Not A Proper Property, Properly

Grice thought that Ariskant was a better philosopher than Kantotle.

Consider 'proprium' -- as rendering ancient Greek "idion" (Aristotle). From the OED:

1885 W. L. DAVIDSON Logic of Definition 46 A logical operation
which..grasps the essence of a thing (to the exclusion of its accidents and propria).

where there seems to be a funny lexicalisation.

Thus, while for Aristotle what is necessary is possible, it is more
complicated to _prove_ that what is necessary is *contingent*.

Ditto, while a scale can be built



I think Aristotle would _not_ like that: 'idion' lexicalises _out_ the
essence. I am speaking in a difficult key. The lexical complication is noted (well, evidenced, really, as he doesn't
seem to care):

1967 B. A. BRODY in P. Edwards Encycl. Philos. V. 71/2

"Properties which belong only to that type of thing
but are not part of its essence; such a property is
called a proprium."

But then surely 'essential property' is oxymoronic (if not plain moronic,
with apologies to some of my masters). I have since last week excluded
'essential property' from my vocabulary. Indeed 'property'. I now speak of
_features_ and if pressed I'll use the Guatemalan idiom, "bundle".

The Liddell/Scott has:

IV. to i. characteristic property of a species, Arist.Top.102a18, 103b11,
Chrysipp.Stoic.2.75, Plot.5.5.13; but also, distinguishing feature in a
relative sense, i. pros ti Arist.Top.128b25 .

A more essentialist person would say, 'hey': the essence is _not_ a
property: it's the thing itself. But I don't want to be called the 'dunce' (*) of
the class.

Etc.