A thing's essence for the Scholastics was its 'form', a concept absolutely central to that ('hylomorphic') framework.
Locke said if we've got to use 'essence' we Moderns can use it in two legitimate ways:
a nominal essence is a general idea (the sort a thing belongs to).
the real essence of a particular thing is its corpuscular constitution.
Any problems with this?
Is there a distinction? If so, what is the criterion for telling into which category a quality falls? What is the significance of the distinction?
Might everyone be mistaken about
(a) the shape of say a bottle of Calvados standing in the middle of this table?
(b) the smell of garlic?
The tree falling unheard.
The luke-warm basin of water.
Last revised 01:12:03
| |