more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
If an object has a certain property essentially, then it follows that the object has the property necessarily (if it exists).
Gist of Idea
If an object exists, then its essential properties are necessary
Source
Kathrin Koslicki (Essence, Necessity and Explanation [2012], 13.2)
Book Ref
'Contemporary Aristotelian Metaphysics', ed/tr. Tahko,Tuomas [CUP 2012], p.190
A Reaction
She is citing Fine, who says that the converse (necessity implying essence) is false. I agree with that. I also willing to challenge the first bit. I suspect an object can retain identity and lose essence. Coma patient; broken clock; aged athlete.
| 15107 | Aristotle doesn't see essential truths or essential properties as necessary [Aristotle, by Koslicki] |
| 17039 | The predicates of a thing's nature are necessary to it [Aristotle] |
| 12560 | We can only slightly know necessary co-existence of qualities, if they are primary [Locke] |
| 11997 | A property may belong essentially to one thing and contingently to another [Kung] |
| 13806 | Trivially essential properties are existence, self-identity, and de dicto necessities [Forbes,G] |
| 15172 | Clearly, essential predications express necessary properties [Sidelle] |
| 15687 | Kinship is essence that comes in degrees, and age groups are essences that change over time [Gelman] |
| 15112 | If an object exists, then its essential properties are necessary [Koslicki] |
| 19262 | Essential properties are necessary, but necessary properties may not be essential [Vaidya] |