more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 17313

[filed under theme 9. Objects / D. Essence of Objects / 2. Types of Essence ]

Full Idea

According to the approach of Plantinga, Forbes and Mackie, the primary job of essences is to individuate the entities whose essences they are across worlds and times at which these entities exist.

Gist of Idea

Modern views want essences just to individuate things across worlds and times

Source

Kathrin Koslicki (Varieties of Ontological Dependence [2012], 7.4 n13)

Book Ref

'Metaphysical Grounding', ed/tr. Correia,F/Schnieder,B [CUP 2012], p.200


A Reaction

A helpful simplification of what is going on. I wish those authors would just say this one their first pages. They all get in a right tangle, because individuation is either too easy, or hopeless. 'Tracking' is a good word for this game.

Related Idea

Idea 17311 Real definitions don't just single out a thing; they must also explain its essence [Koslicki]


The 17 ideas with the same theme [distinctions about how essence should be understood]:

Only universals have essence [Plato, by Politis]
Aristotelian essences are causal, not classificatory [Aristotle, by Witt]
An essence can either be universal (in the mind) or singular (in concrete particulars) [Avicenna, by Panaccio]
Specific individual essence is defined by material, and generic essence is defined by form [Aquinas]
Avicenna and Duns Scotus say essences have independent and prior existence [Duns Scotus, by Dumont]
Locke may distinguish real essence from internal constitution, claiming the latter is knowable [Locke, by Jones,J-E]
'Individual essences' fix a particular individual, and 'kind essences' fix the kind it belongs to [Ellis]
For Kripke, essence is origin; for Putnam, essence is properties; for Wiggins, essence is membership of a kind [Kripke, by Mautner]
Does Socrates have essential properties, plus a unique essence (or 'haecceity') which entails them? [Plantinga]
Aristotelian and Kripkean essentialism are very different theories [Witt]
Essences are either taken as real definitions, or as necessary properties [Fine,K]
How do we distinguish basic from derived esssences? [Fine,K]
Maybe some things have essential relationships as well as essential properties [Fine,K]
Causal reference presupposes essentialism if it refers to modally extended entities [Sidelle]
Essentialism: real or representational? sortal, causal or ideal? real particulars, or placeholders? [Gelman]
Deep essentialist objects have intrinsic properties that fix their nature; the shallow version makes it contextual [Paul,LA]
Modern views want essences just to individuate things across worlds and times [Koslicki]