I'd suggest that the sheer instrumentality of the "new science" is a major culprit here. It leads to a sort of pride. It's a particularly pernicious pride in that it often masquerades as epistemic humility. Its epistemic bracketing is often an explicit turn towards the creature and the good of the creature without reference to the creator, as if the one could be cut off from the other. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools," and exchanged a holistic view for a diabolical process that cuts apart and makes it so that "reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions." — Count Timothy von Icarus

And what's interesting to me is the way that philosophical and cultural degradation is often very subtle, especially at its inception. For example, it is quite difficult to pinpoint where this "proceduralizing" of reason began, even though we can see it fully flowered in the modern period.

Then beginning where we are now, medicinal movement in the proper direction poses the same sort of question. People and especially cultures cannot do a 180° reversal in a day, and usually the reordering must be done via a multitude of small and subtle shifts or re-orderings. It's remarkably difficult for a rationalistic mindset to yield even the smallest concessions (and thus re-orderings) to a more holistic paradigm. It's almost as if the rationalistic context must be abandoned for a time, in much the same way that someone who has developed bad habits of gait should just go swimming for a few hours in an attempt to forget and reset the whole realm of walking.

The standard modern definition of an essence is as those properties had by some individual in every possible world that includes that individual. — Banno

Cool. I am happy with this definition, but it seems that @Count Timothy von Icarus disagrees.

People and especially cultures cannot do a 180° reversal in a day, — Leontiskos

Yes.

I see Nietzsche as providing one of these pivotal moments - he trashed everything. Made it fun to trash all that was supposed to be good. And it changed many things (philosophy, ethics, culture, influenced politics). It still wasn’t “a day” of course.

We need to course correct again.

It's almost as if the rationalistic context must be abandoned for a time — Leontiskos

Yes. For sake of reasonableness. For sake of truth and wisdom. And good. And happiness and peace. The forgotten pursuits of philosophy.

I completely agree. I think we have much to learn from mystics and novelists regarding the best way to clarify “what it is” and “how it is” and why it matters, and, here is something people today overlook, what doesn’t matter.

We need the anti-Nietzsche. A prophet of the “under-man”, who always, all-along understands truth, eyes fixed on light, delivered as eternal gift, not merely constructed as temporary will.

We don’t need to clarify what Lois was really saying about Superman anymore. That’s all grave digging work. Necessary, but completely turned away from the dynamic and the living.

I don't think that classical theology would ever say that God 'exists objectively'. Whatever exists objectively can be discovered scientifically. — Wayfarer

Science, with all its successes, cannot explain mental phenomena and how they could be efficacious in the world. It is not difficult to see that a model that includes the mind resolves the mentioned problems.

This is not what is meant by an essence in classical metaphysics. This would seem to lead to something like a commitment to a "bundle metaphysics" where things just are collections of properties (plus or minus some bare substratum or haeccity that properties attach to; i.e., "pin cushion metaphysics"). Such theories are reductionist, but they also tend to be nominalist, although I suppose they could also align with some sort of austere realism that reduces all things to a basic set of properties (e.g., ontic structural realism, reduction to a platonic mathematics). — Count Timothy von Icarus

Could we agree that something that exists is either objective or subjective? If yes, then God must objectively exist; otherwise, He is only an idea in the minds of believers. Now, this thing that objectively exists, God (generally, something that objectively exists is called a substance), must have a set of abilities, for example, the ability to create; otherwise, there would be no creation. God also has to have the ability to experience, as well, since otherwise God would become blind to His own knowledge, so He cannot act based on His knowledge. Such a God is a single thing and therefore is a good candidate to be the creator. If there are three substances, of which each is God, then we are dealing with the Trinity. Each substance is either distinguishable from another substance or not. If they are distinguishable, then there must be something to help us distinguish one from another, so-called properties. The properties also required to tell how the whole functions as a united thing. If they are not distinguishable, by this I mean they have no properties, then having more than one substance does not grant any functionality that one substance doesn't have, so the Trinity is unnecessary. So, I have one question here. What are the properties of each substance?

It has many ways of dealing with many placed predicates and relations. The ancients and medievals did not lack a notion of polyadic properties. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Many ways. All of them are ad hoc workarounds. Compare the tortured "Socrates is-a-thing-taller-than-Plato" to Taller(Socrates, Plato).

Aristotle’s logic dominated scholastic philosophy through the middle ages; indeed, as late as the eighteenth century, Kant maintained that Aristotle’s logic was perfect and in no need of revision. But the theory of the syllogism is far too limited to model anything but the most superficial aspects of mathematical reasoning. — Open Logic

While you are there, check out the rest of the Open Logic text, a summation of recent logic, and contemplate how few of those thousand pages might be put into Aristotelian terms.

And that is an introduction.

...but it seems that Count Timothy von Icarus disagrees. — MoK

Yes.

Now, what exactly is an essence for him?

I've asked, but not received a clear answer. Just verbosities such as "... an essence is primarily a metaphysical explanation of how anything is anything at all and interacts with anything else, not how terms refer to things."

I don't find these satisfactory.

Wholly instrumental analytic reason is in a sense diabolical (in both its original and current sense). — Count Timothy von Icarus

Logic as the work of the Devil? The retreat from rationality is the only response left for those who must accept the dogma of the Trinity despite it's incoherence.

I think it is proper to ask for a concise definition of essence. I think that something that objectively exists must have properties and abilities to be functional. I don't see anything more that can be added to this set, properties, and abilities!

I think it is proper to ask for a concise definition of essence. — MoK

Yep. We might even go a step further and ask if the idea of essences is worth keeping.

If you don't mind reading the Devil's works, have a look at Why alchemists can make gold. Let me know if it's paywalled.

ask if the idea of essences is worth keeping — Banno

Do you mean like you and Frank “asked” for an explanation of the Christian narrative?

Yep. We might even go a step further and ask if the idea of essences is worth keeping. — Banno

Did Sartre's idea of essence appeal to you?

Banno:

Did Sartre's idea of essence appeal to you? — frank

Essence as a choice? It's an improvement. What is, is not fixed eternally. But again, I'll go with essence being a philosophical invention, petty thoroughly undermined by Wittgenstein yet given a brief reprieve by Kripke. I'd be happy to consider alternatives - if they could be given clearly.

I see no problem with the idea of essential qualities or attributes. But should we think of them as logically necessary or merely as criteria for the identification of things?

I see no problem with the idea of essential qualities or attributes. — Janus

Yep - the issue is what they are. Talk of the properties had by some individual in every possible world is much clearer than "a metaphysical explanation of how anything is anything at all and interacts with anything else" or "is-ness".

...criteria for the identification of things — Janus

How do these differ from just plain properties - that is, we can identify the kettle form others if we specify that it is the one on the stove; but being on the stove is not, I suppose, a part of the essence of being that kettle.

There's a medieval idea of working down the chain of being, specifying each level by genera, sub-genera, species and so on, giving a criteria at each level. Common hereabouts, but problematic.

...criteria for the identification of things
— Janus
How do these differ from just plain properties - that is, we can identify the kettle form others if we specify that it is the one on the stove; but being on the stove is not, I suppose, a part of the essence of being that kettle. — Banno

I was thinking in terms of identification of things as kinds of thing, not identification of things as particular things. For the purposes of the latter we could bring relations into consideration. Although all indivduals have unique identifying qualities too.

For example we could say that there are essential characteristics that all tigers share, while there are also unique individual variations of those characteristics. A question I've wondered about is, in the context of modal logic, how far we can go in considering all those properties to be contingent, that is not logically necessary.

Is the article mentioned above available to you?

Why alchemists can make gold

Yes, thanks. Looks interesting...I will read it later...now I have some work to do outside.

...now I have some work to do outside. — Janus

Potted up tomatoes, caps and eggplant seedlings this morning to get going in the greenhouse. Put seeds for celery, cauliflower, cabbage and silverbeet in the heated tray. Hope to start lines for carrot, beetroot and parsnip in a bit.

Put seeds for celery, cauliflower, cabbage and silverbeet in the heated tray. Hope to start lines for carrot, beetroot and parsnip in a bit. — Banno

The essence of good gardening.

The essence of good gardening. — Tom Storm

In the Existential sense, yes - it's what I choose to do, since the existence of the seeds precedes the essence of good gardening. :wink:

Clever dick... Out of interest, who do you prefer, Sartre or Camus. I was never able to get through Being and Nothingness.

