For C.F.
Haecceity may be defined in some dictionaries as simply the “essence” of a thing,
or as a simple synonym for quiddity or hypokeimenon. However, such a definition
deprives the term of its subtle distinctiveness and utility. Whereas haecceity refers
to aspects of a thing which make it a particular thing [its “thisness”], quiddity
refers to the universal qualities of a thing, its “whatness”, or the aspects of a
thing which it may share with other things and by which it may form part of a
genus of things.
This guy down at the paddle tennis courts
Likes to pull my professorial chain
From time to time, and asked, last week, what sort
Of place did “quiddity” hold in my brain?
He, psychologist, twinkled, as my jaw
Dropped, while I, literature guy, knit brow,
Glum, discomforted, thought about the raw
Pain of life—the figurative fields ploughed
By rank necessity just to survive—
While thinkers distinguish (without pity)
“Whatness” from “thisness,” in fat texts that drive
Men mad—quiddity or haecceity?
How does that put food, drink, on the table?
Funny thing—the argument waxed deadly
In the early church. God? Real or fable?
“How can three be one?” some asked, scratching heads.
“Fools! Whatness is not thisness!” they replied—
Those ancient priests—“accept our writ or die!”
(2/25/11)
Wish to pursue this matter further? Start with Duns Scotus (c. 1265-1308). Then consult the First Council at Nicaea (325)