quiddity

1. Introduction

Quiddity is a technical philosophical term, derived from Medieval Latin quidditas, usually glossed as “whatness” or “what it is.” It designates, in various traditions, the essence, nature, or defining character of a thing as opposed to its mere existence or its accidental features. The term arose in scholastic philosophy but has been retrospectively applied to earlier thinkers and later adapted in diverse contexts.

Across its history, quiddity has been used to address at least three tightly connected questions:

• What is it for something to be a certain kind of thing (e.g., human, triangle, electron)?
• How can many individuals share a common nature?
• What, if anything, grounds our ability to define, classify, and know things scientifically?

Different philosophical schools have answered these questions by assigning different roles and ontological statuses to quiddity. In Aristotelian and scholastic metaphysics, quiddity is often tied to essence and form, conceived as what is captured by a real definition. For many scholastics, quiddity is contrasted with existence, and, in some systems, with haecceity or “thisness,” the principle of individuation.

Later thinkers, especially in early modern philosophy, frequently criticized appeals to quiddities as obscure residues of scholastic metaphysics. In contemporary analytic debates, however, related ideas reappear in discussions of quidditism, where “quiddity” refers to an intrinsic nature of properties or objects that may be independent of their causal or modal roles.

This entry traces the linguistic and historical development of the term, its role in major metaphysical systems, and its later transformations in logic, theology, and everyday language. It presents the main interpretations and controversies surrounding quiddity without endorsing any particular view, situating the notion within broader discussions of essence, universals, and the structure of reality and knowledge.

2. Etymology and Linguistic Origins

The English word quiddity comes from Medieval Latin quidditas, itself formed from the interrogative pronoun quid (“what”) and the abstract noun suffix -itas (“-ity”). The coinage parallels essentia (“essence”) and was designed as a technical term for “what‑it‑is‑ness,” the nature that answers the question quid est? (“what is it?”).

Latin and Greek Background

Medieval authors understood quidditas in continuity with Greek Aristotelian vocabulary:

Scholastic Latin adopted quidditas partly under the influence of Arabic philosophical terminology, especially Avicenna’s māhiyya (ماهيّة, “what‑it‑is‑ness”), which Latin translators regularly rendered by quidditas or essentia.

Formation in Scholastic Latin

In classical Latin, quid and phrases like quid est? were common, but the noun quidditas is not attested as a standard word. Medieval logicians and metaphysicians appear to have created it as a learned abstraction, mirroring similar abstract nouns (e.g., humanitas, “humanity”). The term functioned from the outset as a technical item in logical and metaphysical discourse rather than as part of everyday Latin.

Development into Vernaculars

From scholastic Latin, the term passed into several European languages:

In English philosophical prose, quiddity typically marks a consciously scholastic concept, while in later literary and colloquial usage (treated separately below) it acquires looser senses such as “peculiar quality” or “oddity.”

3. Pre-Philosophical and Everyday Usage of ‘quid’

Before quidditas became a technical term, Latin speakers used quid and related expressions in ordinary communication. This section concerns those everyday uses, not the later scholastic concept.

Ordinary Interrogative Use

In classical and late Latin, quid is the neuter form of the interrogative pronoun “what?” It appears in:

• Simple questions of identification or classification:

  "

  Quid est hoc? – “What is this?”

• Inquiries about nature or function:

  "

  Quid facit? – “What does it do?”

Such uses do not, by themselves, presuppose a worked-out theory of essences. They reflect a practical need to know what kind of thing one is dealing with, for purposes of recognition, action, or communication.

Rhetorical and Forensic Contexts

Roman rhetoricians and jurists employed quid in more structured ways. Legal and rhetorical texts distinguish questions of:

Here, quid sit? marks a shift from bare existence to character or definition, foreshadowing later metaphysical distinctions but remaining within practical argumentation (e.g., determining the legal status of an act).

