All life is comprised of living organisms, therefore the Earth must be considered as the body of life, with all living organisms contained within it deemed as vital to the perpetration of the only existence its components are aware of.

It matters not that the rest of the universe is obviously "out there"; to any single entity all that is relevant is the now that supports its place within the greater body.

The entity, which we call humanity, is the only component of life that can conjugate awareness of the whole ...

What evidence do you have that a cow cannot do this? Or an elephant?

We know they have certain human capacities such as to be able to suffer, and to mourn a loss. We see an elephant - and even a squirrel - plan for the future. Are you not being a bit arrogant in holding that only the human animal is unique in its being able to have a wider perspective?

Have you ever looked into an animals eyes and felt the intimacy of the connection? Or touched an animals body and felt the joining of your essence with its? Of course you have, it is no different than human interaction, and in some ways profoundly deeper because of the absolute reliance animals have on humans for their very existence.
It is not arrogance but a sense of responsibility I feel for all living things, made humble by my utter dependance on them for my own survival.
The tapestry of life shows all living things as the threads that comprise the whole. The blade of grass that feeds the cow may not be perceived by the cow in the same way, but the cow does feel the result of its dependance in the form of its continued survival. The same is true of every other living organism.
Only humans have the capacity to be aware of this greater view, is it such a leap to imbue this capacity as the living consciousness of Earth?
We could complain and argue about whatever until the cows come home, but in the final analysis is it not the thoughts of humankind that will shape the future of all life?
I do not think there will be a second coming of one man that will bring salvation. I think that the one man is a parody of you, and me, but we will not realize this presence until we mature from this junkie like state of living from one dollar to the next.

---------- Post added 01-12-2010 at 12:18 PM ----------

Jeeprs, thank you for the comment, and the link. If l have posted here inappropriately I apologize. It's just that I think essence precedes existence, as redundant really as what came first the chicken or the egg.

...which is, as I said, a matter of discussing "human obligations" from a philosophical point of view. That is ethics. I don't think we're really differing.

How could a human exist without the essence of humanness?

How could the essence of humanness exist without a human existing?

They seem to me to be mutually inclusive.

How could a human exist without the essence of humanness?

How could the essence of humanness exist without a human existing?

They seem to me to be mutually inclusive.

If you believe that essense is not set in stone - that it is the sum of what you were born with, and all your experiences and reactions to said experiences from birth to present and you also believe that yes in fact you have existed from the moment birth, but existence did not count until you reached the age of reason -- the essense came first. Small and incomplete but still there first

Determinism always comes across as useful only if you are a seeker of excuses.

No matter what your place in the order of things was at birth, no matter what experiences you have had over your lifetime it is always YOU, making the choices that become the sum of who you are to YOU.

Lost1

Don't buy into a bunch of philosophical dogma...And Dogs are a good example now that I have them in mind...Do you think there is a difference between the dog and his essence??? We conceive of dogs by what is essential to all dogs, and what is essential to all dogs is essential to one dog, and yet, all dogs are different, so how can there be an essential dog that accepts all differences and finds a common bond between them???We conceive of all dogs spiritually, and it is this conception to the extent it reflects reality that is their essence- in our minds...But their essence, individually, or together is a notion inseperable from their being... We could not have the idea, the conception of the thing without the thing, but in the seeing of it, in the existing with it, our essence become easily confused with it, so Schopenhaur was correct to say, that when I die the world dies with me...Our being is essential to the perception of all being, and as with all being we conceive of ourselves spiritually, but the fact is not that ones essences or any things essence is a thing apart, but is one part of the whole...

It turns out that human DNA is what might be called, "the essence of humaness" if there were such a word. Of course, that is because being human is a biological category. But, I don't suppose that existentialists would be fazed by that news.

Plato believed that essences existed even if what partook of the essence did not. In fact, he believed that the essence was more real than anything that partook of it.

