the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference — Merriam-Webster dictionary

Both logic and ideals are developed over time through experience. A baby learns through intuition - so both rational as well as idealistic thinking is attained through intuition.

I'm not sure why sensory observation would be furthest away though. My intuition tells me that while matter may not be THE essence, it certainly comes off as quite essential.

It seems that the more one falls from the essential, the more one has to rely upon more indirect means.
Intuition is most direct, logic/reason less direct(further from essence), while sensory observation is furthest. — Yohan

Your entire Op is informational structure. The words that you use represent concepts that are entirely socially derived. Without this socially derived informational structure, what sort of intuition would you posses at all?

Both logic and ideals are developed over time through experience. A baby learns through intuition - so both rational as well as idealistic thinking is attained through intuition. — Hermeticus

I guess every view is rooted in an intuition.

I'm not sure why sensory observation would be furthest away though. My intuition tells me that while matter may not be THE essence, it certainly comes off as quite essential. — Hermeticus

Notice that scientists often don't contemplate essentials. What is truth? What is meaning? Because they are too far away from essence, is my guess. Philosophy being closer to intuition and essence, is consciously trying to attain the essential. However, one could argue that science is closer to essence, or already has it, so it need not think about it. It's possible that no path is inherently more likely to be closer to essence.

Your entire Op is informational structure. The words that you use represent concepts that are entirely socially derived. Without this socially derived informational structure, what sort of intuition would you posses at all? — Pop

You are implying intuition comes after and or is dependent upon socially acquired concepts? This may be true.
Perhaps we start as observers, gradually developing concepts and higher order thinking, and eventually develop intuition as the crowning achievement.

I imagine the intuition was always there, however, guiding the process unconsciously / subconsciously.

I imagine the intuition was always there, however, guiding the process unconsciously / subconsciously. — Yohan

I have tried to imagine a consciousness before language and society, and there is not really much there without those socially derived concepts.

It would seem, there would have to have been some sort of cognition / intuition but it would have been a far cry from what we enjoy now.

I was trying to highlight how indebted we are to socially derived knowledge for our present state of consciousness, and I wonder what we could have intuition about without this socially derived knowledge?

I have tried to imagine a consciousness before language and society, and there is not really much there without those socially derived concepts.

It would seem, there would have to have been some sort of cognition / intuition but it would have been a far cry from what we enjoy now.

I was trying to highlight how indebted we are to socially derived knowledge for our present state of consciousness, and I wonder what we could have intuition about without this socially derived knowledge? — Pop

I don't know.

What is your definition of "essence" and essence of something? For instance, if I ask you, what is the essence of human being, then what would it be?

But can the essence be expressed in words?

But can the essence be expressed in words? — Yohan

If you could, then the rest course of the investigation and conclusion would be more straight forward.

Essence is rigorous. Whatever is expressed in words could be further questioned.
If I keep asking of every term used in an expression "And what is this thing, essentially?" I could keep going with every response given. Which, would either lead to an endless cycle of going from one concept to another, or to a stripping away of concepts until essence is arrived at.

So then, how to "reach" essence?
The only path left may be intuition. — Yohan

I could keep going with every response given. Which, would either lead to an endless cycle of going from one concept to another, or to a stripping away of concepts until essence is arrived at. — Yohan

How can one reach to essence, when the essence is not define-able?

How can one reach to essence, when the essence is not define-able? — Corvus

Things aren't defined by labels. labels are defined by things

So then, how to "reach" essence? — Yohan

Remember? You asked how to "reach" essence?

Things aren't defined by labels. labels are defined by things — Yohan

Labels? It is an unusual naming. Label is a piece of blank sticky paper, you write on something, and stick to something for ID.

We use concepts, definitions and names. You define things and concepts with words and more concepts with logical clear meaningful linguistic expressions.

Labels? It is an unusual naming. Label is a piece of blank sticky paper, you write on something, and stick to something for ID.

We use concepts, definitions and names. You define things and concepts with words and more concepts with logical clear meaningful linguistic expressions. — Corvus

We are basically making order of our concepts. But what is the essence of a concept? And where do concepts come from?

I thought all the fuss was about what you call apperances - the phenomenal world. Is the phenomenal world all conceptual or all material? I'm out of my depth.

