.

true or false?

  • true
  • false
0 voters

true or false?

existence preceeds essence

I voted “true”

why?

because “essence precedes existence” is only found in beings-in-themselfs, whereas man(being-for-himself) must choose his essence.

Rami.

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=139918

-Imp

what? it isnt obvious that this is an existentialism idea?
was i sposed to put quotes around it?

continue the discussion…

so if we are looking at a plant, we beleive that the idea of the plant comes before the “fact” that it exists?

the plant does not make choices. The plant can be defined to what it “is”, man cannot.

okay, take the plant out of this and replace it with a platypus…now what?

I fail to see the difference between a platypus adn any other animal besides from man? It is possible to define a Platypus before it is born, the idea of what the platypus will be like s consistent throughout all platypuss.

I think you would agree that it is possible to define a dog before it is born, true? You only have to look at every other dog in the world to realize that there is an “essence” that makes a dog what it is.

This is a porr example but it is possible to know that a dog will bark, how fast it will run etc, this is obviously depending on which type of breed it is.

Rami.

the same applies to humans… but since we are the ones categorizing the rest, we like to exclude ourselves from the classification… you “only” have to look at every other anything (even humans) in existence to make a categorical (inductive) error and posit that every instance is thus and so (their essence- nothing more than their definition)…

think basketball players…

-Imp

I think Sarte distinguishes a clear difference between things-in-themselfs and things-for-themselfs. We’re apparently the only form of the latter and this is why our existence precedes out essence, we may look at other men for guidence but we are alone in making our choices.

If a being has no choice then it is possible to define their essence before they “are”. If a dog has no choice then it will be similar to each other dog out there, if a plant has no choice then ‘a’ plant is the same as every other plant, ‘a’ dog is the same as every other dog and so on. The dog has no choice as to what it will be, first “I am” and then i decide what i will be but the dog on the other hand does not.

yes, sartre makes that distinction… but it is a distinction without a difference…

the dog is not predestined to be a dog by our naming it such… we name it such after the fact…

and how do you know that the dog does not decide what you will be?

if the dog thinks you will feed, shelter and attend to his needs, he will stick around and be “your” dog…

if you piss off the dog, the dog decides that you will be bitten… or the dog will decide to leave…

the decision belongs to the dog…

-Imp

An easier way of asking this question would be: “Are things determinable?” the answer is no. If anything is in a system (other things in the system are effected by it) then it is impossible for that thing to comprehend that system in it’s entirey, and therefor impossible to predict perfectly what will happen next in that system.
Having said that, I’ll admit that different things apperently have different levels of awareness. If a thing is more aware that means it takes in more information about it’s environment i.e. other things in the system effect it to a greater extent. For instance, take up the painstaking task of gathering up all information that effects a cirtain human being and you will probably have effected it in the process, rendering your research useless.

Do this to a plant, and you may have much better luck.

So essentially, in order to predict or comprehend something you need to be able to see it while it cannot see you (you must be comparatively more aware), and when I say that it cannot be able to see you I mean that you have no effect (power) over it, and therefor your predictions will be fairly useless!

By the way, I got confused and accidentally voted false, I meant true.

Are you suggesting that the dog experiences anguish because it MUST choose?

not at all…

the dog feels anguish because his balls itch…

the dog feels ecstasy because he can lick them…

the dog still decides if he will be your dog…

-Imp

We both know that men and dogs experience a different sense of abandonment. That is of course if dogs even have a sense of it.

I don’t know that at all…

and I seriously doubt that you do either…

-Imp

that is all that can be known but that is not the argument Imp, hence why it can only be known that “existence precedes essence” in man alone.