But there may be some commonality between all humans of what it I like to be human, even if its also unique to each. — Yohan

Yes, that was what I asked on my 1st question.

It doesn't really say much to say that what makes humans humans is an internal quality. That's why external definitions are more pragmatic. — Yohan

As long as they are meaningful enough.

But there may be some commonality between all humans of what it I like to be human, even if its also unique to each. — Yohan
Yes, that was what I asked on my 1st question. — Corvus

I don't think such could be expressed in words. And I do think we may be surprised to what an extent one human's experience of being may be different than another's depending on culture, upbringing and biology.

Can list some special capacities we have that known earth animals seem to lack:
Metacognition. Thinking about thinking
Long distance future contemplation and planning and dwelling on long distant past.
Feel more refined or exalted emotional states such as reverence, or the feeling of the sacred, as well as appreciation for art and music, as well as humor and irony.
Higher levels of self-discipline and moral considerations.
Care about and seek meaning beyond base survival and pleasure gratification.

I think very few people have attained full human development. Most of us suffer from arrested development, mostly acting like animals.

It doesn't really say much to say that what makes humans humans is an internal quality. That's why external definitions are more pragmatic. — Yohan
As long as they are meaningful enough. — Corvus

Yeah. I don't see why it would be hard to define essential outer human characteristics. At least while there are not many species that resemble us, on earth at least.

Don't get offended if I give a wrong account of your world view. — Yohan

All in all, it's a well-presented chain of thought.

Before we get started, I'll give my habitual spiel. I say it all the time, but I think it's especially important when we address your points. Here it is - The issues you are discussing - materialism, idealism, realism, and other philosophical approaches are metaphysical. They're not true or false, they're more or less useful in a particular situation. I was reading somewhere in the last couple of days - mathematicians tend to be idealists and physics tend to be materialists. Are idealists attracted to math or does studying math make you see things in a idealistic way? There is no doubt, for me at least, that both idealism and materialism are appropriate ways to look at things in some situations. Not in others.

What we see are only the appearances of things. When such appearances are mistaken to be the things in themselves, we become materialists. (Matter(appearance) is essence) — Yohan

I'm on board except for the word "mistaken." I'd change that to "interpreted" or "seen."

Concepts are maps of appearances. When those maps are confused for the things they map, that is Idealism. (Conceptuality/mind is essence) — Yohan

Ditto. Change "confused" to "interpreted as."

Logic can only eliminate falsehood. It disproves. It cannot explain what is but only what ain't. (I'm repeating myself...hmm). When logic is mistaken as positive rather than eliminative, you become a rationalist — Yohan

Again with "mistaken" vs. "interpreted." Are we talking about deductive logic? I don't know enough to comment more. Unless you're saying inductive logic is impossible. Then we can argue.

So then, how to "reach" essence?
The only path left may be intuition.

I believe every "path" uses Intuition, logic, and observation with different degrees of emphasis.
Spirituality emphasizes intuition.
Philosophy emphasizes logic
Science emphasizes observation — Yohan

I don't think this is wrong, but I think it is oversimplified. You also haven't defined what you mean by intuition, logic, or observation. As I've seen reading the posts in this thread, intuition means different things to different people.

As for "essence," it again is a metaphysical entity. Does it mean objective reality? The Tao? The dream of a butterfly? Information? Mathematics?

Good post.

Your entire Op is informational structure. The words that you use represent concepts that are entirely socially derived. Without this socially derived informational structure, what sort of intuition would you posses at all? — Pop

I have tried to imagine a consciousness before language and society, and there is not really much there without those socially derived concepts. — Pop

It is pretty well established that the structural elements of language are innate. They are present from birth. Genetic and/or epigenetic. Babies are not blank slates. The same seems to be true of other cognitive elements, e.g. number and moral judgements. I think your intuition about how babies think and learn is not correct.

You are implying intuition comes after and or is dependent upon socially acquired concepts? This may be true. — Yohan

I think you're running up against the problem that you haven't defined "intuition" very well. Concepts are words. You don't need words to think. Brand new infants think. They're not waiting for us to pour something in their tank before they can start grinding the grain. I think I mixed metaphors.

I have tried to imagine a consciousness before language and society, and there is not really much there without those socially derived concepts.
— Pop — T Clark

Language is not socially derived. That is, the means to speak. Of course the specific language is. And of course one needs social intercourse for speaking.

Language is not socially derived. That is, the means to speak. Of course the specific language is. And of course one needs social intercourse for speaking. — Khalif

I think you're right.

There is form essence and essence essence.
Form essence is what form qualities are necessary to call something a particular kind of form — Yohan

The OP is well-stated, thorough. Wittgenstein says that "Essence is expressed by grammar." PI #371 which is fairly cryptic apart from the history of Kant's thing-in-itself which cut us off from a certain picture of a thing's essence, in a sense killing what we are interested in. He does this because the certainty he is requiring ahead of time precludes the fact of the possibility of error, failing, conflict, etc. The division into appearance and "essence" (as "reality", "the world"; essence essence as you put it) is the picture created by this desire for something predetermined, certain, universal, complete in all outcomes, having the ability to force agreement, etc.

So what Witt means is that the "forms" (as you, and Plato, and Kant, call them) of our acts and expressions (Witt calls these "concepts" for lack of a better way to group them): choosing, pointing, thinking, understanding, apologizing, excusing, justifying, meaning, believing--everything in our lives here before us in our culture that we grow into and live--these forms/concepts work by a Grammar: the criteria of judging, identifying, completing, doing something appropriately, etc. for every different concept (applied in each context, possibly in their different options/"senses"/"uses"). Because we have been living our lives, making distinctions, judging rationale, etc. for centuries, our concepts contain, all our interests, desires, judgements. The criteria are what matters to us (together) about each thing.

So it is not a question of what "essence" is generally, it is what is essential, as in important, about something to us (all of us), captured in and revealed by a concept's grammar. Now of course we may differ in what criteria are most important to the concept of justice, but this is a rational (if not certain) discussion along the options and possibilities of a concept (PI #90).

Two other things. The idea of "appearance" is also a picture created by our fear of, say, making a mistake (having a doubt, crashing even Descartes' self to the ground), because we do not have anything more certain to get at. We take ourselves out of the picture because of our fear that without certainty, stability, we may fail to pull off our acts or resolve our differences. We want to get to the "real" "essence" of "the world" because of our desire not to be responsible for, and to, the implications of the grammar of our concepts. Wittgenstein stops at "the human body is the best picture of the human soul" (PI, iv p. 178, 3rd ed)--we must treat (not "know") the other as a person. Emerson, in Experience, will say "We live amid surfaces, and the true art of life is to skate well on them." In our skepticism, we look for a solution by imposing criteria for certainty and logic (frozen logic, Witt says) missing the ordinary grammar/criteria that is all around us that we can "take hold of anywhere". Id.

Not that this is a solution. We still are separate people (our internal life is not special (necessary), but it is owned by us). This is our responsibility, and perhaps your grief. You only have my expression (despite your desire for certainty), but I have a responsibility to make myself known (reveal myself, despite my desire to remain unknowable), even to myself. Emerson's Self Reliance is not me as the judgment of the world, but my duty to turn my "intuition into tuition"--explicate the criteria I am relying on, provide rationale, clarify, answer for myself, etc.; to respond to the other and give voice to our experiences, feelings, differences.

It is pretty well established that the structural elements of language are innate. — T Clark

Even before language was created - before humanity possessed language?

Even before language was created - before humanity possessed language? — Pop

I don't know when the language ability developed in humanity or its predecessors. I also don't know when people first started using language.

If you want to get into this, we should probably start very basic, starting with definitions of mind, matter, and reality.
If you define reality as being the objective material world, then your definition already presumes materialism as true. We need to start with a definition of reality that doesn't assume either idealism or materialism, if possible.
I don't know, do you feel this would be worth the effort?
I lean toward feeling this would be a vain pursuit. — Yohan

My issue was with the way you characterized idealism and materialism. You said,

What we see are only the appearances of things. When such appearances are mistaken to be the things in themselves, we become materialists. (Matter(appearance) is essence)

Concepts are maps of appearances. When those maps are confused for the things they map, that is Idealism. (Conceptuality/mind is essence) — Yohan

Something's not quite right with the above description of the two philosophies. I can't seem to put a finger on it though. As of this moment all I can say is,

1. Materialists don't consider appearances as things in themselves. They actually concede the point that all that we have to work with are appearances but...they say...the thing in themselves exist independent of the mind.

2. Idealists don't claim that concepts are maps of appearances, that creates a gap between appearances and concepts as if appearances are independent of the mind, they're not (according to the idealist). What idealists are averring though is that the thing in themselves are concepts, the appearance being merely how these concepts present themselves to us.

