Talk:Existence precedes essence

Removed Paragraph

I removed this paragraph:

The concept is problematic as in the real world human beings come into existence through biology. With their essence being biological in nature all of their concepts of value and meaning must ultimately be grounded in sociobiology. Thus their essence would precede their existence and thus any values they could construct must ultimately be parameterized by their evolutionary psychology.

That's a biological determinist argument and if someone wants to add that as a separate section on critiques of existence preceding essence, that's fine. But otherwise it's very POV.

Fokion 16:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

'precedes'

I don't know where this could be written without a considerable rewrite (indeed, too considerable for me to consider at this time), but the definition of the phrase relies purely on the chronological interpretation of 'precedes'. If something could be thrown in using the logical reading that'd be great (or i'll just do it sometime =]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyroo g (talk • contribs) 22:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Page blanking

Ahem, why do you say this is vandalism? It was more litter collection, you know, someone drops some rubbish in the street and like a good citizen you pick it up and put it in the appropriate place. You seem to have taken it upon yourself to remove it from the bin and put it back on the street again. Best Peter Damian (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Page blanking and removal of content without discussion is vandalism, there's even vandalism warning templates specifically for it. The discussion can't be purely rhetorical, e.g. accusing an article of being "amateur philosophy." WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a defense for deleting an article. -- Scarpy (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well we've discussed it, now, yes? Peter Damian (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC) [edit] And by the way it's not that I don't like it. It was a bad article, a property it had without my liking it or not. Best Peter Damian (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not discussion; it's still just a poor excuse for vandalism. If you have concerns about the article, we can address them. But you need to do better than calling the article "bad" or "amateur philosophy." -- Scarpy (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

So it's not obvious to you it is a bad article? Peter Damian (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Let's take the first sentence. "Existence precedes essence", is a philosophic concept based on the idea of existence without essence. " It's not really a concept, it's a formulation, a maxim, or a doctrine. It originates with Sartre (and not with Avicenna, at least not in the precise form defined by existentialist philosophers such as Sartre). The idea lies at the heart of existentialist philosophy, which overturns the traditional Western philosophical tradition that the essence or nature of a thing is more fundamental and immutable than its existence.

The second sentence is weak and unsourced. The third "The value and meaning of this existence—or essence—is created only later. " is unsourced. The fourth "It directly and strongly rejects many traditional beliefs including religious beliefs that humankind is given a knowable purpose by its creator or other deity. " is also unsourced, and needs to be logically connected with the definition of existence and essence. Only the sentence "The idea of "existence precedes essence" is a key foundational concept of existentialism." stands any scrutiny.

The stuff about Mulla Sadra was added by someone else later. It is absurd to have something of this sort in an article about existentialist philosophy per WP:UNDUE. Peter Damian (talk) 05:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I have completely rewritten the article. Peter Damian (talk) 06:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

There may have been some unsourced sentences in the previous revision, but now there is not a single citation in the article. Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verifiability. In this sense, the previous version had a much higher level of scholarship than the current one. If you can't support what's in the article, it should probably be reverted to the previous version. -- Scarpy (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

done Peter Damian (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing verifiable materials is unacceptable and you're not in the position to judge about what is rubbish and what is not.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is "Jagged", which means that it heavily desinformed by misusing sources. The concept was invented by Sartre, everything else is totally bogus. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup for systematically using Wikipedia as a private propaganda central. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 21:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

First sentence

The article reads, 'The proposition that Existence precedes essence is a central proposition of existentialism, which overturns the Western philosophical tradition that the essence or nature of a thing is more fundamental and immutable than its existence.' Does anyone fancy explaining why that sentence has to use the word 'proposition' twice? Skoojal (talk) 09:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

third position: neither precedes the other but are at the same moment?

Besides "existence preceding essence" or "essence preceding existence" could 'essence is existence' be said to be a third viewpoint, maybe very close to Esse est percipi of George Berkeley? Might that be equatable without original research by a source indicating such that any knows of? 4.242.174.54 (talk) 09:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

And being simultaneous doesn't even necessarily mean that they are the same thing. They could be distinct, simultaneous and interdependent on one another. I don't know of any thinker who has said this though, so I can't put it into the article. Leostaley (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Logical lapse between para 2 and para 3

I notice someone said that the stuff about Mulla Sadra (in the second para) had been added later by another editor. It shows. There is now a contradiction between the end of para 2 and the start of para 3.

"Mulla Sadra substituted a metaphysics of existence for the traditional metaphysics of essences, giving priority ab initio to existence over quiddity. [para 3]In western philosophy Sartre flips this around arguing that for humans, existence precedes essence."

Actually, Sartre is not flipping Mulla Sadra around at all (with whom he actually appears to agree). He's flipping around the stuff that comes earlier in the sentence -- this, in fact:

"In Islamic philosophy, whereas previous methods of philosophical thought held that "essence precedes existence", a concept which dates back to at least Avicenna[6] and Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi..."

I would make the necessary change myself, except this stuff is well out of my area of knowledge, so I'd rather someone else handle it. The simplest way would be to change para 3 to: "In western philosophy Sartre flips round the traditional view, arguing that..." Socratidion (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Fictious Arabic invention deleted

The phrase, was formulated by Jean Paul Sartre on basis of his reading of older existensialists. The "information" about Avicenna and Mulla Whatteheck is totally irrelevant and a mess from systematic misrepresentation of sources by Jagged 85. I deleted all of it. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 22:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Good! I am below posting my standard summary of the relevant edits in case needed at some time. Johnuniq (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.

Diffs for each edit made by Jagged 85 are listed at Cleanup6. It may be easier to view the full history of the article.

A script has been used to generate the following summary. Each item is a diff showing the result of several consecutive edits to the article by Jagged 85, in chronological order.

• Existence precedes essence: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Johnuniq (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

A note on the misuse: Arabic speaking scholars compare Sartre with Mulla Sadra, but the comparison typically falls out [1]:

Mulla Sadra's existentialism is therefore fundamentally different from Western, i.e. existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre.

The statement "Existence preceeds essence" is not attributed to anyone but Sartre. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 16:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of correctness: Mulla Sadra actually coined something very much like "Existence preceeds essence" — I was wrong about that. I made an about link in the beginning of the article to catch that. Pardon for all inconveniences — I'm not about to "prove" that there were no Arabic/Islamic influence on Europe, but it's not the right thing to prove that some Arab was first to invent everything, by concocting some influence that there really never was — that would desinform the reader and make Wikipedia a source of academic ridicule. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Václav Havel

I have added a section re Václav Havel, inasmuch as 'essence precedes existence' (or 'consciousness precedes being') doesn't have an article of its own; his mention of this philosophical saw is furthermore by far its most prominent mention in recent times. kencf0618 (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Havel's view is rather unrelated to the main article, though. It only confuses as opposing Sartre's view with Havel's view which does not seem to be a contribution to the main concepts in the rest of the article. 137.132.3.9 (talk) 05:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Václav Havel makes no explicit reference to existentialism. He makes reference to the Marxist ideal of transforming human nature through social influence. The mere parallelism between his wording and the existentialist adage isn't a clear indication that he wanted to equate the philosophies. Interpreting flowery political speeches smacks of original research rather than something that belongs on Wikipedia.

Even if Havel made explicit references to existentialism, you should be referencing his philosophical publications and not speeches made in front of Congress. And if he doesn't have any philosophical publications pertaining to the subject, as I suspect is the case, then pray tell why should this particular political speech made by this particular politician from a certain part of the world, referencing a certain period of history should be given such prominence in the article? Where are some actual academic sources with a nuanced view on the influence of existentialism on the political history of the Soviet Union and its satellite states? Just the facts that existentialism, according to some Wikipedia editor, has political implications (what doesn't?) and that Havel was a politician doesn't make this okay. 178.181.21.97 (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The Marxist formulation is an important one, inasmuch as it has had some geopolitical impact. kencf0618 (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Satrer's great Misreads

This entry should contain a sub-entry on Heidegger's take on Satre's misreading of Being and Time in the 1947 " Letter on Humanism" and Also a misread of Aristotle that can easily be seen from the lectures on "physics' " discussion on Antiphon and 193α 9-β 21; where he talks about form and matter, and also metaphysics Θ 1045β 5. Satre claim itself "declares with greater consistency that if God does not exist there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence": if this is to ground his claims, he rescinds it thus "even if God existed that would make no difference from its point of view. " leaving it ungrounded Διοτιμα (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)