Visit Blog
Explore Tumblr blogs with no restrictions, modern design and the best experience.
#essence precedes existence
liesandbrokenhearts · a month ago
Text
“One can not postulate a man who produces a paper-cutter but does not know what it is used for. Therefore, let us say that, for the paper-cutter, essence—that is, the ensemble of both the production routines and the properties which enable it to be both produced and defined— precedes existence”
Jean Paul Satre
6 notes · View notes
funnysnake2019 · 4 months ago
Text
the ambiguous feeling when you 80% of your ideas about subjectivity were had by an ugly cross-eyed french man in the 1940s
0 notes
leehallfae · 5 months ago
Text
bitches will call themselves existentialists and then be transphobic... simone de beauvoir didnt say one is not born but rather becomes a woman for this
10 notes · View notes
dojae-huh · 23 hours ago
Text
KWANGYA
I haven’t seen it yet.
KWANGYA - KWaNGya
Karina, Winter, Ning-Ning, Giselle. 
Idols were given stage names to fit the lore, heh.
In Earth speak, kwangya is the infosphere (the Internet is part of it). It is chaos incarnate. ae-s are created from the information that is put into the internet, it’s how users want to appear (the photoshopped pictures the guy on the lecture mentioned), but the big data (visited sites, purchases, likes, other forms of activity) still reflects users truelly (there are no computers powerful enough to process all the big data yet, but theoretically a computer can know a person better than the person himself). Giselle read a quote by a French philosopher “Existence precedes essence”. In short, a person is born first, the “essence” (meaning of life, life goal) is found later (and not by everyone). 
Whether Taemin is corrupted (I don’t think so) or not, his solo works reference to the Bible, and in the Bible the snake is the reason for gaining knowledge. One can’t grow up without trials. It doesn’t make sense (from marketing point) to make some SM idols truelly evil, so either the “evil” ones are under the influence or they are trickster kind of characters.
To make it short, the main idea behind everything is the realisation of one’s potential (achieve the dream, turn the dream into reality). For fans to become the dreamers, the creators, find their essence in the chaos of the modern infoworld. 
Interesting, that Giselle wrote “follower, villain, velour”. Velour connects to RV. Villain to BM (maybe SuperM). “follower” reminds me about the fans though. NCT had a lot of “we are observed” references. It is usually tied to them being experimented on, but in Limitless Raw it’s definetely the public eye. Which makes me wonder if viewers/followers can be the black mamba as well (antis, Simons, who say how to act and what to do). Black mamba as the virus that destroys creations (NN’s butterfly) and silences music /opinion (Giselle’s rap), etc. 
By the way, just to be sure you know, the black mamba is one of the most venomous and deadly land snakes. The name is well known, that’s why it was used. It’s not black though, it’s grey/olive green.  
Black mamba
Tumblr media
And this is the snake from Origin, NCT universe. 
Tumblr media
Mayhaps the creators of that mv stuck to the facts more as the idea to turn BM black to make it more evil looking and not to confuse with the name wasn’t born yet.
4 notes · View notes
largemaxa · 3 days ago
Text
Dharma and Social Constructions
The world is in the grip of a set of waves of social change that we term the "culture war": individuals and groups disagree about the way that society should function in areas from treatment of minorities to economic inequality to gun rights. A frequently invoked idea in many these debates is the concept of "social construction" imported from academia. This is the idea that behaviors or forms of knowledge, rather than being based on empirical reality, are constructed by society. For example, consider the behavior of men and women. The social constructionist theory says that there is no behavior that is essentially male or female; rather, society organizes approved ways of acting for men and women and expects them to conform. One side of culture war belligerents draws the conclusion that if someone does not want to conform to those approved ways of acting, they should not have to, because there is no inherent basis for those rules besides arbitrary social convention. The other side usually responds that societally given arrangements are "natural", and are not arbitrary. Since science is the most prestigious method of justification in society today, this conservative tendency often looks to root answers in biology in order to be able to show that the established way of doing things really is "natural".
The concept of dharma can help to shed light on this issue. Dharma is the essential law of being of any given thing—animal or mineral, human or nonhuman. Dharma is often interpreted as pertaining specifically to societally prescribed responsibilities, or duties. But the law of nature that is dharma does not simply consist of the duties that someone must fulfill. To view dharma in terms of duties is a degenerate interpretation that reduces an entire way of living to a series of obligations; acts such as breathing and dancing are part of the dharma of a human just as his or her job responsibilities. The nature of dharma can perhaps be seen most clearly during times when dharma changes such as in major societal transformations where existing dharmas fray and people search for new ideas and ways of life. For example, during the hippie era, millions of young people felt that the previous way of life of 1950's America, commonly understood as staid and repressed, were no longer working for them and looked for a new dharma, finding new ways of being in their attitudes towards work, conscription, sexuality, music, and fashion. (Their search was preceded by the beatniks who searched for new ways of being in jazz, poetry, and Zen in the heart of the 1950's themselves.) A clear contrast can then be seen in the dharma of the 1950's and the hippie dharma.
