Is the axiom "Existence *necessarily* precedes essence" like the axiom:"Every effect is preceded by a cause" ?

Question

Existence Precedes Essence
From Austin Cline,
Your Guide to Agnosticism / Atheism.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
Themes and Ideas in Existentialist Thought
Originated by Jean-Paul Sartre, the phrase “existence precedes essence” has come to be a classic, even defining, formulation of the heart of existentialist philosophy. It’s an idea which turns traditional metaphysics on its head because throughout Western philosophy, it was always assumed that the “essence” or “nature” of a thing is more fundamental and eternal than its mere “existence.” Thus, if you want to understand a thing, what you must do is learn more about its “essence.”

It should be understood that Sartre does not apply this principle universally, but only to humanity. Sartre argued that there were essentially two kinds of being. The first is being-in-itself (l’en-soi), which is characterized as fixed, complete, and having absolutely no reason for its being — it just is.

This describes the world of external objects. The second is being-for-itself (le pour-soi), which is characterized as dependent upon the former for its existence. It has no absolute, fixed, eternal nature and describes the state of humanity.
Sartre, like Husserl, argued that it is an error to treat human beings in the same way we treat external objects. When we consider, for example, a hammer, we can understand its nature by listing its properties and examining the purpose for which it was created. Hammers are made by people for certain reasons — in a sense, the “essence” or “nature” of a hammer exists in the mind of the creator before the actual hammer exists in the world. Thus, one can say that when it comes to things like hammers, essence precedes existence.

But is the same true of human beings? Traditionally this was assumed to be the case because people believed that humans were created by God. According to traditional Christian mythology, humanity was created by God through a deliberate act of will and with specific ideas in mind — God knew what was to be made before humans ever existed. Thus, in the context of Christianity, humans are like hammers because the “essence” (nature, characteristics) of humanity existed in the eternal mind of God before any actual humans existed in the world. "

see : http://atheism.about.com/od/existentialistthemes/a/existence.htm

axioms are self-evident statements which make sense. Axioms are logical but not empirically verifiable.

Any person who has studied Plato & Aristotle knows this statement to be historically correct: "It’s an idea which turns traditional metaphysics on its head because throughout Western philosophy, it was always assumed that the “essence” or “nature” of a thing is more fundamental and eternal than its mere “existence.” For someone to dispute that is hard to understand. I also think I made it clear in what sense the "axioms are alike when Isaid these pts about both of them: "axioms are self-evident statements which make sense. Axioms are logical but not empirically verifiable." My comparison is not an analogy because it compares 2 axioms. Both axioms are members of the same class of axioms --the same genera. I did not want to complicate my comparison by mentioning that both axioms are of a class of axioms Kant would call them "synthetic a priori statements. (I did not mention this for the sake of brevity & I didn't want to add another concept or issue that leads to irrelevant digressions.

For someone to say they "smell a tautology" indictes they did not understand the points made. Anyone can nitpick a Q w/vague stmts without addressing the focus of the Q which is the nature of the type, class, or kind of axioms.

offtopic comment:

BTW, Kant spoke about "existence" as not being a property like the color "blue" and therefore not to be used as like a predicate. He considered it as illogical to use it that way. He made the point when he demolished all ontological proofs for the existence of god.

I add details and expanatory comments to my Q's to provide a context and emphasize the focus of the Q. Given the observed tendency of so many Answerers to wander and criticize anything and everything mentioned by the Q-asker I find it hard to get answers that are helpful and focused where I think my Q is focused. It's frustrating and distressing that so few can "get it"--the point of the Q.

when one asks a question, labeling the Q a red herring argument is ridiculous. That someone would do so off-the-bat shows they use the label carelessly and inappropiately. It does not conform to any standard definition of the metaphorical expression. It is unnecessarily dismissive in the way the expression has introjected.

It s an Incorrect inference and it seems ugly to miscategorize someone you are gettingo know by saying:

by Yaoi Shonen-ai Member since:
October 01, 2007
Total points:
2554 (Level 4)
Add to My Contacts

Block User

" You know it is. I suspect this is a case of honking your own horn (your Guide.) No problem with that in my book, but when you know the answer, don't ask the question." Please see new Q's inspired by your ad hominem put down.

Answer 1

Red herring. Assertions about existence limit us to more consideration about the anxious individual instrument. Humanity can be accomplished, thankfully, through a variety of self-forgetting means. What Sartre, or Camus, represent is hardly novel for those who grasp the weight of what Heidegger accomplished in the 1920's.

Metaphysics was never "turned on its head". However, the fundamental/traditional problems of Metaphysics declined in importance as the individual thinker began to assign History more priority in the service required by the vague essence of
technological progress.

Q. How to spot naive atheists? A. They herd together and subscribe.

The question, regardless, smells tautological. *Is the axiom...like the axiom...* Scientific thought, classification, ect., has but one rubric under which all the axioms become known. Intermittent comparison and postulation signifies scientific inquiry, it does not secure it. Science finds that it can't explain itself: the intelligible unity and oneness of Being thus far preserved for the seeking.

Addendum. Any sideways approach to what should be confronted face-to-face is a red herring.

Plato and Aristotle do make themselves known to non-philosophers through historiographic filters. Philosophers, however, communicate to each other about the most important topics through what is either not expressly stated or stated inconsistently. For a person concerned with the relation between axioms, much clarification through statements does seem a necessary enterprise. One fellow will be proud he is correct about certain matters while the other could care less, or perhaps intentionally prevaricate when the issues are "trivial".

Answer 2

You know it is. I suspect this is a case of honking your own horn (your Guide.) No problem with that in my book, but when you know the answer, don't ask the question.