# Essence (Part II) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 23, 2005, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/essence-part-ii/327531 "2005-10-23T16:06:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/essence-part-ii/327531/61 "2005-10-28T01:07:17Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > So, in a nutshell, goodness is pleasure? Goodness is consonance. Pleasure is one variety of its manifestation. > [@](#): > > Correct-- we don’t have a “module” for detecting macroscopic scale phsyical events, but rather our senses and language often fail us at the atomic level. This can’t be said definitively. What we have are conceptual models molded by mathematics and physical metaphors. To assume we fail to sense atoms, assumes that atoms ought to be ideally detectable, which assumes that the physical interpretations of the model are in some sense literally true. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/essence-part-ii/327531/62 "2005-10-28T01:13:14Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > Goodness is consonance. Pleasure is one variety of its manifestation. What’s your defintion of consonance? (Please don’t tell me it’s “goodness” 🙂 ) To me, consonance means agreement or harmony. That seems a rather odd definition of goodness, but maybe I just don’t understand why it is appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/essence-part-ii/327531/63 "2005-10-28T01:21:35Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > To me, consonance means agreement or harmony. That is consonant with my definition. > [@](#): > > That seems a rather odd definition of goodness To me, it is the natural source for the definition. We are intentional beings. Our experiences are colored. We are attached/attracted to some things, repulsed by others, indifferent to others. That indicates a bipolar graded spectrum. The social concept of ‘good’/‘evil’ evolved as the shared/consensual expression of a society of humans. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/essence-part-ii/327531/64 "2005-10-28T01:32:07Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > That is consonant with my definition. Then it must be good. > [@](#): > > To me, it is the natural source for the definition. We are intentional beings. Our experiences are colored. We are attached/attracted to some things, repulsed by others, indifferent to others. That indicates a bipolar graded spectrum. The social concept of ‘good’/‘evil’ evolved as the shared/consensual expression of a society of humans. But, and I think you raised this issue earlier, some things repulse us in some circumstances, but attract us in other circumstances. Additionally, some things are repulsive to some individuals and attractive to others. Not to mention whole cultures that are attracted to things that repulse other whole cultures. I’ll take it, then, that “goodness” in this context is an individual experience that can vary over time and space (or over space-time, if we want to keep up the phsyics metaphore). ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/essence-part-ii/327531/65 "2005-10-28T01:34:20Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I’ll take it, then, that “goodness” in this context is an individual experience that can vary over time and space (or over space-time, if we want to keep up the phsyics metaphore). Yes. ---
**Author:** ![other-wise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4bbf92/32.png) [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/essence-part-ii/327531/66 "2005-10-28T04:16:09Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > But the only point I’m trying to make is that one should not extrapolate scientific models into the realm of metaphysics that concerns a quest for “truth”. Scientific models are approximations; things we impose on the physical world to aid our understanding in a way that we can understand. I’m extremely leery of putting words into **Lib** ’s mouth or expounding on his beliefs when the paint is still wet on my understanding thereof, but I just wanted to point out that he’s _not_ extrapolating scientific models into metaphysics; he clearly differentiates between scientific and spiritual “truth”. For example, this snippet, > [@](#): > > It seems there’s something about Spirit that’s pre- or meta-epistemological; that it involves a “knowing” that only analogously resembles intellectual knowledge. (which I wrote but **Lib** endorsed), indicates that there is brain-knowledge, and then there is spirit-“knowledge”. Brains can only understand what they are capable of understanding, while spiritual “knowledge” (for lack of a better term) is _intrinsic_ to spirit. **Lib** ’s consistently maintained that while brain-knowledge is useful for understanding the physical world, it’s useless for understanding spirit. **John Mace** , **ll Gyan ll** , goodness was defined in the OP: it’s an aesthetic whose essence is edification. Edification isn’t an emotion or a feeling. Resonance, consonance, or pleasure may _accompany_ edification, but they’re not the same _as_ edification. It fact, feelings of resonance and pleasure can result from behaviors driven by virtually _any_ aesthetic; there are people who take great pleasure in destroying or diminishing… the polar opposite of edification. While individual _response_ to “goodness” can vary over time and space, (i.e., some may smile, others may sneer) “goodness” itself is invariant-it’s just “goodness”. