more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 17389

[filed under theme 9. Objects / D. Essence of Objects / 10. Essence as Species ]

Full Idea

Contradicting one of the main points of essentialism, there is no reason in principle why a species should not survive the demise of its current genetic mechanisms (some other species coherence gradually taking over).

Gist of Idea

A species might have its essential genetic mechanism replaced by a new one

Source

John Dupré (The Disorder of Things [1993], 2)

Book Ref

Dupré,John: 'The Disorder of Things' [Harvard 1995], p.55


A Reaction

I would say that this meant that the species had a new essence, because I don't take what is essential to be the same as what is necessary. The new genetics would replace the old as the basic explanation of the species.


The 18 ideas with the same theme [essence for animals is the species they belong to]:

Generalities like man and horse are not substances, but universal composites of account and matter [Aristotle]
Genera are not substances, and do not exist apart from the ingredient species [Aristotle]
'Categories' answers 'what?' with species, genus, differerentia; 'Met.' Z.17 seeks causal essence [Aristotle, by Wedin]
Standardly, Aristotelian essences are taken to be universals of the species [Aristotle, by Witt]
In 'Met.' he says genera can't be substances or qualities, so aren't in the ontology [Aristotle, by Frede,M]
Generic terms like 'man' are not substances, but qualities, relations, modes or some such thing [Aristotle]
In our ideas, the idea of essence is inseparable from the concept of a species [Locke]
If we based species on real essences, the individuals would be as indistinguishable as two circles [Locke]
Internal constitution doesn't decide a species; should a watch contain four wheels or five? [Locke]
For some sorts, a member of it is necessarily a member [Leibniz]
Truths about species are eternal or necessary, but individual truths concern what exists [Leibniz]
Kripke says internal structure fixes species; I say it is genetic affinity and a common descent [Kripke, by Dummett]
Given that Nixon is indeed a human being, that he might not have been does not concern knowledge [Kripke]
Things that gradually change, like species, can still have essences [Devitt]
Essentialism concerns the nature of a group, not its category [Devitt]
It seems that species lack essential properties, so they can't be natural kinds [Dupré]
A species might have its essential genetic mechanism replaced by a new one [Dupré]
Alien 'tigers' can't be tigers if they are not related to our tigers [Almog]