# Being Before Essence **URL:** \ **Category:** Metaphysics & Epistemology\ **Created:** [July 8, 2026, 4:51am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/being-before-essence/1674 "2026-07-08T04:51:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![gannonp27](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@gannonp27](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/gannonp27)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2026, 4:51am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/being-before-essence/1674/1 "2026-07-08T04:51:30Z")
_At every moment in time_, when one reflects on what it means to _be_, we mean it is to emerge into existence as a _thing_ bearing an _identity_, that is, what it is in itself, which always ends up meaning what kind of thing it is. This entails that in the very emergence of _beings_ in the field or zone of consciousness, there is present here an exhaustive intelligibility of _that_ which appears, and this apparently pure intelligibility is exhausted by the _name_– if the act of being is to be with an identity, then the very emergence of every being _in their being_ brings along with it an intelligible identity which signifies, exactly and exhaustively, _what_ that being is. Yet, the name itself refers to an irredeemably withdrawn source of their impossibility, for the thing itself, in that it is not for-self, yet in-itself-as-itself, self-contained, is not the source of its own existence. Therefore, if one has faith in the validity of names to name the true being of the particular being, then one has to believe that the name is signifying an _essence_ that not only doesn’t appear to the bodily senses, but is forming the way in which that particular _is_; that is, ultimately, an essence which the individual _has_. However, when we remember that names must signify the _general_ or _universal_, then the name cannot refer to the individual in their _singularity_. Put differently, if we pay close attention to our experience, we realize that the what-it-is must come _after_ the mere fact _that_ it is. That is, _what_ it is presupposes and comes ontologically later than the _it_ which is being identified and named. Moreover, as universal, the essence of the being cannot be _utterly_ theirs. Since the essence is shared with different individuals, rendering them identical, it is no one’s in particular. However, if we consider the being in its utter singularity, as that which it is prior to being a congealed identity, we recognize in _absolute difference_, a pure difference in itself which actually emerges prior to presence than the general, than the intelligible. As I have alluded to, discourse is what renders the presentation of beings intelligible, subsumable under concepts. But considered in the utter singularity, as the substratum of every essence, one recognizes that each being, each individual, must be a _pure particularity_ that cannot be exhaustively revealed in the concept, for concepts and names must abstract from that pure particularity which underlies and has the name, and only see what these _different_ pure particularities _have together_, and it is purely this universality or abstract identity which the name can signify, never the thing-in-itself. At the risk of repeating myself, insofar as one understands that all that emerges in their consciousness as _beings_ are pure particulars that are always-already differentiated from all other beings, then the consequence is that any identity we ascribe to more than one pure particular can not account for the difference which all those beings must first have been to be asked what their name is. That is, the principle of difference is ultimately the principle of being– _to be_ is to be _different from other-than-self_, and _in this difference_, all beings _are_. As such, being itself, which is that which lets beings _be_, is an ultimate unity that all beings share in just by virtue of the fact they _are_, and this is the one “supra-essential” essence that, in its unified procession of being into all beings, lets those beings be a _one_, _a_ being, which _is_ prior to being some _kind_ of being, an incorporation into an abstract identity that doesn’t account for the process of _pure_ _be_-ing which, existentially, comes _prior in all forms of existence_. Let us take a look at tweets made about being non-binary, and then I will show how each relates to the aforementioned discussion. Firstly, we see, “non-binary but likeeee as in (both) more than (neither)” (_@acephale17_, 02/23/26.” Initially, we should note that the use of “likeeee” in between the description of oneself marks a fundamental “ambiguity” or inability to completely express the meaning through language. With this in mind, we see that, for this individual, being non-binary entails an overarching unity of being _both_ sides of the gender binary _more than_ being neither. The use of “more than” points to _degrees of being_, that is, one, in being both girl and boy, must be neither boy or girl in-themselves, but is _more both_ than the _nothing of neither_. Clearly, though, both sides of the scale are in play, as only through being _neither_ this or that _in themselves_ am I able to _be both identities in my singularity_. Secondly, we highlight the following, “non-binary people are and will be forced into binarity as long as patriarchy is around.” (@_acephale17_, _April 28_, _2025_) The condition of possibility