The terms essence and existence have dominated philosophical discussions for centuries, at least from the era of Plato up to the contemporary times. The central issue at the heart of this discourse in the preliminary stage had to do with the question of what actually makes an essence of an existing entity. For example, if you say God, philosophers will probe further to ask: what is the essence of God? In other words, ‘what are those characteristics that are truly exclusive to God? If, again, you say a Satsuma (a type of orange) exists, then one will be prompted to ask as to what features distinguish it from a tangerine. That is, what are those distinctive qualities - essentially immaterial - that will not make me call an existential Satsuma a tangerine? What the inquirer is demanding is simply something more than mere the Satsuma or any of the accidental features like colour, taste, etc. Questions have also been raised in terms of what actually exists as against what is believed to exist. The discourse quickly like wild fire moved from the level of mere conceptualizing the terms to the level of philosophers trying to find out which of essence and existence precedes each other. In other words, granted, at least, at level of assumption that both human and objects exist, philosophers are asking whether their essence precedes their existence. The battle to resolve this crisis of concepts pitted modern Christian philosophers like Bishop George Berkeley and Immanuel Kant against contemporary existentialists like Jean Paul Sartre and Martin Heidegger. The former school, led by Berkeley in its submission had argued that essence precedes existence, while the latter, championed by extensively by Sartre disagrees, saying existence precedes essence. However, there are other variations to the discourse but it is sufficient for the scope of this paper to limit discussion to these two, with more emphasis on Sartre.
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION
2. On the traditional understanding of essence and existence
3. Essence and Existence: Idealist vs Existentialist
4. On the Topos of the Paper
5. On the brief mission of Sartre and existentialism
6. Sartre’s Conception of Essence and his Two-type Existence
7. Import of Sartre distinction of essence and existence on Man
8. Assessing the
Objectives and Themes
The primary objective of this work is to critically examine the philosophical discourse surrounding the precedence of essence over existence, specifically contrasting the theistic idealism of thinkers like Berkeley and Aquinas with the existentialist perspective of Jean-Paul Sartre. The author seeks to move beyond the traditional binary distinction between these two concepts, arguing that they are ontologically inseparable.
- Analysis of the historical philosophical distinction between essence and existence.
- Critique of the existentialist claim that existence precedes essence.
- Investigation into Sartre's concepts of "Being-in-itself" and "Being-for-itself."
- Evaluation of the relationship between human agency, consciousness, and the creation of one's own essence.
- Development of an ontological argument that essence and existence constitute a unified whole.
Excerpt from the Book
Sartre’s Conception of Essence and his Two-type Existence
Sartre upholds the traditional understanding of the term essence and will agree with Berkeley, Jaspers, Marcel as well as his existentialist atheist contemporary Martin Heidegger that essence is the ‘what’ of something. Essence refers to that permanent as contrasted with the accidental element of being. It refers to the individual, real, or ultimate nature of a thing especially as opposed to its existence. In a more philosophical conceptualization, essence of a thing refers to a property or ‘the set of its definite property, what makes it the sort of thing it is.’ It is the quiddity of a thing. Its characteristics includes: Stableness, permanence, pre-establishment, ultimacy, unchangingness.
However, Sartre, emerging from his atheistic background, picks up a controversy with the manner in which the theistic trio — all professed churchmen—establishes the relationship that exists between essence and existence of a being. Berkeley, Jaspers and Marcel have argued that essence precedes essence, with Berkeley positing that existence is to the degree of human perception. In other words, for Berkeley, a being exists only if it can be perceived by the human mind. So, existence for him is consequent to the essence of a being, in that it has to be perceived by the mind, and insofar an object cannot be perceived, it does not exist. This position is absurd to Sartre, and hence, will pit tent with his contemporary Heidegger that: “The existential nature of man is the reason why man can represent beings as such, and why he can be conscious of them.” By this Heidegger means to content that it is only in existence that defines and realizes his essence.
Summary of Chapters
1. INTRODUCTION: This chapter introduces the historical philosophical debate regarding essence and existence, setting the stage for a comparison between theistic views and existentialist thought.
2. On the traditional understanding of essence and existence: This section explores how early thinkers from Aristotle to Aquinas conceptualized essence and existence, establishing the foundational terminology for the discourse.
3. Essence and Existence: Idealist vs Existentialist: This chapter contrasts the idealist view, where existence is perceived, with the existentialist view, focusing on the conflicting roles these concepts play in philosophical traditions.
4. On the Topos of the Paper: This chapter outlines the scope and the specific argumentative focus of the paper, introducing Sartre's response to traditional ontological hierarchies.
5. On the brief mission of Sartre and existentialism: This chapter examines Sartre's goal to defend existentialism and empower the individual against deterministic worldviews.
6. Sartre’s Conception of Essence and his Two-type Existence: This chapter details Sartre’s distinction between "Being-in-itself" (the static essence of objects) and "Being-for-itself" (the active, consciousness-driven existence of man).
7. Import of Sartre distinction of essence and existence on Man: This chapter analyzes the consequences of Sartre’s philosophy for human agency, emphasizing that man must actively create his own essence.
8. Assessing the: This final chapter presents the author's own critique, arguing that essence and existence are ontologically inseparable and that the distinction between them is logically flawed.
Keywords
Essence, Existence, Ontology, Existentialism, Jean-Paul Sartre, Berkeley, Aquinas, Being-in-itself, Being-for-itself, Human Nature, Consciousness, Quiddity, Idealism, Metaphysics, Determinism.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper examines the philosophical debate concerning whether essence or existence holds precedence in the definition of being, with a specific focus on the atheistic existentialist framework of Jean-Paul Sartre.
What are the primary themes discussed?
The themes include the nature of being, the distinction between human and non-human existence, the role of consciousness in defining oneself, and a critique of traditional ontological hierarchies.
What is the central goal of the author?
The author intends to demonstrate that the distinction between essence and existence is a matter of semantic duplicity and that, ontologically, the two concepts are inseparable.
Which scientific or philosophical method is utilized?
The author employs a comparative and critical analytical method, juxtaposing the arguments of theistic philosophers with atheistic existentialists to test the validity of their ontological claims.
What is covered in the main body of the work?
The body explores the definitions of essence and existence across different epochs, analyzes Sartre’s specific types of existence (Being-in-itself and Being-for-itself), and assesses the practical implications for human agency.
Which keywords define this work?
Key terms include Essence, Existence, Ontology, Existentialism, Sartre, Being-in-itself, Being-for-itself, and Human Nature.
How does Sartre’s view on "Being-for-itself" differ from "Being-in-itself"?
Sartre distinguishes "Being-in-itself" as a static, non-conscious existence associated with objects, whereas "Being-for-itself" refers to human existence characterized by consciousness, agency, and the capacity to create one's own essence.
Why does the author argue that there is no distinction between essence and existence?
The author posits that because human beings are composites of both elements, the destruction of one necessarily leads to the destruction of the other, making them an inseparable whole rather than two distinct properties.
- Quote paper
- James Alabi (Author), 2009, Thematic Distinction Between Essence and Existence, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/435007
