Essentialism vs Antiessentialism

[Anonymous No.13349418]

Most of the current political issues have the roots into the philosophical discussion regarding essentialism and the rejection of it. I believe that the current dichotomy between left and right can be simply defined as essentialism vs antiessentialism. Any opinions /lit/?

Personally, I am an essentialist. I believe that as long I adhere to the materialistic philosophy, it is simply impossible to reject essentialism. The matter is a subject in itself and that necessitate the essentialism and its subsequent logical conclusions.

[Anonymous No.13349456]

>>13349418
elaborate if you will

[Anonymous No.13349514]

Ok, the planck's length is the smallest unit known to humans, and that is a sign that there is indeed something rather than nothing. Since there is something, there must be something "essential" to all of it. Yes, we don't know what it is exactly. However, it must be recognized that this is a mere concern of physicists, not philosophically. Philosophically, the planck's length is a definite evidence that there is. With that understanding, we can construct an entire analytic framework with planck's length as a foundation. This naturally has a natural political implications. The right wing claim that hiearchy is natural and unavoidable. Indeed, planck's length shows us that the reality is quantized. Therefore, the pyramid schemes that emerge from quantization is unavoidable. This is simply a materialistic truth. Yes, there is consciousness, however it is simply an observer and independent from the actual physical reality in itself. With this hierarchal realism in the mind, we must devise the policies with ponzism in mind.

Tragically, this is exactly what marxism says.

[Anonymous No.13349542]

Now, I will elaborate on antiessentialism vs essentialism positions independent from political implications.

Antiessentialism holds that there is nothing. Literally, all of there is the Outside. The being is rejected.

Essentialism holds that there is the being, and more beyond that. For that there is something in itself, then it is.

I do admit that the ontology of essentialism is technically shaky. However, the notion that there is nothing is simply refuted by existence.

[Anonymous No.13349571]

>>13349418
Antiessentialism is particularity or existence which is aligned w materialism necessarily

[Anonymous No.13349579]

>>13349571
elaborate

[Anonymous No.13349596]

>>13349579
The statement is essence precedes existence.
For example, if u live in a world w no essence you can understand how something looks or feels but you're necessarily only understanding its parts. For instance you won't ever understand it's a chair.

If I had a couple hours I'd reread a book since I lost the quote but when you appeal to materialism and try to solve essence like that you come into a contradiction as it's not set up to handle that (philosophy studies essence, science existence). Anyways you end up using metaphysical language to try and describe the chair.

[Anonymous No.13349599]

>>13349571
isn't essentialism a notion that there is something essential to them, in other words a tautology. how is materialism tied with anti-essentialism necessarily when materialism is a tautology?

[Anonymous No.13349613]

>>13349418
Basic income should be universal.

[Anonymous No.13349624]

>>13349579
Yeah I agree that's the difference in human ideologies in particular politics.
It follows from epistemology, ontology, semantics, referential vs attributive distinction, it's in everything, it follows from God.

[Anonymous No.13349631]

>>13349599
Everything is a tautology so everything has essence. Materialism is necessarily never the essence of anything. For instance what is a chair?

Let me copypasta: essence is formal cause or concept
A formal cause cannot simply be the shape of an object, it must include the concept of it as well. If I turned a boulder into a chair by shaving off the surface of it to make it flat and set it next to a table to be used as a chair, we would still recognize it as a chair. If I shaved it to be rounded and dipping in, as opposed to flat, we would still recognize it as a chair. If a miracle of nature did this, and set it next to a table, unknown by man its nature, we would still recognize it as a chair. If I knew this boulder would be crushed in a week to use as gravel, we would still recognize it as a chair.

[Anonymous No.13349641]

>>13349631
So you can't find out what a chair is by measuring it

[Anonymous No.13349690]

>>13349596
which book? i'm legit curious, i haven't been able to find a book about essentialism.

isn't science simply a subset of philosophy? scientific language that we use to describe the chair is inherently metaphysical, and it is complete. there is no contradiction.

>>13349631
all of these examples are chair, exactly because the materialistic condition enables it to be a chair. the essence of chairness is defined by the materialistic condition, regardless by speculative situations. is there chairness if there is no matter to constitute the chair?

you claim that essence is a formal cause, however it is clearly not.

[Anonymous No.13349756]

>>13349690
It was about Vienna Circle and their rejection of Metaphysics and how they were, surprisingly, stuck with it. Wittgenstein's Vienna.
It is a subset, science is positive empiricism. Which is positivism from comte and regular empiricism. The thing is the subject is metaphysical but the methods are not. Try and describe a chair that is necessarily a chair, and not a part, using only science.

Yes there is chairness without a wooden or metal or plastic chair. For instance a painted picture of a chair still refers to the form of a chair (keep in mind form is not material, it is immaterial. It's like a concept or essence). Another example is language such as when we use the term chair we have nothing material we are referring to.
My copypasta was intended to show you could change everything material about a chair in whatever way and we would still know what a chair is (the definition won't change) and we can recognize a chair in whatever shape it is.

For books, https://fuckyeahlogical.tumblr.com/post/128964910533/analytic-philosophy-reading-list-for-the-self

[Anonymous No.13349850]

>>13349756
there is no method for science though. galileo discovered that the earth was a sphere without any method. the notion that non-metaphysical methods are necessary for materialism is simply false.

the form is derived from the material. yes, chair can refer to many various material conditions, however the first notion of chairness was created when there was a such matter configuration that enabled chairness in the first place. i understand that you're trying to make essence broad and applicable to *anything*, however i'm saying that essence is materialistic at its core no matter what.

[Anonymous No.13349864]

>>13349756
thanks for the link too :) much appreciated.

[Anonymous No.13349889]

>>13349850
I'm kinda tired so I don't really care to go into a long conversation but immaterial things exist outside man, for instance the law of identity precedes all material things and that's immaterial

[Anonymous No.13349912]

>>13349850
I'll just say "chairness" if it isn't totally represented in an object then it must be referenced in a foundational object. So the foundation of a chair in a painting, speech or physical manifestation of a chair is its form.

You can read Plato's parable of the cave or Parmenides or Aristotle for it. Pic related is philosophy of language but you can show it in any philosophy branch

[Anonymous No.13349918]

>>13349889
so, what's your epistemological status for essentialism?

[Anonymous No.13350061]

>>13349418
jesus craist, you fuckers dont even know how to recognize the theories you want to work with
you guys should just go back to doing some funny jewjokes and stop trying to argue with the little ideas ou might think are original

[Anonymous No.13350070]

>>13350061
go on and enlighten us with your galaxy brain then

[Anonymous No.13350189]

>>13349912
the form is always first found from the materialistic conditions with the sense-data and the awareness of the form.

[Anonymous No.13350277]

>>13349542
Ok. This is interesting. Basically, the fact that we exist, is enough proof to know something else exist beyond human and physical perception?

[Anonymous No.13350298]

>>13349418
Except you're wrong OP. The people today who say they are against essentialism are almost always the people who argue against it when it is biological, but have no problem considering people with opposing political opinions as "socially determined" e.g if you were a Nazi 10 years ago, you're a Nazi forever, just like if you write edgy racist posts to your friends on Google docs, you won't get admitted to college.

[Anonymous No.13350369]

>>13350298
just because people are philosophically inconsistent doesn't mean that we shouldn't bother consider philosophical implications.
>>13350277
yes and no. there is proof of something beyond physical perception, but the something is still rooted into physicalism.

[Anonymous No.13350406]

>>13349889
>but immaterial things exist outside man, for instance the law of identity precedes all material things and that's immaterial
no it doesn't... because we created the law of identity to explain things

[Anonymous No.13350671]

>>13350406
exactly.