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/essence-part-ii/327531/67 "2005-10-28T04:26:54Z")
> [@other-wise](#): > > I’m extremely leery of putting words into **Lib** ’s mouth or expounding on his beliefs when the paint is still wet on my understanding thereof, but I just wanted to point out that he’s _not_ extrapolating scientific models into metaphysics; he clearly differentiates between scientific and spiritual “truth”. For example, this snippet, OK, but note that \*\*Lib \*\*has several times pointed to physics to explain his statements. > [@](#): > > (which I wrote but **Lib** endorsed), indicates that there is brain-knowledge, and then there is spirit-“knowledge”. Brains can only understand what they are capable of understanding, while spiritual “knowledge” (for lack of a better term) is _intrinsic_ to spirit. **Lib** ’s consistently maintained that while brain-knowledge is useful for understanding the physical world, it’s useless for understanding spirit. Sounds like “spirit knowledge” = emotions. > [@](#): > > **John Mace** , **ll Gyan ll** , goodness was defined in the OP: it’s an aesthetic whose essence is edification. Edification isn’t an emotion or a feeling. Resonance, consonance, or pleasure may _accompany_ edification, but they’re not the same _as_ edification. It fact, feelings of resonance and pleasure can result from behaviors driven by virtually _any_ aesthetic; there are people who take great pleasure in destroying or diminishing… the polar opposite of edification. While individual _response_ to “goodness” can vary over time and space, (i.e., some may smile, others may sneer) “goodness” itself is invariant-it’s just “goodness”. Good point. But… How do you distinguish between “edification” and “brain knowledge” or “emotional response”? Edification is improvement, but improvement is a value judgement that needs a basis for comparison. Improvement from what? ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/essence-part-ii/327531/68 "2005-10-28T04:29:53Z")
> [@other-wise](#): > > Edification isn’t an emotion or a feeling. Resonance, consonance, or pleasure may _accompany_ edification, but they’re not the same _as_ edification. Nor did I claim so. JM asked whether goodness was real and what would indicate or identify with that. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/essence-part-ii/327531/69 "2005-10-28T10:22:25Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > One of my favorite lines from that movie… Me too. I like that one, plus “And now it’s just more of the same, isn’t it?” 😃 (Mozart playing Salieri’s little march tune.) > [@](#): > > True, there isn’t anything inherently wrong with a laundry list of axioms, and the one I picked (the first one) isn’t a good example of what I meant anyway. Laundry list? Have you seen Euclid’s list of axioms? I don’t know where you’re getting this idea about there being too many axioms, but every proof needs exactly as many axioms as are necessary to draw its inferences. No more, no less. Maybe scientists have become unfamiliar with the formulation of proof. In the old days, the philosophy of science was an important component of every scientist’s epistemological repetoire. Einstein used two axioms for relativity, but I daresay that some scientists today don’t even know what they were. > [@](#): > > Some of your other axioms assume that God exists (if I understand them correctly), which seems like an incredible stretch. OTOH, I wouldn’t expect someone to prove that God exists, so if you philosophy includes God, you probably do have to assume He exists. In almost any proof (with notable exceptions, like Russel and Whitehead) there is audiatur et altera pars — (literally, let us hear the other side) — meaning unstated axioms. For example, I did not state that A is A (the Axiom of Identity). > [@](#): > > You also assume that, in a universal sense, there is something called “good”. I view that as simply a human invention. I gave goodness the coherent definition of that which edifies. Clearly, even in a universal sense, edification exists; otherwise, evolution never would have occured. The sun is edifying the biosphere with energy, allowing evolution to take place. > [@](#): > > The universe isn’t moral, it just is. You’re reading carelessly. The fact is that I stated the exact opposite of the universe is moral: I said that the universe is amoral (morally neutral). > [@](#): > > We derive our morality, our sense of good and evil, from our social interactions, which themselves are simply a product of our evolutionay heritage. Surely, you can understand the irony of making a gratuitous assertion immediately upon calling my premises gratuitous. 