|
12177
|
Human artefacts may have essences, in their purposes [Popper]
|
|
Full Idea:
One might adopt the view that certain things of our own making, such as clocks, may well be said to have 'essences', viz. their 'purposes', and what makes them serve these purposes.
|
|
From:
Karl Popper (Conjectures and Refutations [1963], 3.3 n17)
|
|
A reaction:
This is from one of the arch-opponents of essentialism. Could we take him on a slippery slope into essences for evolved creatures, or their organs? His argument says admitting an essence for a clock prevents using it for another purpose.
|
|
13231
|
Explanatory proofs rest on 'characterizing properties' of entities or structure [Steiner,M]
|
|
Full Idea:
My proposal is that an explanatory proof makes reference to the 'characterizing property' of an entity or structure mentioned in the theorem, where the proof depends on the property. If we substitute a different object, the theory collapses.
|
|
From:
Mark Steiner (Mathematical Explanation [1978], p.34)
|
|
A reaction:
He prefers 'characterizing property' to 'essence', because he is not talking about necessary properties, since all properties are necessary in mathematics. He is, in fact, reverting to the older notion of an essence, as the core power of the thing.
|
|
16764
|
The soul conserves the body, as we see by its dissolution when the soul leaves [Toletus]
|
|
Full Idea:
Every accident of a living thing, as well as all its organs and temperaments and its dispositions are conserved by the soul. We see this from experience, since when that soul recedes, all these dissolve and become corrupted.
|
|
From:
Franciscus Toletus (Commentary on 'De Anima' [1572], II.1.1), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 24.5
|
|
A reaction:
A nice example of observing a phenemonon, but not being able to observe the dependence relation the right way round. Compare Descartes in Idea 16763.
|
|
12175
|
Galilean science aimed at true essences, as the ultimate explanations [Popper]
|
|
Full Idea:
The third of the Galilean doctrines of science is that the best, the truly scientific theories, describe the 'essences' or the 'essential natures' of things - the realities which lie behind the appearances. They are ultimate explanations.
|
|
From:
Karl Popper (Conjectures and Refutations [1963], 3.3)
|
|
A reaction:
This seems to be the seventeenth century doctrine which was undermined by Humeanism, and hence despised by Popper, but is now making a comeback, with a new account of essence and necessity.
|