Analytically, one could suppose that essence is identical to category/classification, or that it’s the set of the most core properties of a thing, that is, the properties of the thing that aren’t incidental/superficial. This latter definition seems to beg for a formal differentiation between the types of properties that are part of the essence and the types that are incidental, but perhaps there are no such categorical differences: the only difference is whether changing a given property makes you subjectively think that its “essence” has changed or that it’s a different thing.
One could suppose something similar about the meaning of identity. Are identity and essence equal? Maybe that, too, is a subjective call. One could also say that the “identity” of an object is the set of properties that would have to be equal between that object and another object for those two objects to be considered “identical.” Though one might propose the same about essence, too.
By the way, in a couple of essays I argue that form (which is what a thing’s properties necessarily reduce to) is function, and it would follow from that that a thing’s essence is necessarily an aspect of its functionality. The essays are at https://myriachromat.wordpress.com/2024/07/30/my-answer-to-the-quora-question-are-nature-and-characteristics-the-same/ and https://myriachromat.wordpress.com/2020/06/18/form-is-core-function-identity-is-core-properties/.
But going beyond pure analysis and delving into the mystical, essence could be seen as a quality that belongs only to living beings. It would be something akin to a substance, but nonlocal and nonmaterial. It wouldn’t be a set of properties either, but a holistic gestalt of…meaning? It would be “energy” (in the mystical sense of the word), emotional constitution and psyche (in a holistic sense, or maybe just in a core sense) all at once.
Going out on a limb, I might say I have a vague hunch that a person’s essence is like some kind of spiritual or whatever N-dimensional fold, as in everyone has some kind of higher-dimensional structure within/about them that’s “folded in on itself” in a particular N-dimensional topology that’s entirely unique to the individual.
This fold probably somehow determines certain underlying aspects of a number of traits, perhaps including their personality; character; sense of humor and the sound of their laugh; certain habits, mannerisms and predilections; tendencies regarding their overarching worldview or episteme; whom they do or don’t get along with or at least whom they like or dislike; their skills and talents; and/or their natural physical appearance and voice; what or whom they spiritually attract; aspects of their karma; their soul family, soul group and soul mates; etc.
And on a certain subliminal or liminal level we actually perceive this fold, whether directly or indirectly, and it’s what makes us love them in the totally unique way in which we love any given individual.
But anyway, I’d argue that when we love someone, what we really love about them is not the collection of details of their psychology, but their essence, whatever “essence” actually is. (This is why I sometimes argue that love at first sight is actually possible and can happen in mere seconds, when one of the two people is particularly apt at exuding their essence and the other is unusually perceptive.)
Perhaps the essence of someone is the part that continues on after death and has been there since before their current life, though perhaps more details of mind than mere essence transcend death as well. I suppose the essence of a person is the most divine aspect of their being and the aspect that’s most united with God. Essence is probably the part of a being that’s recognized by the Heavens and pervades a million lifetimes and timelines at once. I’d say it’s the part that only a big decision can change—the kind of decision that affects the rest of a being’s eternity—if any decision can change it at all.
Maybe it’s wrong to say that “essence” in the mystical sense can only apply to living beings, though. Does a rock have an essence? If it does, this could explain spiritualists’ interest in and descriptions of the healing powers and other influences of various minerals and crystals. Does a planet have an essence? If it does, this could help explain a large part of the interest in and historical development of astrology. But it’s also possible that rocks, planets and other things—maybe all things—are living beings, in which case it could still be true that “essence” is a quality that belongs only to living beings, only it would imply that we tend to wrongly assume that most things are merely “dead” (viz: nonliving) matter.
