more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 17564

[filed under theme 9. Objects / D. Essence of Objects / 8. Essence as Explanatory ]

Full Idea

I think it is part of the essence of a star that the radiation pressures that oppose the star's tendency to gravitational collapse has its source in the release of no-longer-needed nuclear binding energy when colliding nuclei fuse in the star's hot core.

Gist of Idea

The essence of a star includes the released binding energy which keeps it from collapse

Source

Peter van Inwagen (Material Beings [1990], 07)

Book Ref

Inwagen,Peter van: 'Material Beings' [Cornell 1995], p.68


A Reaction

A perfect example of giving the essence of something as the bottom level of its explanation. This even comes from someone who doesn't really believe in stars!


The 21 ideas with the same theme [essence is what intrinsically explains a thing]:

Primary substances are ontological in 'Categories', and explanatory in 'Metaphysics' [Aristotle, by Wedin]
Metaphysics is the science of ultimate explanation, or of pure existence, or of primary existence [Aristotle, by Politis]
The four explanations are the main aspects of a thing's nature [Aristotle, by Moravcsik]
A thing's nature is what causes its changes and stability [Aristotle]
Aristotelian essences are properties mentioned at the starting point of a science [Aristotle, by Kung]
All natures of things produce some effect [Spinoza]
Explanatory essence won't do, because it won't distinguish the accidental from the essential [Locke, by Pasnau]
If you fully understand a subject and its qualities, you see how the second derive from the first [Leibniz]
Essential properties are the 'deepest' ones which explain the others [Copi, by Rami]
Aristotelian essences underlie a thing's existence, explain it, and must belong to it [Kung]
Essentialism is justified if the essential properties of things explain their other properties [Brody]
Essences are not explanations, but individuations [Wiggins]
The essence of a star includes the released binding energy which keeps it from collapse [Inwagen]
Essences mainly explain the existence of unified substance [Witt]
Natural kinds don't need essentialism to be explanatory [Dupré]
An essential property of something must be bound up with what it is to be that thing [Fine,K, by Rami]
Explanation can't give an account of essence, because it is too multi-faceted [Lowe]
All things must have an essence (a 'what it is'), or we would be unable to think about them [Lowe]
Essence is not explanatory but constitutive [Oderberg]
Being a deepest explanatory feature is an actual, not a modal property [Sidelle]
The Kripke and Putnam view of kinds makes them explanatorily basic, but has modal implications [Mackie,P]