Is anything just its essence?

I'm reading Maimonides at the moment, who argues that God does not possess a thing other than his essence. Nevermind the god stuff. I'm just curious as to whether *anything* can be just its essence. I'm thinking the answer is no.

Jordan

Post 1

Saturday, April 18, 2009 - 12:38pm

I would say that anything is never only its essence (essential characteristics) -- even though, by definition, it is always known to be mostly its essence (essential characteristics).

In Objectivist epistemology, essence (essential characteristics) is epistemological, rather than something merely natural (metaphysical). On this view, essence has to due with learning, not with being.

Instead of the question:

What makes an apple an apple?

... the question becomes:

What is so essential about apples that it effectively differentiates apples from oranges?

Ed

Post 2

Saturday, April 18, 2009 - 3:22pm

True - but Maimonides means from the 'primacy of consciousness' standpoint, from which, in that context, the answer is - no...

Post 3

Saturday, April 18, 2009 - 5:57pm

Huh, Rev'?

From a primacy of consciousness (where thought is conflated with things), everything is just its essence. On that view, what makes something available -- available because its differentiated from other things -- what makes something available to your mind (i.e., its essential characteristics), is what makes it it. On the primacy of consciousness view, everything has to just be its essence.

I don't think that you are confusing thought with things enough, when you say that -- on the primacy of consciousness view -- that the answer is "no." I think that you would need to confuse thought with things more -- to the point where definitions or essentials are taken to be what something is -- in order to fully apply the primacy of consciousness view to this question. Totally confusing thought with things like that, should lead one to answer "yes" -- everything is just its essence.

Am I making myself understandable? It's hard subject matter.

Ed

Post 4

Saturday, April 18, 2009 - 6:04pm

Essence is epistemological, not metaphysical. Things don't have essences; concepts have essences.

"Objectivism holds that the essence of a concept is that fundamental characteristics(s) of its units on which the greatest number of other characteristics depend, and which distinguishes these units from all other existents within the field of man's knowledge. Thus the essence of a concept is determined contextually and may be altered with the growth of man's knowledge. The metaphysical referent of man's concepts is not a special, separate metaphysical essence, but the total of the facts of reality he has observed, and this total determines which characteristics of a given group of existents he designates as essential. An essential characteristics is factual, in the sense that it does exist, does determine other characteristics and does distinguish a group of existents from all others; it is epistemological in the sense that the classification of "essential characteristic" is a device of man's method of cognition -- a means of classifying, condensing and integrating an ever-growing body of knowledge." (Rand, ITOE, p. 52)

For instance, the �essence� of the concept �bird� for a child will be different than for an adult, because the child�s knowledge is not as great as the adult�s. For a very young child, the essence of a �bird� might be �a thing that moves in the air.� This allows the child to distinguish birds from things on the ground. But once he discovers kites, the essence of a bird will change to �a thing that flies under its own power,� which allows the child to distinguish birds from kites. When he discovers airplanes, the essence of a bird will change again to �a living thing that has wings and can fly,� which allows him to distinguish a bird from a plane as well as from a kite. When he discovers flies and moths, the essence changes once more to �a warm-blooded vertebrate that has wings and flies,� which allows him to distinguish a bird from flying insects as well as from airplanes and kites. (Examples cited from Leonard Peikoff's course on Objectivist Epistemology)

Thus, essence can change with the growth of one's knowledge and is not a metaphysical aspect of an existent a la Aristotle.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 4/18, 6:13pm)

Post 5

Saturday, April 18, 2009 - 9:06pm

Bill,

I could be wrong here, but I think Maimonides was treating "essence" more like how Objectivists treat "fundamental characteristic." "Metaphysically, a fundamental characteristic is that distinctive characteristic which makes the greatest number of others possible," Rand writes. (ITOE, p59.)

I'm thinking that no thing can exist with just that singular characteristic.

Jordan

Post 6

Saturday, April 18, 2009 - 10:08pm

Jordan,

A fundamental characteristic is also determined contextually and may be altered with the growth of man's knowledge. In defining "essence," Rand writes that "the essence of a concept is that fundamental characteristic(s) of its units on which the greatest number of other characteristics depend, and which distinguishes these units from all other existents within the field of man's knowledge." (Emphasis added, ITOE, 52)

- Bill

Post 7

Sunday, April 19, 2009 - 8:47am

Hmm... Bill, do you deny that there are, metaphysically, some characteristics upon which others depend?

Jordan

Post 8

Sunday, April 19, 2009 - 8:57am

What I was meaning, Ed, was simply that he was postulating God as existing 'in essence', in that its consciousness comprised its essence... - to which, of course, the answer to the question is - no, since as Bill has said, essence is epistemological, not metaphysical...

However, things have characteristics - even if those are not considered as essences... it is called its identity... but they are not known save thru epistemological means...
(
(Edited by robert malcom on 4/19, 9:00am)

Post 9

Sunday, April 19, 2009 - 9:12am

Jordan,

In answer to your question, no. Okay, so I see your point. You're saying that Maimonides viewed "essence" in that sense -- metaphysically, as a fundamental characteristic.

Hmm.

- Bill

Post 10

Sunday, April 19, 2009 - 9:47am

Hi Bill,

Right. As I read him, Maimonides argues that God is this insanely simple thing -- just this singular fundamental characteristic, nothing more. I'm looking for further insights, not about gods, but about whether it's metaphysically possible that something could be so crazy simple.

Arguments similar to Maimonides' creep up periodically. I'm reminded of Leibniz's monadology and Aristotle's "ousia" or substance/essence.

Jordan

Post 11

Sunday, April 19, 2009 - 10:57am

Jordan,

As I read him, Maimonides argues that God is this insanely simple thing -- just this singular fundamental characteristic, nothing more. I'm looking for further insights, not about gods, but about whether it's metaphysically possible that something could be so crazy simple.

You know, Spinoza's pantheistic conception of God* -- which Einstein liked** -- is so complex that it's paradoxically "crazy simple" like you ask. On this view, the word "God" is really just a place-holder for "everything that has or will existed" or for "how everything has or will turn out" or something like that. For Spinoza, it's almost like God and "existence" or God and "universe" mean the same thing.

Ed

Notes:

*Spinoza reportedly said this:
"By God I mean a being absolutely infinite-that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality."

**Einstein reportedly said this:
"... I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist.

We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.

I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things."

Post 12

Sunday, April 19, 2009 - 11:07am

Jordan,

Right. God is conceived of as a pure spirit -- a disembodied "essence" of consciousness -- one that is omniscient while nevertheless lacking any means or form of knowledge, such as a brain and sense organs, and one that is omnipotent while nevertheless lacking any means or form of power, such as a physical body. Such a being is a metaphysical impossibility.

Obviously, there are certain preconditions for such characteristics as knowledge and power. They do not and cannot exist on their own independently of a physical or biological foundation.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 4/19, 11:10am)

Post 13

Sunday, April 19, 2009 - 1:01pm