It is tempting to say that dharmas are simply socially constructed and have no empirical reality. But this misses the key principle that the socially constructed prescription is not the same as dharma itself, even if they often line up; in the final analysis, dharma can only be known by the individual. That is, society may tell the individual how they are expected to behave, but only the individual knows whether that is the true dharma which applies to them. If a given pattern of living is so outworn that it appears to the individual as an arbitrary social construction that gives no joy, then it should, in fact, be replaced; this is what happened when the hippies rejected the 1950's lifestyle. But if the societal prescriptions still retain life and vitality, they should and will be accepted. Social constructionists note that identities are enacted through "performances"—maleness or femaleness, for example, are effects that are produced by a person acting in a masculine or feminine way. From the point of dharma, however, the question is whether performing the performance is stimulating to the soul; if it is not, it is time to find a new performance, wherever that may come from.
By adopting the perspective of dharma, the need to root the justification for behaviors in some anterior essence, such as biology, is seen as unnecessary. The problem with the drive to root behaviors in nature is that nature, too, can and will be able to be changed as science progresses. From the perspective of dharma, what matters is the soul's consent to the pattern of thought, behavior, and even physical nature that it is presented with.
A problem comes in because refusing to cooperate with established dharmas is interpreted as adharma, which can be seen as sinfulness or the absence of virtue. A charge of adharma often occurs when an individual makes a choice that they feel aligns with their personal dharma while it conflicts with others' view as to that individual's dharma. There is no objective criterion that dictates who is right in this situation, the individual or society—there are only precedents and principles which may be used to provide a guide to judgment, but reasonable judgments ultimately still may differ. This is why the Gita says that it is better to perish following your own dharma than to succeed while following another's dharma. There is ultimately no way to prove that you are following the right dharma to anyone else, and you may have to accept the consequence that you are judged as committing adharma, which can bring significant negative consequences.
This leads to the possibility of the unfortunate situation where individuals who follow their own individual guiding light are punished by society for following disapproved ideas. This can and does happen, as society is inherently more conservative than the individual and is only able to make general allowances for the most typical behavior. But there is a mechanism for making this situation somewhat less brutal, which is that is that society is able to update its ideas. If a certain number of individuals are viewed as committing adharma for the same reason, it is possible for society to look at them, reassess, and realize that in fact they are following a valid dharmic movement. This change may not be easy or peaceful and may even require conflict, but it is a pattern that is seen many times in history. An example is the recognition of homosexuality as a valid pattern of life, at least in the most progressive societies. Homosexuality was once regarded as an adharmic state, but thanks to the work of organizers and changing societal attitudes, it was recognized that it is in fact a natural condition. In this way the collective societal idea of dharma was updated, and it became possible for homosexuals to follow their nature in a socially approved way. Here, we see that social constructions can be responsive to change and update themselves according to new conditions just as individuals do.
In light of the concept of dharma, we can reassess what it means to be progressive or conservative without demanding either the overthrow or arbitrary preservation of all socially constructed standards. The true function of a progressive prescription is to point out that a given dharma has become outmoded and is in need of repair or replacement—even if there is no time-tested replacement for it yet. The true function of a conservative prescription is to point out that a given dharma needs to be preserved because still reflects the nature of things and needs to be respected—even if its value is not rationally understood. Together, the progressive and conservative negotiate their way around the true dharma, which is found at the point where the individual soul makes its choice to be itself.
0 notes
chaoticnart · 8 days ago
Text
When Anu and Padomay had begun to break down into smaller forms, Sithis was the first to emerge. The Void spilled out from the remnants of Padomay- the largest shard of the now fractured embodiment of Chaos. But Sithis, swaddled in his Void, snatched a minute fragment of Anu’s form before fleeing to the edges of existence and beyond. This tiny piece of order would be kept safe for the time when its intended purpose arrived. Until then, Sithis was content to ‘exist’ as a thorn in the side of the largest shard of Anu; Auri-El.
This was not an impossible task, the self-proclaimed Lord of Aetherius was a very proud individual and absolutely despised whatever did not fit into the criteria of his perfect realm. Sithis and his Void were perfect examples for what did not belong. The Void was a place where nothing existed yet there was always a constant shifting and churning within its darkness. It was a place of inconsistency, and this new ‘lord’ of Time held no affection for it nor for its master.
And Sithis took no issue with this, for he had his own plans. He couldn’t create something from nothing- which is unfortunate because his plane was abundant with nothing. But this did not deter the Dread Father from his goals. He would create an avatar of chaos, a being to rival Auri-El in every way. One capable of swaying the other fragments to bend to their will. Sithis was tired of Order taking precedence over Change. Padomay’s firstborn was hungry for...something.
