Metaphysics of essence
This is a thought stream, ok?
I'm only an amateur conceptualizer.
Don't get offended if I give a wrong account of your world view.
What we see are only the appearances of things. When such appearances are mistaken to be the things in themselves, we become materialists. (Matter(appearance) is essence)
Concepts are maps of appearances. When those maps are confused for the things they map, that is Idealism. (Conceptuality/mind is essence)
Logic can only eliminate falsehood. It disproves. It cannot explain what is but only what ain't. (I'm repeating myself...hmm). When logic is mistaken as positive rather than eliminative, you become a rationalist
So then, how to "reach" essence?
The only path left may be intuition.
I believe every "path" uses Intuition, logic, and observation with different degrees of emphasis.
Spirituality emphasizes intuition.
Philosophy emphasizes logic
Science emphasizes observation
It seems that the more one falls from the essential, the more one has to rely upon more indirect means.
Intuition is most direct, logic/reason less direct(further from essence), while sensory observation is furthest.
I'm only an amateur conceptualizer.
Don't get offended if I give a wrong account of your world view.
What we see are only the appearances of things. When such appearances are mistaken to be the things in themselves, we become materialists. (Matter(appearance) is essence)
Concepts are maps of appearances. When those maps are confused for the things they map, that is Idealism. (Conceptuality/mind is essence)
Logic can only eliminate falsehood. It disproves. It cannot explain what is but only what ain't. (I'm repeating myself...hmm). When logic is mistaken as positive rather than eliminative, you become a rationalist
So then, how to "reach" essence?
The only path left may be intuition.
I believe every "path" uses Intuition, logic, and observation with different degrees of emphasis.
Spirituality emphasizes intuition.
Philosophy emphasizes logic
Science emphasizes observation
It seems that the more one falls from the essential, the more one has to rely upon more indirect means.
Intuition is most direct, logic/reason less direct(further from essence), while sensory observation is furthest.
Comments (47)
Both logic and ideals are developed over time through experience. A baby learns through intuition - so both rational as well as idealistic thinking is attained through intuition.
I'm not sure why sensory observation would be furthest away though. My intuition tells me that while matter may not be THE essence, it certainly comes off as quite essential.
Your entire Op is informational structure. The words that you use represent concepts that are entirely socially derived. Without this socially derived informational structure, what sort of intuition would you posses at all?
I guess every view is rooted in an intuition.
Quoting Hermeticus
Notice that scientists often don't contemplate essentials. What is truth? What is meaning? Because they are too far away from essence, is my guess. Philosophy being closer to intuition and essence, is consciously trying to attain the essential. However, one could argue that science is closer to essence, or already has it, so it need not think about it. It's possible that no path is inherently more likely to be closer to essence.
You are implying intuition comes after and or is dependent upon socially acquired concepts? This may be true.
Perhaps we start as observers, gradually developing concepts and higher order thinking, and eventually develop intuition as the crowning achievement.
I imagine the intuition was always there, however, guiding the process unconsciously / subconsciously.
I have tried to imagine a consciousness before language and society, and there is not really much there without those socially derived concepts.
It would seem, there would have to have been some sort of cognition / intuition but it would have been a far cry from what we enjoy now.
I was trying to highlight how indebted we are to socially derived knowledge for our present state of consciousness, and I wonder what we could have intuition about without this socially derived knowledge?
I don't know.
What is your definition of "essence" and essence of something? For instance, if I ask you, what is the essence of human being, then what would it be?
But can the essence be expressed in words?
If you could, then the rest course of the investigation and conclusion would be more straight forward.
Essence is rigorous. Whatever is expressed in words could be further questioned.
If I keep asking of every term used in an expression "And what is this thing, essentially?" I could keep going with every response given. Which, would either lead to an endless cycle of going from one concept to another, or to a stripping away of concepts until essence is arrived at.
Quoting Yohan
How can one reach to essence, when the essence is not define-able?
Things aren't defined by labels. labels are defined by things
Remember? You asked how to "reach" essence?
Quoting Yohan
Labels? It is an unusual naming. Label is a piece of blank sticky paper, you write on something, and stick to something for ID.
We use concepts, definitions and names. You define things and concepts with words and more concepts with logical clear meaningful linguistic expressions.
We are basically making order of our concepts. But what is the essence of a concept? And where do concepts come from?
