The Metaphysics of Essence

Essence? I hate essence!

This video kinda sucks to be honest, but if you want an explanation of some famous challenges to a popular account of essence, I guess it's okay.

when I thought I am finally going to sleep...

Can we have a video on the metaphysics of farts please? Thanks.

Nice.

What is the motivation for trying to define an entities “essence” in the first place?

It seems much simpler and more intuitive to just say that a Socrates that taught Plato is not identical to a Socrates that didn’t. The introduction of the concept of accidental properties just seems to create problems without giving us anything. It also doesn’t seem to match up with popular conceptions of possible worlds as evidenced by every (that I’m aware of) sci fi film where possible worlds interact.

🎉

The definitional account is close to something I came up with myself a while ago:
An essential object is an explanatory object of causal premise to the difference between a "sum" and its parts.

The meta-physics here is made more complicated by a premise of ontological relativism (there are, in general, many essential objects which may overlap or be merely contingently equivalent, and the assertion of mere existence is, like all objects, outside of qualification). The intuition behind this definition is to point, not to the simple contents of a set of things, but to point to what 'breaks the mold' about that set of things. In particular, the assertion of a difference between a sum and its parts requires a non-linear system; this is not about temporal non-linearity, but a non-linearity in the term defining composition of these parts (such as causality under obscurity, self-reference under dynamics (which is a stronger condition than temporal non-linearity), or social conception).
Further, the essential object is not this difference, nor the non-linear system underlying, but a constructed thing which is supposed to 'cause' the particular, observed difference.

Of Socrates, you might take the person as such:
There was a particular human organism, located in Athens, long ago. Socrates was the "spirit" which did select from the capacity, present by the fact of a relation between that relation and itself embodied in this organism, for cognizant interested agency over the cognizant interested agency inherent to that particular human organism.

( Drawing from Kierkegaard and my own stuff here, the self referential relation here (especially Kierkegaard's double-ended self-reference) accounts for a non-linear system. Cognizant interested agency, which I sometimes shorten to "will," is present in many animals. Because of a particular and extensive arrangement of neurochemical pathways in at least the human brain, we have a complex capacity for awareness, judgement, and action regarding this will, a relationship you might find similar to that between the supposed ego and super-ego.
To draw analogy to Kierkegaard: We have a will over the 'finite.' This will is embodied, contingent upon the real, which is to say 'finite.' This embodied thing happens to also find itself under our will; this is the will as the object of the will. In recognizing this, we may muse and investigate how we should seek to will things and what things are best to will: will as subject of the will, and will over the 'infinite.'
This process is embedded in a dynamical system, so when we speak of will acting on will, they are not necessarily the some manner or place of will: planning how best to plan how best to plan how best... vs. planning what to eat for lunch, or planning what store to shop at given the selections they have (which you would then have to think to make from at the store). The difference is placed between the 'finite' and 'infinite' expressions of the will, but this is simply to say the difference between will as embedded in the self referential system, and the will itself: The difference between a composition of 1 thing and that 1 thing. The person or spirit or whatever is just a nonce that's supposed to cause this discrepancy, narrowly. )


It's a clunky and convoluted definition for essential objects, but I think it can be useful. I could probably expound more examples, but it's getting late. And boring.

I'm a vanilla essence realist

Great video.

Read In a child's voice: do I haaaaave to believe in essence?

Saying your opponnent is conceptually impoverished seems as hilarious as saying the burden of proof is on them for no relevant reason to me

Are you still working on the ordinary language philosophy vid?

I hate reading Kit Fine. Any of his stuff that I can make sense of always seemed question begging as well. Seems to be wrapped up in an Aristotelian bubble.

Love it

At first I was going to say "you can use either definition of essential property, you just have to say which one" but maybe I think we should get rid of the modal definition. It doesnt really match the everyday use of the word essence, and also the modal definition sounds completely useless because every essential property or necessary fact is part of the essence of every thing. they all have the same information in their essence. if you discover part of one thing's essence, you have discovered part of every other thing's essence. like if you want to discover essential properties of Socrates, you can look at sticks and rocks and your neighbor and anything else, and say that essential properties of Socrates are that he is such that your neighbor is a human and sticks are made of wood. It seems silly to connect the essential properties in your mind to a completely unrelated object. It seems like a simpler worldview if you view these facts as being disconnected from objects, and just call them necessary facts, which we already do. Pointing out that they are essential properties of the neighbor or the stick or the Socrates seems like a waste of time. The modal definition of essential properties unnecessarily adds new shorthand that doesnt help discussion or something I guess.

