What is the difference between an existentialist and an essentialist in Western Philosophy?

front there not many similarities in opinion.

main problem can posed this...when @ phenomenon part of at, essence or existence?

plato thought things in world identifiable form. example know tree tree because has form of tree: roots, trunk, branches, , leafs etc.

form come?

have experience tree before can make claims it.

there outside world, , experience it.

essential nature of things come outside world or humans mind? if comes human mind, human mind putting on nature doesn't exist?

essentialist things in have essence: time, knowledge, space, eternity etc.

hegel great essentialist thought humankind received knowledge thing called dialectic: have thesis, have antithesis, if argue long enough , skillfully enough come synthesis. synthesis become thesis argued against antithesis, , longer humankind engages in practice more know world.

existentialists had huge problem argument. kierkegaard said hegel, "ok dude, that's great , stuff, how of effect way live life." (my paraphase :) kieregaard's point of view philosophy telling me nature of experience?

in book myth of sysphus (sysphus greek god condemed hell roll rock hill watch roll down again till end of time, bummer eh?) albert camus said philosophical question of importance question of suicide. not neccesarly in literal sense though, don't freak out. basiclly point can @ life's challenges , lean them courage , conviction, or can wimps , roll on , die in metaphorical sense. how essentialist view point that? doesn't according existentialists. knowing things world, more not doesn't live our life's in whole , meaningful ways. besides every time think things end becoming paradoxes anyways, right? make art, neighbor, , if going think world, think experience in way doesn't superimpose cultural, social, , mental bias put on our experince.

can tell existentalist :)

fair essentialist come @ me question like: how did come conclusion?

well, used logic , language.

well, essentialist say, don't suppose logic , language have meaning.

yes, existentalist say. (only unskilled existentialist this, there major philosophical works argue against point, yahoo answers , don't have time that.)

things...logic , langauge have have @ there core give them meaning. @ point essentailist go on , on how logic , language have essence, , how essence of langauge , logic our essence human beings.

agrument continue.

it's been while since i've studied philospohy in college of may tad sketchy , oversimplifed, philospohy 101 or humanities class should put on right track.

luck.

i need know difference 1 of essay questions in philosophy. if me better understand similarities , differences between two, that'd helpful.

Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality Next