Talk:Category of being

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Philosophy Portal

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Additional information:

Related task forces (core areas):
	Metaphysics

[edit] Types and tokens

Disclaimer - I don't understand this at all - can you tell? :o). Seeking clarification, please. Type_(metaphysics) says "Types are a category of being." Then, should "type" not also be in the list of "Physical thoughts, Minds, Classes, Properties, Relations...."? It also says "an instance of a type is called a token of that thing" - is the term 'token' specific to types or does it also refer to instances of other categories? --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.240.229.6 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 9 March 2004

Unified, there is no distinction. - [Media:http://mum.edu/multimedia/mmy_apr23_wmv.html] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.233.212.18 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 27 June 2004

[edit] Called for an expert

As a major topic in metaphysics, perhaps the biggest, it strikes me how poor this page is. It is clearly a mish-mash of different writers using inconsistent terminology (the poor quality is even reflected in the article's title: the article is called "category of being," even though the bolded word in the opening sentence is "categories of being." Before I added it, searching for "ontological scheme" did not even redirect here.

I think an expert should rewrite the whole thing, starting off by giving the goal (to create a minimal, exhaustive, and exclusive list of all the fundamental kinds (no universal negative categories, or disjunctive categories) of things that exist) - i.e. a category has to "earn" a place on the list by proving itself to be irreducible to other categories, or capable of being eliminated entirely. In the second part, s/he should then list the categories that have been argued to exist (be generous in this part, since reductive/eliminative arguments will come next). And in the third part, s/he should discuss arguments for/against certain categories e.g. Hume argued that space and time don't "deserve" a category on the list because they are only constructs of the human mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KSchutte (talk • contribs) 20:34, 31 January 2007

I generally agree with the unsigned comment above (by Nathanjones15). 1Z 21:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Any real expert in this subject would not admit to it. An "expert" would tell you "all I know is that i know not." Basically states that we are all ignorant. sorry just my two cents( please note this is not to be taken as anything more then a trivial point being made)--[[User:Designdroide|Design[[user_talk:Designdroide|droide]]]] 00:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Point of View

The link to point of view in the Categorical distinctions section is pointing to a disambiguation page that I'm currently working on. I have no idea where the proper location of this link should go. Could one of the article editors please take a look at Point of view and move the link accordingly? Or post here and let me know and I'll do it? - Thank you. - Zvar 17:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)