Hello there,again!I don't understand this "essence stuff".If many composites of form and matter share various similar properties and we can group them in various descriptive categories,why do we have to say that they somehow resemble a specific essence?It sounds very metaphorical.It seems obvious for me that "catness" is a name given by humans to the properties that cats exhibit.It's obviously a social construct.The essence of a cat didn't exist before the first cat evolved from antecedent species.And by observing that things exhibit similar properties,we grouped things into conceptual frames called essences/substances/whatever.I think that the only true essences are the essences of fundamental particles.And also,when does something become a new essence?If a particle moves from position A to position B,it changes,but does it become a new essence?Do the Five Ways fail if nominalism turns out to be true?For me,it doesn't seem necessary to be a realist to accept that whatever goes from potency to act is dependent upon Pure Act and Being Itself.So if the only true essence is that of the most fundamental level of reality,does it refute the Five Ways?(Yes,English is not my native language.).