Contemporary "essentialism" vs. aristotelian essentialism

Abstract

Contemporary "essentialism", if we want to provide a succinct, yet sufficiently rigorous characterization, may be summarized in the thesis that some common terms are rigid designators. [1] By the quotation marks I intend to indicate that I regard this as a somewhat improper (though, of course, permitted) usage of the term (after all, nomina significant ad placitum [2]). In contrast to this, essentialism, properly so-called, is the Aristotelian doctrine summarizable in the thesis--as we shall see, no less rigorous in its own theoretical context--that things have essences.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,221

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

What's Wrong with the New Biological Essentialism.Marc Ereshefsky - 2010 - Philosophy of Science 77 (5):674-685.
What Is Gender Essentialism?Charlotte Witt - 2011 - In Feminist Metaphysics. Springer Verlag. pp. 11--25.
Putnam's traditional neo-essentialism.Neil E. Williams - 2011 - Philosophical Quarterly 61 (242):151 - 170.
Evolutionary essentialism.Denis Walsh - 2006 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (2):425-448.
Essentialism in Aristotle.S. Marc Cohen - 1978 - Review of Metaphysics 31 (3):387-405.
Natural Kinds: (Thick) Essentialism or Promiscuous Realism?Nigel Leary - 2007 - Philosophical Writings 34 (1):5 - 13.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
196 (#92,929)

6 months
1 (#1,027,696)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Gyula Klima
Fordham University

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references