Abstract
The term "essence" is not a common term in natural languages, so it needs to be introduced by the philosopher who uses it. But it doesn't seem possible to introduce it by means of a complete definition using common terms: classical definitions ("what it is to be X"), which are too polysemous, must be accompanied by a clause such as "in the metaphysically important sense of the expression" (Fine 1994). How, then, can we identify this "metaphysically important" sense? One solution is to say that essence, although not a term of natural languages, is nevertheless a category of "common sense" or of our "naive metaphysics" as studied by developmental psychology. In this talk, I will draw on the empirical work of Susan Gelman to question the existence and contours of a common-sense concept of "essence".