I've read Being and Nothingness - as an undergrad requirement, so never completely. I also read Nausea, but I quite like radishes. I don't mind No Exit. Read the Plague and of course the Myth of Sisyphus. Can't think what else. However if I had to pick a fav existential work it would be Waiting for Godot.

Added: Not sure we should count Camus as an existentialist...

:up: The cartoon is nice.

That's excellent! I live on fifteen acres and recently had a dam put in, but there are so many other land maintenance issues that I am yet to get to starting a vegetable garden. It's definitely on the list. Luckily here in Nimbin we have excellent local farmer markets and a great organic food co-op.

Nice. I haven't been up that way since I was a kid. I presume you grow a few "herbs"... not need to answer. Ours is a suburban block, carved into multiple beds, so not at all large scale, just enough to feed us in Summer. We host the occasional "herb", which is legal here - or at leat not illegal...

How did you fare in the rain?

There is plenty of herb available up here. I don't grow it myself. So much rain up here for the last few years―makes it difficult to get anything done. The weeds grow up here when it's warm and wet like you wouldn't beleiuve, and we are afflicted by the most horrible thorny weed called Giant Devil's Fig, apparently brought into Australia by some idiot to use as rootstock for growing aubergines (it's also in the Nightshade family). There are forests of the stuff everywhere up here―it's a massive problem.

Added: Not sure we should count Camus as an existentialist... — Banno

I have also read a bit of Camus―The Outsider, The First Man and The Myth of Sysyphus. If I recall correctly he disavowed being an existentialist and was opposed to any and all philosophical systems. I also seem to recall he and Sartre fell out over the latter's adherence to Marxism. I think his fiction is much better than Sartre's (although that said I've read only his Nausea).

I spent a summer pulling out lantana when I was seventeen. Not fun. That was further south, near Comboyne. My hippie girl and I got chased out of Lake Cathie, "We don't want your kind 'round here - get a job!". I don't think they had good experiences with the folk from your area.

Nausea is pretty tedious.

There are a lot of old hippies up here to be sure. I have never really identified as a hippy, although I do have some sympathy for their values. I just like it up here, and it was time ( about six years ago) to get out of Sydney, since I was able to retire from my landscaping design and construction business.

Lantana is a bit of a bugger―though it's much easier to get rid of than devils fig. I just drive into it with the bucket of the tractor up and the blade of the bucket pointed down, lower the leading edge of the bucket to the ground and then reverse the tractor dragging the lantana out as it is so shallow rooted. Then I run over it with the slasher―it breaks down really fast―problem solved. The only bummer is that it serves as habitat for quite a few species of small birds, so I'm a little conflicted about getting rid of it.

I haven't been to Lake Cathie or Comboyne, but I stay at Flynn's Beach sometimes when I'm on my way down to and back from Sydney. I guess Lake Cathie would have been pretty conservative back in the day.

Talk of the properties had by some individual in every possible world is much clearer than… — Banno

No it’s not. We need all of the different ways to talk about this shit we can get. They are all insufficient.

Talk of the properties had by some individual in every possible world is much clearer than… — Banno

What does “properties had by” mean?
What does “properties had by some individual” mean?
How does some individual “have” properties?

Can you answer any of these without any reference to essence? You already mentioned “properties had by some individual…..” so you’ve as good as shown something participating in the forms, just with a new element of “possible worlds”. A new context, or, muddle, for the same phenomena of what it is to be whatever it is.

Nothing about “essence” is much clearer once you’ve used “some individual” to fix “properties” across all possible worlds…..

Plenty of room to insert some muddle, at least possibly. Might as well give @Count Timothy von Icarus and @Wayfarer the same benefit of the doubtful muddle. Like I said “is-ness” helps complete the picture as much as statements like “some individual in every possible”.

——

Camus is only existentialist because what else would he be. He’s a way better read than Heidegger. But Being and Nothingness is existentialism defined if you ask me. Nietzsche and Kierkegaard sort of built the house and opened the door, Satre moved in and set up all the furniture, Camus is hanging out back on the porch. ADDED (He’s sort of a stranger to his own genre.) Heidegger lives next door but never really visits. Dostoyevsky lives in the basement and scares everyone.

We were manually running a chain around the Lantana in order to avoid pulling out the natives, then ripping it out with the tractor. Effective but slow. It was off the edge of the escarpment, so pretty steep, I nearly flipped the tractor a few times.

Cheers, Olo.