more on this theme | more from this text
Full Idea
It is clear the nominal essences really are the properties of the things which have them: they are (a subset of) the observable properties of the things.
Gist of Idea
Nominal essence are the observable properties of things
Source
Antony Eagle (Locke on Essences and Kinds [2005], IV)
A Reaction
I think this is wrong. The surface characteristics are all that is available to us, so our classifications must be based on those, but it is on the ideas of them, not their intrinsic natures. That is empiricsm! What makes the properties 'essential'?
Related Idea
Idea 15644 In nominal essence, Locke confuses the set of properties with the abstracted idea of them [Eagle on Locke]
| 15641 | Kinds are fixed by the essential properties of things - the properties that make it that kind of thing [Eagle] |
| 15642 | If kinds depend only on what can be observed, many underlying essences might produce the same kind [Eagle] |
| 15645 | Nominal essence are the observable properties of things [Eagle] |
| 15643 | Nominal essence mistakenly gives equal weight to all underlying properties that produce appearances [Eagle] |