🙂 > [@](#): > > (But again, I’m probably speaking tangential to your overal subject, since I’ve already admitted I don’t understand what it is.) But that doesn’t mean that you’re incapable of understanding. If you have an interest in it, you can follow it from the beginning. If you have questions, you can ask them. But if you have no interest in it and no intention to understand it, I frankly don’t understand why you’re posting. I don’t mean that to discourage you, but just as my observation of an apparent contradiction. > [@](#): > > I just see that last part as a limitation of our language and the models we use to describe the physical world, not a fundamental truth (ie, axiom) that can be pulled out of the data. You’re wrong. It doesn’t make any difference how you construct the language. It doesn’t matter how you model the physical world. The question is whether a thing is what it is before it exists. In fact, it is the existential view that is suspect in the manner you’re describing by using language to identify a post-existential essence. ---
**Author:** ![other-wise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4bbf92/32.png) [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/essence-part-ii/327531/70 "2005-10-28T11:59:56Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > OK, but note that Lib has several times pointed to physics to explain his statements. To explain his statements about _spirit_? Could you quote an example of where he does this? > [@John Mace](#): > > How do you distinguish between “edification” and “brain knowledge” or “emotional response”? Edification is improvement, but improvement is a value judgement that needs a basis for comparison. Improvement from what? Again, I’m expounding on things that I barely have a grasp of; if you find the following to be clumsy or in error, you can safely chalk it up to my exposition, rather than **Lib** ’s worldview. Edification is _spiritual_ improvement. It’s not improvement in the sense of: “Well, this microwave sure is an improvement compared to my pile of burning sticks”. It’s improvement in the sense of something expanding, deepening or refining (in this case, the “something” is one’s spirit). Let’s say a man loves a woman and eventually, they have a child together. One wouldn’t say that the man’s love for the child is an _improvement_ compared to the love he feels for his partner. Rather, his love for the child can expand and deepen his love for his partner and vice versa. _Love_ expands, deepens and grows and in _that_ sense, improves. That’s spiritual edification. > [@ll Gyan ll](#): > > Nor did I claim so. JM asked whether goodness was real and what would indicate or identify with that. My mistake. I was confused by your statement that “agreement” or “harmony” was consonant with your definition of goodness. It’s not consonant with **Lib** ’s. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/essence-part-ii/327531/71 "2005-10-28T15:49:42Z")
I think that there exists edification in the universe which is a shadow of (or analogous to) spiritual edification (as in energy from the sun reversing local entropy, or your example of paternal love). But you certainly are correct that spiritual edification is of much more meaningful consequence. Unlike the universe, after all, the spirit is real. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/essence-part-ii/327531/72 "2005-10-28T15:50:16Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Laundry list? Have you seen Euclid’s list of axioms? Yeah, but he ended up with something useful. 🙂 > [@](#): > > Surely, you can understand the irony of making a gratuitous assertion immediately upon calling my premises gratuitous. 🙂 There’s nothing gratuitous about stating something that is mainstream thinking among most evolutionary biologists. I didn’t just make that up. But, still, it’s tangential to your thread, so let’s drop it. > [@](#): > > But that doesn’t mean that you’re incapable of understanding. If you have an interest in it, you can follow it from the beginning. If you have questions, you can ask them. But if you have no interest in it and no intention to understand it, I frankly don’t understand why you’re posting. I don’t mean that to discourage you, but just as my observation of an apparent contradiction. My second post was a mistake, and I apologize. I’ll stick to physics. > [@](#): > > You’re wrong. It doesn’t make any difference how you construct the language. It doesn’t matter how you model the physical world. The question is whether a thing is what it is before it exists. In fact, it is the existential view that is suspect in the manner you’re describing by using language to identify a post-existential essence. Wrong? That was in reference to your assertion that QM lends credibility to your assumption that essence precedes existence. It doesn’t. Referencing your earlier post: > [@Lib](#): > > After all, they [scientists] speak of particles coming into existence. Consider carefully the syntax of that statement — existence is predicated on the particle. If existentialism is true, then it is a nonsense statement. As I said above, that might just as easily be described as particles “entering a detectable state (from an undetectable one)”. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/essence-part-ii/327531/73 "2005-10-28T15:58:19Z")
