Does existence really precedes essence?
The problem with a lot of philosophical questions is that they treat abstractions as if they were entities. It is quite possible to assign a defined meaning to ‘existence’ for things do after all (we believe) exist. With ‘essence’ we have a problem. Originally (in mediaeval philosophy & theology) it meant something quite similar to ‘existence’ – from Latin ‘esse’ = to be/to exist. Since then it has acquired a whole range of connotations derived ultimately from alchemy and from Platonic philosophy – roughly, it has come to mean the active principle or the true nature of something. So as a first step, decide what is meant by ‘essence’. Then the answer to your question will probably stare you in the face. Let’s consult a think-tank of philosophers and scientists. Plato, having wrinkled his nose at the lack of rigour in the phrasing of the question, would sniff and say that the Form must come before anything existing for our senses – the original must come before the copy. Sartre, who hard
