Replies

PH: You wrote:

"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.

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.

Physically, only entities exist. Qualities, realitionships, and events are only qualities of entities, relationships between entities, and the action of entities.

Qualities (which in its broadest sense includes characteristics and attributes) do not have independent existence, and only exist as qualities of entities.

(So-called qualities of qualities are always conceptual abstractions and only exist epistemologically, not ontologically.)

Percepts have real, but not physical existence. The qualities of percepts exist only as qualities of percepts and have no independent ontological existence.

Concepts and conceptual qualities have no ontological existence at all. They only exist epistemologically.

Hank

Thank you so much for the heads up to this fascinating discussion! I agree with this summary of the issue:

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.

My mental image of the construct is plaid.