I was asking you that question.
The phenomenal world is a mixture of experience and conceptual organization of that experience, creating the sense of objects having objective material existence. Not different than how when we dream our dream experiences are conceptualized into appearing three dimensional and solid, even though its all technically flat...2-d or 1-d. Three dimensionality, I hold, to be an emergent property grounded in 2d or 1d. Something like that! I don't grasp what 2-d or 1-d are grounded in without a 3-d reality. Its out of my depth as well. For some reason, I have a great faith in eastern doctrines which call the phenomenal world "Maya". Something about it rings true to me, and I've had brief moments where the external world seemed like it was within my consciousness.
I thought you asked me what the definition of essence is? I would have to use concepts to define it. But what if concepts are lacking in essence? Then what use would a conceptual definition of essence be?
Forget about the concept. Just explain what essence means from your thoughts. That is your concept of essence.
There is form essence and essence essence.
Form essence is what form qualities are necessary to call something a particular kind of form. Eg, a human must have this that and the other to be called a human.
However, while I have humanness, if I were to undergo biological transformation into another type of life form, I would still, at least in theory, retain the most essential part of myself, my being-myself-ness...Just as my being-myself-ness was always here through the various stages of my biological and psychological development or de-development. (Unless the memories of having been myself in the past are illusions and I am a new being which has inherited another's memories and have mistaken them for my own)
So simple in the end. I be what I be. it be what it be. It all just be. Be.
But part of me worries this simplicity is an illusion. I guess I will always doubt in the end.
Problem would be the fact that each and every human being is different in its psychological state, personalities, experience and even bodily structure in strict sense. In that case, would it be possible to apply the concept of form to define human essence?
But there are some common points in human beings such as they have 2 arms and 5 fingers and 1 head ...etc, but then there are cases that they don't, even if minority. Therefore would it be meaningful attempt for reaching essence in this regard?
You talk about your being-yourself-ness. But what is that? It is something unique to your own self, which is contingent and syllogistic belief or emotion within your own closed world. What significance can it give to the rest of the others in terms of reaching essence of human being?
I think your past memories being illusions are not issue here, but the unique-ness and closed-ness can be, for its being foundation of essence of human being.
Perhaps "form essences" as I called it, might be more pragmatic generalization than truly essential. It may not be possible to find a perfect fit definition for what is minimally required to be a human. On the other hand, I imagine the closest thing, if we want to be very scientific about it, might depend on human DNA.
Quoting Corvus
It may be that being-one-self-ness is a shared universal quality present "in" all beings.
Again the uniqueness and self contained exclusion of each DNA can be problem for being universal essence.
Quoting Yohan
The name "being-one-self-ness" seems totally meaningless without the content of it, which is bound to be all different and unique.
Kind of losing meQuoting Corvus
Doe this mean your being-yourself-ness is constantly changing as the content of your experience changes? If so, who or what is registering the changes?
As far as I know, the difference between idealism and materialism is that in the case of the former, whatever you perceive is mind-generated i.e. the universe itself is, in a sense, imagined by (a) mind(s). Materialism, on the other hand, claims that this isn't the case and that all that which we perceive do exist out there and that the mind has no role in the universe, existentially that is.
So, if, for instance, I perceive a red apple, this apple, for the materialist, exists even if my mind were not entertaining it as a thought but for the idealist, the apple exists only insofar as I'm, in simple words, thinking of it.
Thus, the apple, which is, if I catch your drift, an appearance, is either something mind-independent (materialism) or mind-dependent (idealism), existentially speaking.
When you say,
Quoting Yohan
it indicates that you've misunderstood these two ideas. Not true that it's a matter of taking appearances as things in themselves is materialism and also, not true that concepts are maps of appearances explains idealism. Something's off. This is unfamiliar territory for me so do bear with me if I make mistakes, even silly ones.
Each individual's and living being's DNA is different, unique and exclusive. How could it be the essence of human being?
Quoting Yohan
It would be registering in one's own memory as it changes. But the change is not the point. The point is that it is all unique and exclusive. So how could it have anything to do with the essence of human being?
For instance, I don't know your being-yourself-ness at all. Only you know it. How could that concept have anything to do with my essence of human being? and vice versa.
If you want to get into this, we should probably start very basic, starting with definitions of mind, matter, and reality.
If you define reality as being the objective material world, then your definition already presumes materialism as true. We need to start with a definition of reality that doesn't assume either idealism or materialism, if possible.
I don't know, do you feel this would be worth the effort?
I lean toward feeling this would be a vain pursuit.
I didn't mean to say that my experience of being myself is human, or a universal definition for humans. But there may be some commonality between all humans of what it I like to be human, even if its also unique to each. It doesn't really say much to say that what makes humans humans is an internal quality. That's why external definitions are more pragmatic.
Yes, that was what I asked on my 1st question.
Quoting Yohan
As long as they are meaningful enough.
I don't think such could be expressed in words. And I do think we may be surprised to what an extent one human's experience of being may be different than another's depending on culture, upbringing and biology.
Can list some special capacities we have that known earth animals seem to lack:
Metacognition. Thinking about thinking
Long distance future contemplation and planning and dwelling on long distant past.
Feel more refined or exalted emotional states such as reverence, or the feeling of the sacred, as well as appreciation for art and music, as well as humor and irony.
Higher levels of self-discipline and moral considerations.
Care about and seek meaning beyond base survival and pleasure gratification.
I think very few people have attained full human development. Most of us suffer from arrested development, mostly acting like animals.
Quoting Corvus
Yeah. I don't see why it would be hard to define essential outer human characteristics. At least while there are not many species that resemble us, on earth at least.
All in all, it's a well-presented chain of thought.
Before we get started, I'll give my habitual spiel. I say it all the time, but I think it's especially important when we address your points. Here it is - The issues you are discussing - materialism, idealism, realism, and other philosophical approaches are metaphysical. They're not true or false, they're more or less useful in a particular situation. I was reading somewhere in the last couple of days - mathematicians tend to be idealists and physics tend to be materialists. Are idealists attracted to math or does studying math make you see things in a idealistic way? There is no doubt, for me at least, that both idealism and materialism are appropriate ways to look at things in some situations. Not in others.
Quoting Yohan
I'm on board except for the word "mistaken." I'd change that to "interpreted" or "seen."
Quoting Yohan
Ditto. Change "confused" to "interpreted as."
Quoting Yohan
Again with "mistaken" vs. "interpreted." Are we talking about deductive logic? I don't know enough to comment more. Unless you're saying inductive logic is impossible. Then we can argue.
Quoting Yohan
I don't think this is wrong, but I think it is oversimplified. You also haven't defined what you mean by intuition, logic, or observation. As I've seen reading the posts in this thread, intuition means different things to different people.
As for "essence," it again is a metaphysical entity. Does it mean objective reality? The Tao? The dream of a butterfly? Information? Mathematics?
Good post.
Quoting Pop
It is pretty well established that the structural elements of language are innate. They are present from birth. Genetic and/or epigenetic. Babies are not blank slates. The same seems to be true of other cognitive elements, e.g. number and moral judgements. I think your intuition about how babies think and learn is not correct.
I think you're running up against the problem that you haven't defined "intuition" very well. Concepts are words. You don't need words to think. Brand new infants think. They're not waiting for us to pour something in their tank before they can start grinding the grain. I think I mixed metaphors.
Language is not socially derived. That is, the means to speak. Of course the specific language is. And of course one needs social intercourse for speaking.
I think you're right.
The OP is well-stated, thorough. Wittgenstein says that "Essence is expressed by grammar." PI #371 which is fairly cryptic apart from the history of Kant's thing-in-itself which cut us off from a certain picture of a thing's essence, in a sense killing what we are interested in. He does this because the certainty he is requiring ahead of time precludes the fact of the possibility of error, failing, conflict, etc. The division into appearance and "essence" (as "reality", "the world"; essence essence as you put it) is the picture created by this desire for something predetermined, certain, universal, complete in all outcomes, having the ability to force agreement, etc.
So what Witt means is that the "forms" (as you, and Plato, and Kant, call them) of our acts and expressions (Witt calls these "concepts" for lack of a better way to group them): choosing, pointing, thinking, understanding, apologizing, excusing, justifying, meaning, believing--everything in our lives here before us in our culture that we grow into and live--these forms/concepts work by a Grammar: the criteria of judging, identifying, completing, doing something appropriately, etc. for every different concept (applied in each context, possibly in their different options/"senses"/"uses"). Because we have been living our lives, making distinctions, judging rationale, etc. for centuries, our concepts contain, all our interests, desires, judgements. The criteria are what matters to us (together) about each thing.
