[MD] Existentialism vs Essentialism - a debate proposal

[John Carl]

Ok, before we launch into the formalities of debate-team politics (and btw,
I don't even know what that looks like so forgive me for any formal,
philosophical faux pax in advance, (and unfortunate tendency to weak
rhetorical attempts..)) but as I was climbing I-80 over Donner Summit, all
cloudy after the rains, it was mostly Ham I was contemplating.  He got the
last word in as I was out the door, his perusal, encapsulation and dismissal
of my offering of Roycean Logic, so quick, neat and tidy... I had stuff to
think about as I dropped over and down the Sierras and the flat desert of
Nevada where the sun broke out.

So thanks Ham, for that.  I do disagree with your dismissal, because as a
Pirsigian I attach a completely different value to the endeavor to logically
deduce the Kantian categories.  I see a value attained in striving for the
good, independent of the likelihood of success.    Or as I like to say,

"Shoot for the stars, even though you'll fall short your aim will be
correct.

Unless that damn moon gets in the way."




Now, into it:

Straight outta the Wiki:

Existentialism was coined by Jean-Paul Sartre's statement that for human
beings "existence precedes essence." In as much as "essence" is a
cornerstone of all metaphysical philosophy and the grounding of Rationalism,
Sartre's statement was a refutation of the philosophical system that had
come before him (and, in particular, that of Husserl, Hegel, and Heidegger).
Instead of "is-ness" generating "actuality," he argued that existence and
actuality come first, and the essence is derived afterward. For Kierkegaard,
it is the individual person who is the supreme moral entity, and the
personal, subjective aspects of human life that are the most important.

So Ham, I guess I'm getting some insight into Essentialism through my
adoption or realization of Existentialism.    Although what Kierkegaard is
on about sounds an awful lot like you, and perhaps we have reason to think
agreement might be found between us.

But the heart of difference is found in:

Existence is logically prior to Essence,

Seems about as clear a definition of the boundary between the two sides as
you could ask for.

To me, anyway.

What do you think?

I do see existence as fundamental.  My experience is my existence.  Your
existence is yours.  The interesting parts to talk about are found in the
commons - those instances of experience you discover in common with mine.

Subjective in comparison, objective in person, that's my aim of choice, my
self, my existence, my fundamental.

You?  You seem to seek that uncreated source as your fundamental, the basis
of your existence.  An Essentialist "worships", that is, takes as highest
value,  what "is".

An Existentialist agrees, but claims that Existence IS what is.  Thus
logically prior to Essence.

Have I got that about right so far?

If not, please correct me, if so, then have at it.  Explain how your
Essentialism is gooder than my existence.  Give me a pragmatic reason to
change my mind, and I will attempt to do the same for you.

Oh.

That's what we've been doing, hasn't it?   Well that's ok too.  An
Existentialism's primary goal is not changing reality, his primary goal is
recognizing it.


Existentially yours,

John