Nonsense of Struggle for Priority: Essence or Existence?

All of the difficulties in the process of acquiring knowledge are caused obviously by the divorce of the contingency from the necessity. What is going on? Do we understand at all the New without the Old in the content of reality? Does the New (= contingency) appear to be a victim of the Old (= necessity)? Why? The Universe was born in the chasm that appeared between two realities with incomparable structures and no common points. A consequence of this fact is the state of fear: „chasm does exist“ is the form of a pure absurdity „nothing does exist“! And indeed! We are totally surprised. It seems that someting strange is present without possible explanation: the Universe did emerge from the existing „nothing“. The result of such „creation“ is extremly enigmatic. But we live intimately together with this wonder and we are able moreover to „recognise“ it! How? We are its children from our constitution: „essence“ and „existence“ are the two essentially different parts of our body. „It“ is always the source of our difficulties: we wander between „possibility and impossibility“, „right (true) and false (wrong)“, „certainty and uncertainty“, „determination and indetermination“ and so on (= such alternatives are categorically inimaginable in the reality with the power „Creation of the Universe“ from the state of necessity). Is human understanding of such reality at all possible? Are we capable of reaching a piece from our soul? Yes! Yes! Hope lives in The Spirit of Sense!

So in brief: there is allways a tension between the realization of the „possible knowledge“ in the world of contingency and its ideal „necessary knowledge“ from the world of necessity.

Hence the question: is our philosophy able to resolve the split between the material and the thinking? We are standing in front of the „natural order“ (= external relations) and the „necessary order“ (= internal relations). There was traditionally a tension arising from the problem of priority: it is between „essence“ (= the problem of thinking) and „existence“ (= the problem of existing). In the framework of Western philosophy was always assumed that the priority belongs to the „essence“, not to the „existence“. Why? „Essence“ was regarded often as more fundamental entity as the mental capacity to understand „nature“ of a thing by means of a possible knowledge lying in the background of this thing. So is the final question:

– does mentally active essence precede mentally passive ontological existence?

Resistance to this thesis came by side of Jean-Paul Sartre: the phrase

– existence precedes essence –

has come from him! Does it hold universally? Or: does its validity describe perhaps only the state of humanity?

According to Sartre there are two kinds of being:

– the being-in-itself is independent from the other being (= it is only „in-itself“)


– the being-for-itself is dependent on the former for its existence.

Their presence in the framework of Sartre's ideas is clear:

– the being-in-itself as mentally passive must be a cause of the mental activity in the being-for-itself.

This is however a pure imposibility: is the being-for-itself able to think about the third being without an assistance from the side of its potential for „thought“?

In no way!

„Material“ for a mental thought comes from non-mental (= ontological) structure of the same nature (= logic) in the ontological (= mental) realm in the being-in-itself!

Participation of the being-in-itself is now obvious:

– nothing but the being-in-itself possesses the ontological ground foundation for the creation of a thought in the mental being-for-itself.

In other words:

– neither essence precedes existence nor existence precedes essence –

in the sense

– essence (= unable to think without existence) and existence (= unable to be recognized in the absence of essence) –

are the two faces of the same nature in the condition of knowledge

– the ontological happening (= in the being-in-itself) and the spiritual understanding (= in the being-for-itself) are practically the same –

from the structure of the necessary Being (= God)

– the hardware and the software are the two parts of the necessary Body.

The basic idea came from Russell:

„Whatever can be thought of has being, and its being is a precondition, not a result, of its being thought of“.

The classical German philosophy, as a relevant philosophy from the modern age, is nothing but the complicated story of human attempts to obtain the same picture of the simplicity in the world of contingency. And without success of course. All work and all play was possible only in the old world of necessity from the scholastic. Philosophy of Schelling and Fichte, with its culmination in the idea „episteme“ (= Plato) at Hegel (of course, at Marx too), has failed. Why? The idea „truth“ does seek always both sides of possibility. So, ultima ratio, the winner was Cartesius (= of course, according to my appreciation). From classical German philosophy survived so indisputably and surely only the pure Genius of Immanuel Kant.

Remind us now about our intuitive expectations! Before all we believed in the dependence of logical truths of the thinking subject. It was totally wrong! Let me cite Russell:

„If we analyse the ideal structure of mathematics and if we clearly represent the whole of its definition, axioms and theorems, it is urged, we do not find the concept of the thinking subject to which this whole system is given, among the „logical constants“ that ultimately remain. Therfore, this concept of the subject does not belong to the field of pure logic and mathematics; it is rather to be accounted of those „entirely meaningless“ conceptions, that have only gotten into science by the help of philosophy. Thus all closer relation is lacking between the ideal truths of mathematics and logic and the activity of thought; it is rather emphasized that the mind, in grasping these truths, receives them only receptively as given material. The mind is completely passive in cognizing a definite system of inferences as sense is – according to the ordinary view – in the perception of sensuous objects“.

Thus in short:

„ … all knowledge must be recognition … “

From where?

Only one answer is possible:

– from the world of the necessity!

With „Logic of God: necessary“, not with Aristotelian logic „right-false“.

Logic and Mathematics in the contingency are the products of human mind after recognition of their „potentialities“ in the Mind of God.

What is finally the notion of sense „uncertainty“ in the quantum theory?

It is the result of the ontological programme of Necessity in the game „Betweenness“: there is a link between the subreality „Contingency“ and the superreality „Necessity“. The existence of this programme confirms: Einstein was right in his quarrel with Bohr. On the other hand, from the standpoint of contingency, Bohr was right.

Let us repeat using other modes of expression:

– the being-for-itself cannot to think „in-itself“ without the ontological substance „for-itself“ –


– the being-in-itself cannot be ordinated „for-itself“ without the spiritual help „in-itself“ –

with the result

– chasm between „essence“ and „existence“ does not exist.


– the Universe did not emerge from „nothing“!

So ist from the nature of The Necessary Being!

The rules of the previous game are given by „non-classical“ probabilities prepared for the use in the contingency: they are expressible only in the necessary protolanguage preceding to all contingent languages in the world.

Are we aware of the difficulty beyond the door of our knowledge (= „existence and essence are from both sides intrinsically the same“)?

No! Certainly no!


We shall first repeat slowly:

– essence (= with the being-for-itself) does comprise „existence for-itself“ via the being-in-itself –


– existence (= with the being-in-itself) does comprise „essence in-itself“ via the being-for-itself –

with the clear triumph of the beauty from poetical inspiration

– „each stone comprises its soul“

from the soul of God.

„Soule of stone“ is, of course, not a soul of man. It is not „facticius“, it is only a trace of the Spirit of Change.

Truth is absolutely not available to humans: difficulties are unavoidable. Ideal for deception in the realm of jurisdiction or policy. The notions „transparency“, „dignity“, etc … are often in conflict with commonsense in all political languages of this world.

Tragedy of contingency!

The only exit lies thus in the territory of moral and ethics.


Psychologically acceptable! Disquietude and incertitude are the states of our mentality with no support by side of our reason: they are logically superfluous. What is then sense of their presence?

Nothing else but an imperfection of contingency in the running war of the humanity for the defense of life in the sense „to survive“.

Very sad? Yes!

This conclusion is only a part of tragic psychology in contingency, not of „stupid“ philosophy from necessity.

C'est la vie: we live in confusion of the patched reality. Normal or otherwise? The only hope comes from quantum theory: is it capable to conquer the objective correction of the subjective languages in contingency? The answer „yes“ means: we are able to change the human nature in Contingency. Via its link with Necessity! „Something else“ is so possible: a new Civilization!

Main page – Hauptseite

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional