NationStates Jolt Archive

make a lengthy essay-form reply

Not according to my dictionary.

By essence, do you mean the Platonic theory of Forms(aka essence)? Where the form(or essence) of a subject was it's absolute defining characteristic, as in coldness is the form of snow, not whiteness or softness, or intelligence is the essence of humanity, not erectness or mostly-furlessness. If so, I would say that existence precedes essence because the immaterial soul exists, but has no true physical characteristics. hence the soul is formed before the essence (body/mind).

being a very anti-essentialist kind of person i'll say yes. i'll also say that 'essence' doesn't exist except in the mind of the observer. i would get my countless books on this and similar subjects so i could give you a detailed and considered response but i can't see them and i can't be bothered to go looking for them.

being a very anti-essentialist kind of person i'll say yes. i'll also say that 'essence' doesn't exist except in the mind of the observer. i would get my countless books on this and similar subjects so i could give you a detailed and considered response but i can't see them and i can't be bothered to go looking for them.


by the way, you have 2 yes options

no i don't

Looks like someone is looking for NS to do an assignment for them ^_^

In the existentialist sense of a person's role or fate being set by his own choice, not pre-determined by some higher divine authority? Yes, with the understanding that deterministic natural processes nevertheless underly our actions.

No, both arise spontaneously and at the same time.

make a lengthy essay-form reply

No.

Depends... what is "essence"?

Is existence the physical being and essence the mental? In which case based on scientific analysis of brain activity in babies existence precedes essence. The physical house of the mind pre-exists the metaphysical mind. If existance is consciousness, then they coexist at the same moment. If essence is the theoretical possibility of something then it by definition pre-exists existence as the possibilities of theory are endless whereas things themselves are not. Finally if we are taking the Platonic essence, then it doesn't even exist so the question is irrelevant anyway.

Finally if we are taking the Platonic essence, then it doesn't even exist so the question is irrelevant anyway.
If it's defined as above (whiteness, softness, erectness) then how can you say those properties don't exist?

If it's defined as above (whiteness, softness, erectness) then how can you say those properties don't exist?
Because the Platonic idea of essence is that in effect we are all reflections. I am a relfection of the essence of a schoolboy, and so on; what i am typing on is not a keyboard but a reflection of the ideal keyboard. Those ideals are the Platonic essences.

Because the Platonic idea of essence is that in effect we are all reflections. I am a relfection of the essence of a schoolboy, and so on; what i am typing on is not a keyboard but a reflection of the ideal keyboard. Those ideals are the Platonic essences.
And how does that not exist? If you can describe it, then surely it must exist.

And how does that not exist? If you can describe it, then surely it must exist.
I can describe a dragon; that does not mean it exists. I can describe an angel (and so can the Bible, it does so extensively); tht doesn't mean it exists. I can describe a universal morality; doesn't mean it exists.

I can describe a dragon; that does not mean it exists. I can describe an angel (and so can the Bible, it does so extensively); tht doesn't mean it exists. I can describe a universal morality; doesn't mean it exists.
But you weren't describing something imaginary (not-actual), you were describing an ideal, like courage or honour. Those exist. Morality exists.

But you weren't describing something imaginary (not-actual), you were describing an ideal, like courage or honour. Those exist. Morality exists.
I was describing something not actual; the essence. Is my keyboard really a reflection of the essence of a keyboard? Am I a reflection of the essence of [insert full description here]? Is the world a reflection of the essential world? No.

I was describing something not actual; the essence. Is my keyboard really a reflection of the essence of a keyboard? Am I a reflection of the essence of [insert full description here]? Is the world a reflection of the essential world? No.
Alright, I see. Then the "essence" of Plato is not the ideal, but the actual thing.

I dont know the difference between the two. so....yes:D

Alright, I see. Then the "essence" of Plato is not the ideal, but the actual thing.
No, the Platonic essence is the ultimate perfect thing, the essential thing. It is not the actual thing, becuse that's what I'm using to type.

No, the Platonic essence is the ultimate perfect thing, the essential thing. It is not the actual thing, becuse that's what I'm using to type.
But.... ideals exist.

But.... ideals exist.
Does the ideal keyboard exist? An idealism and an ideal are different things in this context.

Does the ideal keyboard exist? An idealism and an ideal are different things in this context.
Okay, thanks.

Reality would be a pretty poor reflection, then. ;)

I have no idea how to answer the poll. What are the arguments for either side?

Okay, thanks.
No problem. Thank you; you made me think.
Reality would be a pretty poor reflection, then. ;)
Definitely, its one thing that makes me disagree with the theory...

Willamena, there aren't any, its philosophy, there's no right or wrong... depends how you define the terms for a start.

No problem. Thank you; you made me think.
I seem to be less than capable of that myself, this week. ;)

Definitely, its one thing that makes me disagree with the theory...


Willamena, there aren't any, its philosophy, there's no right or wrong... depends how you define the terms for a start.
But even logic (the essence of argument) is a philosophy. I'm not looking for "who is right?", I'm just looking for a basis on which to answer the question.

This "ideal" of essence obviously, like truth, equates to a presumed-to-be actual thing, presumed by Plato. So, if we assume it is an actual thing, what is the basis for it existing apart from the form that comes into existence? What supports its existence? What is it composed of, if not imagination?

I seem to be less than capable of that myself, this week. ;)
I don't get thinking done in school, only exams, so fora are where I think....
But even logic (the essence of argument) is a philosophy. I'm not looking for "who is right?", I'm just looking for a basis on which to answer the question.

This "ideal" of essence obviously, like truth, equates to a presumed-to-be actual thing, presumed by Plato. So, if we assume it is an actual thing, what is the basis for it existing apart from the form that comes into existence? What supports its existence? What is it composed of, if not imagination?
It is not composed of anything; it is the ideal, a separate plane from this, and is composed of itself, but the perfect or ideal thereof. If we are real it is super-real. The basis for it existing is purely that all table have some similar characteristics and all groups contain things with similar characteristics; personally i find this reverse engineering, we group them on the characteristics, they do not have characteristics based on their group.

Is it even explicitly the Platonic essence that is relevant here? I've tended to see the concept of "essence" in "existence precedes essence" as closer to "definition"; first the human being exists, then she defines herself and her role.

Is it even explicitly the Platonic essence that is relevant here? I've tended to see the concept of "essence" in "existence precedes essence" as closer to "definition"; first the human being exists, then she defines herself and her role.
As I said in my first post... define essence and define existence.

It is not composed of anything; it is the ideal, a separate plane from this, and is composed of itself, but the perfect or ideal thereof. If we are real it is super-real. The basis for it existing is purely that all table have some similar characteristics and all groups contain things with similar characteristics; personally i find this reverse engineering, we group them on the characteristics, they do not have characteristics based on their group.

The counter-argument, as I recall, is that we cannot conceive of an ideal from imperfect things, and in order to categorize imperfect things we must have a basis in an ideal. Which I think is nonsense, one reason being that it is not clear we can conceive of an "ideal" at all; can anyone describe the ideal of "Redness"? How is it different from the redness of any object that is red?

As I said in my first post... define essence and define existence.

I'm assuming the original poster is referring to the existentialist tenet.

Wikipedia describes it decently well:

existence precedes essence: This is a reversal of the Aristotlean premise that essence precedes existence, where man is created to fulfil some telos and life consists of fulfilling that goal. Unlike tools that are created to fulfill a purpose (e.g. a scissor is created for the express purpose to cut things), Sartrean existentialism argues man exists without purpose, finds himself in the world and defines the meaning of his existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism#Sartrean_existentialism

The counter-argument, as I recall, is that we cannot conceive of an ideal from imperfect things, and in order to categorize imperfect things we must have a basis in an ideal. Which I think is nonsense, one reason being that it is not clear we can conceive of an "ideal" at all; can anyone describe the ideal of "Redness"? How is it different from the redness of any object that is red?
Exactly. The "platonic ideal" philosophy is bunk and void. It has merit as a purely theoretical concept but it has no basis in the truth of the world.