We are basically making order of our concepts. But what is the essence of a concept? And where do concepts come from? — Yohan

I was asking you that question.

I thought all the fuss was about what you call apperances - the phenomenal world. Is the phenomenal world all conceptual or all material? I'm out of my depth. — TheMadFool

The phenomenal world is a mixture of experience and conceptual organization of that experience, creating the sense of objects having objective material existence. Not different than how when we dream our dream experiences are conceptualized into appearing three dimensional and solid, even though its all technically flat...2-d or 1-d. Three dimensionality, I hold, to be an emergent property grounded in 2d or 1d. Something like that! I don't grasp what 2-d or 1-d are grounded in without a 3-d reality. Its out of my depth as well. For some reason, I have a great faith in eastern doctrines which call the phenomenal world "Maya". Something about it rings true to me, and I've had brief moments where the external world seemed like it was within my consciousness.

We are basically making order of our concepts. But what is the essence of a concept? And where do concepts come from? — Yohan
I was asking you that question. — Corvus

I thought you asked me what the definition of essence is? I would have to use concepts to define it. But what if concepts are lacking in essence? Then what use would a conceptual definition of essence be?

I thought you asked me what the definition of essence is? I would have to use concepts to define it. But what if concepts are lacking in essence? Then what use would a conceptual definition of essence be? — Yohan

Forget about the concept. Just explain what essence means from your thoughts. That is your concept of essence.

Forget about the concept. Just explain what essence means from your thoughts. That is your concept of essence. — Corvus — Yohan

There is form essence and essence essence.
Form essence is what form qualities are necessary to call something a particular kind of form. Eg, a human must have this that and the other to be called a human.

However, while I have humanness, if I were to undergo biological transformation into another type of life form, I would still, at least in theory, retain the most essential part of myself, my being-myself-ness...Just as my being-myself-ness was always here through the various stages of my biological and psychological development or de-development. (Unless the memories of having been myself in the past are illusions and I am a new being which has inherited another's memories and have mistaken them for my own)

That's the abstract for what I wrote. But it indeed covers all! :smile: — Duepietri

So simple in the end. I be what I be. it be what it be. It all just be. Be.

But part of me worries this simplicity is an illusion. I guess I will always doubt in the end.

Problem would be the fact that each and every human being is different in its psychological state, personalities, experience and even bodily structure in strict sense. In that case, would it be possible to apply the concept of form to define human essence?

But there are some common points in human beings such as they have 2 arms and 5 fingers and 1 head ...etc, but then there are cases that they don't, even if minority. Therefore would it be meaningful attempt for reaching essence in this regard?

You talk about your being-yourself-ness. But what is that? It is something unique to your own self, which is contingent and syllogistic belief or emotion within your own closed world. What significance can it give to the rest of the others in terms of reaching essence of human being?

Just as my being-myself-ness was always here through the various stages of my biological and psychological development or de-development. (Unless the memories of having been myself in the past are illusions and I am a new being which has inherited another's memories and have mistaken them for my own) — Yohan

I think your past memories being illusions are not issue here, but the unique-ness and closed-ness can be, for its being foundation of essence of human being.

Problem would be the fact that each and every human being is different in its psychological state, personalities, experience and even bodily structure in strict sense. In that case, would it be possible to apply the concept of form to define human essence?

But there are some common points in human beings such as they have 2 arms and 5 fingers and 1 head ...etc, but then there are cases that they don't, even if minority. Therefore would it be meaningful attempt for reaching essence in this regard? — Corvus

Perhaps "form essences" as I called it, might be more pragmatic generalization than truly essential. It may not be possible to find a perfect fit definition for what is minimally required to be a human. On the other hand, I imagine the closest thing, if we want to be very scientific about it, might depend on human DNA.

You talk about your being-yourself-ness. But what is that? It is something unique to your own self, which is contingent and syllogistic belief or emotion. What significance can it give to the rest of the others? — Corvus

It may be that being-one-self-ness is a shared universal quality present "in" all beings.

Perhaps "form essences" as I called it, might be more pragmatic than truly essential. It may not be possible to find a perfect fit definition for what is minimally required to be a human. On the other hand, I imagine the closest thing, if we want to be very scientific about it, might depend on human DNA. — Yohan

Again the uniqueness and self contained exclusion of each DNA can be problem for being universal essence.