The Anuic fragment, once pristine and white, lay in his palm bleeding as he corrupted it with Padomaic influence- turning it a glowing crimson that pulsed and beat to a rhythm of its own. With every transfer of power, Sithis became weaker but it did not stop him. This being would be his one and only child- his only creation. He had to get this right.
Snatching the shadows of the Void with deft hands, he wrapped the ‘heart’ in them and then set the cocoon down gently. The wrappings of darkness did nothing to stem the fiery glow of the corrupted shard, and it continued to pulse dimly like a lonely beacon in the darkness. Weary from being drained of so much of his own essence, Sithis settled into his shadows and observed the cocoon’s growth. As time passed it grew larger and larger within him, and he could feel the being within it squirm and dream. It dreamed and it was enough to allow him to finally relax, for he knew he had achieved his ultimate goal; he had created a god. One both Anuic and Padomaic. Balanced.
It was when he heard the soft crackling and chittering from the cocoon within him that he opened his eyes once more- it was time for this creature to be born. Reaching within himself, Sithis grasped the bloated, squirming egg and tossed it into the inky shadows below to observe the birth.
The first to emerge was a long, ashen arm; it burst out of the wispy wrappings with such a ferocity that Sithis was worried something had gone wrong during the gestation period. And then another. And another. And several more. Once they stopped bursting out, each hand gripped the sides of the large crack on the cocoon’s surface and wrenched it open. Within it, Sithis could no longer see the glow from the shard and panic bloomed for a moment when all he saw was a dark, glossy frame...until it churned.
This child was as large as Auri-El but it’s birth was nowhere near as peaceful, for when it finally emerged from its broken womb wet and convulsing it shrieked. All at once, the Void was full of life as the child took its first few breaths, limbs flailing and scrambling for purchase amongst the afterbirth. Slick plates of chitin and flesh melded together to form the child’s body. It had a mane of long, straight hair and a pair of curved horns and many, many crimson eyes. Nestled in its sternum was the corrupted shard, beating erratically as the child shrieked and chittered in its panic.
It was perfect.
“Silence” The Dread Father whispered hoarsely, weary from lack of power.
The child whipped around shrieking louder, overwhelmed by the darkness it was born in. Sithis placed a skeletal hand upon its damp, sticky brow and it crumpled to the ground instantly. Satisfied that no harm had come to it, the Void spirit plucked the slumbering god into his arms and tossed it into the midlands between Aetherius and the Void. A deep, dark chasm formed where the child landed- the perfect place for it to stay and listen to his teachings until it was ready.
.
.
.
.
Somewhere in Aetherius, Auri-El sat contemplating what he had just seen. The abomination Sithis considered a child had roused from its forced slumber, shrieking and howling madly as it tried to call out to its father.
He could foresee infinite possibilities in this wretched thing, and none of them ended in his favor. In Anu’s favor.
It could never be allowed in here. None of his brothers and sisters would be allowed to leave this realm, for he feared one of them coming into contact with this beast.
And yet, that is exactly what happened. Kyne. Kyne happened.
13 notes · View notes
americanmysticom · 16 days ago
Photo
Tumblr media
FIVE LEVELS, CANDLES REPRESENTING THE TRUE ILLUMINATION THAT IS THE SOUL
Daily Study Chumash with Rashi Parshat Emor Thursday, 17 Iyar 5781 / April 29, 2021
https://www.chabad.org/dailystudy/torahreading.asp?tdate=4/29/2021&auto=video#lt=primary&auto=video&author=13568&index=1
download audio; https://www.chabad.org/multimedia/filedownload_cdo/aid/1200245
6And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 27But on the tenth of this seventh month, it is a day of atonement, it shall be a holy occasion for you; you shall afflict yourselves, and you shall offer up a fire offering to the Lord.
But: Heb. אַךְ. Wherever the word אַךְ, “but,” or רַק, “only,” appear in the Torah, they denote an exclusion. [Thus,] Yom Kippur atones for those who repent, “but” it does not atone for those who do not repent. — [Shev. 13a]
28You shall not perform any work on that very day, for it is a day of atonement, for you to gain atonement before the Lord, your God. 29For any person who will not be afflicted on that very day, shall be cut off from its people. 30And any person who performs any work on that very day I will destroy that person from amidst its people.
