Full Idea
Contrary to Locke, I should hold that real essences are in principle knowable, and contrary to Aristotle, I should hold that non-essential or accidental properties can also be objects of scientific knowledge.
Gist of Idea
Real essences are scientifically knowable, but so are non-essential properties
Source
Irving M. Copi (Essence and Accident [1954], p.717)
Book Reference
-: 'Journal of Philosophy' [-], p.717
A Reaction
Copi has just become my hero. Aristotle's account of definition is on the brink of allowing fine-tuned essences, but he thinks universal understanding blocks knowledge of individuals. But cross-referencing of universals pinpoints individuals.
Related Idea
Idea 12309 There cannot be a science of accidentals, but only of general truths [Aristotle]