Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Universal features that do not run explanatorily deep are... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Universal features that do not run explanatorily deep are insufficient to constitute the essence of a kind.

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Essence, for Aristotle, must not only be universal across the kind but must also explain the other features of the kind.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A feature can be universal without being explanatorily foundational.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Locke's nominal essence view holds that shared observable properties exhaustively constitute kind membership for epistemic purposes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If knowledge of kinds is necessarily limited to nominal essences, then explanatory depth is a metaphysical posit beyond what kind-constitution requires.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A criterion for essence that exceeds knowable criteria conflates metaphysical and epistemological demands on natural kinds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quine argued that essentialism is incoherent because necessity is always relative to a description, not intrinsic to an object.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If there is no description-independent fact about which universal features are 'explanatorily foundational,' the explanatory-depth criterion is arbitrary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A criterion for essence that cannot be non-arbitrarily applied fails to do the taxonomic work Aristotelian essentialism demands of it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    A criterion for essence that cannot be non-arbitrarily applied fails to do the t...A criterion for essence that exceeds knowable criteria conflates metaphysical an...A feature can be universal without being explanatorily foundational.Essence, for Aristotle, must not only be universal across the kind but must also...
    +4 moreShow less
    If knowledge of kinds is necessarily limited to nominal essences, then explanato...If there is no description-independent fact about which universal features are '...Locke's nominal essence view holds that shared observable properties exhaustivel...Quine argued that essentialism is incoherent because necessity is always relativ...

    Similar

    Transient or non-universal features of a kind cannot constitute the es...85%Aristotle assumes that this feature F runs explanatorily deep, groundi...78%The explanatory requirement states that citing a kind's essence is cen...77%Kripke and Putnam imply that natural kind essences are microstructural...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: aristotle
    View source passageHide passage
    Aristotle’s commitment to essentialism runs deep. He relies upon a host of loosely related locutions when discussing the essences of things, and these give some clue to his general orientation. Among the locutions one finds rendered as essence in contemporary translations of Aristotle into English are: (i) to ti esti (the what it is); (ii) to einai (being); (iii) ousia (being); (iv) hoper esti (precisely what something is) and, most importantly, (v) to ti ên einai (the what it was to be) (APo
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit