This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
A common feature of recent metaphysical discussion are explanations stating that an object x is F by virtue of its essence or nature. These explanations are ultimate in the sense that there is no further explanation as to why they hold. Given that x is F by virtue of its nature, there is no further essentialist fact that explains this fact. I critically survey three recent accounts of the ultimacy of essence and argue that they fail to be ultimate in the intended sense. In light of this discussion, I suggest that a modal account of intrinsicality may present a viable alternative to essentialist explanations.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Daniel Neumann (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: