Single Idea 10939

[catalogued under 9. Objects / D. Essence of Objects / 5. Essence as Kind]

Full Idea

According to 'sortal essentialism', an object could not have been of a radically different kind than it in fact is.

Gist of Idea

'Sortal essentialism' says being a particular kind is what is essential

Source

Adolph Rami (Essential vs Accidental Properties [2008], §4)

Book Reference

'Stanford Online Encyclopaedia of Philosophy', ed/tr. Stanford University [plato.stanford.edu], p.9


A Reaction

This strikes me as thoroughly wrong. Things belong in kinds because of their properties. Could you remove all the contingent features of a tiger, leaving it as merely 'a tiger', despite being totally unrecognisable?