The analogy of "conceptual blindness" is a peripheral nervous system to central nervous system analogy that misses the sociological structural functional discourse prototype theory of conceptualism. Another way to approach this is to consider the two meta conceptual fields of philosophy being the rationalist and Empiricists distinct fine grained conceptual schema based on the peripheral nervous system’s relation to the central nervous system that then has sociological structural functional representations. So an empiricist might be more inclined to conceptually align with Art Deco as having geometric forms that commit to structural cubism whilst the rationalist would disagree claiming Art Deco geometric forms are akin to Euclidian prototypes as essences given mathematical symmetry is conceptually superior to the asymmetry of structural Cubism. Here it could be that Art Deco is where the relationship between conceptual frameworks (rationalist vs. empiricist) and their influence on how we perceive and interpret the world, particularly within the realm of aesthetics (using the example of Art Deco) entails
Conceptual Frameworks that Shape Perception: Our philosophical leanings (rationalist or empiricist) act as lenses through which we categorize and understand the world.
Aesthetic Interpretations Vary: These different conceptual frameworks lead to divergent interpretations of artistic styles, such as Art Deco.
Rationalist vs. Empiricist Perspectives is when a rationalist might see Art Deco's geometric forms as reflecting perfect, essential prototypes rooted in mathematical principles, while an empiricist might focus on the sensory experience and perceive Art Deco as an artistic expression influenced by cultural and social factors (structural Cubism).
Ordered Argument with Mitigated Vague Operators eliminates
Conceptual Frameworks that correlate to Philosophical stances, particularly rationalism and empiricism, that act as cognitive filters, influencing how we categorize and interpret the world. Conceptual blindness suggest not a function but
Aesthetic Perception: These conceptual frameworks extend to our aesthetic judgments, leading to different interpretations of art and design.
Art Deco as Example: The text uses Art Deco as a case study to illustrate this point.
Rationalist Interpretation: A rationalist might view Art Deco's geometric forms as manifestations of ideal, essential prototypes grounded in mathematical principles, emphasizing symmetry and order.
Empiricist Interpretation: In contrast, an empiricist might perceive Art Deco as a product of its time, shaped by social and cultural influences (e.g., structural Cubism), focusing on its sensory experience and historical context.
Problematic assumptions duly noted are as follows,
Conceptual Blindness Analogy: The original analogy comparing conceptual frameworks to the peripheral and central nervous systems is not directly relevant to the core argument and can be disregarded.
Prototype Theory: The reference to prototype theory is also peripheral and can be omitted for greater clarity.
Sociological Structural Functionalism: While the text mentions this concept, it doesn't play a central role in the argument and can be excluded.
Overall, The example of Art Deco illustrates how rationalist and empiricist viewpoints can lead to different interpretations of the same artistic style.

Moisture is the essence of wetness, and wetness is the essence of beauty.

I think you say this vid "kinda sucks" because it arrives at a what you suspect is a ludicrous conclusion: "This tells us the meaning of (water) is independent of the thoughts it prompts and pragmatic uses we make of it". Let me put your mind at rest. This IS a ludicrous conclusion! These connotations constitute precisely the meaning of (water). The problem you are having is due to this idea of (essence) being a totally meaningless concept.

This idea of (essence) derives from Aristotle's book Metaphysics were he tries to define (Substance), unfortunately he never does. He circles about a number of ideas, but his final conclusion can be summed up as:-

"The (essence) of something (what it is to be that thing) IS its (real definition), and a (definition) is only (real) when it describes the essence of that thing."

This is such obviously circular nonsense that it is amazing it has held such sway in philosophy for so long.

PS. And yes I am "straw manning", but in this case I think its valid.

You're trying to make a distinction do something it wasn't invented for and isn't suited for. (Not just you, of course.) We have sto / stare / steti, meaning stand (and thus to be, in any context where you could metaphorically stand that way), and we have sum / esse / fui, meaning to be (in ways that are more permanent). It's useful to distinguish between sentences that describe your current status and those that say who or what you are.

But just because it's Latin, that doesn't mean it's some sort of absolute distinction that's universally applicable. Sets are abstractions, existing in some sort of non-spatio-temporal sense (if you want to admit them to your ontology at all). It doesn't make much sense to distinguish between the status of a set and its essence.

We can pose the question, if everyone in the world had been lizard-people at the moment of Socrates birth, would Socrates still have become a philosopher. It's goofy. The idea that there might have been a lizard-person version of baby Socrates isn't particularly useful. But we can entertain it, if that's the language-game we want to play.

(And now, if I were trying to do this professional-ish-ly, I would have burdened myself with all the philosophical ramifications of all the irrelevant beliefs of whoever decided that pig Latin should be called a "language game" instead of some other phrase. But y'know what? I don't care. Because I'm not.)

All things are real as a pattern in a mind, and some have an external referent. That's the essence of reality and metaphysics. Actuality is the universe as it is beyond the perception of a mind. That's the essence of being. Those patterns which replicate most frequently, whether physical things or metaphorical relationships ( logic ), are the most real for all intents and purposes. That's the essence of epistemology.

This is awesome! Can you please make a video about consciousness?