A property does not automatically become part of an essence merely because it is always or commonly associated with a kind. Classical logic asks whether it belongs to the defining nature.
The book later uses 'capable of laughter' as a property outside the human essence, despite its special association with humans.
The proper test is whether the meaning constitutes the essence, not how frequently an attribute is observed.
Opening interactive controls...
Even a stable property need not be essential
Essence, Quiddity, and Essential vs Accidental Universals
A property does not automatically become part of an essence merely because it is always or commonly associated with a kind. Classical logic asks whether it belongs to the defining nature.
The book later uses 'capable of laughter' as a property outside the human essence, despite its special association with humans.
The proper test is whether the meaning constitutes the essence, not how frequently an attribute is observed.