Hi Rob, welcome to the Forum from another Aussie. Philosophy is not dead here, it's just down at the pub.

Anyway, on a more serious note - there is an obscure but sometimes discussed connection between Aristotle's ideas of heredity and the modern theory of DNA.See for instance Aristotle's Concept of Heredity (More Aussies, this time Uni of New England). It explores parallels with statements from his works on heredity with the modern understanding of DNA and genetics. (JSTOR, free registration required for access.) Also Aristotle and Modern Genetics. I recall reading an article saying that Aristotle's ideas of entelechy 'anticipated' the discovery of DNA, it might have been the second of those articles.

In more general terms, there has been a revival of interest in Aristotelian natural philosophy and biology (as distinct from physics!) Another good source on that is Edward Feser's book Aristotle's Revenge.

I'm new here and from Australia, where philosophy is a non-subject. — Rob J Kennedy

Welcome

Not sure about that. There are a number of Australians here, including me. The others know more than I do about philosophy. Philosophy has come up a lot in discussions I've had over the past 30 years, but I guess a lot of this is comes down to where you live and who you kick around with.

Is human biology considered to be one part of human essence? — Rob J Kennedy

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean is the nature of what is human constrained by our biology?

I've been long interested in the "existence precedes essence" debate — Rob J Kennedy

It was a debate back in the 60's-70's; is it back in fashion? I'm assuming you are referring to Sartre here.

The idea (if I remember correctly) being that people are born into a world and have to make choices, creating their own meaning. Which means that humans do not have a fixed nature or essence they have to follow.

So is your question are humans subject to biological imperatives which override their ability to make choices as per Sartre? Is biology essentialism? Do we have a nature that defines us? Sartre would have said no.

So, if we consider biology as a part of our essence (I'm not stating that it is), doesn't essence precede existence as our biology is determined before birth? — Rob J Kennedy

Maybe Heidegger is more helpful frame as he posits the idea of thrownness. We are "thrown" into existence, born into a specific time, place, and cultural context, without any control over these matters. We are also human animals, with our own experiences which powerfully shape who we are, how we make sense of things and what we choose. We then have to make the best of it all, subject to contingent factors.

Hi Tom,

You ask, "Do you mean is the nature of what is human constrained by our biology?"

Basically yes. So if your biology is a part of your essence, and there are a lot of pre-defined attributes in your biology, your essence must come before your birth. I think the tricky thing here is what was Sartre calling existence? I'm saying birth, but do the two words equate?

I'm glad there are other Australians interested in philosophy. The reason I joined this forum is I can't find anyone to talk to about philosophy. I live in Canberra, and I've been to a few ANU philosophy talks, but most are all on their "academic philosophy", which I find impenetrable.

Outside of that and The Philosophers Zone on the ABC, there is no philosophy discussed in my circles. I don't know anyone who is interested in the subject.

Maybe Heidegger is more helpful frame as he posits the idea of thrownness. We are "thrown" into existence, born into a specific time, place, and cultural context, without any control over these matters. — Tom Storm

Thrownness is an interesting concept. You’re right that some interpret this as meaning the history of external circumstances which shapes us outside our control. But others argue that thrownness has more to do with how the future comes toward us than how the past constrains us. In other words, thrownness is our creative muse, whispering in our ear, opening up new worlds of possibility. Even what we consider to be autonomously willed choice is something we are thrown into.

OK, which pub? I'll go.

Thanks for the info on Aristotle's Concept of Heredity, I'll have a read.

Best,

Rob

I find defining essence the key to the debate. — Rob J Kennedy

Welcome Rob. I first want to distinguish you from the politician currently running for American president : Robert Kennedy Jr. One of your accidental qualities is Australian. But that accident of birth may not be essential to your being as a person in the wider world. Therefore, we need to first define the context for our definition.

Generally, "Essence" is a Quality that humans attribute to things in order to define them, and to distinguish them from other things : its core identity. Aristotle looked for a universal definition of Thingness. So he developed his notion of "Hylomorphism", in which Hyle is matter and Morph is Form. Yet his "morph" does not refer to what we see, but to what we infer by reason. Another term is "Substance" (ousia, being), but today Materialists often confuse it with objective malleable material stuff (hyle), although he identified it with subjective immaterial immutable "Form" (pattern ; design).