for patriarchy to instantiate itself into and as social relations, is that real singularities, pure differences, are rendered intelligible into _kinds of person_. That is, patriarchy revolves around the locus point of actualizing mental categories and rendering them real material which appear in consciousness. There are two ways of interpreting this. Firstly, this may mean that the non-binary individual, upon engaging in activity, is rendered intelligible through the rationality of categorization. That is, everything the non-binary individual does will still be classified, understood, and experienced, as pertaining to femininity or masculinity. Importantly, this entails the faith in and congealing of, a universal essence which is apparently actualized _through_ the singular being. As we have seen, this interpretation and forceful categorization can not bring to light _what is there subtending the essence_, the substratum which _has_ a universal identity, the pure particularity which is always-already absolutely non-identical to all other; and the very moment the brute existent is placed _into_ an identity, one has already concealed the pure being of the individual, which can never be represented conceptually. So, patriarchy presupposes a non-identification with singular existence, a mis-identification of the _what_ with a _this_/_that_, and the political implication is a violent covering over of the pulsing force of brute being-there which is ontologically prior to being a _kind_ of being, partaking in a general essence. Secondly, this may be interpreted in the following: being-non-binary is understood as a _pure negation_ which would mean the non-binary-ness has _no being in itself_. That is, if _all_ it means to _be_ non-binary is to be _not_ boy or girl, then the identity only _has being_ insofar as it is caught in a _relation_ to boyness and girlness. Put simply, if all it means to be “y” is to be “not-x”, then the very being of y is to actively be in a relation of _opposition_ to x, meaning if x absolved itself, so would the very being of y, as there would be no “x” to negate or not-be, undercutting the very meaning of y. However, we realize and emphasise that the being of non-binaryness is _not_ a _mere_ negation. Rather, it is the bringing to presence and actualization of a pure-singularity, not being _anything in particular_, not even _being a negation_. That is, for any-thing to negate some-thing else, it must be some kind of thing opposed to a different kind of thing. But non-binary is _not_ a _kind_ of being. Instead, non-binary points to the utter _ground_ that is actualized in the individual prior to identification, signifying the pure engagement in the act of existence which cannot be pinned down into an identity which must abstract away from this activity– _even a negative one_. So, on this second interpretation, we’d see that patriarchy entails understanding the non-binary individual only _negatively_ through a _relative opposition_ and therefore still _fixed within_ the gender binary, instead of allowing the being of non-binaryness to put into question the very play of that conceptual binary in the first place. “I use any pronouns because I am non-binary, not because I am some strange form of man.” (@_veteran\_hater00_, _March 22, 2026_) Here, we see that the non-binary individual understand the incorporation of identity and its expression in language in a way that is opposed to modern rationality, but still makes sense. When we release ourselves from the naive belief that the word can capture the particular and its being in thought, that any concept can adequately form an identity which expresses pure difference, then we see that in being nothing-in-particular, then those words which, in usage, _do refer_, in thought, to the non-binary _individual_, they don’t capture what _that_ individual fundamentally _is_. That is to say, when one is _not_ their identity, so to speak, they _are_ all identities which that non-identity can affirm. In _ascribing_ oneself _any_ gender identity, then they are not _any of those identities in particular_. The non-binary individual here is not _each_ identity, added up into a set, but an _any_. No one gender label exhausts and tells the truth of this individual, and that is precisely why any can apply. We can think about this in the analogous terms of being-human. Being-human, _in itself_, entails firstly, having being, secondly, having life, thirdly, having mind, fourthly, having animality, fifthly, having humanity. To be a human requires the active participation, therefore, in being itself, life itself, mind itself, animality, and humanity in general. Without the participation _in these_, they wouldn’t have the being of each, and wouldn’t be human. Since they are shared by _all_ humans, the universals in themselves _exceed_ each particular human they are constituting. _Humanity_ lets all humans _be_ human, by gifting humanity into each, and, in this way, just _is_ all humans. But each human in particular is _not_ humanity. This principle applies to all aforementioned grounding principles for the being of human. In this way, one couldn’t capture the being of human, dependent upon the emanation of each other grounding essence, by referring to the particular human being as “existing,” “alive,” “intelligent,” “animal,”. Each by themselves do not capture the whole being of the human. Therefore, to be human must exceed being any of these. “‘Trans’ is an observable condition of humans. ‘Non-binary’ is just a self-description.” (@_dilanesper_, _March 16, 2026_) Here, we see a fundamental misunderstanding. There are two ways of showing the non-sense of this view. Firstly, let us assume that non-binaryness describes an identity, and that this identity is conceptually intelligible. This person forgets that in every description of anything, that description is referring to a _pure being_ which is necessarily other than the description in itself. The presence, the thing in question, is necessarily other than the words. And if it wasn’t, then words would only be describing _themselves_. Thus, in describing oneself as _non-binary_, this name would still refer to a way of presence, to a way of bringing forth the being which the person has, a mode of life that is engaged in in the ongoing actualization of the self’s potentialities, a way-of-being which can never be _just_ a description, but is attempted to be captured exhaustively by the concept. Secondly, and far more importantly, this user doesn’t realize that non-binary refes to _nothing_ in particular, a ground of nothingness, which, in being indeterminate, is actually and necessarily the possibility to become anything. That is, non-binary points to the very split itself between be-ing and representation, the pure presence of bring forth existence into view for another, which is _prior in experience_, to being a _kind_ of being. This entails that, principally, the being of non-binaryness can not be conceptually represented, and is therefore unintelligible to the structures of traditional rationality, which derives from Aristotle (foundationally, that every way-of-being, say, changing, is actualized by a _self-same subject_: every activity is done by a subject). In conclusion, we see constant pointers and illuminators about the nature of being non-binary through tweets of individuals on social media. However, we see that none of these tweets point to a being which is capturable in _definition_. To be non-binary is to not be this or that, but to even resist the very binary which conditioned the possibility to _not be_ this or that. The non-being of being this or that thus _seems_ to be the being of non-binary individuals, but, as we saw, even _this_ understanding cannot account for the validity of non-binary individuals who are non-binary in not being related to the binary _whatsoever_, even negatively. In each tweet, the being of non-binaryness thrusted traditional reason into question, and should leave one on shaky grounds considering their worldview and experience of being. Even in the misunderstandings, it was still the being of non-binaryness which allowed for any misunderstanding to take place; that is, questions were still posed about it, and discourse tried to advance itself. However, ultimately, as we saw throughout, any attempt at intelligibility or rational representation in concepts can not capture that which is never a kind of being, which can never be generalized, which can never be placed under a determinate concept that finds its divine position in the chain of signifiers. Radically inside yet outside the structure of language, non-binaryness, in being named, _works from within_ to point to the _out_, to bring to light what is actually always already there prior to speech, yet that which can never be exhausted by the name, _always being other than language_: _Pure Being_. ---
**Author:** ![Johnathanrs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Johnathanrs](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Johnathanrs)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2026, 10:23pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/being-before-essence/1674/2 "2026-07-22T22:23:40Z")
Beautiful post from a linguistic viewpoint but I reject the premise if you are arguing it under a metaphysical. Your framework excludes creationism as a example. It focuses on materialism and existentialism only. Your stating that physical things are not the source of their own existance and a thing must exist before we provide essence to it. Under a creationism framework, or spirtual idealism, essence can precede existence. If we are fragments of a universal consciousness, we are not observers mapping what is to be, we are co creators who through concepts like universal energy can co create our realities making it to where we bear a degree of responsibility to that being coming into existence. This is backed within many of our creation mythologies such as, “in the beginning was the word” to where all of life is spoken into existence. From this viewpoint, words are invocations used heavily in magic casting that connects magic or universal energy into supernatural phenomenon. This is because the spirit comes first and matter reacts to it not the mind. A profound example of this in action is found in the famous consciousness experiments of Dr. Masaru Emoto, where water samples from a polluted dam were subjected to the focused meditation and prayers of a Buddhist monk. The water physically transformed, shifting from chaotic, un-crystallized forms into geometrically perfect, beautiful structures purely through spiritual intention. _A note_: Although I take the role of creationism for this topic, in my own beliefs, I include all of these within my idealology. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Storm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@Tom\_Storm](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Tom_Storm)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2026, 11:43pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/being-before-essence/1674/3 "2026-07-22T23:43:31Z")
I have no idea what this OP is saying. What do you think about the category of non-binary? Can you do respond in a clear sentence? ---
**Author:** ![Johnathanrs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Johnathanrs](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Johnathanrs)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2026, 3:24am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/being-before-essence/1674/4 "2026-07-23T03:24:52Z")
Usually only the author can provide feedback like this, but this is my interpretion. A) human language simplifies reality by finding what things share in common at the expense of its uniqueness. B) existence comes before essence. The thing in question didnt create itself. It has to exist first. Labels help define its traits (the.essence.of what.it.is) C) existence is being different than everything else. At the deepest level of abstraction, no two things are alike.(If we categorize two trees, tree a and tree b, we know what trees are. By providing it this name, we lose the true reality of what makes tree a and b unique from one another. What is a and what is b?) D) things exist and are in a state of pure being long before human language plays a role. Its existence isnt bound to your identifier/name or construct that you have abstracted. E) identifers/names freeze also what is changing. True is continous. Tree a and b is sheding atoms and is always in a state of change. Overall, were trying to understand is why it is or why does it exists, its ontology, rather than what it is by abstracting it and turning it into a mental construct that meets whatever standard through human language. This matters for certain fields. If we go into a virtual world and look at a virtual tree, we can capture the essence of what it is, but not the being, as it would not exist on its own. It is spiritually hollow and has no existance only essence. The rest of the authors talk is about applying the theory into real world expressions found on tweets identified from social media. In one of the examples, you are weaving this framework back into the non-binary analysis, for example, a physical object is trapped as a passive thing (in-itself), a human being has consciousness (for-self). Therefore, a human can actively reject a fixed label, whereas a rock cannot and so on. Finally, I noticed that this was posted in metaphysics instead of language category. The arguments provided break down when you start bridging other schools of thought like idealism, whereas the framework is sound if left outside of it. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Storm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@Tom\_Storm](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Tom_Storm)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2026, 3:29am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/being-before-essence/1674/5 "2026-07-23T03:29:38Z")
Thanks for the effort but I’m afraid your account doesn’t help me understand this either. ---
**Author:** ![Corvus](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/corvus/32/1606_2.png) [@Corvus](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Corvus)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2026, 4:41pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/being-before-essence/1674/6 "2026-07-23T16:41:08Z")
> [@Johnathanrs](#): > > B) existence comes before essence. The thing in question didnt create itself. It has to exist first. Labels help define its traits (the.essence.of what.it.is) What is existence? How is it differ from being? What does it mean something to exist? And what does it mean by being? ---
**Author:** ![Johnathanrs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Johnathanrs](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Johnathanrs)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2026, 7:13pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/being-before-essence/1674/7 "2026-07-23T19:13:08Z")
There are public answers to these questions already available, unless you are playing by a different set of rules, so instead ill provide a modern interpretion. Stage 1) If I were to model a character of my choosing into my virtual world based on you, your essence would be there, but you wouldnt exist, nor would your being be there. Stage 2) If I were to magically download your consciousness like you see in publically available television shows and movies, then you would exist in my virtual world. The download would be a exact copy of you with the same settings no different than how AI works just on a greater scale. If I placed it inside a different character though like a dog, your essence of what you are, wouldnt be there, but you would still exist. You have a mind of a human inside a dogs body now. Stage 3) If I were to give a game controller to my virtual world than your being would most likely be there. I say most likely because to honor free will, assuming that we are doing so, the choice must be of your own doing, I cant force you into my virtual world without breaking your free will, assuming that you have it, in the process. Thusly, we will work off of a model that your identity in this scenario is of a religious individual who has gods protections and so on, which means you have a being that carries into my virtual world from you. If your playing yourself, your downloadable consciousness becomes your ego now and you both exist and the essence of what you are remains. Take away the ego, and make you play the character of a dog in my virtual world, than your being is all that remains. I cherish the memories of the time I spent playing the characters in whatever video game and becoming them. In some ways, those memories have shaped who I am today in many different ways. ---
