Locke takes many of Hobbes's sound empirical ideas and perverts them into pseudo-empirical ideas. Hobbes and Locke share several titles such as nominalist, only Hobbes is stronger in his argument that there is nothing universal beyond names, while Locke significantly complicates and weakens his nominalist argument by reversing his denial of essence to form the idea of ​​nominal essence in relation to true essence. essence. A striking inconsistency occurs when Locke, immediately after classifying the problems with language and arguing against the concept of things having an essence, contradicts himself by dividing essence into nominal essence and true essence so that he can further later form his nominalist vision of essence.