/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20379288]

>existence precedes essence
What does this mean exactly? Is existence synonymous with Being in like a Parmenidean sense?

[Anonymous No.20379294]

Nobody gives a shit dude. Just read Aristotle and Kant.

[Anonymous No.20379302]

>>20379294
You can’t make me.

[Anonymous No.20379329]

>>20379288
He could be killed with one punch.

[Anonymous No.20379361]

>>20379288
It's amazing that this subhuman had access to french cunny without anyone telling him anything

[Anonymous No.20379369]

>>20379288
For one it's been echoed from Schelling to Kierkegaard to Heidegger, and I suspect it's Heidegger that Sartre takes the most from.

For Heidegger, the ontology of reality is grounded in the being of the human being. The world is basically a composite of modes that stem from this.

"Essence" has typically meant to something that a human is reduced to, perhaps an essence independent of humans shared of other things. For the existentialist, the individual experience is the basis of philosophy instead.

I think. I've read Kierkegaard and Heidegger but not Sartre.

[Anonymous No.20379433]

>>20379369
>the ontology of reality is grounded in the being of the human being.
Is this opposed to the human as becoming theorized by Nietzsche and the like?

[Anonymous No.20379441]

>>20379288
What is he looking at?

[Anonymous No.20379467]

>>20379361
> It's amazing that this subhuman had access to french cunny without anyone telling him anything

Making incel loser seeth from the grave I see

[Anonymous No.20379474]

>>20379288
wtf wrong with dis niggas eyes

[Anonymous No.20379479]

>>20379288
Existence precedes everything that can be said to exist lmao what was this pseud trying to prove with this statement?

[Anonymous No.20379499]

Existence preceding essence is the essence of Dark MAGA

[Anonymous No.20379502]

>>20379288
Before we are something, we are.

[Anonymous No.20379516]

>>20379288
it means it's okay for french pedophiles to groom children becuase... uh just becuase okay???

[Anonymous No.20379554]

>>20379516
American moment

[Anonymous No.20379557]

>>20379433
I cited the part that is more similar, Heidegger is overall up to a very different project and is definitely not an existentialist although it's not uncommon to confuse him as such at a glance.

[Anonymous No.20379558]

>>20379288
Here is my attempt:
According to Aristotle, part of the essence of an object is it's purpose, according to which it is judged. The problem with this is that, while this is very obvious to determine for objects humans make, e.g. a chair, a lightbulb, etc. it becomes very difficult when talking about natural things, which brings Aristotle's four causes into question. Reducing purpose to the function given to something, it immediately becomes clear that existence precedes essence here for humans, that is, that we have to determine our own purpose according to which we are self-actualized or not.

Note that I have never read 1. Aristotle, or 2. any existentialists, so take this with a grain of salt.

[Anonymous No.20379576]

>>20379558
I assume essence means a thing’s inherent and immutable nature as opposed to its “accidents” (e.g., color, shape, size, etc.) This would make sense given that Sarte was against the idea of an immutable human nature and all that.

[Anonymous No.20379599]

>>20379576
Sartre*

[Anonymous No.20379806]

Human beings first are

Then, human beings are ____

[Anonymous No.20379812]

>>20379806
>Human beings first are
What about the nihilists?

[Anonymous No.20379928]

>>20379812
What you mean?

[Anonymous No.20380053]

>>20379928
Don’t they assert that everything is nothing, including existence? In that sense, man would not be.

[Anonymous No.20380060]

>>20380053
No Nihlists just think that ultimately all our meaning-making is pointless

[Anonymous No.20380529]

>>20379288
it mean nothing, this fag said pseudo intelligent shit to bang young, naive students

[Anonymous No.20381449]

>>20379554
Shut up frog. Dilate

[Anonymous No.20381454]

>>20379329
A well-placed punch might have corrected his googly eye.

[Anonymous No.20381474]

>>20379288
Being predates purpose. The corporeal precedes the divine. Things simply are.
Sartre was a godless fag. Amazing people take his gospel as truth even today after the disillusionment of our second enlightenment. I still have no fucking idea why it is that human beings so desperately want the world to be primarily somatic in direct contradiction to their own instincts.

[Anonymous No.20381484]

>>20381474
>>20379288
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is just tabula rasa and nothing new. Right?

[Anonymous No.20381808]

>>20379288
>What does this mean exactly?
It’s just nomalism

[Anonymous No.20381954]

>>20379329
So can you.
The punch doesn't kill you, you go blank and limp and you break your neck hitting the floor. All it takes is one good punch to your temple and you not bracing for it. Admittedly easier to do with a manlet, but it can happen to pretty much anyone.
>>20379288
As for you OP, Sartre here refuses Husserl's positioning that essence and existence are, in fact, fundamentally separated. For Husserl, the transcendental thesis of God, why He can never be reduced away, is specifically that existence is different, fuller, personalized than what it is in essence.
Sartre's claim is in filiation with Heidi, he takes living (human) existence as a special case of being in that your determinations are never settled, and their very determination is the general form of our existence (the constant determination of our determinations means our existence is "caring").
This honestly just boils down to a bad ontology. So many existential "problems" are resolved simply by accepting that some objects have an historical essence in a different way than others.
This is incidentally why YWNBAW is an eidetic truth.

[Anonymous No.20382696]

My understanding of the phrase is as follows.

In classical philosophy there was the idea of an objects "essance" and that all objects were composed of both essential and non-esstential components.

Take a cup, when you say the word "cup" in your head you imagine a cup. I can show you other cups and you would know that they are also cups. You can change many aspects of the non-essential aspects of a cup (what its made of, its size, its shape for example) but there are some things in which you change you now no lonmger have a cup, you have something else (e.g. its ability to hold water)

The thinking of the time was that this was also applicable to people. That while many things in many people may change there are certains aspects of each individual that are "essential components" of that person.

Sartre argued that this was not the case. That humans do not have an "essential component" that defines them from both.

Instead he posited that we are born, and then from here we define out own essance. We are not bound by any essential properties.

More broadly, he further posited that the ideas of any object having any essential components at all was absurd, that all objects in this world exist and their "essance" is then placed upon them by us, the observer.

In a way it is a prerequisite of his theory of radical freedom, as if we have an "essance" then we are actually no radically free to do whatever it is that we want, because we would have to act within the confines of our "essance"