beauty and mathematics, must exist first as nature and existance is goverened by it

thats if we assume that space exists before matter
which is really fair enough seeing as space is no-thing

this seems the natural path of logic- and would be the assumption from the normal physics point of view

alternatively quantum physicis offers other perspectives, if we look to the work of bohm, re. "the holographic universe", we could potentially take his ideas further and assume that in fact all existance is in reality a projection of consciousness and could flexibly from that assume that the nature and the concrete arise as one and are inseperable and can not be seperated into first and second

to be fully honest with ourseleves however, as the question cuts to the heart of what we believe about reality and its nature and our identity

to quote another famous man- ;-)
"the one thing i can say with absolute certainty is that i know nothing"

and as i do not know what reality is, who i am, or what the essence or concrete are either
i cannot from this limited perspective make any judgement on the matter that can be proven by observation or logic

Answer 8

For Sartre, the question of whether existence precedes essence is determined by that which one is referencing. Are we talking about etre-en-soi or etre-pour-soi? In the case of the former, essence precedes existence; with respect to the latter, existence precedes essence. It simply depends on which type of being (etre) one is referencing.

Answer 9

Existence is thought manifested, so you would think that essense came first. But in order to be essense, you need to have a reference for thought to be, of which comes only by manifestation. I think the two would have to be one at the begining and then just split instaneously, and became our dual reality.

Answer 10

Everything comes into "existence" twice. First in the realm of the "mind" or spirit that is in the "invisible world" and after that in the physical or " visible world".