It may be that being-one-self-ness is a shared universal quality present "in" all beings. — Yohan

The name "being-one-self-ness" seems totally meaningless without the content of it, which is bound to be all different and unique.

Again the uniqueness and self contained exclusion of each DNA can be problem for being universal essence. — Corvus

Kind of losing me

It may be that being-one-self-ness is a shared universal quality present "in" all beings. — Yohan
The name "being-one-self-ness" seems totally meaningless without the content of it, which is bound to be all different and unique. — Corvus

Doe this mean your being-yourself-ness is constantly changing as the content of your experience changes? If so, who or what is registering the changes?

The phenomenal world is a mixture of experience and conceptual organization of that experience, creating the sense of objects having objective material existence. Not different than how when we dream our dream experiences are conceptualized into appearing three dimensional and solid, even though its all technically flat...2-d or 1-d. Three dimensionality, I hold, to be an emergent property grounded in 2d or 1d. Something like that! I don't grasp what 2-d or 1-d are grounded in without a 3-d reality. Its out of my depth as well. For some reason, I have a great faith in eastern doctrines which call the phenomenal world "Maya". Something about it rings true to me, and I've had brief moments where the external world seemed like it was within my consciousness. — Yohan

As far as I know, the difference between idealism and materialism is that in the case of the former, whatever you perceive is mind-generated i.e. the universe itself is, in a sense, imagined by (a) mind(s). Materialism, on the other hand, claims that this isn't the case and that all that which we perceive do exist out there and that the mind has no role in the universe, existentially that is.

So, if, for instance, I perceive a red apple, this apple, for the materialist, exists even if my mind were not entertaining it as a thought but for the idealist, the apple exists only insofar as I'm, in simple words, thinking of it.

Thus, the apple, which is, if I catch your drift, an appearance, is either something mind-independent (materialism) or mind-dependent (idealism), existentially speaking.

When you say,

What we see are only the appearances of things. When such appearances are mistaken to be the things in themselves, we become materialists. (Matter(appearance) is essence)

Concepts are maps of appearances. When those maps are confused for the things they map, that is Idealism. (Conceptuality/mind is essence) — Yohan

it indicates that you've misunderstood these two ideas. Not true that it's a matter of taking appearances as things in themselves is materialism and also, not true that concepts are maps of appearances explains idealism. Something's off. This is unfamiliar territory for me so do bear with me if I make mistakes, even silly ones.

Kind of losing me — Yohan

Each individual's and living being's DNA is different, unique and exclusive. How could it be the essence of human being?

Doe this mean your being-yourself-ness is constantly changing as the content of your experience changes? If so, who or what is registering the changes? — Yohan

It would be registering in one's own memory as it changes. But the change is not the point. The point is that it is all unique and exclusive. So how could it have anything to do with the essence of human being?

For instance, I don't know your being-yourself-ness at all. Only you know it. How could that concept have anything to do with my essence of human being? and vice versa.

As far as I know, the difference between idealism and materialism is that in the case of the former, whatever you perceive is mind-generated i.e. the universe itself is, in a sense, imagined by (a) mind(s). Materialism, on the other hand, claims that this isn't the case and that all that which we perceive do exist out there and that the mind has no role in the universe, existentially that is. — TheMadFool

If you want to get into this, we should probably start very basic, starting with definitions of mind, matter, and reality.
If you define reality as being the objective material world, then your definition already presumes materialism as true. We need to start with a definition of reality that doesn't assume either idealism or materialism, if possible.
I don't know, do you feel this would be worth the effort?
I lean toward feeling this would be a vain pursuit.

It would be registering in one's own memory as it changes. But the change is not the point. The point is that it is all unique and exclusive. So how could it have anything to do with the essence of human being?

For instance, I don't know your being-yourself-ness at all. Only you know it. How could that concept have anything to do with my essence of human being? and vice versa. — Corvus

I didn't mean to say that my experience of being myself is human, or a universal definition for humans. But there may be some commonality between all humans of what it I like to be human, even if its also unique to each. It doesn't really say much to say that what makes humans humans is an internal quality. That's why external definitions are more pragmatic.