more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 17865

[filed under theme 9. Objects / D. Essence of Objects / 4. Essence as Definition ]

Full Idea

For Descartes in providing an essence for an item [such as God, wax, or a mathematical kind] we provide an encapsulating formula defining the phenomenon.

Gist of Idea

Descartes gives an essence by an encapsulating formula

Source

report of René Descartes (Meditations [1641]) by Joseph Almog - Nature Without Essence I

Book Ref

-: 'Journal of Philosophy' [-], p.362


A Reaction

I argue that this is not what Aristotle intended be an essentialist definition, which can be quite long, like a scientific monograph. Descartes firmly rejected Aristotle's 'substantial form' as essence.


The 21 ideas with the same theme [essence just is the successful definition of a thing]:

To grasp a thing we need its name, its definition, and what it really is [Plato]
A thing's essence is what is mentioned in its definition [Aristotle, by Lawson-Tancred]
Things have an essence if their explanation is a definition [Aristotle]
Essence is what is stated in the definition [Aristotle, by Politis]
If definition is of universals, many individuals have no definition, and hence no essence [Aristotle, by Witt]
Definitions recognise essences, so are not themselves essences [Aristotle]
The definition of a physical object must include the material as well as the form [Aquinas]
Descartes gives an essence by an encapsulating formula [Descartes, by Almog]
Essence is just the possibility of a thing [Leibniz]
Objects have an essential constitution, producing its qualities, which we are too ignorant to define [Reid]
An Aristotelian essence is a nonlinguistic correlate of the definition [Witt]
An object only essentially has a property if that property follows from every definition of the object [Fine,K]
If there are alternative definitions, then we have three possibilities for essence [Fine,K]
Grasping an essence is just grasping a real definition [Lowe]
For Fine, essences are propositions true because of identity, so they are just real definitions [Koslicki]
We need a less propositional view of essence, and so must distinguish it clearly from real definitions [Koslicki]
Essential definition aims at existence conditions and structural truths [Almog]
Surface accounts aren't exhaustive as they always allow unintended twin cases [Almog]
Fregean meanings are analogous to conceptual essence, defining a kind [Almog]
Definitionalists rely on snapshot-concepts, instead of on the real processes [Almog]
Real definition fits abstracta, but not individual concrete objects like Socrates [Vetter]