Preface To Attitude: Preceding Essence

There's an old argument you get to learn about in first-year philosophy classes.  It's debating the answer to this: "Does existence precede essence?"  The answer "existence precedes essence" is the subject of a Wikipedia page focusing on existentialism.  It says, in part, "The proposition that existence precedes essence is a central claim of existentialism, which reverses the traditional philosophical view that the essence (the nature) of a thing is more fundamental & immutable than its existence (the mere fact of its being). To existentialists, human beings - through their consciousness - create their own values & determine a meaning for their life because the human being does not possess any inherent identity or value. That identity or value must be created by the individual. By posing the acts that constitute them, they make their existence more significant."

The Wikipedia page mentions Kierkegaard but I almost certainly encountered the thought in the writings of Jean-Paul Sartre (& before college philosophy class!).  I agree with them for the most part, since it would make absolutely no sense for someone to have any qualities before they existed - like an essence - though I don't know if I generally follow through with existential conclusions.  I just know as someone who doesn't believe in anything supernatural - primarily because I have never seen any convincing evidence that such things exist - it only follows that essence simply cannot precede existence.  How would it do so outside of supernatural explanations?*

This is on my mind because of an exchange that happened in my high school days with my "best friend" - the fellow with whom I spent a great deal of time but who, it turned out, was never really much of a friend.  His reasons for spending time with me remain murky, but almost certainly the entire time he held me in a great deal of contempt, as his later actions would demonstrate.  But let me attempt to diminish the hateful, truly cruel things he would do to me in the future that revealed to me how he completely despised me, & let me instead remember a moment from those days, when something he said struck me as wise.

He probably doesn't remember this at all, but since I loved & admired him, I tended to pay attention to things he said.  The context was that someone had accused me of having a bad attitude.  I'm not sure who had done that - probably someone at school - but it was something that weighed heavily on me.  I didn't even know what an attitude was, I wasn't even sure how to delineate between a good & bad attitude.  But I had definitely had discussions with him about the essence & existence chicken-egg situation.

So I asked him, "How important is one's attitude?"

He said, pithily, "Attitude precedes essence."

Even now that seems both very clever & quite wise.  To know such a thing at eighteen, well.  There was a reason that I admired him.  & the truth is, had I stayed a quiet & reverent disciple, we might have stayed close.  But of course I wanted & needed a friend.  & friends shouldn't & obviously can't openly despise their friends, right?

Still: "Attitude precedes essence."  That's good, right?  Credit where it's due.

* Perhaps in a genetic sense.  But that's not what the "essence precedes existence" crowd generally postulates.  As far as I know.