| Part of a series on |
| Philosophy |
|---|
 |
Essence (Latin:essentia) has various meanings and uses for different thinkers and in different contexts. It is used inphilosophy andtheology as a designation for theproperty or set of properties or attributes that make an entity the entity it is or, expressed negatively, without which it would lose itsidentity. Essence is contrasted withaccident, which is a property or attribute the entity hasaccidentally or contingently, but upon which its identity does not depend.
TheEnglish wordessence comes fromLatinessentia, viaFrenchessence. The original Latin word was created purposefully, byAncient Roman philosophers, in order to provide an adequate Latin translation for theGreek termousia.
The concept originates as a precise technical term with Aristotle (although it can also be found in Plato),[1] who used theGreek expressionto ti ên einai[2] literally meaning "the what it was to be." This also corresponds to thescholastic termquiddity or sometimes the shorter phraseto ti esti[3] literally meaning "the what it is" and corresponding to the scholastic termhaecceity (thisness) for the same idea. This phrase presented such difficulties for its Latin translators that they coined the wordessentia to represent the whole expression. For Aristotle and his scholastic followers, the notion of essence is closely linked to that of definition (horismos).[4]
Stoic philosopherSeneca (d. 65 AD) attributed creation of the word toCicero (d. 43 BC), while rhetorQuintilian (d. 100 AD) claimed that the word was created by the Stoic philosopherSergius Plautus (d. 62 AD).
Early use of the term is also attested in works ofApuleius (d. 170 AD) andTertullian (d. 240 AD). DuringLate Antiquity, the term was often used inChristian theology, and through the works ofAugustine (d. 430),Boethius (d. 524) and later theologians, who wrote inMedieval Latin, it became the basis for consequent creation of derived terms in many languages.[5]
Thomas Aquinas, in his commentary onDe hebdomadibus (Book II) byBoethius, states that in this work the distinction between essence (id quod est, what the thing is) and Being (esse) was introduced for the first time. Whereas the Being participated in entities is infinite and infinitely perfect, the essence — and not the matter — delimits the perfection of the Being in entities and makes them finite.[6]
In his dialoguesPlato suggests that concrete beings acquire their essence through their relations to "forms"—abstract universals logically or ontologically separate from the objects of sense perception. These forms are often put forth as the models or paradigms of which sensible things are "copies". Sensible bodies are in constant flux and imperfect and hence, by Plato's reckoning, less real than the forms which are eternal, unchanging, and complete. Typical examples of forms given by Plato are largeness, smallness, equality, unity, goodness, beauty, and justice.
According tonominalists such asWilliam of Ockham, universals are not concrete entities, just names (i.e., labels); there are only individuals.[7] Universals are words that can call to several individuals; for example, the word "homo". Therefore, a universal is reduced to a spoken sound (according toRoscelin),[8] or the (mental) concept to which it corresponds (as Ockham had it)—rather than a substantial, actual "thing" that exists outside of these contexts.
John Locke distinguished between "real essences" and "nominal essences". Real essences are the thing(s) that makes a thing a thing, whereas nominal essences are our conception of what makes a thing a thing.[9]
According toEdmund Husserl, essence isideal. However,ideal means that essence is an intentional object of consciousness. Essence is interpreted assense.[10]
Existentialism is often summed up byJean-Paul Sartre's statement that for human beings "existence precedes essence", which he understood as a repudiation of the philosophical system that had come before him. Instead of "is-ness" generating "actuality," he argued that existence and actuality come first, and the essence is derived afterward.
In this respect he breaks withSøren Kierkegaard, who, although often described as a proto-existentialist, identified essence as "nature." For him, there is no such thing as "human nature" that determines how a human will behave or what a human will be. First, he or she exists, and then comes property.Jean-Paul Sartre's more materialist and skeptical existentialism furthered this existentialist tenet by flatly refuting any metaphysical essence, any soul, and arguing instead that there is merely existence, with attributes as essence.
Thus, in existentialist discourse, essence can refer to:
Within theMadhyamaka school ofMahayanaBuddhism,Candrakirti identifies theself as "an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic nature. The non-existence of that isselflessness."[11]Buddhapālita adds, while commenting onNagārjuna'sMūlamadhyamakakārikā, "What is the reality of things just as it is? It is the absence of essence. Unskilled persons whose eye of intelligence is obscured by the darkness of delusion conceive of an essence of things and then generate attachment and hostility with regard to them."[12]
For theMadhyamaka Buddhists, 'Emptiness' (also known asAnatta or Anatman) is the strong assertion that:
However, theMadhyamaka also rejects the tenets ofidealism,materialism ornihilism; instead, the ideas oftruth orexistence, along with any assertions that depend upon them, are limited to their function within the contexts and conventions that assert them, possibly somewhat akin torelativism orpragmatism. For theMadhyamaka, replacement paradoxes such asShip of Theseus are answered by stating that the Ship of Theseus remains so (within the conventions that assert it) until it ceases to function as the Ship of Theseus.
InNagarjuna'sMulamadhyamakakarika Chapter XV examines essence itself.
Essence, nature, or substance in Christianity means what something is in itself and is distinguished from something's accidents (appearance). For example, according totransubstantiation, the eucharistic bread and wine appear to be bread and wine, but are in essence - Jesus' body and blood.[13] Another example is Jesus' teaching "Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly."[14] A third example is theBeatific Vision: the angels and saints inHeaven see God's essence.[15]
In understanding any individual personality, a distinction is made between one'sSwadharma (essence) andSwabhava (mental habits and conditionings of ego personality). Svabhava is the nature of a person, which is a result of his or her samskaras (impressions created in the mind due to one's interaction with the external world). These samskaras create habits and mental models and those become our nature. While there is another kind of svabhava that is a pure internal quality –smarana – we are here focusing only on the svabhava that was created due to samskaras (because to discover the pure, internal svabhava and smarana, one should become aware of one's samskaras and take control over them).Dharma is derived from the rootdhr "to hold." It is that which holds an entity together. That is, Dharma is that which gives integrity to an entity and holds the core quality and identity (essence), form and function of that entity. Dharma is also defined as righteousness and duty. To do one's dharma is to be righteous, to do one's dharma is to do one's duty (express one's essence).[16]
{{cite book}}:|website= ignored (help)
| Theories |
|
|---|---|
| Concepts |
|
| Metaphysicians |
|
| Notable works |
|
| Related topics | |