I will destroy: כָּרֵת (“excision” or “cutting off”) is stated [as a punishment] in many places [in Scripture] and I do not know what that means, when God says [explicitly] “I will destroy,” [coinciding with וְנִכְרְתָה in the preceding verse,] this teaches us כָּרֵת means only “destruction” [i.e., premature death, and not that the body is to be cut up or that the person is to be exiled]. — [See Be’er Basadeh on this verse and on 22:3 above; Torath Kohanim 23:180]
-
SOMETHING FROM NOTHING, WE ARE ALL CONFUSED, THEREFORE SHOW SOME RESPECT, CREATION IS FINITE, KNOW G-D’S GIFT OF SPIRITUAL LIGHT
Daily Tanya Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 48 Thursday, 17 Iyar 5781 / April 29, 2021
https://www.chabad.org/dailystudy/tanya.asp?tdate=4/29/2021&auto=video#lt=primary&auto=video&author=13568&index=1
download audio; https://www.chabad.org/multimedia/filedownload_cdo/aid/4018069
The Alter Rebbe now gives an example of G-d’s thought and knowledge encompassing a specific object.
For example, in the case of the orb of this earth, His knowledge encompasses the entire diameter of the globe of the earth, together with all that is in it and its deepest interior to its lowest depths, all in actual reality,
for this knowledge constitutes the vitality of the whole spherical thickness of the earth and its creation ex nihilo.
The whole earth was originally created and continues to be created ex nihilo as a result of G-d’s knowledge of it.
However, it would not have come into being as it is now, as a finite and limited thing with an exceedingly minute degree of vitality sufficient for the categories of inorganic matter and vegetation,
were it not for the world being created through the many powerful contractions which have condensed the light and vitality that is clothed in the orb of the earth,
so as to animate it and sustain it in its finite and limited status and in the categories of inorganic and vegetable matter alone.
Thus, the minute degree of illumination which results from the tzimtzumim enables the earth to exist in a finite manner and only in the finitude of inorganic and vegetable matter. G-d’s knowledge, however, as shall presently be explained, encircles the earth from above. For since His knowledge is infinite while the world is finite, it is impossible for this knowledge to pervade the earth, even though this knowledge constitutes the earth’s very creation and existence.
His knowledge, however, which is united with His essence and being—
for “He is the Knowledge, the Knower, and the Known,
It has been previously explained (in ch. 2) that G-d’s knowledge and intellect are totally different from man’s. When a mortal being knows something, three distinct identities are involved: (a) the “knower”—the person in possession of the knowledge; (b) the “knowledge”—the intellectual faculty which enables him to know; and (c) the “known”—the particular item of knowledge which he knows. G-d, however, “…is the Knowledge, the Knower, and the Known.” He that knows, and the vehicle through which He knows, and that which He knows—are all Himself. Thus, His knowledge is wholly united, wholly identified, with His essence.
and knowing Himself, as it were, He knows all created beings,
though not with a knowledge that is external to Himself, like the knowledge of a human being,
Human knowledge requires getting to know something which is external to the knower himself. Not so G-d’s knowledge: it comes from His knowing Himself,
for all of [the created beings] are derived from His true reality,
G-d’s true reality and existence is the source of all created beings. By knowing Himself, therefore, as mentioned just above, He knows all of creation.
and this thing is not within the power of human beings to comprehend clearly, and so on”—
The human mind cannot possibly grasp the concept of “Knowledge, Knower, and Known” all being one and the same. For whatever matter a man may desire to comprehend, he imagines how it exists within himself—bearing in mind, of course, that when the matter at hand is the knowledge of G-dliness, it is to be conceived on a more exalted and abstract plane than that of simple human existence. Since G-d’s manner of knowledge is totally dissimilar from man’s, it is thus impossible for him to picture it at all. It must forever remain beyond his ken.
“He is the Knowledge, the Knower…” and so on, is a quotation from Rambam (Maimonides). There are prominent sages who take issue with this view, among them Maharal (Rabbi Yehudah Loew) of Prague.
In the introduction to his Gevurot Hashem, Maharal raises a number of objections to the thesis of Rambam. One of his most telling arguments: The descriptive term “knowledge” or “intellect” is one of limitation. By terming something as being “intellect,” we are thereby saying that it is not anything other than intellect—such as feelings, action, or whatever. Yet how can we possibly say that G-d is limited in any way? For He is the ultimate in indivisible simplicity, not a complex amalgamation of distinct, limited attributes.
Even if we posit that G-d’s knowledge and man’s are totally dissimilar, and that man is incapable of comprehending how G-d is both simultaneously “Knowledge, Knower, and Known,” yet the fact still remains that knowledge is a specific attribute: we are speaking of knowledge, to the exclusion of all else. This cannot possibly serve as a description of G-d’s essence.
Maharal goes on to point out that the Sages of the Talmud refer to G-d as “the Holy One, blessed be He,” not as “the intellect, blessed be He.” For “holy” means separate and apart—utterly transcending anything that is within the realm of description. And it is specifically because He is above everything and beyond all description that everything derives from Him. For He is limited in no respect that might preclude the existence of anything.
Intellect, Maharal teaches, is merely one of G-d’s creations. Seen in this light, “And G-d knew” is no different from “And G-d said” or “And G-d made.” Just as G-d’s speech and action are not His essence but faculties which He brought into being, so, too, with regard to knowledge—the attributes of knowledge and intellect are His creations.
