Essentialism vs Existentialism

they were both in the cart that got put before the horse

2 things - 1) ‘essence’ as you define it is unobservable, giving people the right to doubt its existence, and 2) we seem to live in a universe of change - nothing stays the same - and so an unchanging, permanent fixture imbedded in everything seems unlikely.

That’s not to say I don’t believe in essences myself, but I’d go with a different definition: that which things ultimately are.

I will at this point, point out the futility of identifying the first case of a circular cause and consequence, in the form of the horse and cart causality dilemma commonly stated as:

Which came first, horse that can’t come without cart, or cart that can’t come without horse?

  1. The proof is in the pudding. Essence is obvious. Life, consciousness, truth…
  2. How does this refute the essences you believe in?

You’re welcome to point that out - but it doesn’t have much bearing on anything - since cart before horse is just a manner of speaking, and essence and existence are no more parts of a circular cause and consequence than sculpture and sculptor. Essence is abstraction - it is preceded by what exists.

Not sure how this proves anything.

Here’s how you defined essence: “'An essence characterizes a substance or a form, in the sense of the Forms or Ideas in Platonic idealism. It is permanent, unalterable, and eternal;”

For me, there is nothing necessarily permanent, unalterable, or eternal about essences. There can be such a thing as a tree-as-it-ultimately-is without it being permanent, unalterable, or eternal.

  1. Assumption.
  2. ‘Abstraction’ is every bit as real as 10110011101.
  3. Abstraction exists, essence exists. There is nothing that doesn’t exist.

A. OK well you can always come back later when you understand me.
B. You are entitled to your opinion. However as this is a philosophy board I will offer an alternative: if something exists it is eternal because non-existence doesn’t exist, things cannot just jump onto the non-existence plane at will. Energy is always conserved.

The law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed - it can only change form. It’s the changing of form that challenges you.

reasoned observation

sure it is, but reality doesn’t order itself according to 10110011101, 10110011101 orders itself according to reality

but there is that which is neither essence nor abstraction - if existence, on the other hand, is everything, then you tell me which is likely to have come first

gotta go -b back later

Material ‘forms’ of energy are not Plato’s forms.

… sorry…

… I’m trying not laugh…

Someone needs to write an etiquette handbook.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[size=200] :laughing: [/size]

  1. Based on what your assumptions of what ‘reason’ are.
  2. Assumption.
  3. What and from which perspective? The only thing that could ‘come first’ is existence, which would mean both came first.

Hey, you’re the one who brought up the energy conservation law.

I don’t believe in Plato’s forms.

A. That much is clear.
B. It was an analogy in effect.

Well, whatever it’s an analogy for, I take issue with the ‘unchabeability’ characterization. There is very little, if anything, that is unchanging.

How about abstract concepts?

Like forms.

Sure, abstract concepts can be unchanging - insofar as they are defined as such - but how can you be sure the concept is of something that actually exists?

I didn’t say I could. What is your point?

Oh, nothing - just wondering where you stand on conceiving the unchangeable. I would guess one like yourself would like to believe that unchanngeable essences exist, and a plantonist style of thinking would suggest that to conceive of such a thing is to perceive it’s existence in a realm of forms.

For my part, I’m just trying to answer to original question: why essentialism is so poo-pooed in our times.