I voted "Other" because although I agree with "No, it doesn't." I don't agree with "Each person decides for himself". It still commits to essentialism, which I reject.

I know what lemon essence is, I don't know what an "essence of man" would be. Whatever it is, the existentialists say existence precedes essence". If existence, behavior, choosing, and so on precede "what we are" then it would seem like "essence" (whatever that is) would vary from person to person, and would be known to a greater or lesser degree by the individual.

"To Sartre, "existence precedes essence" means that a personality is not built over a previously designed model or a precise purpose, because it is the human being who chooses to engage in such enterprise. While not denying the constraining conditions of human existence, he answers to Spinoza who affirmed that man is determined by what surrounds him."

Thanks, as always, Wikipedia, for that.

So no, All Of Us don't have "a single essence". There is something essential about you, something essential about Tiff and Sapientia, and something essential about me -- but it isn't the same essence.

Does humanity as a group have an essence that has been or will be discovered? Or must each individual human decide for herself what her essence is? — anonymous66

Both. Sheldrake refers to it as morphic resonance. Whitehead describes his own version of categories.

The underlying phenomenon is persistence of memory which can be considered embedded in the fabric of the universe.

I don't know what an "essence of man" would be — Bitter Crank

Sounds like a cologne name translated into English. Some Homme by somebody or other. (Don’t want the bring up the Twilightzone episode of “To Serve Man”)

Myself, don’t yet know. I’m however more comfortable in reframing the question into “is there such a thing as human nature” … the nature of man being close enough to the essence of man, I’d think. To say yes is to be endlessly pondering what this might in fact be, especially considering all the diversity that can be found and the many shared attributes with lesser lifeforms (awareness, toolmaking, sounds used to communicate, and the like). On the other hand, to say no is to deny there being such a cohort as humankind. So I heavily lean toward a “yes” answer to this improvised question, but have no idea as to what the particulars might be.

Both. — Rich

I agree; via the reformulation of the question that makes more sense to me: we all have our own individual natures even while we all partake of a common human nature.

we all have our own individual natures even while we all partake of a common human nature. — javra

I think the concept of hermeneutics fits nicely with this idea: We each have our own meaningful self interpretations while partaking in a common "essential" hermeneutical way of being human.

You could make an argument that DNA constitutes 'man's essence', insofar as there is one. Were a single piece of human DNA discovered by another advanced civilisation on another planet, they ought to be able to infer almost everything about the creature the DNA comes from. And h. sapiens, being a species, can't breed with other species.

It's both. There is an essence of what it means to be human, humane, and you have to chose it.

We might say that it has (we have) an unstable essence. Man is still a work-in-progress. The idea that man is essentially otherwise essenceless is arguably one stage of this work. It indicates that man is the kind of entity whose only fixity is being-always-in-progress. (This fixity is itself part of that unstable self-knowledge, self-naming, or self-creation of man.)

Aristotle would say yes, man does have an essence.

It indicates that man is the kind of entity whose only fixity is being-always-in-progress — t0m

Or, in other words, (wo)man is hermeneutical.

Yes, deeply. (Wo)man is the (incarnate or sense-feeling knowhow laden) Concept is Time. That sort of thing. I know you're a fan of Heidegger. I've been reading Being and Time lately, having long been a fan of Kojeve and Sartre. As mentioned elsewhere, the lecture The Concept of Time won me over. So I've been pushing through the longwindedness of B&T (it's worth it).

Oh nice! That's awesome that you're reading B&T!! I actually got The Concept of Time out of the library the other day. I am about to begin reading it on my train rides to and from work. I have read the majority of Being and Time excluding the final couple of chapters. It is the kind of book that, as difficult as it is, you can keep returning to and get more out of every time. I know there is still a lot more in it for me... After The Concept of Time, I plan to have another go at Division 2 of B&T.

I hope you got the lecture as opposed to another text by H of the same name. I say this because it'd be nice to discuss/unpack it together. Is it a thin book translated by WIlliam McNeill? Here's a sample:

Dasein, as always specifically mine in each case, knows of its death and does so even when it wants to know nothing of it. What is it to have one's own death in each case? It is Dasein's running ahead to its past, to an extreme possibility of itself that stands before it in certainty and utter indeterminacy. Dasein as human life is primarily being possible, the being of the possibility of its certain yet indeterminate past. — Heidegger

I know what lemon essence is, I don't know what an "essence of man" would be. — Bitter Crank

It is a gay thing.

I didn't realise there were two. It turns out I have the other one which is a thin book also. It was originally intended as an article written in 1924 in response to the 1923 publication of the correspondence between Dilthey and Yorck, but was never published at the time. My library also has the Lecture translated by William McNeill. I'll try to get my hands on this. Thanks, it would be really helpful to discuss this.

It is a gay thing. — Jeremiah

Oh, well... I'm familiar with THAT kind of manly essence... It's the philosophical essence I'm in the dark about.

Cool. I may read the one you have, too. I've heard good things. I think it's something like the lecture being the ur-B&T, the longer book being the "first draft" of B&T and then B&T itself.

Of course 'man' has an essence: man is essentially destined to the accidents that befall him, of necessity.

I want to go where people know people are all the same.

Does humanity as a group have an essence that has been or will be discovered? Or must each individual human decide for herself what her essence is? — anonymous66

I think essence is a categorical term i.e. applies to classes or categories. An individual can't have an essence, the way I see it.

What I find strange is that the whole business of classifying reality into categories depends on essence. The essence of man is rationality. The essence of a horse is speed. Am I wrong?

It all ties into whether or not one can say what it means to be a good person, or to have lived a successful life, or is flourishing as a human, doesn't it?

Aristotle believed that man is a social, rational animal... that man has an essence. And in the same way we can say about a tree, "that is a healthy, flourishing tree", we can say about an individual man, "that man is flourishing." Eudaimonia is the term the ancients came up with to describe a flourishing human life. But different schools of thought disagreed about what was necessary and sufficient for eudaimonia. For the Epicureans, the claim was, "the lack of pain (or maybe it was 'maximizing pleasure over the long run') is necessary and sufficient for eudaimonia". For the Stoics, it was "virtue is necessary and sufficient for eudaimonia".

But, today some people do deny that man has a nature, and claim rather that "existence precedes essence". They claim that each individual decides for himself what makes his life a good one.

I want to go where people know people are all the same. — Srap Tasmaner

A psychology prof said, "The Germans think everybody is the same, while the French think everybody is different. I think people are pretty much all alike.

If we compare people to dogs, we see that dog behavior is pretty much the same, from dog to dog, as are squirrels and bees. And people behavior is similarly pretty much the same. This is a good thing. It's what enables us to understand each other. If everybody really were unique (and some people think they are really unique) it would be much, much harder to conduct social lives.

Our essence then comes from our group, our genes, and our culture.

Some essences are probably fine:

The ability to use language, the ability to forgo oneself in one's future possibilities, being social creatures that build ourselves in a relationship with others, some persisting identity throughout time, use of reason, etc.

The anti-essentialist needs some coherent way to explain unities, and the apparent persisting identity of any subject/object.

Can't opt out for conventionalism because ulimately the mind would be a product of convention, but that seems like an absurd conclusion since the mind comes before convention.

Likewise, opting out for a form of family resemblances as an explanation doesn't seem to work as that leads to an infinite regression.

"The Germans think everybody is the same, while the French think everybody is different.

Hah - that's probably adequate.

But, today some people do deny that man has a nature, and claim rather that "existence precedes essence". They claim that each individual decides for himself what makes his life a good one. — anonymous66

I think I get it now. Humans have a choice to be what they want to be. There is no predetermined nature we are slaves to. That also makes us responsible for our actions. The bright side is we can decide out life-path.

I think there's truth in such a view. To say the least, we function, live our lives, under this assumption.

I think the concept of hermeneutics fits nicely with this idea: We each have our own meaningful self interpretations while partaking in a common "essential" hermeneutical way of being human. — bloodninja

Though I'm not yet well versed in this branch of philosophy, having browsed up on it, I very much agree.

You could make an argument that DNA constitutes 'man's essence', insofar as there is one. Were a single piece of human DNA discovered by another advanced civilisation on another planet, they ought to be able to infer almost everything about the creature the DNA comes from. And h. sapiens, being a species, can't breed with other species. — Wayfarer

I’ve my issues with the notion that DNA (all chromosomes) can be translated into phenotypic characteristics of body and mind merely via analysis of the genome. For starters, a genome depends on interactions with environment to develop into a phenotype. So far, despite the big hoopla of mapping out the human genome, I’ve been evidenced right on this. And, I don’t know but I’ve been told: well, according to one professor’s shpiel, human DNA is similar enough to chimp DNA that it’s very likely one could get a hybrid going (if so, whether it would be mule like or not, i.e. capable of biological reproduction, is not known … hopefully for obvious reasons). Needless to say, though, there’s quite the behavioral divide which prevents such a thing from naturally happening, on both sides I’d add. Not even bonobos and chimps reproduce, due to their own behavioral divide, and the more peaceful bonobos are notoriously sexual things.

Anyway, had a new thought about the essence of Homme—one I think you might also be OK with: we are, as someone aptly named our species, by in large alike in our relatively large magnitudes of sapience/wisdom. Quite the ego-boost, come to think of it; our human essence: wisdom.

I'd say man's essence is identical to his existence, thinking is existence,

I'd say that man's essence is identical to his concept of humanity, and a concept that is formed via culture and experience. Guess I'll have to vote 'other' too.

(Y)

If it does exist then it would have to be whatever consciousness is.

Is there any doubt that some people really do live better lives than others? Must we accept that mass murderers just have a different idea about what makes a good life?