The Alter Rebbe explains in this note that the scholars of the Kabbalah subscribed to the view of Rambam that Divine knowledge ought to be considered in terms of “Knowledge, Knower, and Known.” However, they specify, this only applies after the light of the Ein Sof contracted into the ten sefirot of Atzilut—chochmah, binah, daat (wisdom, knowledge and understanding), and so on, i.e., after the “clothing of the light in vessels.” Only after the light of chochmah clothed itself in the vessel of chochmah, the light of binah in the vessel of binah, and so forth—i.e., only after these entities already exist—is it possible to say that this knowledge and intellect is totally at one with G-d? However, before the contraction within these sefirot, G-d supremely transcends intellect and wisdom, even as they exist in their most abstract and rarefied form.
According to the teachings of Chasidut, following along the lines of Rabbi Yitzchak Luria’s interpretation of the doctrine of tzimtzum (“contraction”), the views of both Rambam and Maharal are correct.
G-d’s essential existence and being, before any contraction of G-dliness, is as described by Maharal—an existence of unqualified simplicity beyond the pale of knowledge and intellect in whatever form they may take, even so subtle a form as “Knowledge, Knower, and Known.” However, once the contraction took place and the sefirot came into being, then His vestiture in them may properly be described by saying, in the words of Rambam, that “He is the Knowledge….”
This is because the sefirot are emanations of G-dliness rather than created beings. As such, they are wholly united with G-d. This is expressed in the statement of Tikkunei Zohar: “He and His life-giving emanations (i.e., the orot, the “lights” of the ten sefirot of the World of Atzilut) are one; He and His causations (i.e., the kelim, the “vessels” of the ten sefirot of Atzilut) are one….” That is to say, the Ein Sof-light is one with the lights and vessels of Atzilut. This is exactly the same as saying “He is the Knowledge…,” for the knowledge of the sefirot is truly one with G-d (and not a created being), as Maharal insists.
For the view of Maharal, too, is fraught with difficulties. Firstly, we note that Scripture does ascribe knowledge to G-d Himself as in the verse, “…and His understanding is beyond reckoning.”5 Furthermore, it appears unreasonable to argue that G-d’s knowledge is dependent on a created entity.
According to the explanation of Chasidut, then, all these difficulties—both those in the view of Maharal and those in the view of Rambam—are satisfactorily resolved: G-d’s essence is indeed beyond description, yet He is still the “Knowledge, the Knower, and the Known” as He unites Himself with the sefirot of Atzilut after their having come into being through the medium of “contraction.”
In the words of the Alter Rebbe:
As Rambam, of blessed memory, has written—that G-d is “Knowledge, Knower, and Known”—
and the scholars of the Kabbalah have agreed with his views as is stated in Pardes of Rabbi Moshe Cordovero, of blessed memory.
This is also in accord with the Kabbalah of our master, Rabbi Yitzchak Luria, of blessed memory,
It was Rabbi Yitzchak Luria, the Arizal, who first revealed the doctrine of tzimtzum (“contraction”), which taught that G-d’s exalted essence is even more removed from the sefirot than was thought before then. It would thus be logical to assume that since he stresses this infinite distance from the sefirot (the sefirah of chochmah, for example), he would be unable to accept the statement that “He is the Knowledge….” Nevertheless, this teaching holds true even according to him—but with the proviso:
in the mystery i.e., the doctrine of “contraction” and the clothing of the lights [of the sefirot] in the vessels [of the sefirot], as has been explained previously, in ch. 2.
The unity of G-d with the Divine sefirot is so absolute that even according to Rabbi Yitzchak Luria, one may safely say of this unity, “He is the Knowledge, the Knower, and the Known.”
Before the above note, the Alter Rebbe stated that G-d’s knowledge is united with His essence and being; since He is infinite, His knowledge is infinite as well. It is therefore impossible for this knowledge to pervade the earth, and it must encompass it. This is true, of course, not only of G-d’s knowledge of the earth but of creation as a whole.
this knowledge, then, since it is of an infinite order, is not described as clothing itself in the orb of the earth, which is finite and limited, while G-d’s knowledge is limitless but as encircling and encompassing it,
even though this knowledge embraces its entire thickness and interior in actual reality,
Unlike the knowledge of a human being, which encompasses only the image of an object and not its reality, G-d’s knowledge embraces the object in actual reality,
thereby giving it existence ex nihilo,
Creation does not come about from the minute glimmer of G-dliness found within the object, which sustains it only at the inanimate and vegetative level, but from the supernal knowledge that encompasses and encircles it. And although this knowledge is responsible for the object’s existence, it is still described as encompassing. For inasmuch as the knowledge is infinite while the created being is finite, this knowledge is unable to clothe itself within the created being.
as is explained elsewhere—that creation ex nihilo can take place only as a result of the “encompassing light.”