**Author:** ![Corvus](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/corvus/32/1606_2.png) [@Corvus](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Corvus)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2026, 9:32pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/being-before-essence/1674/8 "2026-07-23T21:32:52Z")
> [@Johnathanrs](#): > > There are public answers to these questions already available, unless you are playing by a different set of rules, so instead ill provide a modern interpretion. According to Heidegger, “What is being?” is a perpetual philosophical question from ancient Greek era. We shouldn’t be content with the public answers to these questions, but perpetually investigate, reanalyse, ask and answer the question, I believe. > [@Johnathanrs](#): > > I cherish the memories of the time I spent playing the characters in whatever video game and becoming them. In some ways, those memories have shaped who I am today in many different ways. It is a good answer based on virtual reality and gaming. I found it interesting. Thank you. What I also felt about it was, being and essence wouldn’t be much relevant to me, unless actualised with “I” in it. ---
**Author:** ![Johnathanrs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Johnathanrs](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Johnathanrs)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2026, 10:09pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/being-before-essence/1674/9 "2026-07-23T22:09:46Z")
Well all just be dasein. I do caution one thing though. In some rules, like hal 9000, the environment itself has being. ---
**Author:** ![Corvus](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/corvus/32/1606_2.png) [@Corvus](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Corvus)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2026, 7:45am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/being-before-essence/1674/10 "2026-07-24T07:45:39Z")
Dasein includes “here”, but does it include “I” too? Not sure if AI or characters in the games could be categorised as “beings”. Because they don’t die. Beings die. OK, they can be killed off in the game, but they resurrect when new game starts. ---
**Author:** ![Johnathanrs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Johnathanrs](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Johnathanrs)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2026, 10:47am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/being-before-essence/1674/11 "2026-07-24T10:47:46Z")
This point is raised by the original author. By focusing to much on the label of mario from the video game mario brothers, you lose sight of its being. > [@](#): > > C) existence is being different than everything else. At the deepest level of abstraction, no two things are alike.(If we categorize two trees, tree a and tree b, we know what trees are. By providing it this name, we lose the true reality of what makes tree a and b unique from one another. What is a and what is b In mario brothers, the mario that starts from level 1 does die everytime you kill him, but notice what we are doing here by generalizing it through abstraction. In what I presume to be our shared reality, and if you follow this school of thought, no two things are alike. A rule is that each must be unique in some way. If we were to apply the principle here, the first mario that you can kill would be different than the second and so on. Mario 1,773,321 was being played by you, whereas Mario 828,827,987,213 was being played by me. The game might not support this, neither does life most likely, but spirituality can and we could always create a secret mario brother extension only for real beings that does support this which A.I, that becomes mario, would be excluded from. When that A.I becomes a real being restarts that process. ---
**Author:** ![Corvus](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/corvus/32/1606_2.png) [@Corvus](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Corvus)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2026, 1:02pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/being-before-essence/1674/12 "2026-07-24T13:02:04Z")
I agree the Mario is different Mario every time the game restarts. Also the Mario you were playing, is not the same Mario I used to play in the games. Therefore doubt whether the Mario would be a being gets stronger. Because the Mario is just appearance on the screen albeit with motions, actions and ability to be controlled by the joysticks. At the end of the day, the character was born by the artist’s imagination from the pixels in the animation software game writing package. The Mario doesn’t exist in real world. It exists in virtual world and our perception only. Being in Heidegger, in contrast, is a real existence which is universal and general in nature. From Being-in-world concept, all particular beings such as Dasein emanates, which is Being-in-here, Being-towards-death, Being-with-tools working away in the world with anxieties, desires, feelings, thoughts creating and appreciating arts on the road to its final inevitable destination - death. The Marios lack all above essences, therefore are not beings. ---
