BB, you have aroused my curiousity. Regarding rocks and trees, what light would you suggest is missing from the previous post? (As to how rocks and trees came about, that's the domain of geology and biology, which I assume you agree is a very different issue.)
I'm glad you asked the question. I was beginning to think I had a hole in my head, and was missing something. I really wanted to satisfy bb's question, but do not know what it is. As for what qualities, etc. are and how they came about, since there are infinite qualities and an equal variety of ways they came about, the question is certainly beyond my capacity to answer.
I will add one thing to what I said before. I include all existents under the principle that the nature of anything is whatever its qualities, charactersitics, and attributes are, and this includes not only physical enitites, but concepts as well.
Obviously the attributes of concepts will not be the same as the attributes of physical entities.
Let me give you one more example of what I mean. The philsophical definition of man is "rational animal." That definition means, men have all the qualities that pertain to the "butes" (non-rational animals) plus the attribute of rationality. Animals are defined as sentient organisms, so all animals, including man are sentient (today, we wold say conscious). Organisms are defined as living entities, therefore all organisms including all animals, including man, are living. The full definition of man, (with "all the notes" as classical logic would put it,) is, rational, sentient, living, entity.
This does not mean or imply that these are all of a man's attributes, only that an entity that does not have at least these and all of these, is not a man, because it would not have the nature of a man. These qualities serve to differentiate man from all other existents by virtue of man's essential differentiating qualities, which is man's essential nature and the way that nature differs from the nature of all other things.
Hank
"Regarding rocks and trees, what light would you suggest is missing from the previous post? (As to how rocks and trees came about, that's the domain of geology and biology, which I assume you agree is a very different issue.)"
I gather you wrote this in resonance to Hank's take, as follows:
Rocks have a certain nature. What is that nature? They are hard usually randomly shaped inanimate objects comprised of minerals, found in all parts of the world. How did we desribe the "nature" of rocks. By listing a rock's qualities and attributes.
Trees have a certain nature. What is that nature? They are living organism of the plant family, growing higher than most other plants, usually with one central supporting "trunk" with roots at one end to gather nourishment from the earth and leaves or needles at the other end to carry out photosynthesis. How do we describe the "nature" of trees? By listing a tree's qualities and attributes.
But then all I can really say to this is: You want to talk about rocks and trees; and then of attributes, qualities, and characteristics; as if all these things denoted equal objective entities existing in the same ontological and epistemological space/time frame. And yet the first two and the second three denote entirely different orders or categories of existents in reality. And so, it seems to me, they may not rationally be equated for the sake of prosecuting an argument.