Logic Exercise

Essence vs. Accident

And yet the validity of logical sequences is not a thing devised by men, but is observed and noted by them that they may be able to learn and teach it; for it exists eternally in the reason of things, and has its origins with God.

- St. Augustine (On Christian Doctrine)

As lovers of wisdom it is important for us to gain clarity concerning the nature of the things about which we wish to inquire. One of the most fundamental questions a philosopher can ask about anything is, “What is it?” Conversely, in order to determine what something is we must also be able to distinguish that thing from what it is not. One way to pursue this goal is to make an Essence vs. Accident chart. 

The terms essence and accident are very important in the philosophical branch of study called Ontology. Ontology is the branch of philosophy that inquires into the existence of things. It asks questions like “What really exists?” and also “In what manner does a particular thing exist?” At the heart of any discussion concerning the existence of a particular thing are the terms essence and accident. The sum total of all of the qualities (a.k.a. attributes) possessed by any given thing can be divided into two categories: that which is essential and that which is accidental. A quality (or attribute) is anything which may rightly be described as belonging to a particular thing or idea. If discussing a “ball” we could discuss its size, its shape, its color, its texture, the kind of material it is made from, etc. All of these things just mentioned would be qualities or attributes of the ball in question. Some of those qualities are essential and some are accidental. 

The term “accident” does not here refer to something that occurred unintentionally (e.g. “I accidentally wrecked my car last night.”), rather it refers to a quality possessed by a particular thing which is not necessary to its fundamental existence. If we consider the term “human” we might note that there are many accidental qualities among all those whom we would rightly call human. For instance, we note that some humans have blonde hair, others have brown hair or red hair, etc. It would be false to say, “It is an essential quality of humanness to have blonde hair.” Rather we would rightly note that human hair comes in many colors, lengths, and textures. Likewise we might observe that humans are sometimes tall while others are short, some are large in build and others slight, etc. None of these qualities are defining qualities of the essence of human, they are accidents of humanity. 

The essence of a thing is that which cannot be separated from it without it losing its fundamental nature. Humans are necessarily comprised of flesh and bone and soul. A human with only a soul but no flesh or bone is not in fact a human.¹ A human with flesh and bone but no soul is likewise not truly human.² It belongs to the essential nature of humans to have two arms, two legs, and two eyes. In cases where a human fails to have any of those, due to a birth defect or an injury, that is merely an accidental quality possessed by that particular person, but the exception proves the rule. Acknowledging such rare exceptions, we can speak of humans essentially as bipedal creatures, ensouled mammals, image bearers, etc. 

Our ability to consider an idea or object and separate in our minds what is essential to that thing versus what is merely accidental is a fundamental operation of human reason. We call this ability abstraction. Abstraction is the process of mentally separating the essence of a thing from its accidents and then holding that essence apart in our mind. This process of abstraction allows us to identify many particular things which share the same essence without letting the differences of their accidents confuse us. We already do this all the time without giving much direct thought to the matter. God has made us to be categorizing creatures who automatically abstract essences as a result of repeated exposure to particular things of the same kind. No one has to tell you when a new automobile rolls by you that it is a “car” as though you’d never seen one before. You might not have seen that particular car, with its particular accidents, but you know what the essence of a car is and this new one has that same essence.

Though we do this naturally all the time, without much thought, it pays for clarity's sake to bring some things to the level of our consciousness and to examine an idea or object with greater scrutiny. Often, in so doing, we may find that we are not as clear in our understanding of the fundamental nature of a particular thing as we might have at first assumed. What we have taken for granted as obvious may not be so obvious after all.

For this exercise you will pick an object and make an essence versus accident chart like the one below. First, do your best to list all of the qualities (attributes) your particular object seems to have (either sensually or intuitively). Second, separate that list according to essence and accident as well as you are able. Remember, anything that you put in the “essential” list should be universally applicable not only to this particular object, but all other objects that have the same essence. Third, list any difficulties you ran into in this process and points of uncertainty. These will often be difficulties of definition and they often come out when discussing our conception of a thing’s essence with others. Finally, write a definition which summarizes your findings about the essential nature of the object you examined. The definition should be stated in such a way so as to universally include all other particular objects which possess the same essential nature, regardless of their different accidents.

For our example let’s imagine we want to inquire into the nature of Chairs. We will start by examining this particular chair:

1. The chair is made of wood.

2. The chair has four legs.

3. The chair has a back.

4. The chair back has three slats.

5. The chair is hard.

6. The chair is smooth to the touch.

7. The chair is brown.

8. The chair is x inches tall.

9. The chair seems to be the product of an artisan (designer)

10. The chair seems designed to be sat upon.

11. The chair seems to be designed for only one person to sit on.

1. It is difficult for me to decide whether having a back is essential or accidental to “chairness.” Is a backless chair better understood to be a stool? Is a stool a kind of chair or should it be distinguished as its own kind of furniture (just as a bed and a chair are distinguished)?

Summary Definition

“A chair is an object designed by an artisan with the intention of providing seating for an individual person.”

1.  This is not an attack upon the notion of the intermediate state of the human soul between the time of the end of this mortal life and the yet future resurrection of our bodies. But note that state is temporary and it is the very fact of the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of all flesh in the eschaton (end times) that testifies humans are not meant to be disembodied spirits.

2.  For the moment let us set aside the concerns of atheists about whether or not humans have souls, we can deal with their lunacy on another occasion. For the record, atheism provides no sufficient ground for positing that things have essences at all, their view would necessarily lead to nominalism (the idea that things only have names we assign to them due to outward similarities of appearance).