In ESSENTIALISM there are things in external world which have essences AND these essences do not depend on how we consider or call them. According to essentialists, everything is a complex of its essential properties which is called individual essence. These properties are distinct from accidental properties AND independent from how we consider or call them. On the contrary, a conventionalist does not believe in essences. According to him, a thing s essence is a mirror of how people consider or call it. According to Aristotle, individuals have essences AND ousias which determine their whole reality. For Avicenna too, substances -AND accidents- have essences which are independent from other things. In Aristotelian-Avicennian ESSENTIALISM, knowledge AND definition is just due to form AND essence. While this tradition is mostly intended to solve the problems of knowledge AND definition, contemporary ESSENTIALISM mostly discusses the problems of identity AND possible worlds. In this tradition, an essential property of a thing is the one which is belongs to in any possible world.

ESSENTIALISM like many philosophical subjects is rooted in the ideas of Greek philosophers. This theory is related to the stability, motion AND change. In fact, a reasonable explanation of the motion AND change was interest of philosophers. Aristotle's theory is in this field. This theory that concerns to laws of nature was the most notable philosophical achievements AND metaphysical foundation for the science of that time. Aristotle was able to study species of plants AND animals as a natural kind because of variety AND apparent difference between them. In his view, any natural kind acts in goal-oriented. From this perspective, Aristotle's ESSENTIALISM has been criticism, so was not a serious activity on this topic till 20 century. Brian Ellis is formulated his scientific ESSENTIALISM with offers to natural kinds AND dispositional properties. He offers a variety of criteria for natural kind but he does not accept biological kind because it does not satisfy some of the criteria. He claims that his scientific ESSENTIALISM is realistic. The natural kinds of this theory are in transition AND interact to each other. What appears depends on a variety of roles of natural kinds that participating in the process. The paper presents two ideas of Aristotle AND Ellis' ESSENTIALISM AND pays to new ESSENTIALISM functionality. This study presents why Ellis does not accept natural kind in biology even genetic structure AND unlike the traditional view, according to close relationship between the definition AND explanation, there is no such connection in Ellis's ESSENTIALISM.

Establishing an association between unity (of existence) AND multiplicity (of essences) is one of the important challenges mystics are faced with. Advocating a sole being while rejecting the existence of others beings makes the impression that in mysticism the external existences are nothing but naught AND nil.Regarding the mystic’s established principles in mystical ontology AND relying on the genuine mystical sources, one can infer that the aforementioned impression does not conform to the reality. To prove this claim, we consider it necessary to first have a brief survey on the essentialist views of some other schools of thought, AND secondly explain the pure being(The Real One, Haqq) according to the mystically ontological viewpoint. Then, in a lower degree, modes AND affairs, that is to say Divine Names, AND the mediating link among mere existence, inner-realities AND essences are introduced. AND finally, the link AND relationship between inner-realities AND essences (eternal entities) with the absolute being are detailed.It is at last concluded that Muslim mystics, with their own special principles, approve of ESSENTIALISM in a unique interpretation; so that, this ESSENTIALISM is both in accordance with the Divinity’s being the pure one (personal unity of existence), AND in line with the requirements of mystical viewpoints. Through a meticulous explanation of the Being, mystics believe that inner-realities have actuality AND are not considered naught AND nil.

Grounding depicts the layered structure of the facts. If we let grounding facts be in the theory, what is their status in the hierarchy? Based on the Purity Principle, grounding facts could not be fundamental because they contain non-fundamental parts. They must inevitably be grounded in other facts. Non-fundamentality of grounding facts, with some other assumptions, produces a chain of grounding facts that could threaten the well-foundedness of grounding. The well-foundedness of Grounding is desirable because it guarantees foundationalism; a thesis that posits the existence of a fundamental layer of facts. In this essay, we will introduce common theories about grounding ground AND also describe different approaches to make grounding well-founded. These theories contain a reductionist theory called Grounding ESSENTIALISM AND two theories that believe grounding facts are grounded in something in the theory. These two accounts are called Straight Forward Account AND Zero Grounding Account. Here we will show that Straight Forward Account AND Zero Grounding Account are consistent with one approach to well-foundedness AND therefore, they are foundationalist. On the other hAND, we will show that Grounding ESSENTIALISM cannot accommodate well-foundedness in its various forms. We present a qualified version of Grounding ESSENTIALISM that could support well-foundedness. We will argue that even though this trial is somehow successful, some problems still stay on.

