more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 16028

[filed under theme 9. Objects / D. Essence of Objects / 9. Essence and Properties ]

Full Idea

For Locke, a real essence is what makes something what it is, and in the case of physical substances, it is the underlying physical cause of the object's observable qualities.

Gist of Idea

Lockean real essence makes a thing what it is, and produces its observable qualities

Source

report of John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694]) by Jan-Erik Jones - Real Essence Intro

Book Ref

'Stanford Online Encyclopaedia of Philosophy', ed/tr. Stanford University [plato.stanford.edu], p.1


A Reaction

A helpful summary from a Locke expert. Is 'what it is' its type, or its individuality? Is the 'underlying cause' sufficiently coherent, or is it just a tangle of unseen activities?

Related Idea

Idea 16031 Real essence explains observable qualities, but not what kind of thing it is [Locke, by Jones,J-E]


The 33 ideas with the same theme [essence consists of a set of properties]:

It is absurd that a this and a substance should be composed of a quality [Aristotle]
Bodies have impermanent properties, and permanent ones which define its conceived nature [Epicurus]
Some properties are inseparable from a thing, such as the length, breadth and depth of a body [Sext.Empiricus]
A substance has one principal property which is its nature and essence [Descartes]
Lockean real essence makes a thing what it is, and produces its observable qualities [Locke, by Jones,J-E]
Locke's essences determine the other properties, so the two will change together [Locke, by Copi]
It is impossible for two things with the same real essence to differ in properties [Locke]
We cannot know what properties are necessary to gold, unless we first know its real essence [Locke]
The properties of a thing flow from its essence [Leibniz]
Leibniz's view (that all properties are essential) is extreme essentialism, not its denial [Leibniz, by Mackie,P]
Imagine an object's properties varying; the ones that won't vary are the essential ones [Husserl, by Vaidya]
To know an object we must know the form and content of its internal properties [Wittgenstein, by Potter]
Aristotelian essentialism says a thing has some necessary and some non-necessary properties [Quine]
Essential properties are usually quantitatively determinate [Ellis]
An object has a property essentially if it couldn't conceivably have lacked it [Plantinga]
Important properties of an object need not be essential to it [Kripke]
X is essentially P if it is P in every world, or in every X-world, or in the actual world (and not ¬P elsewhere) [Plantinga]
Properties are 'trivially essential' if they are instantiated by every object in every possible world [Plantinga]
If a property is ever essential, can it only ever be an essential property? [Plantinga]
Essences are instantiated, and are what entails a thing's properties and lack of properties [Plantinga]
How do we tell a table's being contingently plastic from its being essentially plastic? [Jackson]
An x is essentially F if it is F in every possible world in which it appears [Jackson]
We can infer a new property of a thing from its other properties, via its essential nature [Harré/Madden]
Essences are taken to be qualitative properties [Adams,RM]
Essentialism is best represented as a predicate-modifier: □(a exists → a is F) [Wiggins, by Mackie,P]
Essences are the interesting necessary properties resulting from a thing's own peculiar nature [McMichael]
Maybe essential properties have to be intrinsic, as well as necessary? [McMichael]
A property is 'extraneously essential' if it is had only because of the properties of other objects [Forbes,G]
Essential properties are part of an object's 'definition' [Fine,K, by Rami]
Essential features of an object have no relation to how things actually are [Fine,K]
Properties are not part of an essence, but they flow from it [Oderberg]
Essential properties by nature occur in clusters or packages [Elder]
Essential properties are bound together, and would be lost together [Elder]