But what would our existence be without essence? It wouldn't be a human existence. Part of the human essence is the ability to reason, so if the existence first existed without an essence, then at some point, we would not be human. If one can accept this fact, then I can accept existence as being a prerequisite for essence.

The problem I am trying to address I guess, is when does a human become a human, or is it a right given at birth?

A human becomes a human as soon is he is a human. Are you talking about (say) a zygote. A human zygote is always human, because it has human DNA. That is what makes something human. Being human is a biological category. Perhaps you are confusing being a human with being a person. That, of course, is a different issue. Being a person is not a biological matter; it is a social and legal matter. As John Locke pointed out, it is a "forensic" category. It is, as you might say, a "construct". Being human is not a right at all. It is a biological property of certain entities. Like having blue eyes.

If humanness is an inherent quality to every human being, then the existence of an individual human being would be quite contingent open the essence of humanness.

As for as personhood goes, there are less restrictions as we quite often personify concepts which are not human.

If the question is concerning humanity in general, then at what point in the evolutionary process did the first "Human Being" exist, and was that existence, or was it not, contingent open the ability for that individual to reason, aka it's essence?

I do agree that DNA came about through evolution. But there is a difference between the DNA of an Ape and that of a Human, albeit small. Even these small changes, however, did not take place over night. So at some point you would agree that there was half ape half modern day human DNA correct?

I see humanness as still being in the process of creation, as our current definition of humanness may not be suitable in 100,000 years. So both existence and essence is in a constant flux, I don't see any reason to make a definitive claim that one must precede the other. The essence of something is ones existence. We may not became aware of it until after we exist, but that doesn't mean our essence wasn't there.

If my essence were my existence, then it would be impossible for me not to exist. It would be one of my defining properties to exist. I could not, not exist.

In fact, the Ontological argument for God is exactly that since His essence is His existence, He exists necessarily. It is flattering to think that I am God, but I fear that is not true. But thank you.

We do not grasp our existence in any form other than essense... You do not know yourself, but through your essence, your essential self, your self perception, which tends to exclude all that is not essential to your being...

The ontological argument is that his essence is all of existence, not necessarily his existence. This is why Erigena described it as super-existence. Your existence and essence are both codependent, while God is both pure existence and pure essence. The ontological doesn't work if you try to give God properties.

It is that His essence is His existence. And therefore, He cannot not exist. It is clear that my essence is not my existence, since I have not existed in the past, and I will not exist in the future. QED. This includes chairs and tables too.

The ontological argument, as postulated by early theologians, is based on a God in which no qualities can be attributed. Therefore God cannot have essence. What God is, quite literally, is essence. God is being. God doesn't have the property of one who is. This distinction must be understood before attempting to make sense of any argument concerning God.

If my essence were my existence, then it would be impossible for me not to exist. It would be one of my defining properties to exist. I could not, not exist.

In fact, the Ontological argument for God is exactly that since His essence is His existence, He exists necessarily. It is flattering to think that I am God, but I fear that is not true. But thank you.

Are you saying it is possible that you do not exist? Because that doesn't sound like you... It is different from the Ontological argument because you would be making the case for your own, current existence. In the Ontological argument, humans are making the case for a god, god is not making the case himself (making his existence questionable, not his ability to exist...).

Of course it is possible for me not to exist. I did not exist not many years ago, and I won't exist in not so many years from now. You don't think that it is impossible that I should not exist, although, of course, I do exist.

I think that what confuses you is the in ordinary English, the phrase, "It is possible that not-p" often means, "I don't know that p is true" or "For all I know, p is false". So that you think I am saying that I don't know that I exist. And, of course, I know that I exist. But, it is possible that not-p has a different meaning. A modal meaning. It means that p is false is not self-contradictory. So that, it is possible that I don't exist means, it is not self-contradictory that I don't exist, or it is not a necessary truth (one that cannot be false) that I exist. So, although I know that I exist, it is possible that I do not exist. In the sense that my non-existence is not self-contradictory.

But if my essence were my existence, then it would be impossible for me not to exist. And that, as I have said, we know is false.

Of course it is possible for me not to exist. I did not exist not many years ago, and I won't exist in not so many years from now. You don't think that it is impossible that I should not exist, although, of course, I do exist.

I think that what confuses you is the in ordinary English, the phrase, "It is possible that not-p" often means, "I don't know that p is true" or "For all I know, p is false". So that you think I am saying that I don't know that I exist. And, of course, I know that I exist. But, it is possible that not-p has a different meaning. A modal meaning. It means that p is false is not self-contradictory. So that, it is possible that I don't exist means, it is not self-contradictory that I don't exist, or it is not a necessary truth (one that cannot be false) that I exist. So, although I know that I exist, it is possible that I do not exist. In the sense that my non-existence is not self-contradictory.

But if my essence were my existence, then it would be impossible for me not to exist. And that, as I have said, we know is false.

Can you not see where your essence is a face of your existence?

You existence is essential, because if it wasn't essential, then you wouldn't exist. As far as the past or future, those are also necessary, because if the past was at all different, then you would essentially not exist, and because of your existence the future is essentially different.

Therefore, essence is one of the many faces of existence. They are not interchangeable, but they are the same.

Can you not see where your essence is a face of your existence?

You existence is essential, because if it wasn't essential, then you wouldn't exist. As far as the past or future, those are also necessary, because if the past was at all different, then you would essentially not exist, and because of your existence the future is essentially different.

Therefore, essence is one of the many faces of existence. They are not interchangeable, but they are the same.

Essence is eternal, because essence has an effect that is beyond the present.

I think it is quite obvious that any one individual's existence is necessary for things to exist the way they are. If either one of you did not exist, then my essence and in turn my very existence would be altered, if maybe only a little bit.

The past was essential to exist exactly how it did in order for any of us to exist the way we do, otherwise our essence would be different, or perhaps we wouldn't even exist.

In that sense, yes, I see essence as something eternal and necessary, since a change in it would mean a change throughout all of existence. Similar to the concept of the butterfly effect.

---------- Post added 02-14-2010 at 01:51 AM ----------

Let me put it another way.

My essence is how people view my existence, or how I view my existence. I exist because I am, if I didn't exist then I wouldn't be. My being is shown to others through my essence, therefore, my essence is a face of my being/existence.

Could you flat out define essence? Because I have a feeling that otherwise there is going to be a lot of debate over nothing...