Talk:Existence precedes essence

message: I removed this paragraph:
The concept is problematic as in the real world human beings come into existence through biology. With their essence being biological in nature all of their concepts of value and meaning must ultimately be grounded in sociobiology. Thus their essence would precede their existence and thus any values they could construct must ultimately be parameterized by their evolutionary psychology.
That's a biological determinist argument and if someone wants to add that as a separate section on critiques of existence preceding essence, that's fine. But otherwise it's very POV.
Fokion 16:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Paragraph 

message: I don't know where this could be written without a considerable rewrite (indeed, too considerable for me to consider at this time), but the definition of the phrase relies purely on the chronological interpretation of 'precedes'. If something could be thrown in using the logical reading that'd be great (or i'll just do it sometime =])  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyroo g (talk • contribs) 22:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  'precedes' 

message: Ahem, why do you say this is vandalism?  It was more litter collection, you know, someone drops some rubbish in the street and like a good citizen you pick it up and put it in the appropriate place.  You seem to have taken it upon yourself to remove it from the bin and put it back on the street again.  Best Peter Damian (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Page blanking and removal of content without discussion is vandalism, there's even vandalism warning templates specifically for it. The discussion can't be purely rhetorical, e.g. accusing an article of being "amateur philosophy." WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a defense for deleting an article. -- Scarpy (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well we've discussed it, now, yes?  Peter Damian (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, this is not discussion; it's still just a poor excuse for vandalism. If you have concerns about the article, we can address them.  But you need to do better than calling the article "bad" or "amateur philosophy." -- Scarpy (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  So it's not obvious to you it is a bad article? Peter Damian (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

text: There may have been some unsourced sentences in the previous revision, but now there is not a single citation in the article. Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verifiability. In this sense, the previous version had a much higher level of scholarship than the current one. If you can't support what's in the article, it should probably be reverted to the previous version. -- Scarpy (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  done Peter Damian (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing verifiable materials is unacceptable and you're not in the position to judge about what is rubbish and what is not.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

text: The article is "Jagged", which means that it heavily desinformed by misusing sources. The concept was invented by Sartre, everything else is totally bogus. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup for systematically using Wikipedia as a private propaganda central. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 21:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page blanking 

message: The article reads, 'The proposition that Existence precedes essence is a central proposition of existentialism, which overturns the Western philosophical tradition that the essence or nature of a thing is more fundamental and immutable than its existence.' Does anyone fancy explaining why that sentence has to use the word 'proposition' twice? Skoojal (talk) 09:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: First sentence

message: Besides "existence preceding essence" or "essence preceding existence" could 'essence is existence' be said to be a third viewpoint, maybe very close to Esse est percipi of George Berkeley? Might that be equatable without original research by a source indicating such that any knows of? 4.242.174.54 (talk) 09:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  third position: neither precedes the other but are at the same moment? 

message: I notice someone said that the stuff about Mulla Sadra (in the second para) had been added later by another editor. It shows. There is now a contradiction between the end of para 2 and the start of para 3.
"Mulla Sadra substituted a metaphysics of existence for the traditional metaphysics of essences, giving priority ab initio to existence over quiddity.
[para 3]In western philosophy Sartre flips this around arguing that for humans, existence precedes essence."
Actually, Sartre is not flipping Mulla Sadra around at all (with whom he actually appears to agree). He's flipping around the stuff that comes earlier in the sentence -- this, in fact:
"In Islamic philosophy, whereas previous methods of philosophical thought held that "essence precedes existence", a concept which dates back to at least Avicenna[6] and Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi..."
I would make the necessary change myself, except this stuff is well out of my area of knowledge, so I'd rather someone else handle it. The simplest way would be to change para 3 to:
"In western philosophy Sartre flips round the traditional view, arguing that..."
Socratidion (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logical lapse between para 2 and para 3 

message: I have added a section re Václav Havel, inasmuch as 'essence precedes existence' (or 'consciousness precedes being') doesn't have an article of its own; his mention of this philosophical saw is furthermore by far its most prominent mention in recent times.  kencf0618 (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Marxist formulation is an important one, inasmuch as it has had some geopolitical impact. kencf0618 (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Václav Havel 

message: This entry should contain a sub-entry on Heidegger's take on Satre's misreading of Being and Time in the 1947 "   Letter on Humanism" and Also a misread of Aristotle that can easily be seen from  the lectures on "physics' " discussion on Antiphon and 193α 9-β 21; where he talks about form and matter, and also metaphysics Θ 1045β 5. Satre claim itself "declares with greater consistency that if God does not exist there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence": if this is to ground his claims,  he rescinds it thus "even if God existed that would make no difference from its point of view. " leaving it ungrounded Διοτιμα (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satrer's great Misreads