Question

Some philosophers, to my agreement, argue that the concept of a rock for example is merely an abstraction that strips away the difference between particulars belonging to the category "rock". In actuality, in the physical world, only those particulars exist. Descriptions of those particulars are merely ways to find some feature that is common to those particulars, features that seem "natural" to us for psychological reasons, but don’t exist in any real sense.

Other philosophers argue that there is a true essence of a rock that each rock actually contains. This essence can be described as "rockhood" that is, as a matter of reality, present in each rock.

My question is how is this any different from the concept of humanity in humans. Most human beings would recognize that humanity is a human created concept. When trying to reduce it to anything, one would fail, except saying that it is a spirit shared by all humans.

But isn’t this circular? If the argument is that "humanhood" is an essence that is common to all human beings and yet one cannot define it except as a property shared by all humans that actually exists, isn’t this a gesture that doesn’t really say much?

Answer 1

The philosophical question concerns whether essence, such as 'humanhood' or 'rockhood,' is an abstract concept or a tangible reality. Theories from Plato's forms to Sartre's existentialism offer different viewpoints on whether essence is a pre-existing ideal or a construct derived from existence and observation.

Step-by-step explanation:

At the heart of this philosophical inquiry is the exploration of essence and its place in our understanding of objects and beings, such as rocks and humans. This debate has deep roots in the history of ontology, the study of existence and being. The consideration of whether existence precedes essence, as proposed by Sartre and other existentialists, suggests that beings define their own essence through existence. Conversely, the Platonic view of forms interprets essence as an ideal, pre-existing in a realm of perfect forms, which the particulars strive to embody.

In essence, this question deals with the theory of knowledge and how we come to define concepts like 'humanity' or 'rockhood.' Where Plato might argue for the existence of these essences in a realm of forms, the materialistic view and the existential perspectives would point towards the lack of a predefined essence, with humanity or rockhood being constructs or categories that we use to understand and communicate about the world around us.

Aristotle's approach to identifying the 'whatness' of a thing, such as the essence of 'dogness' through observation of particulars, and his introduction of species and genera as categories further demonstrates the complexities in defining essence. This is tied to the hylomorphism concept, which posits that form and matter are inseparable, and the form is present in the material world, guiding the development from potential to actualized being, whether it be acorns to oaks, or embryos to humans.