Is essence an entity that exists independently of us, or is it a human construct? The essentialist and anti-essentialist debates explore the meaning of essence.
In general, an essence is a property that an object must have and that distinguishes it from other objects. If we want to know what the essence of X is, we can find a necessary and sufficient property for X. In other words, we look for something that is true for all X and only for X. For example, since all magpies and only magpies are both pheasants and females, “pheasant being female” is thought to be the essence of magpies. However, it is futile to say that a female pheasant is the essence of a pheasant because it is what we have defined as the definition of a pheasant in the first place. In other words, the essence is not something that exists and is discovered by us, but is constructed a posteriori when we coin the word “magpie”.
In order to recognize different objects as being of the same kind and to communicate successfully, we need something that they share. Essentialism argues that it exists as an essence within the entity, independent of us. Anti-essentialism, on the other hand, argues that there is no such essence, and that human-made linguistic arrangements can sufficiently fulfill the role of essence in essentialism. So-called essences are merely expressions of the meanings we customarily ascribe to them.
If “essence” is an ontological concept, then its linguistic correlate is “definition”. However, the fact that it is difficult to give a complete and precise definition of an object without being noncommittal strengthens the anti-essentialist argument. Take a person, for example. A rational animal is a popular definition of a person. We can then use a non-rational infant as a counterexample to the essence of a person. This time, you might say, “Humans are social animals. However, not everything that lives in a society is a person. Ants and bees also live in societies, but they are not people.
We can say that the history of Western philosophy is a search for essence. Essentialism has attempted to find the essence of not only people, but also of freedom, knowledge, and so on, but in most cases it has not yet succeeded in clearly identifying what is essential. Therefore, the philosophical quest to uncover hidden essences is criticized by anti-essentialists as a futile endeavor in practice. The argument is that our inability to find essence clearly is not due to our ignorance, but to the fact that we start from the false assumption that there is such an essence. The essence of things, it is argued, is nothing more than a projection of human values.
In the end, the discussion of essence asks us philosophical questions and requires us to expand our thinking. When we seek to determine the essence of an object, it is an inquiry into the object itself, but it is also an inquiry into ourselves. The search for essence forces us to reevaluate our view of the object and our values. This search for essence is more than just a philosophical debate; it contributes to a deeper understanding of how we live and think. It also makes us aware of how much the way we define and categorize objects depends on our social and cultural context. For example, what we consider “essence” in one culture may have a completely different meaning in another. In this context, the quest for essence is not just a conceptual discussion, but an attempt to understand the diversity and complexity of human experience from a broader perspective.
As such, the search for essence plays an important role in enriching and deepening the way we understand and interpret the world, while also stimulating philosophical curiosity. The quest for essence ultimately reveals the limits of our perception and understanding, and the need for ongoing thought and dialog to push beyond them. This philosophical journey reflects the human spirit of intellectual inquiry, and ultimately contributes to a deeper understanding of our own existence and the world.
