They influence on us, but they don't determine us. There are external factors that influence upon our decisions, but in the end we decide ourselves.

 

Yes, but if you decide based on those influences, they have helped shape who you are, so you can't really say that you decide who you are. I don't know anyone who has never made a decision based on an outside force.

 

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you're saying, but that statement seemed slightly contradictory. :thinking: No offense, though, Ricardo. This is a thought-provoking thread you've made here. :)

They act according to their circumstances, but circumstances won't decide for them, people always choose, no matter what is it, even not choosing. They perhaps consider the fashion that rules their time, but they decide to be influenced by society and external factors.

How does not choosing = choosing? Explain that one to me.

 

Also, that whole "deciding to be influenced by society" bit is nonsense. It's way deeper than that. Things like that reside more on a subconscious level. That's something that people cannot control, no matter how hard they try. You can't decide to change something that is eternally there within yourself.

 

I'm sorry. I don't think that made much sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence

To clear up confusions.

 

"essence is the attribute or set of attributes that make an object or substance what it fundamentally is" Pah! Existence is defined by essence. Case closed.

Pulled from the existence Wiki:

 

"In common usage, existence is the world of which we are aware through our senses and persists independently without them. In academic philosophy the word has a more specialized meaning, being contrasted with essence, which specifies different forms of existence as well as different identity conditions for objects and properties."

Erm, so? This is philosophy. I still think I'm right. And since it's philosophy you can't prove me rong. :P

 

The existence of a thing is defined by its essence, existence is utterly meaningless without essence (and essence is impossible without existence -- they're totally mutual to each other.)

 

Therefore it is silly to say "lol u can't want essence moar than existence, witout existence your essence would be meaningless" coz you can just as easily say "existence without essence is meaningless too." It comes down to the degrees of each that you want. And in my case, I value essence more than existence.

Essence isn't about existence in itself, so much as how you exist.

 

I never said I was trying to prove you wrong. I was merely making an observation.

Yeah, I know you weren't trying to disprove me or anything. Don't worry.

 

Existence is meaningless without essence though. Without any essence you effectively cannot have existence. It's like matter & energy being unified, well not really but sort of.

 

And complementary to this is the fact that you cannot have essence without something representing that essence existing. They're two mutually supportive parts of the same structure.

Existence can be shaped by essence, but existence doesn't need essence. Essence does need existence. You need to be born if not you will not have that idenitity.

How does not choosing = choosing? Explain that one to me.

 

Also, that whole "deciding to be influenced by society" bit is nonsense. It's way deeper than that. Things like that reside more on a subconscious level. That's something that people cannot control, no matter how hard they try. You can't decide to change something that is eternally there within yourself.

 

I'm sorry. I don't think that made much sense.

 

For example, you have a problem, you can solve it through 2 different ways: supporting x and the othey supporting y. But then you decide to do noting about the problem.

You actually chose something, and it was not choosing. You will always have to choose something, included nothing.

Existence can be shaped by essence, but existence doesn't need essence.

 

I disagree. We're getting into existentialism here (lolobviously) but for all intents and purposes something has to have a quality of something about it for it to exist, or certainly at least to be observed (why I said "for all intents and purposes"). You can't observe something if it doesn't have this quality of "essence" we're talking about, and you can argue til the cows come home about whether or not something still exists if it has no effect on the outside world (you need essence for that, or so I understand) AND you can't observe it (again... essence characterizes something, so you need it to observe something) but for all I care, essence needs existence and existence needs essence.

I disagree. We're getting into existentialism here (lolobviously) but for all intents and purposes something has to have a quality of something about it for it to exist, or certainly at least to be observed (why I said "for all intents and purposes"). You can't observe something if it doesn't have this quality of "essence" we're talking about, and you can argue til the cows come home about whether or not something still exists if it has no effect on the outside world (you need essence for that, or so I understand) AND you can't observe it (again... essence characterizes something, so you need it to observe something) but for all I care, essence needs existence and existence needs essence.

 

Exaclty, but it's you who decides to take into account the essence, and that's because you exist and therefore are free.

Exaclty, but it's you who decides to take into account the essence, and that's because you exist and therefore are free.

 

Yeah so okay we basically agree. Good :lol: It's a bit weird to talk about such utterly vague concepts as these (the wikipedian definitions still don't satisfy me...)

uhm read sartre?

Of course then the existence is more important, because your existence is what makes you seek attention and observe the essence of things, it's your existence that gives a meaning to the essence of everything, even when they're essenceless.

This is more or less like Relativity theory.

uhm read sartre?

Of course then the existence is more important, because your existence is what makes you seek attention and observe the essence of things, it's your existence that gives a meaning to the essence of everything, even when they're essenceless.

This is more or less like Relativity theory.

 

I've read SOME Sartre... >.>

 

Define how you mean exactly, how is this like relativity theory haha?

That everything is relative to what you decide, there's nothing absoulte, not even voldka.

Oh, you mean that.

 

Well not really, in relativity theory there is one constant, the speed of light. The rest of space-time's definition is molded around that constant.

Well that's why I said more or less.

Here there's one constant: existence.

think ricardo is now touching on existential angst, moral uncertainty, and the unbearable lightness of being.

For example, you have a problem, you can solve it through 2 different ways: supporting x and the othey supporting y. But then you decide to do noting about the problem.

You actually chose something, and it was not choosing. You will always have to choose something, included nothing.

 

Yeah, OK. I'll buy that argument. :)

^Yeah, existential anxiety stems from constant responsibility for ones actions. People often try to avoid this through bad faith, but really they're consciously choosing a lesser existence. They feel 'too' free, and can't be 'unfree'.

:surprised:

 

That was profound.

^ +10 for referencing Spock.

haha thanks. :thumbsup: even though he died pretty much straight after :P

Without essence, in no way can you help your fellow man.

Well, that depends on how specifically you define "essence". I doubt early man had much essence, maybe the odd grunt or two, but he managed to evolve Homo sapiens into the dominant species of today.

^Yeah, existential anxiety stems from constant responsibility for ones actions. People often try to avoid this through bad faith, but really they're consciously choosing a lesser existence. They feel 'too' free, and can't be 'unfree'.

 

Finally someone supports me, I was alone against these bunch of materialist (no offense intended, by materialist I don't mean superfluos but uhm realistic and positvist)