Everyday Abstract Uses

Although the precise noun quidditas is not standard in classical sources, Latin does occasionally form playful or ad hoc abstract nouns from interrogatives, and medieval writers sometimes refer to quid or quid est? in semi-philosophical sermons and commentaries. These uses suggest sensitivity to the “what?”‑question as central for understanding and teaching, without a fixed doctrine of quiddity.

Some historians argue that this linguistic pattern—distinguishing “whether,” “what,” and “of what sort”—provided a ready-made framework that scholastics later formalized. Others maintain that only with the explicit coinage of quidditas and its systematic deployment did a fully technical sense emerge. In any case, the ordinary interrogative quid served as the lexical root from which the scholastic abstraction “quiddity” was eventually derived.

4. From Aristotle’s τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι to Latin ‘quidditas’

Medieval discussions of quiddity retrospectively connect the Latin term quidditas to Aristotle’s phrase τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι (to ti ēn einai), commonly rendered “the what‑it‑was‑to‑be” or simply “essence.” Aristotle himself does not use quidditas, but later interpreters treat his notion of definable essence as the Greek ancestor of Latin quiddity.

Aristotle’s Account of “What‑It‑Was‑To‑Be”

In the Metaphysics and Posterior Analytics, Aristotle links scientific knowledge to grasping what a thing is through definition (logos). The phrase τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι names that in virtue of which a thing is the kind of thing it is—for example, “rational animal” as the essence of human being.

"

“To know scientifically is to know the cause; and causes are grasped in the ‘what‑it‑was‑to‑be’.”
— (Paraphrased from Aristotle, Posterior Analytics II.8–10)

Scholastic commentators regard this as the fundamental Greek statement of whatness.

Transmission through Late Antique and Arabic Traditions

Aristotle’s texts were mediated by Greek commentators (such as Alexander of Aphrodisias) and, crucially for the Latin Middle Ages, by Arabic philosophers, especially Avicenna. Avicenna’s term māhiyya (ماهيّة, “what‑it‑is‑ness”) articulates a concept of essence that can be considered independently of existence.

Latin translators, working in the 12th and 13th centuries, regularly render:

This translation practice reinforced the association between Aristotle’s “what‑it‑was‑to‑be” and the newly favored Latin technical noun quidditas.

Adoption into Scholastic Latin

By the time of the early scholastics, quidditas is used in commentaries on the Categories, Metaphysics, and logical works to label what Aristotle had identified as the object of definition and scientific knowledge. Many scholastics explicitly align:

"

“The quidditas of a thing is what the Philosopher calls to ti ēn einai.”
— Typical scholastic gloss on Aristotle’s Metaphysics Z (paraphrased)

Some historians claim that this mapping slightly reconfigures Aristotle, emphasizing static definable natures more than his dynamic account of substance. Others hold that the Latin quidditas captures his intention adequately. In any case, the conceptual bridge from τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι to quidditas established the basic framework within which scholastic quiddity developed.

5. Scholastic Crystallization of Quiddity

In 12th–13th century scholasticism, quidditas becomes a central term of art in metaphysics and logic. This section addresses how its meaning crystallizes in that context, prior to system-specific treatments by particular thinkers.

Systematizing “Whatness”

Scholastic authors, drawing on Aristotle and Avicenna, use quiddity to denote the essence or nature of a thing as that which answers the question quid est? and is expressed in a real definition. Quiddity functions as:

• The principle of classification (what makes several individuals the same species),
• The object of scientific knowledge (what is grasped in universal concepts),
• The basis for necessary properties (what follows from a thing’s nature).

Distinctive Scholastic Contrasts

Within this general framework, scholastics articulate precise distinctions:

Some authors introduce further distinctions, such as between quiddity and haecceity (thisness), or between common nature and its individual instances, though details vary by school.

Logical and Metaphysical Roles

In logic, quiddity underpins discussions of:

• Definition (real vs. nominal),
• Predication (how a universal is said of many),
• Categories (especially substance and essential predicates).

In metaphysics, quiddity figures in debates about:

• The reality of universals,
• The composition of substances (form and matter),
• The ground of intelligibility in created beings and in God.

