Talk:Non-essentialism

Bias

The article is clearly set up to be a refutation of anti-essentialism. All it needs is Occam's Razor: although they may exist, non-essential entities can never be found, so let's just shave them from ontology; now this is a great confutation of the article's straw man, but it doesn't work on real non-essentialism. --Le vin blanc (talk) 10:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this article is a bunch of crap. I'm Jewish, Male, a Student, a Wiki Editor, a hearer of sounds, a mathematician, an amateur philosopher, White, of a certain age, American, New Jerseyian, two-legged, two-armed, two-eyed, mammal, human, black haired, ten-fingered, honest (at times), dishonest (at other times), etc. Which of these is my essence? Which of these are accidental, ones that I can do without while still remaining myself? The particular is purely accidental. I'm not sure how to translate that rant into an acceptable wiki article though. -- Aranfan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.91.126.216 (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I deleted some sentences which were quite blatantly set-up against non-essentialism, and I tried to replace them with a fair representation of non-essentialist ideas. It could still really use a lot of expansion, but I think we could do well by using the anti-foundationalism page as inspiration, since the two are basically synonymous anyways. OR we could simply delete this page and make it redirect to Anti-foundationalism. I'm actually partial to the latter option because Anti-foundationalism is already pretty well filled out, even though it too could use some work. --Laaperitif — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laaperitif (talk • contribs) 18:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Popularity

Is this concept relatively unknown compared to essentialism?

I'm learning this in class and I'm a bit put-off by the lack of information.

Also, there's like two sections, it's just a definition and a criticism. Loopitywoop (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)