1. Materialists don't consider appearances as things in themselves. They actually concede the point that all that we have to work with are appearances but...they say...the thing in themselves exist independent of the mind. — TheMadFool

I'm not saying the materialist does it consciously. They are engaged in double-think. They see and touch what is beyond perception. It sounds absurd, but this is literally what they think is going on. I know, because I was raised in a materialist culture, and I still do this double-thinking most of the time.

Idealists don't claim that concepts are maps of appearances, that creates a gap between appearances and concepts as if appearances are independent of the mind, they're not (according to the idealist). What idealists are averring though is that the thing in themselves are concepts, the appearance being merely how these concepts present themselves to us. — TheMadFool

I don't think Idealists literally think fundamental reality is conceptual. They believe the phenomenal world is conceptual. They believe in. Awareness --->conceptualization----->world.

All in all, it's a well-presented chain of thought.

Before we get started, I'll give my habitual spiel. I say it all the time, but I think it's especially important when we address your points. Here it is - The issues you are discussing - materialism, idealism, realism, and other philosophical approaches are metaphysical. They're not true or false, they're more or less useful in a particular situation. I was reading somewhere in the last couple of days - mathematicians tend to be idealists and physics tend to be materialists. Are idealists attracted to math or does studying math make you see things in a idealistic way? There is no doubt, for me at least, that both idealism and materialism are appropriate ways to look at things in some situations. Not in others. — T Clark

Thanks
I don' disagree with this.

So then, how to "reach" essence?
The only path left may be intuition.

I believe every "path" uses Intuition, logic, and observation with different degrees of emphasis.
Spirituality emphasizes intuition.
Philosophy emphasizes logic
Science emphasizes observation — Yohan
I don't think this is wrong, but I think it is oversimplified. You also haven't defined what you mean by intuition, logic, or observation. As I've seen reading the posts in this thread, intuition means different things to different people. — T Clark

I didn't want to get too academic I guess. Sometimes academia takes away the flavor, grace, and accessibility.

I don't think such could be expressed in words. And I do think we may be surprised to what an extent one human's experience of being may be different than another's depending on culture, upbringing and biology.

Can list some special capacities we have that known earth animals seem to lack:
Metacognition. Thinking about thinking
Long distance future contemplation and planning and dwelling on long distant past.
Feel more refined or exalted emotional states such as reverence, or the feeling of the sacred, as well as appreciation for art and music, as well as humor and irony.
Higher levels of self-discipline and moral considerations.
Care about and seek meaning beyond base survival and pleasure gratification.

I think very few people have attained full human development. Most of us suffer from arrested development, mostly acting like animals. — Yohan

Differences are the basis for each individual's existence. If there is no difference then there is no individuality.

But for essence, you need common characteristics or origins for the foundation of entities. Essence could be abstract concepts such as ones existing in the platonic idea world, if you are an idealist.

Or essence would be character or purpose or function in teleological perspectives such as will - for willing happiness, good, peace, knowledge and prosperity.  Human being is a willing animal, as compared to Aristotle's political animal.

Essence could be narrowed for certain situations and groups or parties such as the essence of a car is riding and getting A to B, essence of Buddhism is enlightenment of self, essence of science is truths for practical life etc.   So, I feel there are different types of essence for the situations and objects and entities, which can be defined from different perspectives and views of the thinkers for their intentions and aims of essence establishing.

Yeah. I don't see why it would be hard to define essential outer human characteristics. At least while there are not many species that resemble us, on earth at least. — Yohan

Yeah, it is just one of the philosophising topics that we could engage for the discussions and reflections.

essence of Buddhism is enlightenment of self, essence of science is truths for practical life — Corvus

I like these definitions. Crisp.
It sounds to me like you are using 'essence' to mean very basic definitions of things. Distilling something down to it essence. These are essences of uniqueness. There could be another essence, the essence of reality, of being itself. Perhaps we all have an essence to what makes us unique from others, but at the same time we all share a common essence. In Buddhist terms, this may be "Buddha nature"?

I like these definitions. Crisp.
It sounds to me like you are using 'essence' to mean very basic definitions of things. Distilling something down to it essence. These are essences of uniqueness. There could be another essence, the essence of reality, of being itself. Perhaps we all have an essence to what makes us unique from others, but at the same time we all share a common essence. In Buddhist terms, this may be "Buddha nature"? — Yohan

Sure, it sounds perfect. Thank you for the great topic, inspiring OP and posts. :up: