more on this theme | more from this text
Full Idea
It seems highly likely that some non-essential properties may explain more about the individual or about things of his kind than the peripheral properties.
Clarification
For 'peripheral properties', see Idea 11995
Gist of Idea
Some non-essential properties may explain more than essential-but-peripheral ones do
Source
Joan Kung (Aristotle on Essence and Explanation [1977], II)
Book Ref
-: 'Philosophical Studies' [-], p.366
A Reaction
Another important issue, if one is defending the explanatory role of essences. It is not only essences which explain. A key question is whether we endorse individual essences as well as generic ones. I think we should. They explain the details.
| 11992 | Aristotelian essences underlie a thing's existence, explain it, and must belong to it [Kung] |
| 11995 | Some peripheral properties are explained by essential ones, but don't themselves explain properties [Kung] |
| 11996 | Some non-essential properties may explain more than essential-but-peripheral ones do [Kung] |
| 11993 | Jones may cease to exist without some simple property, but that doesn't make it essential [Kung] |
| 11997 | A property may belong essentially to one thing and contingently to another [Kung] |