I won't even attempt to define Human Essence in this post, because it's a hotly debated question. The term could merely distinguish humans from animals : traditionally a Soul. Or it could more generally define humanity Ontologically. I do have some unconventional ideas on the topic, that go back to Aristotle's ancient concept of Form, along with our modern understanding of Information. But, I'll give you a chance to say how deep and how far you want to go with this topic. :smile:


Essence is a polysemic term, having various meanings and uses. It is used in philosophy and theology as a designation for the property or set of properties or attributes that make an entity or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity. ___Wikipedia

Substance vs Essence vs Form :
Metaphysics can be concerned with things so basic that it’s hard to understand, and the language only makes it harder. The hope here is to provide a quick guide to help with key terms: “essence,” “substance,” and “form.”
https://o-g-rose-writing.medium.com/essence-substance-and-form-81c2b707c0d8

Essence as Form :
Another article in the Philosophy Now magazine attempts to find “a balance between two extreme views of consciousness. . . . Physicalism and panpsychism sit either end of a metaphysical seesaw, and when one is in the ascendancy it is only by bringing the other unduly low.” The author, Dr. Sam Coleman, proposes a different kind of stuff (essence) that is “neither mental nor physical in itself, but which possesses properties capable of generating both the mental and the physical.” The “one fundamental stuff” he's referring to is Consciousness, but for technical purposes I think that the scientific term “Information” fits the description better.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page14.html

This topic has been discussed in this The Necessity of Genetic Components in Personal Identity and Reasons for believing in the permanence of the soul threads. I would recommend taking a look and then editing your OP so the discussion does not start from 0 again. :grin:

Hi, Yes, I could kill my parents for giving me such a name. To top it off, my middle name is John. Guess when I was born?

All I can say abuout junior is that JFK must be rolling in his grave.

The definition, as with most words used in a philosophical manner is always the stumbling point. When I say essence, I mean it from a poetic sence. Please don't ask me to define that, we'll be here for ever. But, taking essence to mean a person biological makeup, that changes everything.

If your sex is part of your essence, your predetermined attributes guide your essence. At least, that's what I think.
Rob

Hi Lionino, I'll take a look at that and see if it helps. Thank you. Rob.

But others argue that thrownness has more to do with how the future comes toward us than how the past constrains us. In other words, thrownness is our creative muse, whispering in our ear, opening up new worlds of possibility. Even what we consider to be autonomously willed choice is something we are thrown into. — Joshs

I've never heard this take on thrownness before. Interesting.

I always understood thrownness as a limitation or boundary that might impact upon our anticipatory sense making. Are you suggesting the more salient dimension to this is how we are thrown into adaptation?

:up:

The definition, as with most words used in a philosophical manner is always the stumbling point. When I say essence, I mean it from a poetic sence. — Rob J Kennedy

There's an important use of essentialism in philosophy and critical theory discourse.

From Wikipedia:

Essentialism is the view that objects have a set of attributes that are necessary to their identity.[1] In early Western thought, Plato's idealism held that all things have such an "essence"—an "idea" or "form". In Categories, Aristotle similarly proposed that all objects have a substance that, as George Lakoff put it, "make the thing what it is, and without which it would be not that kind of thing".[2] The contrary view—non-essentialism—denies the need to posit such an "essence".

An example of this idea being parsed is in gender identity discourse. Is gender a case of essentialism or is it performative (e.g. Judith Butler)... that kind of thing.

I always understood thrownness as a limitation or boundary that might impact upon our anticipatory sense making. Are you suggesting the more salient dimension to this is how we are thrown into adaptation? — Tom Storm

Sort of. For Heidegger it’s not so much a matter of adapting to already formed external realities. Rather, it about creating possibilities.

““The essence of something is not at all to be discovered simply like a fact; on the contrary, it must be brought forth. To bring forth is a kind of making, and so there resides in all grasping and positing of the essence something creative…. To bring forth means to bring out into the light, to bring something in sight which was up to then not seen at all, and specifically such that the seeing of it is not simply a gaping at something already lying there but a seeing which, in seeing, first brings forth what is to be seen, i.e., a productive seeing.”

:up: Nice quote and thank you. Is there an essay, perhaps, on this you can think of that might be readable to a layperson?

I'm trying to understand the creative parameters, the innovation in this process of 'bringing forth' or 'productive seeing'. He makes it sound as if ordinary life could be riddled with innovation and originality.

I've been long interested in the "existence precedes essence" debate. I find defining essence the key to the debate. — Rob J Kennedy

I never understood what Sartre meant by that cryptic phrase. But, since you asked, I started looking into it. Apparently, he was not talking about biological or genetic determinism, but simply about metaphysical FreeWill and Self-determination. His humanist Existentialism was contrasted to religious Determinism or Destiny (remote control), and restrictive Morality. So, I assume he equated "existence" with unique Personhood, and "essence" with the concept of a fatalistic Calvinist Predestined Soul. This is completely different from Aristotle's meaning of Essence or Psyche or Soul.