-
DAILY WISDOM
Thursday: Spiritual Heights of the Sabbath Fifth Reading: Leviticus 23:23–32 Wednesday, 16 Iyar 5781 / April 28, 2021
https://www.chabad.org/dailystudy/dailywisdom.asp?tdate=4/29/2021
Passover is followed seven weeks later by the holiday of Shavu’ot [“Weeks”]. Although the months of the Jewish year are numbered from Nisan, the years are counted as beginning on the first day of Tishrei, the seventh month. The first of Tishrei is thus Rosh HaShanah, “the Beginning of the Year.” This holiday is marked by the sounding of the shofar, a ram’s horn – except when it coincides with the Sabbath.
Spiritual Heights of the Sabbath
[G‑d told Moses,] “The first day of the seventh month [Tishrei] will be . . . a remembrance of the shofar blast.”
Leviticus 23:24
The sounding of the shofar on the first day of the year elicits new Divine energy that will sustain all creation, spiritual and physical, for that year. However, when Rosh HaShanah coincides with the Sabbath, the shofar is not sounded; we only “remember” it by mentioning it in our prayers.
This is because blowing the shofar on the Sabbath is not only superfluous but pointless. G‑d’s sovereignty over us is the primary theme of Rosh HaShanah. Sounding the shofar at G‑d’s “coronation” is our declaration of our renewed selfless and voluntary submission to His sovereignty. The need for such a declaration, however, implies that we are conscious of ourselves as independent beings who must submit to G‑d intentionally. Such self-awareness characterizes our consciousness on weekdays. On the Sabbath, in contrast, when we are inherently absorbed in our heightened Divine consciousness, such a declaration is redundant.1
-
[A level of mental gymnastics that I do not indulge. It, knowledge of G-d, is more like Northwest Coastal Art. The acknowledgement that redundancies can be found throughout creation with connection and relation to the One Soul. To say that it is all incomprehensible is not fully correct. It is comprehensible as a Child of G-d. In simple loving terms that promise ever greater Love that is in it’s fullest sense - incomprehensible
thus AWESOME!
to such an extent it can induce dread of Loves loss.
you know you must cleave to G-d
There is nothing else to do than to plead for G-d’s hand
And to find and only then KNOW that you have been graced and protected in the cusp of His hand - all along.
-
ps. G-d loves His Children to make noise, and raise a fuss when it’s appropriate - and to cry out to Him]
0 notes
russelramharack · 20 days ago
Text
Tumblr media
Existence precedes essence also means that every human being is solely responsible for their actions because we choose who we are. Humans are born as “nothing” and then become who they are through their thoughts, choices and actions.
This means that any object, if it has to come into existence its idea should exist in the mind of the creator. For example, if we want to build a house, an idea of how the house will look like, its features and location must take place in our mind; its essence should be there before it can come into existence.
There is greatness in all of us.
I believe it is possible.
Follow your dreams.
0 notes
artivista · 25 days ago
Text
Who am I?
 My name is Kathryn Morrison, I’m 19 years old. From 2017 to 2019 I attended Junior College and studied French and English A-level, which I consider an immense part of my growth as a person both culturally and creatively. After my A-levels, I started studying for a degree at MCAST ICA in Creative Media Production, of which I am currently in my second year. 
 Those are who I am from an outside perspective, but I identify as an artist. My work spans multiple mediums, through film, writing, photography, graphic design and music. My work is bold, colourful and seeks discussion. I am a self-taught guitarist. My father was a guitarist himself, and taught me how to appreciate multiple genres of music, especially different sub-genres of metal (our favourites). I had always admired my favourite musicians and wanted to play guitar, only never had the opportunity. At 13, I decided that I did not want to wait any longer and borrowed my dad’s guitar. I fell in love, and practiced for many hours after school in my bedroom for days on end. I remember being in class in secondary school, and daydreaming about going home and picking up the guitar. I would learn off of YouTube, and if a song was too hard, I would simply play it very badly until I got it right. 
This was not an easy task, but I never gave up, and I am eternally grateful that I persevered despite the difficulty of learning an instrument alone. What kept me inspired was gathering inspiration from musicians I love and picturing myself playing on stage one day, or making my own music. Over the years, my technique improved, and 6 years later in 2021, I can confidently say that I am able to improvise, learn by ear (a skill which I did not pick up until years later) and am continuously practicing and improving every day. I regularly post guitar videos on my Instagram to document my progress. 
