Many thinkers believe that essence is fundamental, while existence is secondary, using both arguments and common-sense intuition to support their theory. They then use the cosmological argument to provide a proof of God on the basis of His essence. Since existence is secondary, the result is often a rigid ontology where essences do not change, except accidentally or through generation or destruction. Conversely, Tabataba’i argues for the priority of existence over essence, and presents a proof of God which, while echoing the recurrent cosmological argument, is grounded wholly on the basis of existence. The result is a univocal ontology where all essences become subject to the all-encompassing unity of existence, implying that essences are transformed every instant. Tabataba’i’s theory implies that we are not trapped in a pre-determined process of individuation, since it is always possible for us to become something else if we expose ourselves to existence. Therefore, I find it necessary to see if his arguments are sound.
To begin, Tabataba’i argues that essence cannot be prior to existence, because if that were so, essence would be something other than itself. The principle of identity states a thing is what it is. For example, we know that 1 = 1. But this also means that it is not the case that 1 = 2, or any other number for that matter. So if essence were prior to existence, it would mean that essence could bring itself into existence. But if essence can bring itself into existence, then it is something other than itself. This concludes that essence alone is indifferent to both existence and non-existence. However, it is self-evident that things do exist. Therefore, something must break this indifference, and it must be existence that does it.
Someone could object, however. It could be argued that existence is merely a concept in the mind. It is impossible to apply the concept of existence to a non-existing thing, as existence is only ever associated with a particular existing thing. Since this particular thing needs an essence to exist, it could be argued that a things existence is actually its essence. They are the same concept, and this is why essence can break the indifference itself.
However, Tabataba’i could reply that there is a fundamental difference between an essence considered in the mental realm, and an essence in the extramental realm. This difference is self-evident and impossible to deny. Thus there must be something that accounts for this difference; namely, existence.
25yt££&*** 