Opponent of the quantified modal logics believe that one of the most important objections to these logics is that they entail ESSENTIALISM. Saul Kripke tries to overcome this challenge by showing that according to his first system, ESSENTIALISM is acceptable without any inconsistency. In his revised system, Kripke leaves, to some extent, his previous interpretation of ESSENTIALISM AND tries to propose a more plausible justification in defense of quantified modal logic. In addition to explaining the meaning of ESSENTIALISM, this article gives a detailed explanation of Kripke’s debate in his first AND revised systems.

Sohrevardi, as an illuminationist, had very significant innovations in philosophy, mysticism AND spiritual thought. The essence, reality AND the quality of achieving spiritual experiences, which have received special attention by different people in different cultures AND schools of thought, are among the innovative domains of Sohrevardi’s system of thought. There are two major views on the essence of these experiences: first, ESSENTIALISM which emphasizes their coherence AND commonality among different people AND schools of thought, AND second, constructivism in which mystical intuition plays an important role in the creation of numinous experience. These different views indicate the differences which different schools of thought haveabout the quality of these experiences. From Sohrevardi’s perspective, the unity with the Light makes mystical illumination AND numinous experiences possible. Accordingly, the individual’s special view on soul AND his/her psychology are involved in the fulfillment of these experiences which are accompanied with illumination, observation, unity AND extinction in unity. Therefore, Sohrevardi’s views on the features of numinous experience represent a kind of ESSENTIALISM in these illuminations. This does not mean that the unity of these personal experiences consistent with the individual’s thought makes them different from each other. They rather have similar AND common characteristics. The present study, as a library research, adopting a descriptive analytical method provides evidence which shows Sohrevardi’s viewpoints on the principles of ESSENTIALISM in mystical illumination. It also provides answers to a number of relevant questions in this area of inquiry.

According to ontological naturalism, the existence of an incorporeal cause for the world is in conflict with science, AND basically the world does not need such a cause. According to methodological naturalism, too, scientific method is the most successful method for understANDing the structure of the world AND the causal relationships governing it. Looking at the issue from the perspective of theoretical philosophy, which does not belong to anything other than the outer world, we find that science has a limited share in the explanation of nature in terms of its method, AND if the empirical findings arising from it are not in interaction with the metaphysical foundations of science, then it cannot have decisive theories in the explanation of the world AND has nothing to say in the ontological issues. It seems that by considering the link between science AND metaphysics, one can use philosophical theology in order to defend the belief in God as a complementary element in the explanation of the world of existence, AND the use of science in the realm of ontology is considered unscientific AND fallacious. Regarding ESSENTIALISM in science, Ellis believes realistically that instead of lacking properties, creatures have powers AND capacities that make up their essence AND inherent properties AND make their nature active AND full of properties. It can be concluded that naturalism is valuable as a way of understANDing material nature, without being in conflict with the transcendental AND incorporeal cause. Methodological naturalism does not necessarily correlate with ontological naturalism, AND what brings these two closer together is the metaphysical foundations of science, which alone is efficient in theology AND the ontological explanation of nature. In sum, new ESSENTIALISM establishes a connection between the inherent properties AND the existence of things, AND builds an objective AND real foundation on the proof of the metaphysical foundations of science, from which theology can open a way to prove the belief in God.

Believing in a human will independent ‘essence’ for technology, will have far reaching implications for a thinker’s whole reflections on technology. Heidegger belongs to the camp of philosophers (so called ‘essentialists’) that believe in a such essence Until achieving to the ultimate aim of his thinking about technology-getting rid of Gestell-Heidegger continues to emphasize on this essence. In this essay I at first will try to correspond the reasons that Heidegger holds in favor of attaining a essence by technology with medical technology. Then I will discuss those critical stANDpoints with which Heidegger’s view could be confronted them.