Different scholastic traditions—Thomist, Scotist, nominalist—share this general vocabulary but diverge sharply on how real quiddities are, how they relate to individuals, and what kind of distinction (real, formal, conceptual) they bear to existence and individuation. The subsequent sections on Aquinas, Scotus, and nominalists present these diverging crystallizations in more detail.

6. Thomas Aquinas: Quiddity, Essence, and Existence

For Thomas Aquinas, quiddity (quidditas) is closely aligned with essence (essentia) and nature (natura), while being sharply distinguished from existence (esse) in created beings.

Quiddity as Essence and Nature

Aquinas defines essence/quiddity as what is signified by a definition and answers the question “what is it?” In De ente et essentia, he writes (in paraphrase):

"

The essence is that which is signified by the definition, and by it a thing is placed in its genus or species.

In material substances, this quiddity is a composition of form and matter (e.g., human nature as rational animal composed of a rational soul as form and a body as matter). In immaterial created substances (e.g., angels), quiddity consists solely of form.

Distinction between Quiddity and Existence

A central Aquinian thesis is the real distinction in creatures between essence/quiddity and existence:

For Aquinas, the quiddity of a creature is potential with respect to existence; it can be thought of without implying that it exists. Existence is bestowed by God as the actus essendi, so that each finite being is a composition of “what it is” and “that it is.”

Quiddity and Knowledge

Aquinas holds that human intellect knows things by abstracting their quiddities from sensory images. The intellect first grasps a quiddity (e.g., humanity) and then, by judgment, affirms existence (“this human exists”). Thus quiddity underlies:

• Universal concepts (e.g., “humanity”),
• Scientific definitions, which express the essence,
• The ordering of beings into genera and species.

Some interpreters stress that, for Aquinas, quiddity is not merely a mental construct but a real intrinsic principle of things, while critics question how this can be reconciled with his doctrine of form–matter composition and the dependence of creatures on divine causality. Nonetheless, his distinction between quiddity and existence became a defining feature of Thomistic metaphysics.

7. John Duns Scotus: Quiddity, Common Nature, and Haecceity

John Duns Scotus retains the scholastic vocabulary of quiddity but develops it into a more intricate theory of common natures and haecceity (“thisness”).

Quiddity as Common Nature

For Scotus, the quiddity of a thing (e.g., humanity) is a common nature that can be present in many individuals. This common nature is:

• Not a universal in the strong Platonic sense existing apart from individuals,
• Not a mere mental construct, since it grounds real similarities,
• Capable of a kind of “formal unity” shared across instances.

Scotus argues for a formal distinction between the common nature and its individuating features: they are neither simply the same nor two wholly separate things, but distinct “in reality in some way” without being separable.

Haecceity (Thisness)

To explain individuation, Scotus introduces haecceity (haecceitas) as the principle that makes a thing this very individual and not just an instance of a nature. For example:

Haecceity is not a further common feature but a unique, non-repeatable determination of the nature. It is sometimes described as an “ultimate reality of the individual.”

Quiddity, Existence, and Univocity

Scotus also upholds a distinction between quiddity and existence, but nuances it differently from Aquinas. He defends a univocal concept of being, applicable to God and creatures, and treats quiddity as that in virtue of which univocal predication across individuals is possible.

Scholars debate whether Scotus’s common natures imply a stronger ontological commitment to quiddities than Aquinas’s essences, or whether they simply redescribe similar intuitions. Critics from nominalist traditions contend that Scotus multiplies entities beyond necessity; defenders argue that his account better explains real similarity, scientific classification, and the possibility of univocal metaphysical discourse.

8. Nominalist Critiques and Reinterpretations

Later medieval nominalists, notably William of Ockham, subject robust notions of quiddity to sustained criticism and reinterpretation. They generally seek to reduce or eliminate quiddities as distinct entities, while preserving explanatory power through other means.

Ontological Deflation of Quiddity

Ockham famously maintains that only individual substances and qualities exist; universals and common natures do not. On this view, quiddity is not a real component in things but a way of speaking about how individuals are similar and can be grouped under a common term.

