In defense of essentialism
Philosophical Perspectives 20 (1):333–372 (2006)
| Abstract | If an object has a property essentially, it has that property in every possible world according to which it exists.2 If an object has a property accidentally, it does not have that property in every possible world according to which it exists. Claims about an object’s essential or accidental properties are de re modal claims, and essential and accidental properties are de re modal properties. Take an object’s modal profile to specify its essential properties and the range of its accidental properties. Note that “world” as I am using it is a term of art: a modal realist believes that there are many concrete worlds, while the actualist believes in only one concrete world, the actual world. The ersatzist is an actualist who takes nonactual possible worlds and their contents to be abstracta. Essentialism is the view that objects have properties essentially, but one should distinguish deep essentialism from shallow essentialism. Deep essentialists take the (nontrivial) essential properties of an object to determine its nature— such properties give sense to the idea that an object has a unique and distinctive character, and make it the case that an object has to be a certain way in order for it to be at all.3 As Stephen Yablo (1987, 297) describes it, the essence of a thing is “an assortment of properties in virtue of which it is the entity in question,” as well as “a measure of what is required for it to be that thing.” Intuitively, on the deep essentialist picture, an ordinary object has essential properties, and it must have its essential properties in order for it to exist. On this view, objects’ essential properties are absolute, i.e., are not determined by contexts of describing (or thinking, etc.) about the object, and truths about such properties are absolute truths.4 Shallow essentialists oppose deep essentialists: they reject the view that objects can be said to have essential properties independently of contexts of description or evaluation, and so substitute context-dependent truths for the deep essentialist’s context-independent ones.. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesL. A. Paul (2004). The Context of Essence. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82 (1):170 – 184.
David Yates (forthcoming). The Essence of Dispositional Essentialism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.
L. A. Paul (2004). The Context of Essence. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82 (1):170 – 184.
Brandon Warmke (2010). Artifact and Essence. Philosophia 38 (3):595-614.
Sonia Roca-Royes (2011). Essentialism Vis-à-Vis Possibilia, Modal Logic, and Necessitism. Philosophy Compass 6 (1):54-64.
Teresa Robertson, Essential Vs. Accidental Properties. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Sonia Roca-Royes (2011). Essential Properties and Individual Essences. Philosophy Compass 6 (1):65-77.
Alexander Bird (2009). Essences and Natural Kinds. In Robin Le Poidevin (ed.), The Routledge Companion to Metaphysics. Routledge.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads85 ( #8,709 of 549,683 )Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #12,458 of 549,683 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
