Existence PreCedes Essence
Existence precedes essence; The heart and soul of existentialism. The 'that' precedes the 'what'. Whether we buy into this view is a matter of personal opinion, but I believe it at the very least brings forth an undeniably strong assertion. Existence is the state of being. From the moment that you and I wake up and come out of our groggy, zombie-like state we are aware of our existence. We look in the mirror and go "oh shit, that's me". Essence on the other hand, is the thing about a certain thing that makes it that particular thing and not another thing or if you will, a predetermined meaning. Now that that's out of the way, lets get down to the nitty gritty. I first will raise the example of elements. The periodic table is full of neat elements that when combined, produce various effects depending on which elements used. Now if we go with the non-existentialist view, we will say that the idea of elements has been around prior to the discovery of elements. Now, many see no problem with the previous statement, although if I say that I have the idea that 2 + 2 = 5, I will be wrong because 2 + 2 exists as 4. Elements are much like this. When a new element is discovered they say that essence then precedes existence, but the element has always truly existed, we were just unaware of its existence. Then upon its discovery ideas are formulated about the element. Numbers can be brought into this example. Numbers existed before we had the idea of numbers. They define almost everything about the universe. Because of numbers we have salt, we have many of the amenities that we enjoy today. Compounds of elements work because of the numbers. How can one say that numbers were thought up and then after that everything worked?
I feel it is important to mention, however, that there are two types of existentialism recognized today: Christian and Atheist existentialism. As you can probably deduce they both believe that existence precedes essence, but they are divorced due to the fact that one believes in God, while the other denies that God exists. Both of which are subjective to humans. Each is very individualistic (one of the largest causes of criticism for existentialism) and say that when one acts, they are not only acting for themselves but they are also setting an example for every other person. An example can be seen in voting. When I go vote in an election I am not only voting because I would like to see X instead of Y in office, but I am also making a statement by doing this, saying that everyone should vote as well. Existentialist believe that we are here and are nothing, somewhat of a 'tabla rosa' in which we start off with nothing. They further believe that this allows us to be whatever we want and do whatever we want because we can do no evil. (Yet, another criticism of existentialism) They believe that since we can only do good then we may do no evil. The question of murder has been raised by many, including myself, asking how can murder not be evil? Well, due to the very individualistic views of existentialism, they justify it by stating that murder even if not in self defense is the only way that you can rid yourself of that person for whatever reason you have against them, and that by doing that you are committing no evil. Now whether we lend credence in the truth existentialism or not, and if we do, which of the two forms, we must take a look at the powerful argument brought forth by it. Just as a side note, I feel that I should say that some of what existentialists believe, I do not agree with, such as: we can do no wrong, and some other views that I did not discuss. However, I do consider myself somewhat of one, simply due to the fact that I agree with what existentialism is based on: existence precedes essence. I of course do not fit into either one of the existentialist parties recognized today, because I simply find some of their views to be nonsense. Yet, I do agree with the bases of existentialism and cannot help to be intrigued by the thoughts behind it.
I feel it is important to mention, however, that there are two types of existentialism recognized today: Christian and Atheist existentialism. As you can probably deduce they both believe that existence precedes essence, but they are divorced due to the fact that one believes in God, while the other denies that God exists. Both of which are subjective to humans. Each is very individualistic (one of the largest causes of criticism for existentialism) and say that when one acts, they are not only acting for themselves but they are also setting an example for every other person. An example can be seen in voting. When I go vote in an election I am not only voting because I would like to see X instead of Y in office, but I am also making a statement by doing this, saying that everyone should vote as well. Existentialist believe that we are here and are nothing, somewhat of a 'tabla rosa' in which we start off with nothing. They further believe that this allows us to be whatever we want and do whatever we want because we can do no evil. (Yet, another criticism of existentialism) They believe that since we can only do good then we may do no evil. The question of murder has been raised by many, including myself, asking how can murder not be evil? Well, due to the very individualistic views of existentialism, they justify it by stating that murder even if not in self defense is the only way that you can rid yourself of that person for whatever reason you have against them, and that by doing that you are committing no evil. Now whether we lend credence in the truth existentialism or not, and if we do, which of the two forms, we must take a look at the powerful argument brought forth by it. Just as a side note, I feel that I should say that some of what existentialists believe, I do not agree with, such as: we can do no wrong, and some other views that I did not discuss. However, I do consider myself somewhat of one, simply due to the fact that I agree with what existentialism is based on: existence precedes essence. I of course do not fit into either one of the existentialist parties recognized today, because I simply find some of their views to be nonsense. Yet, I do agree with the bases of existentialism and cannot help to be intrigued by the thoughts behind it.