Talk:Quality (philosophy)

comment
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)


 * 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)

Name change in order?
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)

Did I Qualify?
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)

Shadow = Secondary Quality?
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)


 * 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)

Quality as wealth?
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)

Multicultural sign of quality?
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)

Is quality only for objects?
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)