Existentialism Explained 

Perfectly balanced. As all things should be.

Thank you very much 😀

Glad we could help :D

Glad you enjoyed it.

You're welcome :)

You're welcome!

You're welcome, glad it helped.

Perhaps the essence of a human being is their "mind." In other words, what makes me unique is the fact that I am me? That is my essence, my "meness". Of course my meness doesn't exist before I'm born (or probably even a bit after that), besides, what are the characteristics of this meness anyway? Also, if consciousness can be explained in purely materialistic terms (which seems likely considering that it would be ridiculous that the mind has to exist in some magical realm) then even my meness is not unique after all. In that sense, there is no essence to who I am. Perhaps my humanness gives me some essence? My genes perhaps? I didn't get to choose to be a heterosexual male, nor to have brown skin, nor to be born in Africa, yet these things affect my identity and limit the amount of freedom I have in determining who I am. In that sense, I don't really have complete freedom and my essence is partly determined when I'm born. It is also entirely possible that I don't understand what "essence" means as an existentialist term.

@@becomingpark4517 One interpretation/definition of essence is "the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, which determines its character." I find that such "vague" definitions which use virtually undefinable words such as "intrinsic nature", "Indispensable quality" and "character" and even consciousness make it virtually impossible to really nail down a definitive description of one's essence. When one considers the astronomical odds of any one person existing today, given the odds of fertilisation of the eggs that gave rise to that person, the environmental factors involved and the chances of one's ancestors meeting and so many other factors, that's only one set of parameters contributing to one's "essence". On top of that is the chance life experiences that one goes through, these all contribute. I tend to be scientific in my thought processes and I'm inclined to think that without a systematic ordering and understanding of these factors, we're left guessing the answer in much the same way that the ancients, with their limited knowledge of the universe, tried (fancifully) to describe the universe they live in and came up with the concept of "gods". In other words, too little is known about the concepts of "intrinsic nature", "Indispensable quality" and "character" and even consciousness to arrive at any viable conclusions.

@@df4250 I agree. It feels like we are making the same mistake that Plato and the Greeks did with the world of forms. We are looking at this in light of so little information that we might be asking the wrong questions here.

@@becomingpark4517 Definitely agree. From the "biblical" analogy I made, I hope that this sort of thing doesn't go in the same direction that of ancient religious scriptures. What amazes me is that it's still debated in philosophical circles without (as far as I know - and I could be wrong) anyone bringing up the points I raised. If anyone knows of anyone else who has, I'd be interested in having a read of their thoughts.

Essentialism isn't necessarily Platonic or theological, as long as the ontogeny of the essences isn't totally outside humanity itself. Husserl (and probably Kant) would consider essences of an object like a chair to be intrinsic to the interaction between the subject and the nebulous outside substance that becomes the chair in human consciousness. Likewise, the "chair" essence would also interact with the essences of "antique" or "modern" or "leather." So the essence of a "chair" would be predefined prior to a given human's existence but would also be intrinsic to human existence itself. Obviously going into the particulars could lead to an infinite description of essences, so transcendental phenomenology tends to focus on the essences of global states of consciousness (e.g. dreaming, meditation, memory, emotions) that intend objects rather than the particular objects themselves. The point is that a Husserlian would likely say existence and essence are intertwined, with nothing preceding the other. On the other hand, Plato would say essences are predefined and prior to (i.e. outside of) human existence, and as such essence precedes existence. Whereas Sartre seems to reject essentialism outright as a phenomenological paradigm and would say existence precedes essence, existence itself explains phenomenology. I don't know too much about Sartre yet however and am still exploring more about 20th century phenomenology.

yes it s also Da Vinci's terori not only Jean.

You're welcome, thanks for watching.

There is no universal meaning to life.

@@johndoe4110 the answer to an absolute, or rather, objective universal meaning to life is impossible to fabricate. However, based on the contents and general information of existentialism in this video; presumably, a “universal meaning” of life, would be blank, a sense of perpetual emptiness to an existentialist as well. If that makes sense? I’m not an expert on existentialism, but I’ll definitely attempt to educate myself furthermore on the philosophy

I personally hold the view that how bleak or depressing something is is not indicative at all of its truthfulness. Existentialism is much less presumptuous than theological arguments despite its "emptyness." Brutal truth or pretty lie?