I am an activist and exercise my democratic right as a citizen. In an artistic sense, I am exploring activism (or, artivisim) through documentary work. Currently, I am directing and producing a documentary about the Maltese NGO ‘Young Progressive Beings’. I enjoy documentaries which explore people and ideas, such as the works of Agnès Varda, the first female French New Wave director who explored activism through her films. Before lockdown happened in March 2020, I made an unreleased 8-minute video essay with a colleague detailing her and her works for an exhibition, that was sadly never exhibited to the sudden impact of COVID-19. This was done thanks to the extensive collaboration, help and support from two lecturers of mine. Culturally, my previous works all have a form of philosophical and psychological background to them. My favourite work is “Stigma”, a short video dealing with the topic of androgyny and the public’s attitude towards this.
 Another work of mine, created in quarantine, is titled “Am I enough?” is based off of the Sartrian concept of existentialism, referring to the notion that “existence precedes essence” and moreover that one can create meaning for themselves and apply this towards self-confidence and love. I enjoy creating projects that are strange but can offer depth through this strangeness, and I am to bring that to light with my Artivisti project.
0 notes
topwritershelp · 27 days ago
Text
Philosophy homework help
Answer one of the following questions based in 100 words based on the attach document. Jean-Paul Sartre, ‘Existentialism is a Humanism’ (1946) 1. First, I would like you to think about the central principle of Existentialism. What does Sartre mean when he writes that, “existence precedes essence?” (p.3.). (Answer the question in your own words. Also find examples in the text). 2. Also, shortly…
View On WordPress
0 notes
basicsofislam · a month ago
Text
BASICS OF ISLAM : Existence and Oneness of God Almighty : The concept of Diety and God Almighty. Part2
Some of God’s Names are as follows:
Allah: Translated as God, Allah is the proper Name of the Divine Being Who creates and administers His creatures, individually and as a whole, Who provides, brings up, sustains, protects, guides each and all, Who causes to perish and revives each and all, Who rewards or punishes, and so on. All His Attributes are Attributes of absolute perfection, and He is absolutely free from any and all defects.
He is Unique and Single, having no like or resemblance and nothing is comparable to Him. He is absolutely beyond any human conception. He is the Unique, Single Being with the exclusive right to be worshiped and to be made the sole aim of life. He is loved in and of Himself. Everything is dependent on Him and subsists through Him.
Every truth has its source in Him. Knowledge of God (in the sense of the Arabic “ilm) is impossible in respect of His Being or Essence (Dhat). Because there is none like or comparable unto Him, it is therefore impossible to grasp or comprehend His Essence. However, we can recognize God or have some knowledge of Him (in the sense of the Arabic ma‘rifah) through His works, acts, Names, Attributes and Essential Qualities (shu‘un).
Awareness of His works (what we see in the world, His creation) leads us to become aware of His acts, and that awareness leads us to His Names and Attributes which, in turn, lead us to His Essential Qualities, and thence to an awareness of the One Who has these Qualities.
(Al-)‘Adl: The All-Just (Al-)‘Afuww: The All-Pardoning (Who overlooks the faults of His servants); The One Who grants remission; The One Who excuses much (Al-) Ahad: The Unique One (Who is beyond all kinds of human conceptions of Him and absolutely free from having any partners, likes, parents, sons or daughters) (Al-)Ahir: The Last (Whom there is none that will outlive) (Al-)‘Alim: The All-Knowing(Al-)Aliyy. The All-Exalted (Al-)Amin: The One in Whom Refuge is Sought (Al-) ‘Atuf: The All-Affectionate (Al-)Awwal: The First (Whom there is none that precedes) (Al-)‘Aziz: The All-Glorious with irresistible might (Whom none can prevent from doing what He wills) (Al-)Baqi: The All-Permanent (Al-)Bari: The All-Holy Creator (Who is absolutely free from having any partners and Who makes every being perfect and different from others) (Al-)Basir: The All-Seeing (Al-)Batin: The All-Inward (Who encompasses the whole existence from within in His Knowledge, and there is none that is more penetrating than Him) (Ad-)Dayyan: The Supreme Ruler and All-Requiting (of good and evil) (Al-)Fard: The All-Independent, Single One (free from having any equals or likes in His Essence and Attributes) (Al-)Fatir: The All-Originating (with a unique individuality) (Al-)Fattah: The One Who judges between people with truth and separates (Al-)Ghaniyy: The All-Wealthy and Self-Sufficient
4 notes · View notes
helgon · a month ago
Text
“We have forgotten that the world is there prior to us. We have forgotten how things have preceded us, how mountains grew up before our gaze existed, we forget how plants are called before we think to call them and recognize them, we have forgotten what it is plants that call us, when we think about calling them, that comes to meet our bodies in blossom. In these violent and lazy times, in which we do not live what we live, we are read, we are forcibly lived, far from our essential lives, we lose the gift, we no longer hear what things still want to tell us, we translate, we translate, everything is translation and reduction, there is almost nothing left of the sea but word without water: for we have also translated the words, we have emptied them of their speech, dried, reduced, and embalmed them, and they can no longer recall to us the way they used to rise up from the things as the burst of their essential laughter, when, out of joy, they called each other, they