 Dasgupta (2016) holds that essentialist facts, such as the fact that Socrates is essentially human, are “not apt for being grounded”, and hence are brute in the sense of ungrounded. Glazier (2017) argues against Dasgupta’s view, but holds that essentialist facts are brute in another sense. He advocates the view that metaphysical explanations of a certain kind, essentialist explanations of the type “p because it is essential to x that p”, are true when the explanans is true. On his view, essentialist facts cannot themselves receive such essentialist explanations, and hence are metaphysically brute in this specific sense.