It is not composed of anything; it is the ideal, a separate plane from this, and is composed of itself, but the perfect or ideal thereof. If we are real it is super-real. The basis for it existing is purely that all table have some similar characteristics and all groups contain things with similar characteristics; personally i find this reverse engineering, we group them on the characteristics, they do not have characteristics based on their group.
Or perhaps you are attempting to understand it in reverse? If the ideal table precedes the table, then it is not dependent upon all tables for its charactertistics, but they on it. At least, Plato must have believed this if he was a rational fellow, and I would think he was. So there must be something I'm missing.

"Plane of existence" never did mean much to me.

Or perhaps you are attempting to understand it in reverse? If the ideal table precedes the table, then it is not dependent upon all tables for its charactertistics, but they on it. At least, Plato must have believed this if he was a rational fellow, and I would think he was. So there must be something I'm missing.

"Plane of existence" never did mean much to me.
Heh. Plato was very rational sometimes... but if you read his dialogues many of Socrates' ideas (probably in fact Plato's own in most cases) are logically inconsistent or flawed.

Anyway. The ideal table in theory gives tables thier characteristics; as reflections of it they share its characteristics to some degree or other. but why is something a table? Because we call it a table. And why do we do so? Because its characteristics aren't the same as say a chair. And yet we can use one as the other and so on.

Or perhaps you are attempting to understand it in reverse? If the ideal table precedes the table, then it is not dependent upon all tables for its charactertistics, but they on it.

Yes, that's the argument. The tables are dependent on the ideal table, and our understanding of them as "tables" is dependent on an understanding of the ideal table that we received before our souls entered our bodies.

Yes, that's the argument. The tables are dependent on the ideal table, and our understanding of them as "tables" is dependent on an understanding of the ideal table that we received before our souls entered our bodies.
Which as I said doesn't account for sometimes not identifying things correctly, which happens, and as such we cannot have recognition of the ideal.

Which as I said doesn't account for sometimes not identifying things correctly, which happens, and as such we cannot have recognition of the ideal.
Fascinating. Thanks.

Fascinating. Thanks.
I wouldn't have the thoughts without someon poking me in the right direction.

no i don't


Sorry, I meant to quote the origional poster.:headbang:

Which as I said doesn't account for sometimes not identifying things correctly, which happens, and as such we cannot have recognition of the ideal.

Plato would have responded that the problem is that our bodies muddle our soul's perception.

Plato would have responded that the problem is that our bodies muddle our soul's perception.
Ah, but our soul is our mind and our body sees only it does not process.

Ah, but our soul is our mind and our body sees only it does not process.

I think you're extending the argument beyond what Plato was claiming.

We might indeed make imperfect judgements, but the question is not the perfection of our judgements, it's the source of our judgements in the first place. Our capacity to categorize things in the first place is based on our conception of ideals, because our categories are ultimately based on ideals.

And it should probably be noted that Plato probably did not believe in the existence of a "table ideal," rather he would have argued that there are a number of ideals that combine to form a table.

make a lengthy essay-form reply
Ovum before poultry?
Albumen before yolk?

Good question (in its guise).
I suspect i'd have to put idk, for three reasons.
One: I Don't actually know.
Two: It's an arena for which i have to impose semantic reliance upon circumstance and i can justify damned near anything i want in that process.
Three: I'm suspect of how my answer would be used.

Good query just the same. :)

the more i look at this thread the more i want to vote "essence is irrelevant to existance"

our minds and the concepts contain there-in have no bearing on whether or not anything exists.

After reading this thread... I agree with Chellis.
Looks like someone is looking for NS to do an assignment for them ^_^

After reading this thread... I agree with Chellis.

If so, I don't think we were very helpful.

If so, I don't think we were very helpful.
Oh, I don't know, we thrashed out the Platonic idea of essence completely and a few others too...

Oh, I don't know, we thrashed out the Platonic idea of essence completely and a few others too...

But if it were homework, it would probably be about the Sartrean concept of "existence precedes essence," which, as I noted before, has little to nothing to do with the Platonic concept of ideal Forms.

But if it were homework, it would probably be about the Sartrean concept of "existence precedes essence," which, as I noted before, has little to nothing to do with the Platonic concept of ideal Forms.
That's true. My conscience can remain clear of helping someone with thier work.

After reading this thread... I agree with Chellis.

No, I covered existentialism essay in school months ago. I'm just bored and posted a random philosophical question.