What question did this study set out to answer?

The aim is to defend dispositional essentialism (DE) from objections regarding the no upwards essence principle.

February 19, 2026Open Access

Dispositions and Dependence

Key Points

The aim is to defend dispositional essentialism (DE) from objections regarding the no upwards essence principle.
Analyzed contentious assumptions in DE that may lead to the violation of no upwards essence.
Critiqued existing arguments supporting the no upwards essence principle.
Presented counterexamples to challenge the validity of no upwards essence.
Identified that DE does not necessarily violate no upwards essence under certain assumptions.
Argued that arguments for no upwards essence are inadequate and fail under scrutiny.

Abstract

ABSTRACT According to the principle No Upwards Essence , there are no cases in which some essentially depends on , yet grounds . One of the most pressing objections that afflict Dispositional Essentialism (DE) is that it violates No Upwards Essence and is therefore untenable. In this paper, I defend DE against this objection. First, I argue that DE only violates No Upwards Essence in the presence of further contentious assumptions that proponents of DE are not necessarily forced to accept. And second, I argue that No Upwards Essence should not be adopted: The extant arguments in favor of the principle are wanting, and it is subject to counterexamples.

Dispositions and Dependence

Key Points

Abstract

Cite This Study