@wayne,
wayne wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
wayne wrote:
If that is so, I think I see the difference as far as properties go.
Hardness would be an interactive property , the property of molecular form would be non-interactive.
I can't, however, think of an example of primary and secondary quality.
Also, I can't help but think , it would work better the other way.
That there are interactive and non-interactive qualities
That there are primary and secondary properties
They did not distinguish between qualities and properties at all. And your distinction between property and quality was made by them in terms of the primary, secondary, quality distinction. So what you call "a property" , they called a "primary quality", and what you call a quality, they called "a secondary quality". It is only a notational difference between you and them.
Ok, that's the clarification I needed.
I'd like to stick with quality and property for now, to avoid confusion.
My next question; By what criteria do we designate a feature* as a quality or a property? *( for this purpose allow feature to denote the category containing quality and property)
For example; We could designate qualities as those features displaying Quale.
Designate properties as those features not displaying Quale.
Under this criteria, color, flavor, scent, would be categorized as qualities.
Pigmentation, odor, texture, would be categorized as properties.
Under this criteria, we could reasonably categorize usefulness as a property.
Thus usefulness is, in fact, objective. The problem then becomes apparent as one of latency. Usefulness may be a latent property of an object, which should not be confused with usefulness being subjective.
My next question; By what criteria do we designate a feature* as a quality or a property? *( for this purpose allow feature to denote the category containing quality and property)
That is a hard, complex question. Would the object have this feature "anyway". That is, even if there were no observers? But what does that mean? If to say of something that it is red is to say that if a normal observer observed the object under normal conditions, it would appear red to that observer, then even if there are no observers present, on that criterion, an apple would be red, for that criterion does not require that there actually be any observers. But if the criterion of having a quality is whether it would have that quality "anyway" then of course, if it is a necessary condition of having a quality that the object actually be observed to that quality, then it follows that nothing can have a quality "anyway". But then, would that imply that an apple cannot be red it the apple is in pitch darkness? I would reject that, since I don't believe that things lose their color simply because they are in the dark. Do you? The philosopher, Berkeley thought the distinction between qualities and properties (to use your language) was bogus, because he believed that any reason one had for saying that something was a quality could be had for saying that something was a property. But Berkeley concluded from that that every feature was actually a quality, and that there were no properties.
I am not sure what a quale is. But to identify qualities with qualia would appear to imply that qualities were mental, and "in the mind". But I would hold that when we say of an apple it is red, we are describing the apple, and not our minds.
In the widest sense, whatever is true of something is a feature of that thing. So usefulness is a feature of a sharp knife. It is not clear what it means to say of a feature that it is subjective. That word has so many problems of its own. Of course, it is true that something cannot be useful unless it is found useful by people. So, if the feature of usefulness is somehow essentially related to there being people, then usefulness is subjective. On the other hand, subjective often means something like, it is up to individuals whether something has the feature or not, and that is certainly not true when we say that sharp knives are more useful than dull knives for cutting steak. That is, it is better to use a sharp than a dull knife if you want to cut steak. It is not up to some particular individual whether that is true or not. It is clear that a using a sharp knife is better than using a dull knife to cut steak. That judgment is not subjective.