dmb says:
If logic has been "predicated on truth in being" since Aristotle, as he
and Paul explain, then truth has been what corresponds to objects and
these entities are thought to be what actually is, what actually exists.
But this is approximately the opposite of what Plato says and he's the
original essentialist. Aristotle's metaphysics of substance rejects and
reversed Plato's theory of forms and yet they're both essentialists.
Ron quotes wiki:
An essence characterizes a substance or a form, in the sense of the Forms or
Ideas in Platonic idealism. It is permanent, unalterable, and eternal; and
present in every possible world. In simple terms, essentialism is a
generalization stating that certain properties possessed by a group (e.g.
people, things, ideas) are universal, and not dependent on context.
Aristotle moves the forms of Plato to the nucleus of the individual thing,
which is called ousía or substance. Essence is the tí of the thing, the to tí
en einai. Essence corresponds to the ousia's definition; essence is a real and
physical aspect of the ousía. (Aristotle, "Metaphisic", I)
Essentialist thinking tends to agree with political conservatism and militate
against social change. But essentialist claims also have provided useful
rallying-points for radical politics, including feminist, anti-racist, and
anti-colonial struggles. In a culture saturated with essentialist modes of
thinking, an ironic or strategic essentialism can sometimes be politically
expedient.
Essentialism is used by some historians in listing essential cultural
characteristics of a particular nation or culture. A people can be understood
in this way. These characteristics have degenerated into clichés serving to
justify colonial practices. In other cases, the essentialist method has been
used by members, or admirers, of an historical community to establish a
praiseworthy national identity.
In philosophy, essence is the attribute or set of attributes that make an
object or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity,
and without which it loses its identity. Essence is contrasted with accident: a
property that the object or substance has contingently, without which the
substance can still retain its identity. The concept originates with Aristotle,
who used the Greek expression to ti ên einai, literally 'the what it was to
be', or sometimes the shorter phrase to ti esti, literally 'the what it is,'
In the history of western thought, essence has often served as a vehicle for
doctrines that tend to individuate different forms of existence as well as
different identity conditions for objects and properties; in this eminently
logical meaning, the concept has given a strong theoretical and common-sense
basis to a whole family of logical theories.
In social thought, essentialism as a metaphysical claim is often conflated with
reductionism.
Ontological reductionism is the belief that reality is composed of a minimum
number of kinds of entities or substances. This claim is usually metaphysical,
and is most commonly a form of monism, in effect claiming that all objects,
properties and events are reducible to a single substance. (A dualist who is an
ontological reductionist would presumably believe that everything is reducible
to one of two substances.)
Ron:
I think this explains a lot about the positions held on here on the discuss.
some pre-MoQ conclusions:
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; also, for Kierkegaard all of this had
religious implications.
"Essence" in metaphysics is often synonymous with soul or self.
Within the Madhyamika school of Mahayana Buddhism, Candrakirti identifies the
self as:
An essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic nature.
The non-existence of that is selflessness.
-- Bodhisattvayogacaryācatuḥśatakaṭikā 256.1.7
Indeed the concept of Buddhist Emptiness is the strong assertion that all
phenomena are empty of any essence - demonstrating that anti-essentialism lies
at the very root of Buddhist praxis. Therefore, within this school it is the
innate belief in essence that is considered to be an afflictive obscuration
which serves as the root of all suffering. However, the school also rejects the
tenets of Idealism and Materialism; instead, the ideas of truth or existence,
along with any assertions that depend upon them are limited to their function
within the contexts and conventions that assert them, somewhat akin to
Relativism or Pragmatism.
Of the many places to find the philosophical Examination of Essence, it is
discussed in Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika, The Fundamental Wisdom of the
Middle Way. Chapter I examines the Conditions of Existence, while Chapter XV
examines Essence in itself, difference, the eternalist's view and nihilists
view of essence and non-essence.
Ron:
It seems clear that Mahayana Buddhism, Existentialism, Pragmatism
and MoQ all share anti-essentialists ideals and concepts.
Why Essentialism seems so difficult to break from resides in
the grammar of our language, the logical predication and ordering of
concepts as laid out per Aristotle based on those assumptions.
But as Dmb says that is broken once essentialism is rejected
and natural language remains.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
