The validity of Essence

                The principle of Essence precedes Existence has always been the knowledge being presumed within the course of western philosophy. With this line of thought, it supports that given impression that Man’s meaning is already pre-determined; which means that Man’s purpose and his significance are already laid down in front of him. Take for example, the case of a carpenter who wants to create a piece of furniture, conceivably a chair.  The chair is an item made by the carpenter or artisan whose idea of the chair came from a concept. The carpenter applies the concept then of what a chair is and is produced in a certain way or method which is also part of the overall concept of the chair. Consequently, the chair is an item fabricated in a particular way and also, possessing a definite purpose or function. Since, when the carpenter creates the chair he knows exactly what he is creating for the concept of the chair is in the mind of the carpenter and as a result, produces an item—a chair. Considering this very idea, it is somehow supported that with this principle Essence precedes Existence; there is an existence of a divine intelligence. In regards to St. Thomas Aquinas’ view on necessary being, he goes over the thought that there ought to be an existence of a necessary being, which is the reason why contingent beings came into existence. In addition to this, St. Thomas argues that if there were no necessary being, nothing at all would come into existence. It is in this manner, that there emerges in man’s awareness an image of a superior sort of artisan.  Wherein he has the concept of man first before man came into existence. The essence existed first in the mind of the creator before its existence appears into view. Basically, the idea being thrown with this kind of notion is that, before man first came into view, before man appeared in the scene, he has already within him his meaning and purpose. Man’s meaning has already been established way before he came into the picture. This is how the notion of Essence precedes Existence presents itself that human being is the insight of a particular perception in the divine intelligence.

Contrary to this idea, Sartre thought the opposite of this notion which is “Existence precedes Essence”. 

Here, Sartre gave emphasis on the idea that Man first existed before he finds his meaning or purpose. This thought further affirms the idea that there is a being which first came into view before he identify his significance or meaning in life; and that this being is non other than Man. Opposing to the idea that of Essence precedes Existence, wherein it acknowledges the importance of a superior sort of artisan that plays an important role in the formation of Man’s existence, Existence precedes Essence on the other hand presents its concept in a different way. At this point, Man is the focus within this line of thought. There is no other important figure that plays a significant function in Man’s existence other than Man himself. Furthermore, Man is nothing than what he creates himself to be. Man makes himself this is the very notion of this statement Existence precedes Essence. He is not ready made at the start unlike the very concept of Essence precedes Existence where Man’s meaning is already pre-determined from the start. There is no pre-determined character in his being. Who man is, is the function of what he does.  This is a kind of idea that gave importance on the notion that life is meaningless. That life has no meaning at all, that life is nothing before man came to be alive.

The reality that life is meaningless gives an opportunity for man to create this meaning of his existence. It is all in his hands to mold his life and to stir the wheel in the direction that he is going for and what’s more is that his existence is based on what he is going to make of it. Man is allowed to build his life the way he wants and that there is no superior artisan other than himself to create this kind of character. He is his own designer of his being, his own designer of his character and his own planner of his destiny. Existence precedes Essence gave rise to the understanding that due to the fact that man is the central figure to his existence, subjectivity as a starting point is a necessary view to consider.

change

Indeed we all yearn for change. One way or another, at some point in our lives we seek for change and most certainly the change for the betterment.. And being in a nation where a little progress can be seen throughout the years, I guess, we cannot blame one another if we stipulate on it.

Without a doubt, numerous political figures had come and go and at some point, allured us with their charms and fascinated us with their plans and promises for total change and betterment of the systems. We then find ourselves in that place full of positivity expecting something that will sweep us out of our feet and takes the heavy loads of burden out on our shoulders. Once appointed and until their term ends, somehow it saddens us and at the same time angers us to think of the broken promises and that assurances of change that we all clung on to. Total disappointment.

We do seek for change. We want our lives to improve and we all want to undergo this progress. In all aspects of our lives we yearn for the betterment of our conditions, we hanker over the upturn in the fitness of things. For being human, we want our life conditions to be something we're at ease at. Somehow we're satisfied of. It is undeniably true when we say that the idea of change can be seen having two faces, because it does have. Either a change with an arrow up or a change with its arrow pointing at the opposite direction.

The idea of change is conceivable if it has the potentiality. But then again, with this notion supporting us, realizing one’s potentiality is not enough for us to have that grasp of change. What really is the use of acknowledging the potentials that we have if we don't even exert that needed effort to actualize them? Seriously speaking, potentials are nothing, valueless if I may say, if they weren't put into actions. What is importantly required for this idea of 'change' to come about is for us to actualize the potentialities that we acknowledged, and establishing them in actions. That's when we can finally say change has been done.

Being Towards the Existence of Good and Evil

Underlying Reality of Good and Evil in Man’s Existence

Thus, this notion of good as being that of the highest degree of principle, affirms the thought that one way or another, the aim that man seeks to achieve is to strive towards the path of highest principle, which is the good and to avoid what is basically contradictory to this notion..

Throughout man’s existence, the presence of moral demand has been a constant guiding principle in one’s life. It acts as a basis for man to follow the path of what is moral, of what is considered to be good. Given this notion, we came across this inquest of seeking to know why there is this presence of such moral demand and how it affects one’s existence.