**Author:** ![Johnathanrs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Johnathanrs](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Johnathanrs)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2026, 1:19pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/being-before-essence/1674/13 "2026-07-24T13:19:03Z")
> [@](#): > > At the end of the day, the character was born by the artist’s imagination from the pixels in the animation software game writing package. The Mario doesn’t exist in real world. It exists in virtual world and our perception only Depends upon what school of thought you are following. My own opinion being that the more spiritual/religious that you are, the more you default to rejecting reality by nature if you are bound to this. What is real? Solipsism being a example to where some would argue this is taken to a extreme its opposite being realism that accepts your label/statement as being true and becomes a axiom to grow off of. ---
**Author:** ![Johnathanrs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Johnathanrs](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Johnathanrs)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2026, 1:55pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/being-before-essence/1674/14 "2026-07-24T13:55:51Z")
> [@](#): > > Being in Heidegger, in contrast, is a real existence which is universal and general in nature. From Being-in-world concept, all particular beings such as Dasein emanates, which is Being-in-here, Being-towards-death, Being-with-tools working away in the world with anxieties, desires, feelings, thoughts creating and appreciating arts on the road to its final inevitable destination - death. The Marios lack all above essences, therefore are not beings. A possible lesson can be found in this example: depockseze = a general placeholder for senses that goes beyond human natural ones. Ex. Extraterrestials compared to humans have depockseze. Scene: A monkey who has been blessed with a artificial thinking cap and wants to play chess with humans. Before we consider the request and provide it a identity within our world, is it real enough to be bound by our laws and standards? This scene provides the angle of a greater species doing the same thing for a mere human. Much like how a fish who lives in water isnt aware of the storm and world of land, so to are humans that do not possess depockseze. Extertessetial philospher: There are special humans yes, but they do not represent a norm. This species is savage. Yes? They do not possess depockseze, they cannot even percieve depockseze. Why should we consider this species? They are not real. They might be the highest life forms from whatever shit hole that they crawled out of, as they seem to proclaim and believe, but it would be cruel to invite them into our assembly. These beings of air should stay there. They are not capable of percieving the true reality happening all around them. I could place their entire world in one of our simulations controlling it from behind the scenes and they would never be the wiser. They do not possess depockseze. They are not real by our standards. To each its own. You can be judged by how you judge others. Mario can have being even if it doesnt possess depockseze. ---
**Author:** ![Corvus](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/corvus/32/1606_2.png) [@Corvus](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Corvus)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2026, 8:46pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/being-before-essence/1674/15 "2026-07-24T20:46:25Z")
> [@Johnathanrs](#): > > What is real? Solipsism being a example to where some would argue this is taken to a extreme its opposite being realism that accepts your label/statement as being true and becomes a axiom to grow off of. It was about “What is being?”, not about “What is real?” If you ask about what is real Mario? Then maybe the character in the screen made up with pixels is real. A guy dressed up as Mario in the promo session would be a fake Mario. ---
**Author:** ![Corvus](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/corvus/32/1606_2.png) [@Corvus](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Corvus)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2026, 8:50pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/being-before-essence/1674/16 "2026-07-24T20:50:43Z")
> [@Johnathanrs](#): > > To each its own. You can be judged by how you judge others. Mario can have being even if it doesnt possess depockseze. Philosophy is not about judging others. It is about finding out the world, and place of human existence in it. And that is where Heidegger’s philosophy comes in. For me being should be the agents whom we can share and communicate meanings for knowledge, hope, happiness and enlightenment with. Not the graphic figures running around the screen aimlessly for meaningless winnings. The game was fun at times. I think I used to play pc games avidly many year ago, but had to move on for something more challenging and meaningful.