"

“No universal is a thing existing outside the soul, but is only a term or concept signifying many.”
— (Paraphrase from Ockham, Summa Logicae I)

Thus, quiddity becomes:

• A mental concept abstracted from experience of similar individuals, or
• A linguistic item (a common name) used for economical speech.

Reinterpretation of Essence and Definition

Nominalists reinterpret essence and definition accordingly:

For Ockham and others, a real definition does not reveal an independently existing quiddity but articulates conditions for correct application of a term (e.g., “human” applies to all and only rational animals).

Motivations and Consequences

Nominalists advance several motivations:

• Ontological economy (often linked to “Ockham’s razor”),
• Avoiding multiplication of entities beyond what is needed for explanation,
• Emphasizing the priority of individuals over abstract natures.

Critics argue that nominalist reductions make it harder to account for scientific laws, necessary connections, or deep similarity among individuals if only particulars exist. Nominalists respond that resemblance, causal regularities, and conceptual practices suffice, without positing real quiddities. These debates significantly reshape later scholastic understandings of quiddity and prefigure early modern skepticism about scholastic essences.

9. Quiddity in Metaphysics: Essence, Universals, and Individuation

In metaphysics, quiddity functions as a focal concept for three interconnected issues: essence, universals, and individuation. Different traditions deploy quiddity differently across these domains.

Quiddity and Essence

Many metaphysicians identify quiddity with essence—the set of features a thing must have to be what it is. Within scholastic frameworks:

• Proponents treat quiddity as an intrinsic principle that grounds a thing’s characteristic powers and necessary properties.
• Critics (especially nominalists) regard talk of quiddity as at best a façon de parler for a cluster of properties or a conceptual description.

In modal metaphysics, some contemporary thinkers link quiddity to essential properties, though others restrict “essence” to modal contexts and reserve “quiddity” for more scholastic senses.

Quiddity and Universals

Quiddity is also central to debates on universals:

Proponents of real quiddities argue that they best explain why many individuals fall under a single species and share lawlike properties. Opponents claim that similarity and conceptual practices can be explained without positing extra ontological items.

Quiddity and Individuation

Because quiddity is, by definition, repeatable across individuals, metaphysicians often distinguish it from the principle of individuation:

• In hylomorphic views, matter (or “designated matter”) individuates the shared quiddity.
• For Scotus, individuation is provided by haecceity, distinct from the quiddity as common nature.
• Nominalists typically deny an extra individuating principle beyond the individual itself.

The relationship between quiddity and individuation raises questions such as:

• How can one and the same quiddity be wholly present in many individuals?
• Does individuation “contract” the quiddity, or simply accompany it?
• Are quiddity and individuation really, formally, or only conceptually distinct?

Responses vary widely, but quiddity remains a key tool for articulating how many individuals can be the same in kind while different as individuals.

10. Logical and Epistemic Roles of Quiddity

Beyond ontology, quiddity plays important roles in logic (the theory of definition and predication) and epistemology (accounts of knowledge).

Quiddity and Definition

In Aristotelian–scholastic logic, a real definition aims to express the quiddity of a thing, typically via genus and specific difference (e.g., “human” as rational animal). Thus:

Proponents maintain that successful science depends on grasping such definitions, which reveal the inner structure of kinds. Nominalists reinterpret this ideal as capturing linguistic or conceptual usage, not an independent quiddity.

Quiddity and Predication

In traditional term logic, universal predication (e.g., “All humans are mortal”) is understood as predication of a quiddity or nature of many individuals. This underpins:

• The classification of terms into categories (substance, quality, etc.),
• The distinction between essential and accidental predications.

On realist readings, essential predication corresponds to a real connection between subject and quiddity; on nominalist readings, it reflects stable patterns of use or conceptual analysis.

Quiddity and Human Knowledge

In epistemology, many scholastics claim that the human intellect knows by abstracting quiddities from sensory data:

1. Sense perception presents an individual.
2. Imagination retains a phantasm.
3. Intellect abstracts a universal notion of the thing’s quiddity.

Some philosophers, especially in empiricist and nominalist traditions, contest the idea that we grasp genuine essences or quiddities. They argue that human knowledge is limited to observed regularities, nominal definitions, or conceptual frameworks, not to intrinsic natures.

Contemporary debates on theories of reference, natural kinds, and scientific realism revisit similar issues in new terminology, asking whether scientific concepts track underlying natures (quiddities) or merely systematize observable phenomena.

11. Related Concepts: Form, Nature, Ousia, Haecceity

The notion of quiddity interacts closely with several other key concepts. This section clarifies these relations without collapsing the distinctions that different traditions insist upon.

Form (forma, εἶδος)

In Aristotelian and scholastic metaphysics, form is the intrinsic principle that actualizes matter and determines a thing’s kind. Many authors identify quiddity primarily with substantial form (or with form plus matter in composites). However:

• Some treat form as the chief constituent of quiddity,
• Others include both form and matter within the quiddity of material substances.

Thus, while closely related, form often names a metaphysical principle, whereas quiddity names the definable whatness that may encompass more than form alone.

Nature (natura)

Nature typically refers to a being’s intrinsic constitution as a source of operations. Many scholastics use nature, essence, and quiddity almost interchangeably, with context determining nuance:

In some theological and Christological contexts, nature acquires specific roles not always attributed to “quiddity,” even where there is overlap.

Ousia (οὐσία)

Greek οὐσία is usually translated “substance” or “essence.” In Aristotelian tradition, it denotes:

• Primary substance: the individual thing,
• Secondary substance: the species or genus.

Quiddity is generally associated with the essence aspect of οὐσία, especially as object of definition. However, οὐσία also carries ontological connotations of independent existence, which the more narrowly logical term quidditas does not necessarily share.

Haecceity (haecceitas)

Haecceity (“thisness”), introduced by Scotus, is explicitly contrasted with quiddity:

Where quiddity answers “What is it?”, haecceity answers “Which one is it?” Different metaphysical systems either accept, modify, or reject such a distinct principle of individuation.

Together, these related concepts frame a network within which quiddity’s meaning is specified and contested, depending on whether the focus is definitional, causal, ontological, or individuative.

12. Translation Challenges and Semantic Nuances

Translating quiddity and its Latin counterpart quidditas poses persistent difficulties, both linguistically and philosophically.

Competing Renderings

Common English equivalents include:

Translators and commentators often opt to retain “quiddity” as a loanword, supplementing it with explanatory notes.

System-Specific Nuances

Different thinkers use quidditas with distinct nuances:

• For Aquinas, it tends to overlap with essence and nature, especially in contrast to existence.
• For Scotus, it aligns with common nature, formally distinct from both individuation and existence.
• For nominalists, it is often reinterpreted as a mental or linguistic construct.

A single English term may not capture these differences. Some scholars adjust their translations depending on context, while others maintain a uniform rendering and explain nuances in commentary.

Historical vs. Contemporary Uses

In modern analytic metaphysics, “quiddity” is sometimes used for an intrinsic nature of a property, connected to debates on quidditism. This usage may diverge from medieval senses, which focus on the nature of substances or kinds rather than property-identities. Translators of historical texts must therefore distinguish:

• Historical “quiddity”: scholastic essence/whatness,
• Contemporary “quiddity”: intrinsic identity of properties independent of causal roles.

Because of these layered meanings, some authors advocate leaving quidditas untranslated in critical editions, while others prefer accessible paraphrases at the cost of technical precision. The choice often reflects whether the primary aim is philological fidelity, philosophical clarity, or readability for non-specialists.

13. Early Modern Transformations of Quiddity

In early modern philosophy, quiddity and related scholastic notions of essence are reassessed, often critically. While some authors still employ the term, it frequently acquires a pejorative or polemical tone.

Critiques of Scholastic Quiddities

Many early modern thinkers—Bacon, Descartes, Locke, and others—associate scholastic “quiddities” with obscure, verbal explanations that hinder empirical inquiry. For instance, Francis Bacon criticizes the appeal to forms and essences as empty labels that substitute for genuine causal knowledge.