For one to be considered as good, it has to be that something which is considered important to that being. And to some degree, man regards something to be good when this implies the thought that it seizes within it a positive property that benefits him. Man considers good as that for him what he understand to be valuable for him and what he believes to be that which deserves to be consider as such.

The nature of good being it defined as “...that which is valuable. i.e., possesses some positive quality that renders it apt or worthy to be valued by some valuer.”[1] Suggest the thought that what is considered to be good is that which is valuable, seen as having a positive quality, and worthy to be valued by a valuer.

Contrary to this notion, the concept of evil is that which man perceives to be the opposite of the concept of good. Evil is rather expressed as “whatever we experience as the opposite of good in some way, i.e., whatever our appetitive or valuing dynamisms turn away from or disapprove, disvalue, as not perfective valuable, lovable, desirable but harmful, destructive, repugnant…” [2] with this notion, we have a grasp of what we consider to be good and what we consider as evil.

As beings oriented of what is good and evil, man tends to follow the path of what is considered as good. “Yet in all things good is the highest degree a principle"[1]with this implication, we understand how the good is seen as that which points towards what is highest in terms of the degree of principle. This affirms the notion that indeed, the good is implied as that which is understood as having the highest degree of all things.

The nature of man suggests that in his being, he tends to lean towards the highest ethical standard. Here, the understanding of the good is seen as the basic assumption above all things. Thus, this notion of good as being that of the highest degree of principle, affirms the thought that one way or another, the aim that man seeks to achieve is to strive towards the path of highest principle, which is the good and to avoid what is basically contradictory to this notion.

With the presence of good and evil as both thought through as underlying principles of man’s existence, the existence of such moral demand somehow indicates that this sense of moral demand came to develop basically because man experiences the reality of good and evil. He has a sense of what is right and wrong, he recognizes the notion of what is considered good and evil and through this experience of the reality of good and evil, it draws him closer to follow the path of what is morally good.

Such presence of moral demand dictates the underlying reality of good and evil. The experience of man of the reality of good and evil stands as basis of the existence of moral response that man goes through. Through the acquired knowledge of the concept of what is good and evil, man feels such moral demand in his life.

--SREE.

sources: Nemesio S.J., ed. 2001. Central Problems of Metaphysics

Aristotle, Introduction to Metaphysics

self-determination

Did it ever occur to our minds the thought of our existence? Is the question about existence a kind of question a person asks daily? Or is it a mystical question perhaps?

This is a world wherein Man as a Being, is tossed into this so-called life with no evident meaning or purpose for him to have a full grasp of. The search for life’s meaning has always been a baffling experience for all humans. It has always been a curiosity for Man to take hold of the meaning of his existence. Thus, Life is meaningless. Life is nothing; it holds no discernible meaning for Man.Nonetheless, it is through this very notion, that Man has the opportunity to fashion his life the way he wants it to be.

Throughout western Philosophy, it has always been the impression that the essence or the nature of a particular thing is more essential that just its sheer “existence”. On the other hand, the philosopher Sartre, thought the opposite and one way or another found optimisim on this understanding, the very fact that life is meaningless gives us the occasion into providing it with meaning. Surely because the very thought that Man is thrown into this life without a meaning in advance or purpose for him to comprehend, gives him the idea that he is justified into creating this meaning. This is what Sartre meant when he said, “Existence precedes Essence”. Man first exists, came into view then seeks its purpose, its significance.

Man’s existence makes no sense at all, so it is up to him to give it a meaning; to mold his self the way he wants it to be. When all is said and done, Man is what he conceives himself to be. The bottom line of this notion is that Man is responsible of what he makes of himself.

Indeed, nothing is fixed in this life. We are all born in this world by chance.

On the whole, it will come under one main thought that it is all under man’s hands.

Given this control, it gives way to this kind of freedom; the freedom to do anything at all. What does this freedom implies to man? It gives us the very idea that man has always the freedom to choose. This freedom creates the awareness that individuals can always choose their own actions, guide themselves and mold their own beings.

When you come right down to it, Man always has a choice, even in the most dramatic situations conceivably even so in tragic situations. So how can we then justify when people are caught in the moment saying that they don’t have a choice? There is at all times that possibility of letting things as they are, folding one’s arms and letting things flow and happen on their own. But isn’t it still a choice?

How then can those people defend there selves when they say that they are just obliged to do what their superiors had told them to do? Even so, one always had this freedom to choose.

But is it not a bit frightening with this recognition of freedom? Does it not give opportunity to the callous side of humanity, taking that we are given the license to do anything we want. With this recognition, it has to be noted that there is more than just the sheer image of Man’s freedom. Without a doubt, Man is free, completely free. He can do anything he wishes for, engage his self to anything he wants to be involve with but he has to take notice to the fact that there is more to this absolute freedom of his. This absolute freedom of Man does not only confine to his own being but this freedom of his cannot escape a deep responsibility for all humanity as well.

--SREE

sweet stuff

For: International Human Rights : Farmers' Rights