Presumably, the Soul that inhabits a Body works like a computer program in a robot. The mechanical Body limits what you can do, but the volitional Soul/Mind determines your Choices. For Calvinists, we humans are like remote-controlled robots, with no internal executive power over our eternal destiny. Yet, for Existentialists, the human Self/Mind/Person can learn to transcend or reprogram its biological (essential) settings. That's just my top-of-the-head guess, though. What's yours? :smile:

"Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does". ___Jean-Paul Sartre
Note --- Don't blame God or Satan for what you Are and Do

Biological determinism, also known as genetic determinism, is the belief that human behaviour is directly controlled by an individual's genes or some component of their physiology, generally at the expense of the role of the environment, whether in embryonic development or in learning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_determinism

Existence precedes essence :
To Sartre, "existence precedes essence" means that a personality is not built from a previously designed model or for a precise purpose, because it is the human being who chooses to engage in such enterprise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_precedes_essence

What is the existentialist view of free will? :
In this way, the existentialist generally affirms the view that the human being has free will, is able to make decisions, and can be held responsible for their actions. But, as we will see, this does not mean that we can do whatever we want.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/

Freedom and Responsibility :
Our choices are free in the sense that (1) no outside factors determine our will, (2) in any particular case we could have acted otherwise than we did, and (3) we are therefore responsible for our choices in a way that justifies moral praise and blame.
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/existentialism/v-1/sections/freedom-and-responsibility#:~:text=Our%20choices%20are%20free%20in,blame%20(see%20Free%20will).

PS___ It just occurred to me that Buddhist Self-Control may be similar to Sartre's Personal Development, allowing a Self to learn to overcome inherent limitations & instincts.

Welcome and enjoy your time here. There are plenty of important Australian philosophers around.

As to your question and Sartre's claim, that "existence precedes essence", I believe this is as a factual claim, false. If it is intended to elaborate some kind of existentialist viewpoint, then that claim has to be defended under such a context.

Without extra content, it's not true. Without a nature (essence), existence is meaningless, one might as well be a rock.

Within our rich biological capacities, existence (experience) plays a fundamental role in our development as human beings.

At least, that's how it seems to me.

Hi Manual,

I never said there weren’t Australian philosopher, just a dearth of philosophical discussion in Australia, except on here of course.

I agree with your statement "If it is intended to elaborate some kind of existentialist viewpoint, then that claim has to be defended under such a context".

I've long held the view that in place of us inventing things that have to be explained, why don't we explain the things that we can invent? The world would be such a more coherent place.

if we consider biology as a part of our essence (I'm not stating that it is), doesn't essence precede existence as our biology is determined before birth? — Rob J Kennedy

Define essence. In particular, are you talking about the essence of "humanness", or what constitutes an individual's essence (that which makes that individual who he is).

In thinking of human essence, I am wondering about how does this comes down to the raw essentials,especially biology? The debate between nature and nurture may be important here. In particular, ons aspect for thinking about may be the extent to which 'human nature' exists as an underlying 'esssence', underlying history and the nature of human action. It is related to.to question of human nature, and how it is fixed or subject to change in relation to historical and social aspects of change.

Hi Relativist,

Words send us in circles. But for me, my definition of essence includes our biological makeup, which drives primary functions and attitudes, and, we obtain a large part of our essence from the way we have been treated by others. Some have a loving and caring essence, some don’t because of our upbringing.

Hi Jack,

I figure our biology has to be a part of human essence. Our essence can't be just what we think we are. But is this only a philosophical viewpoint? Outside of philosophy, poetry and religion, I can't hear anyone else talking about human essence. So there may be no such thing. Like the soul or god, is essence just another human construct? I'd say that mostly it is. However, I feel in describing human essence, or at least what I think it is, it can be put this way, after reading so much by Simone de Beauvoir, her essence is made up of her strength, truth, individulity and dertimination. Take any one of them away, and she would not be Simone de Beauvoir, she would be someone else.

The issue of human essence is particularly complicated, including the ideas of Simome de Beauvoir. Here, the nature of biology and ideas of the 'second sex' may come into play, as well.as her understanding of the ideas of Sartre, as her partner, may come into play.

These aspects of human essence and meaning may be of particular significance in the understanding of the nature of human meaning, in
its varied forms of philosophy.