John Locke distinguishes between real essences and nominal essences in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding:

• Real essence: the underlying constitution of a thing (e.g., microstructural makeup).
• Nominal essence: the abstract idea associated with a general term.

Locke often refers disparagingly to traditional “substantial forms” and “quiddities” as unknown and unknowable, arguing that our classifications rely mainly on observable qualities and nominal essences.

Shifts in Metaphysical and Scientific Frameworks

The rise of mechanistic physics and experimental science changes the landscape:

This shift leads many early modern thinkers to either abandon or radically reinterpret quiddity:

• Some retain a thin notion of essence compatible with new physics (e.g., Descartes’ essence of matter as extension),
• Others treat “essence” as largely epistemic, tied to our conceptual schemes rather than to robust quiddities in things.

Residual and Transitional Uses

Despite critiques, the vocabulary of “essence” and sometimes “quiddity” persists in theological, metaphysical, and legal discourse. Some authors use “quiddity” metaphorically to indicate the distinctive character of something, prefiguring later literary and colloquial senses.

Historians disagree on how cleanly early moderns break from scholastic quiddities: some emphasize continuity via transformed notions of real essence; others stress a conceptual rupture with Aristotelian–scholastic frameworks. In any case, early modern transformations significantly narrow the domain in which quiddity is treated as a core explanatory category.

14. Quiddity and Contemporary Analytic Metaphysics

In contemporary analytic philosophy, quiddity reappears chiefly in debates about properties, modal realism, and quidditism, rather than as a direct continuation of medieval doctrine.

Quidditism vs. Anti-Quidditism

Quidditism is the view that properties (and sometimes objects) have quiddities—intrinsic, non-qualitative natures—over and above their causal or modal roles. On this view:

• Two possible worlds could differ only in which quiddities are associated with which causal roles.
• Properties are individuated not solely by what they do but by what they are “in themselves.”

Anti-quidditists deny such surplus natures, holding that properties are exhausted by their place in a causal/nomic structure or network of relations.

Quiddities, Properties, and Possible Worlds

Influential figures such as David Lewis discuss quiddities in the context of modal realism. Lewis allows that there may be “qualitative roles” instantiated by “categorical properties” that possess quiddities:

"

Roughly, the same causal role could be played by different categorical properties across possible worlds (paraphrasing from On the Plurality of Worlds).

This raises questions about:

• Individuation of properties: Are they individuated by quiddity or by role?
• Epistemic access: Can we ever know which quiddities underlie which roles (the “humility” worry)?

Some philosophers argue that we are epistemically humble regarding quiddities: we can know only structural/relational aspects of the world, not intrinsic property-natures.

Links and Discontinuities with Medieval Usage

Contemporary uses of “quiddity” share a family resemblance with medieval talk of essences or whatness, but the focus is typically:

• On properties rather than substance-kinds,
• On modal and epistemic issues about individuation and identity across worlds.

Scholars disagree on how far this modern quidditism is continuous with scholastic notions. Some draw direct analogies between categorical quiddities and Aristotelian forms or essences; others caution that the frameworks and problems are sufficiently different that historical comparisons should be handled carefully.

15. Quiddity in Theology and Philosophy of God

Within theology and the philosophy of God, quiddity plays specific roles, particularly in medieval Christian thought but also in broader monotheistic traditions.

Divine Essence and Quiddity

Many classical theists hold that God has a simple, unique essence. For Aquinas, in contrast to creatures:

• In God, essence and existence are identical; there is no real distinction between God’s quiddity and his act of being.
• God’s quiddity is thus not a limiting principle but pure act (actus purus).

Other scholastics debate whether it is proper to speak of a divine quiddity at all, or whether such language risks importing creaturely categories into theology. Some prefer to say that God is his own essence, transcending the usual essence/existence structure.

