Talk:Quality (philosophy)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Metaphysics

comment[edit]

philosophers of wp! unite! help! what and where is the difference between the subjectively valued quality and the quality "as such"??? -- Kku 13:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I claim that this headline should link to Value_(ethics). The article here I think tries to describe 'property' or something alike. --Marttir (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name change in order?[edit]

Isn't 'value' a better name for this? I've always understood 'qualities' in philosophy to refer to properties - e.g. Locke's primary & secondary qualities. Thomas Ash 10:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I Qualify?[edit]

There, I was bold to add. However, I am not sure how the earlier version now embedded further below in the article should be treated, concerning references for example (see sticky notice).

Ostracon (talk) 00:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow = Secondary Quality?[edit]

Would Locke really consider a shadow to be a secondary quality? It's been a while, but I thought the distinction depended on mind dependence vs independence. So, mass is a primary quality, because it's mind independent, but color is a secondary quality because it's mind dependent (or so Locke argues). Locke would elaborate by saying that color is a psychological phenomenon and wouldn't exist without someone to perceive it, thus mind dependent, thus secondary.

Anyway, I suppose what it comes down to is just taking a look at some of his writings. I'll do some research before I change anything. --Beala (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose that a more clear statement is made in the article about emphasis in classical philosophy. I claimed earlier that Quality in the general philosophical sense is somewhat equal with term Value within Ethics context. --Marttir (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality as wealth?[edit]

The statement "Quality is wealth", although taken from a verifiable and reliable source, is taken out of its context and has little to do with quality as such (i.e. independent of context). Perhaps a link to Quality of life would be more appropriate, as an example.

Ostracon (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multicultural sign of quality?[edit]

The image and the description of the "[m]ulticultural sign of quality..." is a bit odd. Not sure what it adds to the discussion, and definitely needs a citation. I suggest removal. Stephen.G.McAteer (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is quality only for objects?[edit]

The definition states "an attribute or a property characteristic of an object". Yet, can't quality not relate to a process and organization as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.63.48.44 (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]