According to Heidegger the Latin definition of the word essence means, what something is. I like to think of essences as something more abstract and subjective. From a more formal perspective what something is has value. We have definitions for almost everything, especially sentimental items we hold dear. The idea of something can also be subjective what I view as a simple painting brush could be another’s whole essence of who they are. I do believe it also comes down to what see value in as well. This concept is a challenge because it’s difficult to tell humans what they have is worthless and doesn’t have value. We’re not able to objectively make those decisions so when we do its either on impulse or a lie. Everything alive and not has its own unique form that we all categorically see differently. Why can’t we call it essence there? The classification of essence can be categorized as well. On the other hand, we can differ typology and categorization as diverse meanings. Essence within typology is broader and people are able to give their own meanings making it more significant. With categorization it doesn’t have the freedom with its meanings so its placement into groups and classes will specific. For an example, essence can be put into a group of emotions and auroras if thinking abstractedly. It could also be classified as quality of something or meaning when discussing on a formal level. Consequently, this whole idea of essence I believe is a two-way street leading to the same conclusion.
