Talk:Non-essentialism

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Metaphysics

This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Bias[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]