Atheists only - does existence precede essence, or essence precede existence? (choice, philosophy)

[Da Troof]

Does essence preceed existance?

What a silly question. But here is the answer anyway::

People exist. As they grow from a single cell they gradually become self aware. This takes several years. That self awareness continues to develop and change over the rest of their life. Then they die and the self awareness dies. There is no essence of a person, just their physical being. That physical being changes constantly.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Da Troof

Does essence preceed existance?

What a silly question.

I thoroughly agree.

[kai]

Originally Posted by logician

Atheists only - does existence precede essence, or essence precede existence?

The following quotes can be helpful:

Existence preceding essence is seen in Kierkegaard's Repetition, where his literary character Young Man laments:
How did I get into the world? Why was I not asked about it and why was I not informed of the rules and regulations but just thrust into the ranks as if I had been bought by a peddling shanghaier of human beings? How did I get involved in this big enterprise called actuality? Why should I be involved? Isn't it a matter of choice? And if I am compelled to be involved, where is the manager—I have something to say about this. Is there no manager? To whom shall I make my complaint?[6]
"Sartre, in Essays in Existentialism, further highlights this consciousness of being thrown into existence in the following fashion: "If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will have made what he will be.""

"An older view was that essence precedes existence, so that "being human" might bind a person to such phrase's a priori definitions and connotations, and determining such meanings was seen as a central project of philosophy. "

Any thoughts?

i hant a clue!

[meogi]

Not sure and don't care.

I know I was brought into this world by the act of my parents having sex, their chromosomes intertwining and creating a new genetic copy of themselves. That said, I have no idea whether or not I decided that in a Bardo-esque type place.

[Orontes]

Originally Posted by logician

Atheists only - does existence precede essence, or essence precede existence?

The following quotes can be helpful:

Existence preceding essence is seen in Kierkegaard's Repetition, where his literary character Young Man laments:
How did I get into the world? Why was I not asked about it and why was I not informed of the rules and regulations but just thrust into the ranks as if I had been bought by a peddling shanghaier of human beings? How did I get involved in this big enterprise called actuality? Why should I be involved? Isn't it a matter of choice? And if I am compelled to be involved, where is the manager—I have something to say about this. Is there no manager? To whom shall I make my complaint?[6]
"Sartre, in Essays in Existentialism, further highlights this consciousness of being thrown into existence in the following fashion: "If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will have made what he will be.""

"An older view was that essence precedes existence, so that "being human" might bind a person to such phrase's a priori definitions and connotations, and determining such meanings was seen as a central project of philosophy. "

Any thoughts?

If you expand your interlocutors I can play.

Kierkegaard is typically assigned to the existentialist camp, but in some ways it is an anachronistic placement as Existentialism is the creature of Sartre. The problem with Sartre is his approach is based on a misreading of Heidegger. Heidegger took Sartre to task for the misinterpretations in his 'Letter concerning Humanism'. The base issue is if one opts for any existence prior to essence schema then one cannot explain for example why you and I are able to communicate. Language is a simple counter example. Existentialism, like Logical Positivism, had its high water mark post WWII, but both imploded on themselves to where actual advocates are rarely found beyond the undergraduate level.