Words send us in circles. But for me, my definition of essence includes our biological makeup, which drives primary functions and attitudes, and, we obtain a large part of our essence from the way we have been treated by others. Some have a loving and caring essence, some don’t because of our upbringing. — Rob J Kennedy

Consider Rob J Kennedy at 10AM yesterday. Rob had a set of unique set of properties unique from all others. This includes Rob's genetic makeup which mutates over a lifetime, as well as his mental makeup - shaped by his lifetime up to then. Today, at 10 AM, Rob J Kennedy was a day older, with another 24 hours of experiences. Are there essential properties that Rob has on both days? What about on all the days of Rob's lifetime?

So there's two extremes regarding individual essence:
1) every property is essential to being that individual at that point of time; There are no accidental properties
2) No properties are part of an individual's essence - there is a "bare identity" (also call haeccity). Every acquired property is accidental. This would even exclude the set of properties that we regard as "humanness".

Personally, I choose option 1. The other extreme seems absurd, and choosing something in between seems arbitrary. So I challenge the notion that essence is even a useful concept, except for use in some thought experiments where we stipulate some fixed set of properties to analyze consequences.

Agreed, Relavitist.

Essence is not a useful concept, but what I know of Sartre, I can understand why he focused on it at one point.

I have a friend who works for one of the biggest tech companies in the world. And, they want to know what his essence is. He tells me they have regular meeting about how him and his staff feel about themselves and the company. Are they asking if the essence of the company is alligning to the essence of the employee? He thinks they are. This companies mission statment is, the essence of the company. And employees are expected to not just agree with it, but to own the same essence to correctly align themselves to their priorities.

So maybe, for some, their essence is changable depending on their situation and who they are with. I think that is possible. Maybe essence should just be our biological design. The rest is too arbitary.

I have a friend who works for one of the biggest tech companies in the world. And, they want to know what his essence is. He tells me they have regular meeting about how him and his staff feel about themselves and the company. Are they asking if the essence of the company is alligning to the essence of the employee? He thinks they are. This companies mission statment is, the essence of the company. And employees are expected to not just agree with it, but to own the same essence to correctly align themselves to their priorities. — Rob J Kennedy

Can you say what company? Sounds kind of creepy to me.

I'd rather not.

:up:

I have a friend who works for one of the biggest tech companies in the world. And, they want to know what his essence is. He tells me they have regular meeting about how him and his staff feel about themselves and the company. Are they asking if the essence of the company is alligning to the essence of the employee? He thinks they are. This companies mission statment is, the essence of the company. And employees are expected to not just agree with it, but to own the same essence to correctly align themselves to their priorities. — Rob J Kennedy

Just another example of marketing and HR middle managers not knowing how to use words — (good) semantics is actually quite the exclusive skill. What they are trying to talk about is the company's and the person's values. The HR department simply had this aesthetic feeling that the word 'essence' is prettier than 'value' and chose to go with it, without any regard for meaning.
It is typical corporate talk as most of us know, and most of most of us (so less than 1 most) know that the employees give 0 f*cks about it, they are just trying to make it through the month, irrespective of inclusivity or team-mindedness or fliggity-diggity.

I have a friend who works for one of the biggest tech companies in the world. And, they want to know what his essence is. He tells me they have regular meeting about how him and his staff feel about themselves and the company. Are they asking if the essence of the company is alligning to the essence of the employee? He thinks they are. This companies mission statment is, the essence of the company. And employees are expected to not just agree with it, but to own the same essence to correctly align themselves to their priorities. — Rob J Kennedy

Most big companies do a variation of this which often used to be called a 'values alignment'. Corporate culture and management theory regularly spins a kind of quasi religious cult-like ethos. The expectation is that employees will and should be be dedicated to the company's mission, vision and values in an almost transcendental way. I say fuck them. But many employees in my experience fall for it and I guess they might have a big salary as additional motivation.

Yes, corporate speak is the death of originality.

. And, they want to know what his essence is — Rob J Kennedy

But do they use that actual terminology: 'what is your essence'?

Do you remember Gattica, a 1997 movie set in a future society where genetic engineering and DNA testing are used to determine a person's potential and worth? The main character, Vincent Freeman, played by Ethan Hawke, has inferior genetics and must fake his DNA identity in order to pursue his dreams and goals. The film explores themes of genetic discrimination and the consequences of a society where DNA determines one's destiny. Now that would be 'ascertaining essence'. Otherwise the kind of surveys your friend undertakes are more likely just 'wellness checks' and what HR departments do to monitor staff. The most recent contract I had, those surveys were sent out automatically every fortnight, eliciting my workplace responses. Pretty standard business practice.