Talk:Substance theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. | ||||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
Property and quality
Quality is the substance that makes an object/entity what it is. A quality is inherent, a property is relative. A quality is typical of the whole, a property is typical of a part.
Property is relative. Quality is absolute. An object can survive without some properties, but not without its quality.
A property is comon in all members of a class. Properties are of two kinds. Group 1 property shows the limits (contains constraints). If they disappear, the object itself disappears.
They are substantial (not substance) properties. The constraints here are not the same as the specifics of an object, though.
Group 2 properties are simple properties. They do not delimit objects. It is the quality that makes a difference among objects.
The number of qualities of an object is endless.
A particular quality may be the property of different objects, and vice versa.
A quality itself is a propetry, it is relative as any other property, i.e. it does not depend on the object that it is a quality of, but on other objects associated with that object.
Or: what is a quality for one object is a property only for another. (Example: an ability to do something – with an amateur and a professional).
A quality is not complete specifics. Therefore we have a separate sense for it (quality). If two substantial properties make up a quality, then combined, they are again a substantial property. The complete set of qualities is what you call the specifics.
Apogr 20:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What is meant by concrete objects being "numerically different" (or equal), if they are not numbers? (Indeed, a number is abstract, not concrete.) See "The bundle theory" section and later. Does it means something like its "state" (like a card or computer word whose physical state may be interpretted as the reification of some (abstract) value, e.g. a number, and, in any case, can be compared with that of another object that is of the same type)? But then, would not the symbols on the card or bits in the word be mere properties of the object? John Newbury 2005-07-30
Contents |
[edit] Substance theory in praxis
There are very few names given in the article - who are the current (20thC+) proponents of substance theory - and do their ideas converge? Who are the current opponents to substance theory, and are all of them proponents of bundle theory? To me the article appears to dichotomise all thinkers into bundlists and substantists - is that fair or correct? (excuse the neologisms) (20040302 00:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC))
[edit] Help with accidents
Could someone who understands this stuff take a look at Accident (philosophy)? Is the term accident used in substance theory, and is it used differently than in modern theories about essence? I'm coming at this issue from transubstantiation. The explanation of accidents on Wikipedia doesn't seem to exactly correspond to the usage of this term in the transubstantiation doctrine. This causes unnecessary confusion.--Srleffler 01:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Substance, "what stands under" - Spinoza & Heidegger
Someone wrote that for Spinoza, substance meant "what stands under". Actually, Heidegger showed that the concept of "subject" came from the Greek "hupokeimon" (spelled by memory), which meant "what stands under". Henceforth, Heidegger demonstrated that any criticism of the substance, as in Nietzsche's philosophy, was necesarily a criticism of the subject (i.e. something like a historical subject can't exist, it is an oxymoron). In other words: the subject was thought by classic philosophy as the core of a "personality", i.e. the substance of personality. Any criticism of permanency is therefore a criticism on the unity of the subject. Henceforth, it may be a good idea to generalize Spinoza's understanding of substance, as it is the real signification of substance - backing it with Heidegger's etymology (this last being important, as Heidegger also loved obscure etymologies...). Lapaz 03:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
It sounds like you have good information to add to this article, Lapaz. Please be bold and improve the article's explanation of Spinoza's understanding and add Heidegger's etymology and criticism. (And, if possible, cite Heidegger and Spinoza.) The Rod 17:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What does 'ens perfectissimus' mean?
- QUOTE: "For Heidegger, Descartes means by "substance" that by which "we can understand nothing else than an entity which is in such a way that it need no other entity in order to be." Therefore, only God is a substance as ens perfectissimus..."
I was just wondering, what does 'ens perfectissimus' mean? DonkeyKong the mathematician (in training) 15:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Incomprehensible Continental
I can't make any sense of the following.
For this reason, Althusser's "anti-humanism" and Foucault's statements were criticized, by Jürgen Habermas and others, for misunderstanding that this led to a fatalist conception of social determinism. For Habermas, only a subjective form of liberty could be conceived, to the contrary of Deleuze who talks about "a life", as an impersonal and immanent form of liberty.
What has the existence or otherwise of "stuff" got to do with "social determinism"? 1Z 19:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Missing argument
The article needs a section on the Argument from Change and Endurance.1Z 19:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
MOOSE
[edit] Defining Quality
Everyone has a (different)definition for Quality.
If American cars have so much Quality built into them as the big 3 advertise , than why do they lose so much money. Quality is in the eyes of the customer, perception is everything. Even though these cars are made to high standards and are made with ' quality components ' they are not perceived as a Quality product as compared to other cars , which are made , basically, to the same standards.
I work in a sector where our products are perceived to be better than our American competitors products and maybe the best in the world.
Even though in some ways our products are indeed inferior to some competitors models and more expensive , but made to the same DOT-Dept of Transportation- standards.
Customers are the highest boss and will always be , if they are taken care of - Quality-wise.
6 sigma head —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.38.225.2 (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] 8 1/2 by 11
not to be picky, but 8 1/2 by 11. nora 15:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)icountyoureyelashes
