more from this thinker     |     more from this text

Single Idea 11200

[filed under theme 9. Objects / D. Essence of Objects / 4. Essence as Definition ]

Full Idea

Form alone cannot be a composite substance's essence. For a thing's essence is expressed by its definition, and unless the definition of a physical substance included both form and material, the definition wouldn't differ from mathematical objects.

Gist of Idea

The definition of a physical object must include the material as well as the form

Source

Thomas Aquinas (De Ente et Essentia (Being and Essence) [1267], p.93)

Book Ref

Aquinas,Thomas: 'Selected Philosophical Writings', ed/tr. McDermott,Timothy [OUP 1993], p.93

A Reaction

This is the sort of thoroughly sensible remark that you only get from the greatest philosophers. Minor philosophers fall in love with things like forms, and then try to use them to explain everything.

The 21 ideas with the same theme [essence just is the successful definition of a thing]:

21259 To grasp a thing we need its name, its definition, and what it really is [Plato]
10963 A thing's essence is what is mentioned in its definition [Aristotle, by Lawson-Tancred]
11292 Things have an essence if their explanation is a definition [Aristotle]
11287 Essence is what is stated in the definition [Aristotle, by Politis]
12091 If definition is of universals, many individuals have no definition, and hence no essence [Aristotle, by Witt]
12146 Definitions recognise essences, so are not themselves essences [Aristotle]
11200 The definition of a physical object must include the material as well as the form [Aquinas]
17865 Descartes gives an essence by an encapsulating formula [Descartes, by Almog]
12981 Essence is just the possibility of a thing [Leibniz]
23647 Objects have an essential constitution, producing its qualities, which we are too ignorant to define [Reid]
12067 An Aristotelian essence is a nonlinguistic correlate of the definition [Witt]
14260 An object only essentially has a property if that property follows from every definition of the object [Fine,K]
11179 If there are alternative definitions, then we have three possibilities for essence [Fine,K]
16551 Grasping an essence is just grasping a real definition [Lowe]
17309 For Fine, essences are propositions true because of identity, so they are just real definitions [Koslicki]
17315 We need a less propositional view of essence, and so must distinguish it clearly from real definitions [Koslicki]
17866 Essential definition aims at existence conditions and structural truths [Almog]
17868 Surface accounts aren't exhaustive as they always allow unintended twin cases [Almog]
17871 Fregean meanings are analogous to conceptual essence, defining a kind [Almog]
17872 Definitionalists rely on snapshot-concepts, instead of on the real processes [Almog]
17953 Real definition fits abstracta, but not individual concrete objects like Socrates [Vetter]