I can see a lot of interpretations to this, can you put it more succinctly?

Existence preceding Essence

___________________
The father made fetuses with flesh licking ladies / While you and your mother were asleep in the trailer park / Thunderous sparks from the dark of the stadiums / The music and medicine you needed for comforting / So make all your fat, fleshy fingers fingers to moving / And pluck all your silly strings and / Bend all your notes for me and / Soft silly music is meaningful, magical / The movements were beautiful / All in your ovaries / All of them milking with green fleshy flowers / While powerful pistons were sugary sweet machines, / Smelling of semen all under the garden / Was all you were needing when you still believed in me.

Da chicken came first because it had to give birth to da egg and nurture it.

I choose to belive essence was before existence, but that is simply because I don't think I could live with the other philosophy...

existence preceding essence because only after man comes along can he grow and realize his surroundings and then develope who he is

___________________

My soliloquy may be hard for some to swallow, but so is cod liver oil.

quote:

Originally posted by notelfreak man i can't believe i tried to come off as responsible in that other thread, i am so full of shit just don't tell anyone

I would argue - as would all other existentialists - that existence must precede essence...... with regards to humanity anyway.

There is no predefined concept of what humanity must be: we can paint no picture and declare "Ecce Homo!" (see Neitzsche). We are what we will ourselves to be and create our own nature. There is no preconceived plan.

However, the concept of facticity (for all those familiar with Heidegger and Satre) goes some way to undermine this. We, as human beings have certain irrevokable traits: we must eat to survive, we must die eventually and so on. We cannot will ourselves to avoid these facts, they are part of what we are. However, so much as our material/physical and temporal facticities are unalterable, assuming we have free will, we are free to overcome our "essential" facticity (our transcendent facticity as Satre described it) and are free to define who we are and what we become.

With anything man made though, essense must precede existence. If we build a chair then the idea of the chair - its essence - must have been preconceived by someone, before it was brought into existence. It's material facticity is set before its conception, and, as such, a chair cannot become, say, a pencil: its facticity is preconceived, and it has no capacity to overcome this.

Man, unless you believe in God, exists in the first instance, and only in the second instance - via the process of existing - is his essence determined.

And the beauty of atheistic existentialism, is that we are in free control of the determination of our essence. We are, in short, free to determine who we are..... and this is where I could get onto the freedom/responsibility/choice dilema Satre poses, but I'll save you the trauma.

"While one is never free from one's situation, one is always responsible for what is made of one" - M. Jean-Paul Satre

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Man, unless you believe in God, exists in the first instance, and only in the second instance - via the process of existing - is his essence determined.

I don't feel absolutely secure that I've understood your sentence, but if it's supposed to discuss the essence and existence of God, I'll proclaim that:
If you accept Kant's postulate that we cannot hope to ever know anything about the nature of things in itself - including the "nature" of an possible god/deity, you must recognize that it cannot be known whether his existence determined his essence, visa-versa, or if both are eternal or created at the exact same point of some kind of time/space something.

But that comment is only really relevant if you were talking about God.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade And the beauty of atheistic existentialism, is that we are in free control of the determination of our essence. We are, in short, free to determine who we are..... and this is where I could get onto the freedom/responsibility/choice dilema Satre poses, but I'll save you the trauma.

It sounds awfully tempting - jumping on this bandwagon. But what do people who have no talents, beauty or luck do with this new-found freedom? And what about those 99% of us that will never make a difference, except enriching other people lives temporarily? Aren't these people/us better off with the belief that somehow there's a predefined meaning with our being here?

What have you done with your own freedom?

Believing in God or not, Existence before essence. Free will would give man the ability to define himself

quote:

I don't feel absolutely secure that I've understood your sentence, but if it's supposed to discuss the essence and existence of God, I'll proclaim that: If you accept Kant's postulate that we cannot hope to ever know anything about the nature of things in itself - including the "nature" of an possible god/deity, you must recognize that it cannot be known whether his existence determined his essence, visa-versa, or if both are eternal or created at the exact same point of some kind of time/space something. But that comment is only really relevant if you were talking about God.

Yes, sorry, I should have made that a bit more clear.

What I was trying to say, was that man exists first and foremost, and by the mere act of existing (with the things he experiences and the choices he makes) he determines his essence this way. I included the phrase "unless you believe in God" because if you believe in God, then the entire thing is different: your essence precedes your existence, because, first and foremost, you had to have been a concept in God's imagination (much like a chair is a concept in the mind of a carpenter) and thus your facticity is fixed and you, to a degree, lose the faculty of choice.