So it is not a question of what "essence" is generally, it is what is essential, as in important, about something to us (all of us), captured in and revealed by a concept's grammar. Now of course we may differ in what criteria are most important to the concept of justice, but this is a rational (if not certain) discussion along the options and possibilities of a concept (PI #90).
Two other things. The idea of "appearance" is also a picture created by our fear of, say, making a mistake (having a doubt, crashing even Descartes' self to the ground), because we do not have anything more certain to get at. We take ourselves out of the picture because of our fear that without certainty, stability, we may fail to pull off our acts or resolve our differences. We want to get to the "real" "essence" of "the world" because of our desire not to be responsible for, and to, the implications of the grammar of our concepts. Wittgenstein stops at "the human body is the best picture of the human soul" (PI, iv p. 178, 3rd ed)--we must treat (not "know") the other as a person. Emerson, in Experience, will say "We live amid surfaces, and the true art of life is to skate well on them." In our skepticism, we look for a solution by imposing criteria for certainty and logic (frozen logic, Witt says) missing the ordinary grammar/criteria that is all around us that we can "take hold of anywhere". Id.
Not that this is a solution. We still are separate people (our internal life is not special (necessary), but it is owned by us). This is our responsibility, and perhaps your grief. You only have my expression (despite your desire for certainty), but I have a responsibility to make myself known (reveal myself, despite my desire to remain unknowable), even to myself. Emerson's Self Reliance is not me as the judgment of the world, but my duty to turn my "intuition into tuition"--explicate the criteria I am relying on, provide rationale, clarify, answer for myself, etc.; to respond to the other and give voice to our experiences, feelings, differences.
Even before language was created - before humanity possessed language?
I don't know when the language ability developed in humanity or its predecessors. I also don't know when people first started using language.
My issue was with the way you characterized idealism and materialism. You said,
Quoting Yohan
Something's not quite right with the above description of the two philosophies. I can't seem to put a finger on it though. As of this moment all I can say is,
1. Materialists don't consider appearances as things in themselves. They actually concede the point that all that we have to work with are appearances but...they say...the thing in themselves exist independent of the mind.
2. Idealists don't claim that concepts are maps of appearances, that creates a gap between appearances and concepts as if appearances are independent of the mind, they're not (according to the idealist). What idealists are averring though is that the thing in themselves are concepts, the appearance being merely how these concepts present themselves to us.
I'm not saying the materialist does it consciously. They are engaged in double-think. They see and touch what is beyond perception. It sounds absurd, but this is literally what they think is going on. I know, because I was raised in a materialist culture, and I still do this double-thinking most of the time.
Quoting TheMadFool
I don't think Idealists literally think fundamental reality is conceptual. They believe the phenomenal world is conceptual. They believe in. Awareness --->conceptualization----->world.
Thanks
I don' disagree with this.
I didn't want to get too academic I guess. Sometimes academia takes away the flavor, grace, and accessibility.
Differences are the basis for each individual's existence. If there is no difference then there is no individuality.
But for essence, you need common characteristics or origins for the foundation of entities. Essence could be abstract concepts such as ones existing in the platonic idea world, if you are an idealist.
Or essence would be character or purpose or function in teleological perspectives such as will - for willing happiness, good, peace, knowledge and prosperity. Human being is a willing animal, as compared to Aristotle's political animal.
Essence could be narrowed for certain situations and groups or parties such as the essence of a car is riding and getting A to B, essence of Buddhism is enlightenment of self, essence of science is truths for practical life etc. So, I feel there are different types of essence for the situations and objects and entities, which can be defined from different perspectives and views of the thinkers for their intentions and aims of essence establishing.
Quoting Yohan
Yeah, it is just one of the philosophising topics that we could engage for the discussions and reflections.
I like these definitions. Crisp.
It sounds to me like you are using 'essence' to mean very basic definitions of things. Distilling something down to it essence. These are essences of uniqueness. There could be another essence, the essence of reality, of being itself. Perhaps we all have an essence to what makes us unique from others, but at the same time we all share a common essence. In Buddhist terms, this may be "Buddha nature"?
Sure, it sounds perfect. Thank you for the great topic, inspiring OP and posts. :up: