How many of you agree with "existance precedes essence"?

Question

The existentialist idea that we're born without a "nature", no predetermined personality etc.

I'm a bit skeptical of this really.

Answer 1

I don't agre with jean paul Sartre. For something to exist it must first possess a specific reality. This reality is what Socrates and the Scholastic philosophers defined as "essence" or the "quiditas".
Something existing without an essence or a "what is it" defining it, is like saying that the unicorns exist, and since existence comes first then they don't need an essence to do so.
The existentialist philosophy denies essence, but has other questions relating to the human experience that they put forth brilliantly and strongly: Such as the absurdity that the fact of existing conveys to an intelligent being that knows that he is already here but can't see why of for what, being divided between two eternities and confronted with his ownj imminent destiny: death.
Is a profound question for us all to find that meaning, the meaning of our existence.

When you deny essence to existence, and if you bring this proposition to its ultimate conclusion, you'll come up with the result that nothing exists at all! This is the springboard to jump to nihilism.

Answer 2

The existentialists were close, but not exactly right. They were rebelling, of course, against the opposite idea - that we all have an intrinsic purpose bestowed on each of us by some supernatural creator before our birth.

But turning the idea around doesn't make it more right, in my opinion. Rather, I think the best statement would be 'essence is implied at the moment of creation'. Not before OR after. Consider:

If you want to sit on something, you may think about what you want, how to get it, and set about making a chair. If you are a less than perfect carpenter, however, you may not end up with a useable chair at all. Whatever your intention, what you can use that thing for is shaped a large extent (but not entirely... i.e. implied but not determined) by what it actually is. Maybe it's only good for a doorstop or firewood. But you won't be able to tell until you actually have the chair in front of you.

The same is true for people. Whatever reasons parents or gods produce children for, what they can or cannot do has a lot to do with what they are like. And to a certain extent, because we are contantly being shaped further by events around us on a daily basis, our implied essence is ALSO being changed. But again, you won't KNOW what a person is good for in the future... only when you have the actual person to consider, measure, and test.

Existence does not precede essence, nor does existence follow essence. Existence and essence occur simultaneously because one flows from the other.

That's my take, anyway, for what it's worth.

Answer 3

No, I don't. I think Sartre was the most famous proponent of this idea. There is a lot of evidence that this is not true. To begin with there are great similarities among people even from radically different cultures.

Babies are born knowing to suck on a breast for nourishment. This is some degree of an essence. It is likely that there are many more too. How could we learn and gain experience without some essence which made us open to experience? At the very least, we will have an essense which allows us to see and think of the world in certain ways. Our thoughts will be structured in certain ways.

The existentialist claim is very similar to the empiricist's claims of centuries before - that the mind came in to the world a blank slate and all knowledge we have comes from experience. Hume and Kant did a lot to show the problem with this stance. And all of this predates evolutionary psychology which is, of course, totally opposed to the "existence precedes essense" viewpoint.

I think it is good of you to be skeptical of this view. I think that it causes us to ignore human nature and needs. It calls on us to look at people as some sort of disembodied rationality and claims that humans can be molded to any social environment. I think this false view of human nature (which comes not just from existentialism, but lies at the heart of the modern idea of the individual) is responsible for a lot of the social problems in our society. There are also feminist objections that this idea of human nature is actually centered on a masculine ideal of rational self-sufficiency.

sokrates: and what about theistic existentialists? The existence precedes essence view can and has been adopted by Christians. In fact, it would be a very good match for the Christian idea of free will and humans having an absolute and certain choice to choose God. This is not an atheist/theist issue. You should address the issue instead of issuing blanket statements.

Answer 4

Because of genetics we now understand that people are predetermined to some extent, which I believe would invalidate what you've stated.

Nonetheless, if you're talking universally, existence would have to precede essence. One must have the capacity to have a 'nature' before one can have a 'nature.'

Answer 5

I don't agree with this. I am a Buddhist and I think we are born with many of the attributes we had on our past lives. I have seen this play out in the lives of many babies.
We are born with our own true intrinsic nature intact.

What is this intrinsic nature of our mind?

Freedom, compassion, wisdom - in short enlightenment.

Answer 6

This is the crux if it is so that DNA is not in favor of behavioral traits. Somehow, DNA programs behavior as well as morphology. Entangled in DNA is code that not only determines the morph, but also the behavior of the person.

Answer 7

I'm skeptical of this point of view as well. We know that genetics determine some of our predispositions, our likes, our quirks, perhaps even our sexuality.

Answer 8

Since I am a theist, by default, I disagree with Sartre.

Answer 9

Existence without essence is nothing...I think...

Answer 10

i disagree, we are part genetics and part environment