There seems to be a misunderstanding. I do not believe that quantum mechanics lends credibility to essentialism — if anything, the reverse would be true. It’s just that, from time to time, I use analogies. Analogics are different from deductive and inductive logics. It is important to consider the pertinence of the analogy. When, for example, a scientist says that gravity is like a sheet of rubber, he does not mean that gravity is a chemical compound. That is not the charicteristic of rubber to which he is refering. Likewise, when Jesus says that spirit is like the wind, He does not mean that it messes up your hair. But it is definitely the case that the notion of a particle (or anything else) coming into existence (or entering a detectable state) is fundamentally essentialist. You are predefining what comes into existence (or becomes detectable), which is the very definition of essentialism. ---
**Author:** ![Dob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b2d939/32.png) [@Dob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dob)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/essence-part-ii/327531/74 "2005-10-28T16:40:17Z")
So is essence eternal? Since God has been, so has my “essence”? Or is it my physical life that shapes and defines my essence, which in turn, will exist once the phyiscal body is gone? Im just a bit confused on that part. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/essence-part-ii/327531/75 "2005-10-28T20:50:36Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > But it is definitely the case that the notion of a particle (or anything else) coming into existence (or entering a detectable state) is fundamentally essentialist. You are predefining what comes into existence (or becomes detectable), which is the very definition of essentialism. I don’t claim to know much about essentialism, but I know a lot about Quantum Mechanics, and I still think you have it wrong. We have not predefined what comes into existence (or becomes detectable) without first having encountered the thing elsewhere. And, just because something isn’t in a detectable state, does not mean that it doesn’t yet exist. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/essence-part-ii/327531/76 "2005-10-28T21:41:31Z")
> [@Dob](#): > > So is essence eternal? Since God has been, so has my “essence”? Or is it my physical life that shapes and defines my essence, which in turn, will exist once the phyiscal body is gone? > > Im just a bit confused on that part. I wouldn’t really put it that way, but I do see what you’re getting at. (I think.) Saying that essence is eternal really is not meaningful, any more than it would be meaningful to say that eternity is essential. It is a statement without context. Instead, I would say that your essential self is eternal. What your physical life is shaping and defining is your morality, which is driven by what you value. Morality is the relation between you and God. Your physical life is a moral journey. If He is your destination, then morality is the bridge that takes you there. There is one and only one moral act, and that is love. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/essence-part-ii/327531/77 "2005-10-28T21:51:56Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I don’t claim to know much about essentialism, but I know a lot about Quantum Mechanics, and I still think you have it wrong. We have not predefined what comes into existence (or becomes detectable) without first having encountered the thing elsewhere. And, just because something isn’t in a detectable state, does not mean that it doesn’t yet exist. I regret that I pissed away so much time in another thread. I would have liked to have discussed this more deeply with you. I am hereby resolving never again to enter a thread about libertarianism. Meanwhile… John, it really doesn’t matter how you word it. Like I said, it isn’t a matter of semantics. Recasting the phrases or moving the terms around doesn’t help. The problem is endemic. Let me put it to you this way: if it were not essentially a photon before you detected it, then there is the possibility that it was something else — say, a meerkat, or the square root of negative seven, or a Platonic ideal — but became a particle by the time you detected it. Now, if you doubt that the particle was possibly a basketball before your detection, then it means that you are confident that it was never — _and could never have been_ — something else. And that’s what essence is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/essence-part-ii/327531.md?page=3)