more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
How and where are we to draw the line between what is basic to the essence and what is derived?
Gist of Idea
How do we distinguish basic from derived esssences?
Source
Kit Fine (Ontological Dependence [1995], II)
Book Ref
-: 'Aristotelian Society' [], p.277
A Reaction
He calls the basic essence 'constitutive' and the rest the 'consequential' essence. This question is obviously very challenging for the essentialist. See Idea 22.
Related Idea
Idea 22 Trained minds never expect more precision than is possible [Aristotle]
| 14253 | An object's 'being' isn't existence; there's more to an object than existence, and its nature doesn't include existence [Fine,K] |
| 14251 | A natural modal account of dependence says x depends on y if y must exist when x does [Fine,K] |
| 14252 | We should understand identity in terms of the propositions it renders true [Fine,K] |
| 14250 | Metaphysics deals with the existence of things and with the nature of things [Fine,K] |
| 14255 | We understand things through their dependency relations [Fine,K] |
| 14256 | How do we distinguish basic from derived esssences? [Fine,K] |
| 14254 | Dependency is the real counterpart of one term defining another [Fine,K] |
| 14257 | An object depends on another if the second cannot be eliminated from the first's definition [Fine,K] |
| 14261 | There is 'weak' dependence in one definition, and 'strong' dependence in all the definitions [Fine,K] |
| 14258 | Maybe some things have essential relationships as well as essential properties [Fine,K] |
| 14260 | An object only essentially has a property if that property follows from every definition of the object [Fine,K] |
| 14259 | Maybe two objects might require simultaneous real definitions, as with two simultaneous terms [Fine,K] |