Quiddity, Names of God, and Analogy

The notion of quiddity informs discussions of how we name God:

• If human concepts derive from creaturely quiddities, and God has no quiddity in the same way, then divine names must be understood analogically.
• Proponents of analogy argue that terms like “good,” “wise,” or even “being” apply neither univocally nor purely equivocally to God and creatures, but in a proportional way.

Scotus, by contrast, defends a univocal concept of being, allowing “being” to apply to God and creatures in one sense, while still maintaining infinite qualitative difference. This position interacts with his account of divine quiddity or nature as formally distinct from the persons and attributes, though not composed in the creaturely manner.

Quiddity and Christology

In Christological debates, nature and person are distinguished: Christ is one person in two natures (divine and human). While theological texts more often use natura than quidditas, the underlying issue—how a nature or quiddity can be instantiated—bears on:

• Whether “humanity” as a quiddity is instantiated in Christ as in other humans,
• How the divine nature relates to the person of the Word.

Different theological schools integrate their metaphysics of quiddity and individuation into these doctrines in various ways, balancing philosophical consistency with dogmatic commitments.

16. Quiddity in Literary and Colloquial Usage

Outside technical philosophy, quiddity enters literary and colloquial English with broadened and often playful meanings.

Literary Uses

From the early modern period onward, writers sometimes use “quiddity”:

• To evoke the essence or distinctive flavor of something (“the very quiddity of romance”),
• To suggest a subtlety or nicety in argument (recalling scholastic hair-splitting),
• Occasionally as a term of satire, mocking overly abstract or pedantic reasoning.

Authors in the 17th–19th centuries, including dramatists and essayists, exploit the term’s association with obscure scholastic jargon for comic or critical effect. At the same time, some literary critics adopt it positively to refer to the idiosyncratic character that makes a work or style what it is.

Colloquial and Extended Meanings

In more casual usage, “quiddity” may mean:

Dictionaries often record a dual sense: (1) essence; (2) an eccentric trait or quirk. The latter reflects a semantic shift from serious metaphysical essence to minor peculiarities, perhaps influenced by association with “oddity.”

Relation to Philosophical Usage

While these literary and colloquial uses grow out of the philosophical term, they generally:

• Do not presuppose a commitment to real essences or scholastic metaphysics,
• Trade on the connotation of something deeply characteristic or defining,
• Or, conversely, on the stereotype of scholasticism as involved in trivial subtleties.

Some modern writers consciously exploit both layers, using “quiddity” to gesture at the inner character of a thing while alluding, implicitly or explicitly, to its scholastic heritage.

17. Legacy and Historical Significance

The concept of quiddity has left a lasting imprint on the history of philosophy, even where the term itself recedes from active use.

Impact on Metaphysical Traditions

In medieval scholasticism, quiddity provided a framework for:

• Systematic accounts of essence/existence, universals, and individuation,
• The integration of Aristotelian, Arabic, and Christian thought,
• Distinctive schools (Thomist, Scotist, nominalist) whose debates shaped later metaphysics.

Even after explicit talk of quiddities waned, related issues—about essence, natural kinds, and intrinsic natures—remained central in both continental and analytic traditions.

Influence on Logic, Science, and Theology

In logic, the notion that definitions aim at quiddities informed classical conceptions of scientific explanation and classification. The eventual critique of quiddity in early modern thought accompanied the rise of experimental and mathematical approaches, marking a shift in how explanation and understanding were conceived.

In theology, quiddity contributed to technical distinctions concerning divine simplicity, essence, and nature, as well as to debates about analogy, Christology, and the God–world relation.

Continuing Relevance

Contemporary discussions of:

• Essentialism and modal metaphysics,
• Natural kinds and scientific realism,
• Quidditism and property individuation,

all revisit, in new vocabulary, questions that quiddity historically organized. Scholars differ on how far these present concerns should be read through a scholastic lens, but there is broad agreement that the medieval elaboration of quiddity provides a rich conceptual resource and a crucial chapter in the genealogy of current metaphysical and epistemological debates.

Thus, even where “quiddity” functions mainly as a historical or specialized technical term, the issues it names—about what things are, how they are classified, and what can be known about them—remain fundamental to philosophical inquiry.