I could go on all day about this, but hopefully that clears it up.

quote:

It sounds awfully tempting - jumping on this bandwagon. But what do people who have no talents, beauty or luck do with this new-found freedom?

Well that's just it, you can do whatever you like with it. As indicated in the quote I used in the bottom of my last post, you cannot alter your material facticity (your situation) but, as a sentient being, you are still free to transcend any predefined essense (essential facticity I suppose) and become what you wish within the context of your unavoidable situation. If you have no talent, beauty or luck, then you're standing with 99% of humanity who, as a result of their "mediocrity", have to earn what they become, and this concept of "freedom" is the ticket to this "becoming". You are free: what you become is what you've earnt and what you've chosen to be.

(Sorry if I sound like a dogmatic preacher, but I'm in one of those moods )

quote:

And what about those 99% of us that will never make a difference, except enriching other people lives temporarily?

Well, presuming you're familiar with the chaos theory, you'll know that we all make a difference in some way.....

And even if your only achievement was to enrich the lives of others temporarily, would you care to argue that that isn't a worthwhile accomplishment? If everyone went out of their way to do that - just once a day - this would be a much happier planet to live on, I'm thinking.

quote:

Aren't these people/us better off with the belief that somehow there's a predefined meaning with our being here?

But what if you found out the meaning of life and disagreed with it entirely? Wouldn't you feel cheated?

At least with this system - while there may be nothing "concrete" in this sense to attach your life to - surely the promise of freedom to choose your mode of being is the more attractive option?

quote:

What have you done with your own freedom?

Haha, good point.

Yes, I can sit here all day spouting this rhetoric to you, but I suppose that the proof is in the pudding with things like this.

As you know from the schooling thread in one of the other forums, I'm not entirely happy with what I'm doing now, so you may argue that my concept of "freedom" has led me nowhere, and as such offers no tangible benefit to its adovocates. Nonetheless, within this existential freedom, I alone am responsible for who I am and I alone am responsible for what I become. I won't pray to God to provide me with happiness, or success, or salvation when all these things are found in much more safe and relaible hands - my own.

My life certainly isn't perfect - and existential freedom offers no guarantees that perfection will ever be attained - but at least I can sleep in the knowledge that I have the potential to change things should I will it. Again, I don't want to sound like some nut-case who believes he has some magic "spiritual-power" that will save all the worlds woes, I'm just saying that it is a realistic outlook, and that, in my opinion, it is the most optimistic of all outlooks.

I don't profess to have all the answers, so please don't assume I've run to some high philosophical ground here. Nonetheless you have the choice to take heed of this logic or to ignore it - neither option being necessarily the right one.

However, whichever option you take, you'll be exercising the exact same freedom that I'm talking about here, whether you're aware of it or not.

Here endeth the lesson.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade ... Well, presuming you're familiar with the chaos theory, you'll know that we all make a difference in some way..... ...

Touché! Wonderful humour...really made me laugh

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade ... But what if you found out the meaning of life and disagreed with it entirely? Wouldn't you feel cheated? At least with this system - while there may be nothing "concrete" in this sense to attach your life to - surely the promise of freedom to choose your mode of being is the more attractive option?

To answer the first question: I never thought of it that way. I guess if I found out that my life had only been some sick joke, designed to please some Schopenhauerian Will, I would probably not be as disappointed as if it had had no purpose at all. I guess. But then again, being a Kantian, I am aware that I probably couldn't fathom the purpose of this joke right now, and perhaps would change my mind if or when I came to realize its full potential in some kind of afterlife/revelation.

For the second part, I came to think about my life (it's awful what these boards can do to you), and eventhough I do not enjoy the full freedom you're talking about, I do think that I am pretty much as free as I can be in conformance with the rules imposed upon me from society: As I do not claim to have any real knowledge of my purpose/essence, I can do with my life what I want, free of any feelings of guilt or shame. But at the same time I have the consolidation of my belief in *some* kind of spiritual/alternative reality which I can pin my hopes to.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade ... Nonetheless, within this existential freedom, I alone am responsible for who I am and I alone am responsible for what I become. I won't pray to God to provide me with happiness, or success, or salvation when all these things are found in much more safe and relaible hands - my own. ... but at least I can sleep in the knowledge that I have the potential to change things should I will it. ...

I really admire that you have chosen this worldview. After all you renounce the right to blame misfortune on destiny - I couldn't give that one up

I don't know why I wrote this post, I'm not really adding anything useful to the discussion. I guess I'm just bored, or wanted to tell you that I enjoyed reading your answer and wholly get your points. I do however choose to stay with my beliefs anyway, regardless of that decision being a choice or programmed into my soul.