more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
The hierarchy of natural kinds proposed by essentialism may be more elaborate than is strictly required for purposes of ontology, but it is necessary to explain the necessity of the laws of nature, and the universal applicability of global principles.
Clarification
'Ontology' concerns what exists
Gist of Idea
A hierarchy of natural kinds is elaborate ontology, but needed to explain natural laws
Source
Brian Ellis (Katzav on limitations of dispositions [2005], 91)
Book Ref
-: 'Analysis 65.1 Jan 2005' [- 2005], p.91
A Reaction
I am all in favour of elaborating ontology in the name of best explanation. There seem, though, to be some remaining ontological questions at the point where the explanations of essentialism run out.
| 6616 | Least action is not a causal law, but a 'global law', describing a global essence [Ellis] |
| 6612 | Without general principles, we couldn't predict the behaviour of dispositional properties [Ellis] |
| 6613 | The natural kinds are objects, processes and properties/relations [Ellis] |
| 6615 | A species requires a genus, and its essence includes the essence of the genus [Ellis] |
| 6614 | A hierarchy of natural kinds is elaborate ontology, but needed to explain natural laws [Ellis] |