Existence Precedes Essence

It is my responsibility to put forth an argument for the above resolution. My opponent only has to cast reasonable doubt upon my argument and does not need to provide an alternate explanation for our essence’s origin. I will welcome any such counter-argument but it isn’t necessary for the purposes of this debate. I look forward to this opportunity to learn and hope that my opponent shares my enthusiasm. This topic naturally requires an understanding of epistemology. I am going forth on the empirical system, meaning that our knowledge cannot be known without sense data. Let me be clear: we can know nothing without first observing it within our surroundings. An exception may be Descartes’s famous ‘I think therefore I am’ but that’s a discussion for another debate. Though I have introduced the topic via Jean-Paul Sartre’s words I should make mention that I do not agree with some of his extensions on the matter. For example, JP Sartre also said that “man is nothing else but what he makes of himself.” This is not entirely true. Neither you nor I can choose our inspirations—they happen without our sanction. But this does not dispel the ‘essence after existence’ claim since our inspirations are crafted after our existence has come into effect. It is therefore my task to provide a logical argument to convince our audience (and hopefully my opponent as well) that no concept of the individual exists until after he/she defines it for him/herself. The only way to know is through observation. As we age and mature we come to accept some absolutes of the human character, most of which are handed down to us through our parents. We learn that we should share with others, that we shouldn’t steal, that we shouldn’t hit others, and so on and so forth. But where do these lessons come from originally? Do they exist prior to our existence? Are we capable of knowing these absolutes because some higher power has deemed to be worthy? I would like to argue that they do not, and that it is indeed a rational process of evolutionary selection of desirable self-seeking behaviour that teaches us to behave amongst one another. Apart from the lessons of behaviour towards others also exists the highly important lesson of knowing that thyself is an end upon itself. Sadly, this is exclusive to many and remains a mystery to most. But that they do not know it does not mean that it is not true of all humans. That we are our own starting points is a crucial component of our existence and is the defining standard of our essence. One can easily rationalize that this understanding comes from the basic need for survival and that there is nothing more important than preserving our life. From this point we have accumulated lessons of self-preservation and they have been handed down through the centuries from generation to generation. Everything that we know today of our own importance is because the knowledge of our individuality has been fostered through the years and shaped into what we know of it today. Recall from above that I have claimed that our essence is defined by ourselves after we exist. But have I not contradicted this by saying that part of our essence is inherited from past generations? Of course not. Who man "is" is entirely up to him. Even after decades of indoctrination by parents there is never a human mind that cannot will itself to believe that he is something that he has not been taught. The individual, though influenced by his teachings, is a clay that he can forever mold into whatever shape he desires. Because my opponent welcomes a philosophical discussion I would like to provide a morsel of thought that I have thought to be useful for his/her purposes. Naturalism depends on the first and foremost clause of needing to survive. For what purpose? Where has man learned this? I do not care for the score of this debate--I am here to broaden the horizons of my knowledge and I believe that discussing the uncertain is the most certain of way of doing so.