Which Came First? The Essence or the Existence?

[Nirvana-Eld]

It's right there in the title. It's a relatively old dispute in philosophy, but it does have profound religious consequences. Martin Heidegger turned Decartes famous quote on its head. Instead of "I think, therefore, I am.", Heidegger asserted, "I am, therefore, I think." This train of thought seems to infer that if something exists, it doesn't need any essence to accompany it. This would lead to the idea that man can exist without essence which falls into conflict with the concept of a soul.

The question: On the issue of human nature, does essence have to precede, or even coincide with existence? Also with whatever conclusion you arrive at, what are the implications on religion?

[QED]

Confused

You are confused. You seem not know when you are in agreement with someone.
First you indicate that a full grown essence is in a new born, then not, make up your mind.

Regards
DL

No, I just stated my belief. I also offered alternative beliefs in other areas of study.

Not required and only tends to confuse the issue. Are those in here not confused enough or is that the plan of this post as I've noticed you doing in others.

Games Games Games

Moderator intervention.
This sort of allegation does nothing to further civil debate. If you feel that another poster is in violation of the debating rules then it would be better to report the post using the button provided or PM any moderator directly with your concerns.

[CJK]

The question: On the issue of human nature, does essence have to precede, or even coincide with existence?

Whether or not essence precedes existence is a question without an answer. Descartes created this paradox with the view that the mind and body are separate entities. As a 16th century philosopher, he was right, because Newtonian physics were insufficient in explaining consciousness (essence)*.

Now that we are in the 21st century, we can see that the physical world is not solid and deterministic as the classical mechanists had thought it was. See Quantum Mechanics and the Consciousness causes collapse theory to investigate for yourself the implications of this relatively new school of thought.


Instead of asking whether or not existence precedes essence, we should cut to the core of the subject, which is this;

How can a nonmaterial mind influence a material body without invoking a nonscientific, supernatural explanation?

[CJK]

The question: On the issue of human nature, does essence have to precede, or even coincide with existence?

Whether or not essence precedes existence is a question without an answer. Descartes created this paradox with the view that the mind and body are separate entities. As a 16th century philosopher, this was a logical conclusion, because Newtonian physics were insufficient in explaining consciousness (essence)*. Now that we are in the 21st century, we can see that the physical world is not solid and deterministic as the classical mechanists had thought it was. See Quantum Mechanics and the Consciousness causes collapse theory to investigate for yourself the implications of this relatively new school of thought.


Instead of asking whether or not existence precedes essence, we should cut to the core of the subject, which is this;

How can a nonmaterial mind influence a material body without invoking a nonscientific, supernatural explanation?

[QED]

Instead of asking whether or not existence precedes essence, we should cut to the core of the subject, which is this;

How can a nonmaterial mind influence a material body without invoking a nonscientific, supernatural explanation?

First show me how we can distinguish the material from the non-material. Is a proton material?

[MagusYanam]

First show me how we can distinguish the material from the non-material. Is a proton material?

I should think a proton is material, if anything can be. It has mass (1.673 * 10^-27 kilos), it has dimension (0.8 * 10^-15 metre radius), it has an observable effect on the charged particles around it (with a charge of +1) - it is one of the fundamental building blocks of matter.

Of more interest, perhaps, is the question of whether a photon is 'material'. It has no mass and no charge, although it can have variable dimension depending on its energy level. It has an observable, material effect on the world around it, however (even such that high-energy ones can cause cancer in high enough concentrations). Photons can be located, and they can even (if you'll pardon the feeble pun) be quantified, in terms of wavelength and energy and speed. I tend to think of the ability to be quantified as a good rule-of-thumb for what is and isn't material.

But if we use this rule-of-thumb for a stipulation concerning what is and isn't material, it doesn't seem like the mind can be 'material', can it? At least, not in the way the early modern philosophers thought about it. It has no extension, no measurable mass, no dimension, no measurable effect on anything besides the body with which it is supposed to have a special connection that allows that body to move and act in accordance with that mind's wishes, no identifiable location, no measurable velocity nor energy.

[QED]

Hi MagusYanam, it's good to hear from you

First show me how we can distinguish the material from the non-material. Is a proton material?

I should think a proton is material, if anything can be. It has mass (1.673 * 10^-27 kilos), it has dimension (0.8 * 10^-15 metre radius), it has an observable effect on the charged particles around it (with a charge of +1) - it is one of the fundamental building blocks of matter.

Of more interest, perhaps, is the question of whether a photon is 'material'. It has no mass and no charge, although it can have variable dimension depending on its energy level. It has an observable, material effect on the world around it, however (even such that high-energy ones can cause cancer in high enough concentrations). Photons can be located, and they can even (if you'll pardon the feeble pun) be quantified, in terms of wavelength and energy and speed. I tend to think of the ability to be quantified as a good rule-of-thumb for what is and isn't material..

Sure, that's why I chose to ask my question of the proton and not the photon. Yet even "massive" particles like protons exist in states of quantum superposition. Unlike the analogous billiard balls that many people think of when talking about these fundamental particles, these guys can be in more than one place at once as well!

Take Tautomerization in chemistry for example. This involves the quantum mechanical property of fundamental particles being in two or more places at once. Even the protons in DNA are not as localised as the famous model of the double helix suggests. It's interesting to note that at the Quantum Mechanical level DNA must be existing in a superposition of "mutational states".

But if we use this rule-of-thumb for a stipulation concerning what is and isn't material, it doesn't seem like the mind can be 'material', can it? At least, not in the way the early modern philosophers thought about it. It has no extension, no measurable mass, no dimension, no measurable effect on anything besides the body with which it is supposed to have a special connection that allows that body to move and act in accordance with that mind's wishes, no identifiable location, no measurable velocity nor energy.

Don't you think there's a chance of us setting up a false dichotomy with this rule of thumb though? All quantum objects exhibit the same peculiar properties of non-locality and tunnelling etc. so these properties that you're assigning to macroscopic collections of particles can never be more than approximations. I happen to think that "the devil is in the detail" and by treating these approximations as if they weren't, we skip the important detail every time.

[MagusYanam]

Thanks, QED, good to hear from you too! I'll cut to the chase of the argument here:

I tend to think of the ability to be quantified as a good rule-of-thumb for what is and isn't material.

Don't you think there's a chance of us setting up a false dichotomy with this rule of thumb though? All quantum objects exhibit the same peculiar properties of non-locality and tunnelling etc. so these properties that you're assigning to macroscopic collections of particles can never be more than approximations.

Could be I might be setting up a false dichotomy here - never got into quantum physics; the most recent actual science course (you know, with lab work) I took was Chemistry 110, and I've been working in a biology lab over my summers instead of a physics lab. And you may be right in looking at the devil in the details. But that doesn't negate the fact that we can still at least approximate the mass, the extension and the location of a proton by merit of observation and calculation. Can we do the same for a mind?