Full Idea
Many philosophers will find dispositional essentialism unappealing, not least because it seems to fail to explain how (and in virtue of what) there is this supposed fundamental distinction between essential and non-essential properties.
Gist of Idea
Dispositional essentialism can't explain its key distinction between essential and non-essential properties
Source
Stathis Psillos (Causation and Explanation [2002])
Book Reference
Psillos,Stathis: 'Causation and Explanation' [Acumen 2002], p.175
A Reaction
Maybe there is no precise definition, but any idiot can see that some properties of gold are essential (mass) and others non-essential (attractive to jackdaws). It's a fair question, but is this the strongest objection to essentialism?