Existence

What is the reasoning behind the existentialist claim that existence precedes essence?

Comments

I'm no expert in this area, and I don't know what the reasoning behind the claim is, but as I understand it the meaning of the slogan is that people are not born with an essential nature, but must choose their own identity. (Did Sartre have any children?)

Unfortunately, there is not one reasoning, since there are many different philosophers who have been called 'existentialists'. However, generally, the line of argument has to do with understanding the ontological differences between human beings and other types of beings.

Other types of beings (a telephone, a piece of granite) may have essences -- definitions that determine the type of thing they are. And, there may be good reasons for thinking that a being cannot exist without an essence, without being the kind of thing that it is. (This is particularly clear in the case of manufactured entities.)

However, there seems to be a difference with human beings. To be sure, all humans are of the type 'human', but morally and socially that doesn't tell us anything important about them. Instead, what seems most important to make up this human being's identity, to tell us what he or she is, are the sum total of that person's decisions. For that reason, existence precedes essence.

In short, the slogan is one way (and perhaps not the best way) that existentialists have of describing what is ontologically distinctive about human existence.

Read another response by Peter Lipton, Douglas Burnham

Read another response about Existence