Fido, you say "Our being is essential to the perception of all being, and as with all being we conceive of ourselves spiritually, but the fact is not that ones essences or any things essence is a thing apart, but is one part of the whole... "

I agree. This is the fundamental truth of existence.
We express ourselves through words that are already once removed from the feelings that prompted them, and the feelings themselves are in flux, prompted and shaped via the stimulation of our essence.
That said, and the truth of being but one part of the whole recognized, is it not in the common grounding of our essences that harmonious existence can occur?
As truth is the only common denominator, and is never so much proven as felt, the fact that we live on Earth is misleading, and, though factual, gives no commonality to any essence beyond that fact.
To be aware that we are but one part of the whole is to invite truth to the essence of existence.
Feelings can only find temporary rest journeying through a fact-based existence.
Essence must reside in truth to join with the whole of which it is part.
My essence tells me that the truth is not that we live on Earth, but that we are Earth.
Only the insecurity of ego separates essence from the whole, and ego is born of knowledge, not truth.

I think etymology is useful. Others might not. For me the linguistic turn in philosophy was crucial. Most abstractions are dead/literalized/context-learned metaphors. I think we should look at our tools, decide if we know what we are about.


essence late 14c., from L. essentia "being, essence," abstract n. formed in imitation of Gk. ousia "being, essence" (from on, gen. ontos, prp. of einai "to be"), from prp. stem of esse "to be," from PIE *es- (cf. Skt. asmi, Hittite eimi, O.C.S. jesmi, Lith. esmi, Goth. imi, O.E. eom "I am;" see be). Originally "substance of the Trinity," the general sense of "basic element of anything" is first recorded in English 1650s, though this is the base meaning of the first English use of essential (mid-14c.).
existence late 14c., from O.Fr. existence, from L.L. existentem "existent," prp. of L. existere "stand forth, appear," and, as a secondary meaning, "exist;" from ex- "forth" + sistere "cause to stand" (see assist).

I have had many conversations with regard to "free will" and "determinism". This is a fascinating topic because there has never, in my opinion, been a definitive argument in either direction. Of course free will has to exist because if it didn't then all "wrong doers" would be guilty of nothing as they would be simply following their "destiny". We would then have the absurd scenario of child molesters, rapists and murderers claiming that they were simply "following orders". However, an element of "determinism" is there due to the "laws" of cause and effect. We are all the product of our upbringing and environment. Some of us are "pushed " in one direction and some in another. We all make choices hundreds of times each day. Do these choices accumulate to make us what we are? Are we then "forced" to be the way we are because of the choices we make at various points in our lives? Are we the product of Pirsigs "Metaphysics of Quality" in a world in which the only "meaning" is the struggle for "better-ness" regardless of morals? As he readily states, the "higher" form of existence must always take priority. Morality, according to Pirsig, is not necessarily a product of society but is a "given". If I am off track on this please feel free to say.

You are working on the fallacy of individuation, as Schopenhaur called it...

Quote:

It's okay with me if you wish to and Schopenhaur wished to believe my philosophy to be a fallacy, allowing others to use the thoughts that work best for themselves is a large part of my so called fallacy of individuation.

Quote:

We may live as individuals, but our existence is a quality we share with all living beings, and this in the physical sense too, since we must eat life to be life...Does the life die because we make it the stuff of our life???

Quote:

Yes that which is no long living is dead.

Quote:

Essence is just a way of conceiving of being...What is the essential of you??? Theology might say it is your soul, but soul is the equal of animis, Life ...So what is your life???

Quote:

The essence of me is the end results of my genetics, each of my past and present experiences and my thoughts of both.

My life is infact whatever I choose it to be

Quote:

...again the sunrise they could not with long dead eyes see...It is not your essence, but our essence, and the essence of all life...

Part of the beauty of life is knowing that we all share our known world, (working towards learning how to best share it is a part of my philosphy)yet we are alone with our thoughts and our choices.

Lost1