more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
It is easy to confuse the notion of an essential property that a thing could not lack, with a property it could not lose. My having spent Christmas 2007 in Tennessee is a non-essential property I could not lose.
Gist of Idea
Unlosable properties are not the same as essential properties
Source
Adolph Rami (Essential vs Accidental Properties [2008], §1)
Book Ref
'Stanford Online Encyclopaedia of Philosophy', ed/tr. Stanford University [plato.stanford.edu], p.5
A Reaction
The idea that having spent Christmas in Tennessee is a property I find quite bewildering. Is my not having spent my Christmas in Tennessee one of my properties? I suspect that real unlosable properties are essential ones.
10938 | The extremes of essentialism are that all properties are essential, or only very trivial ones [Rami] |
10934 | Unlosable properties are not the same as essential properties [Rami] |
10933 | Physical possibility is part of metaphysical possibility which is part of logical possibility [Rami] |
10932 | If it is possible 'for all I know' then it is 'epistemically possible' [Rami] |
10939 | 'Sortal essentialism' says being a particular kind is what is essential [Rami] |
10940 | An 'individual essence' is possessed uniquely by a particular object [Rami] |