From my son’s blog, Kierkegaard in Me, I’ve learned the word quiddity: the quality that makes a thing what it is; the essential nature of a thing. 2. a trifling nicety of subtle distinction, as in argument. (Unless noted, definitions here are from Dictionary.com.)
Wikipedia elaborates:
It describes properties a particular substance (e.g. a person) shares with others of its kind. The question “what (quid) is it?” asks for a general description by way of commonality. This is quiddity or “whatness” (i.e., its “what it is”). Quiddity was often contrasted by the scholastic philosophers with the haecceity or “thisness” of an item, which was supposed to be a positive characteristic of an individual that caused them to be this individual, and no other.
Tom used quiddity thusly:
If . . . you mean that I had a hand in the creation of these posts, or inspired their genesis, or even in some sense authored them myself—this too, I cannot deny, for all of us merely in the act of reading said writings gave them connotation and skin, hence substance, hence quiddity.
That post, which portrayed him in mock trial for his cheeky blogging about his professors, was pawky: (adj.) Chiefly British: Shrewd and cunning, often in a humorous manner; cunning; sly.
Hello – I was curious if you would allow me to reprint your review of Richard Todd’s – The Thing Itself on my blog? With credit, or course.
Wonderful book – nice review. You can email me at Author@adiscourseontheartsandsciences.net
Sure. I admire your site. Please just credit my blog and link to it . . . Richard
Hi Richard,
Sorry for the delay in responding. Thank you for your kind permission and talent. I only wish I could relay the beauty of the book as well as you.
Here is the link.
http://www.adiscourseontheartsandsciences.net/blog/?paged=14
Thanks again and best wishes.