Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.


Expand Messages
  • louise
    What confuses the whole idea of essence in logic is that attention is not given to the fact that one continually functions with the concept existence
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 19, 2005
      'What confuses the whole idea of "essence" in logic is that
      attention is not given to the fact that one continually functions
      with the "concept" existence [*Existents*]. But the *concept*,
      existence, is an ideality, and the difficulty is precisely whether
      existence is absorbed in the concept. Then Spinoza may be right:
      *essentia involvit existentiam*, namely, the concept-existence,
      i.e., existence in ideality. From another point of view, Kant is
      right in saying, "Existence brings no new predicate to a concept."
      Obviously Kant honestly thinks of existence as not being absorbed
      into the concept, empirical existence. In all the relationships of
      ideality it holds true that *essentia is existentia*, if the use of
      the concept *existentia* is otherwise justified here. The
      Leibnizian statement: If God is possible, he is necessary - is
      entirely correct. Nothing is added to a concept whether it has
      existence or not; it is a matter of complete indifference; it indeed
      has existence, i.e., concept-existence, ideal existence.
      But existence corresponds to the individual; as Aristotle has
      already taught, the individual lies outside of and is not absorbed
      in the concept. For a particular animal, a particular plant, a
      particular human being, existence (to be - or not to be) is very
      crucial; a particular human being is certainly not concept-
      existence. The very way in which modern philosophy speaks of
      existence shows that it does not believe in the immortality of the
      individual; it does not believe at all; it comprehends only the
      eternity of "concepts".'

      Soren Kierkegaard's Journals and Papers, Vol. One, p460,
      this entry not dated, 1849-50. Hong & Hong, Indiana U.P.

      I suppose I don't think belief matters, one way or the other.
      Definitely not something one can 'will' or 'choose'. Either it
      just 'happens', suddenly or over an extended period, or else it is
      desired, and so one sees it coming. At any rate, I found
      Kierkegaard interesting and loveable for all those years when I
      thought conscious life after death was a pitiable superstition. I
      read him then because he was a man. And he is still a man. His
      work is on topic to this group because he knew how to think.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.