Essence Preceding existence

Question

Is there any reasons for someone thinking essence would precede existence? I agree with Satre's original statement where its the other way around, and I've been wondering how someone would arrive at the opposite conclusion.

Thanks!

Answer 1

See Existence precedes essence: "The proposition that existence precedes essence is a central claim of existentialism, which reverses the traditional philosophical view that the essence (the nature) of a thing is more fundamental and immutable than its existence (the mere fact of its being)."

The reference is to Plato's Theory of Forms that "draws a contrast between unchanging Forms and changing material particulars. "

Plato's point of view was ontological-epistemological: what is prior in the "order of being" (Good, Beauty,...) must be conceptually prior in the order to understanding.

Sartre's point of view is ontological-humanistic: the man (the individual) and its life are the centre of philosophical reflection.

See also Existentialism:

Existence Precedes Essence: Existentialists forward a novel conception of the self not as a substance or thing with some pre-given nature (or “essence”) but as a situated activity or way of being whereby we are always in the process of making or creating who we are as our life unfolds. This means our essence is not given in advance; we are contingently thrown into existence and are burdened with the task of creating ourselves through our choices and actions.

Answer 2

The idea that essence precedes existence is rooted in classical philosophical and theological traditions, especially in metaphysical and religious contexts. Here are some key reasons why someone might think this way:

1. Platonic and Aristotelian Metaphysics Plato believed in the realm of Forms or Ideas, which are perfect, immutable archetypes of all things. According to this view, an object's essence (its Form) exists in a transcendent reality before any particular instance of it is realized in the physical world. For example, the "essence" of a chair exists as a Form, and individual chairs are imperfect manifestations of that ideal essence. Aristotle, though less otherworldly, still posited that objects have inherent purposes or "final causes." In his teleological view, the essence of a thing (what it is meant to be) is tied to its purpose or function, which is intrinsic and defines its being.
2. Theological Foundations Many religious traditions, particularly in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, assert that God, as the ultimate creator, determines the essence of all beings before they come into existence. For instance, the belief that God has a plan or purpose for every creature implies that their essence (what they are meant to be or do) precedes their actual existence. This perspective often ties into the idea of divine foreknowledge and predestination: God designs the "essence" of humanity and the universe before bringing it into physical existence.
3. Essentialism in Nature Essentialism is the idea that things have a set of core properties or characteristics that define them. If one believes that these essential traits are fixed and universal, it naturally leads to the conclusion that essence is prior to existence, as it determines what something fundamentally is. For example, a tiger is a tiger because of its "essence," not because it happens to exist in a particular form.
4. Order and Design Some philosophical systems value the notion of order and design in the universe, seeing essence as the blueprint or guiding principle for existence. This aligns with thinkers who argue that rationality or a structured cosmic order necessitates that essence must be conceptualized before existence.
5. Contrast with Existentialism Existentialism (as Sartre argued) flips this by claiming that humans, uniquely, define their own essence through choices and actions. However, if someone rejects this existentialist view and sees humanity (or any being) as inherently designed with a purpose or nature, they would find Sartre's position untenable. In this opposing view, Sartre's emphasis on radical freedom overlooks preexisting truths about what it means to "be human." Why One Might Disagree with Sartre's View Sartre’s notion that existence precedes essence is rooted in the idea of radical freedom and self-definition. However, not everyone is comfortable with the implications of this perspective, which include:

The rejection of a universal human nature or objective purpose. The existential burden of creating one's own essence, leading to "anguish." A perceived undermining of morality or meaning grounded in preexisting truths. Someone who values order, intrinsic meaning, or divine purpose might find it more intuitive to believe that essence is primary, as it offers a foundation for understanding existence and purpose.

Answer 3

Kant's description of how we arrive at the existence of things involves the notion of the thing and sensory evidence confirming (to a reasonable level of confidence) its actuality.

Through the actuality [i.e. objective existence] of a thing I certainly posit more than possibility, ... [While] possibility was merely a positing of a thing in relation to the understanding (to its empirical use), actuality is at the same time its connection with perception. B287

Being [objective existence, in this context] is obviously not a real predicate, i.e., a concept of something that could add to the concept of a thing. It is merely the positing of a thing or of certain determinations in themselves. In the logical use it is merely the copula of a judgment. B626

This is developed from the Thomistic doctrine of essentia and existentia, as Heidegger notes in The Basic Problems of Phenomenology

the Thomistic thesis says—indeed, in agreement with Kant—that existence, there-being, actuality, is not a real predicate; it does not belong to the res of a thing but is nevertheless a res that is added on to the essentia. By means of his interpretation, on the other hand, Kant wishes to avoid conceiving of actuality, existence, itself as a res; he does this by interpreting existence as relation to the cognitive faculty, hence treating perception as position. page 92

In this way one can see how the idea of a thing, its essence, might precedes its actualisation (in judgement), i.e. its existence.

In contrast, and this is what Sartre means, for a person [Dasein] their existence precedes essence.

Being & Time ¶ 9. The Theme of the Analytic of Dasein

We are ourselves the entities to be analysed. …

I . The 'essence' ["Wesen"] of this entity lies in its "to be" [Zu-sein] . Its Being-what-it-is [Was-sein] (essentia) must, so far as we can speak of it at all, be conceived in terms of its Being (existentia). …

The essence of Dasein lies in its existence. …

This was previously mentioned in a post here: What is the essence of a "person"?

In regard to the thing, perhaps one might argue that one could perceive something first and then in a back-and-forth its essence might be ascertained. So existence could be prior to essence. Nevertheless Heidegger (in the last mentioned link) states

Surely in order for something to be “actual” and to be able to be “actual,” it must first be possible.

This refers to 'potentiality' though, rather than essence, which begs the question how much are they the same.

Furthermore, in respect to Dasein there is this curious position that

The kind of Being which Dasein has, as potentiality-for-Being, lies existentially in understanding. Dasein is not something present-at-hand which possesses its competence for something by way ofan extra; it is primarily Being-possible. Dasein is in every case what it can be, and in the way in which it is its possibility. page 183

So although these are ways of seeing how existence could precede essence and vice versa the particulars are not altogether clear.