Me too. Wish I could get the first 30 years back.

Hi Josh,

When I look at the state of the world, we are urgently ineed of transformative thinking. And, it is only medical science that can change us. Human nature is fixed.

Rob

Well, I belevie that there should be "paradigm shifts or revolutions in philosophy".

Look at the advances in Neuroscince over the last five years, surely some of these must make us assess philosophicl thinking.

Sartre thought human conflict and constant struggle were just a normal part of our condition. Could the need for conflict be driven out of us by rewiring our brains? John Locke said, “Good and evil, reward, and punishment, are the only motives to a rational creature”. Our motives could be altered by medically changing our brains.

We have neurological methods of fixing problems with the brain, such as in people with speech impediments. We can translate brain activity into words and sentences through speech synthesis. When speaking, we can correlate the pattern of electrical activity that happens in the brain to consonants and vowels. This has given light to the neural code of speech. Through an implant, brain activity can be translated into a machine speech synthesis, which might give speechless people their spoken words back.

These and the many other advances in neuroscience make me think that philosophy might have to change its mind.

I'd rather not.

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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

OK, which pub? I'll go.

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

Best,

Rob

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.