[Serious] Thomism: Then & Now

[DLJ]

...
At the moment, I think you're talking about a description of the essence, but not the essence itself.

For example, it is a part of Socrates' essence that he can learn languages. (This is sort of a classic example.) So this ability is a part of his essence. But an ability is not information. It can not be transferred down a wire or communicated through smoke signals. Socrates' essence includes rationality. But rationality is not information, I think. 

I can describe a very large set of things which are essential to Socrates, but this description is not the essence itself. 

But I welcome additional input on the problem.

Are there any of this "very large set of things which are essential to Socrates" that are unique to Socrates?

Other people can be language-learners and rational, other platypodes/platypuses have beaks and tails, so do birds.

Maybe I'm being overly-pedantic-semantic regarding the word 'properties'.