rejoiced in their fragrance-name; and “sea,” “sea” smelled of seaweed, sounded salt, and we tasted the infinite loved one, we licked the stranger, the salt of her word on our lips. To allow a thing to enter in its strangeness, light from the soul has to be put into each look, and the exterior light mixed with the interior light. An invisible aura forms around beings who are looked at well. Seeing before vision, seeing to see and see, before the eyes ‘narrative. This is not sorcery. Its the science of the other! An art in itself; and all the ways of letting all the beings with their different strangeness enter our proximity are regions that ask to be approached, each with an appropriate patience. There is a patience for the egg, a patience for the rose; a patience for each particular animal, there is a patience for all kinds of patiences, to practice, to develop [...] A patience pays attention [...] doing nothing, not upsetting, filling, replacing, taking up the space. Leaving the space alone. Thinking delicately of. Directing the mixture of knowing looks and loving light toward. A face. Surrounding it with a discreet, confident, attentive questioning, attuning to, watching over it, for a long time, until penetrating into the essence. [...] We need everything. All things: all the time. Everything that has happened, everything that can happen. We need the time of presences, to approach things until they are close to us, us with them, before them, giving each to each other…”
— Hélène Cixous, Coming to Writing and Other Essays (trans. Sarah Cornell)
19 notes · View notes
dompacism · a month ago
Photo
Tumblr media
Tumblr media
Tumblr media
"with pinched looks, young men bowing before her—and a frozen melancholy keeping her at a distance from everything. in the far corner solemn mumbling that existence now precedes essence, and the girl with thin lips replying that in the game of the absence of qualities, any of them can be a project" Mircea Ivănescu - Scene from a french novel
0 notes
irarelypostanything · a month ago
Text
The aging process (and existentialism)
One of the oldest jokes I remember is that “it’s a shame youth is wasted on the young.”  Every year should matter a little more than the last, since there are always fewer left, but that’s not exactly how it works.  To many people, time seems to move faster and faster.  They made a video about it in “the dictionary of obscure sorrows” called zenosyne.
I don’t think time moves as quickly as it seems.  I think we find ourselves at something like the end of summer, when all we can remember are the good moments and memory completely glosses over the boring hours we spent waiting for it to be cool enough to go outside.  But then it passes.  We’re 20, we’re 30, we’re older.
I saw another YouTube video about it called “The ageing process,” detailing how we spend our lives working up to retirement, only to realize at retirement age that we’re too old to do the things we had wanted to do before.  I told my dad about it - his immediate response was that some Youtube creator in his 20s had no business making a video about the ageing process.
Some people believe that when we die, we’re reincarnated.  Some people believe that when we die our bodies do, but our souls do not.  Some people believe that this life is all there is.
I’m not psychic.  The future could consist of another state, or an alien invasion, or a robot-run utopia, or a mansion (probably not)...but I don’t know.  I’m willing to bet that on my deathbed (though, again, I’m not psychic), hopefully at the age of 105 and with a half robot brain, I won’t lament that my political leanings were incorrect the entire time, that if only I had read the proper book on macroeconomics I would have realized the error of my ways.
It’s like we hold on for dear life against the currents of death, unable to comprehend the sheer weight of existence and its meaning - so we turn to things we know, like how utterly pissed off we are about some tweet from 2016, or some thing that some guy said.  For the first time in history, entire lives will be chronicled by cloud-backed photo albums and Facebook timelines.  The combined experiences of a single life mean everything.  That weight is burdensome, and unanswered questions are hard to grapple with, and so…
...so it’s back to the pursuits of daily life.  What need do we have for existential questions, when it’s Taco Tuesday at Rubio’s?  The sun will rise again.  There will be work deadlines, and people will look forward to the weekend, and on and on it goes.  We’ll have conversations.  We’ll have arguments.  We’ll get extraordinarily angry about things we can comprehend, like sports and taxes, but in the silent, private moments in between we may find ourselves questioning our greater purpose.
Existentialists believe that existence precedes essence.  We’re created first, without a specific purpose, and we find meaning ourselves.  
Nothing has to be dark about that. 
0 notes
youzicha · a month ago
Text
I read a few more pages in Summa Theologica, but it’s really hard going. Like loving-not-heyting wrote about the problem of teaching medieval philosophy,  it assumes familiarity with a bunch of technical and now-forgotten theories of logic/metaphysics, so for a modern lay reader it veers into shitposting territory.
all in one genus agree in the quiddity or essence of the genus which is predicated of them as an essential, but they differ in their existence. For the existence of man and of horse is not the same; as also of this man and that man: thus in every member of a genus, existence and quiddity—i.e. essence—must differ. But in God they do not differ, as shown in the preceding article. Therefore it is plain that God is not in a genus as if He were a species.
The existence of man and of horse is not the same. God isn’t a species. Thanks.
12 notes · View notes