Everything that is, every being or entity, is something. This means that about every entity "what is it?" can be asked. The proper answer will be to name its what-it-is (Greek: τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι) or essence (Latin: essentia) or whatness (English: awkward).
The essence of an entity isn't the same as the entity, because there are (in almost all cases) many entities that share the same what-it-is.
All dogs are dogs. That is, each dog has the ontological structure of being-a-dog, the essence of dog or "dogness."
All dogs are dogs. That is, each dog has the ontological structure of being-a-dog, the essence of dog or "dogness."
The word "species" is another word that classical functions as a near synonym for "essence" — because it marks off a natural kind.
Other natural kinds include, e.g. chemical elements or the particles of physics.
Other natural kinds include, e.g. chemical elements or the particles of physics.
As a general rule, essences pertain to natural entities.
Artifacts do not have essences of their own, but their what-being is relative to their function, which in turn is a function of human artifice.
Artifacts do not have essences of their own, but their what-being is relative to their function, which in turn is a function of human artifice.
"Artificial" does not entail "arbitrary," however, and all human art is built upon nature, and with regard to nature, and arises from human nature.
The ontology of tools and artifacts is interesting and complicated, but I don't want to get into it at the moment.
I'm inclined to say that at least some human artifacts have almost quasi-essences, a case in point being the sword.
"He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword."
I'm inclined to say that at least some human artifacts have almost quasi-essences, a case in point being the sword.
"He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword."
For our purposes, the thing to understand about essences is that they aren't "weird, metaphysical entities."
Everything is something, and to each thing the "something" that it is, is its essence.
Essence is as common as dirt.
Everything is something, and to each thing the "something" that it is, is its essence.
Essence is as common as dirt.
Is dirt a natural kind? If so, it has an essence. All dirt would be dirt by having the common essence of dirt.
Or is "dirt" just a word which we can call a number of different kinds of thing? In that case, dirt doesn't have an essence. I
Or is "dirt" just a word which we can call a number of different kinds of thing? In that case, dirt doesn't have an essence. I
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
