Talk:Theory of categories

Types and tokens
Disclaimer - I don't understand this at all - can you tell? :o). Seeking clarification, please. Type_(metaphysics) says "Types are a category of being." Then, should "type" not also be in the list of "Physical thoughts, Minds, Classes, Properties, Relations...."? It also says "an instance of a type is called a token of that thing" - is the term 'token' specific to types or does it also refer to instances of other categories? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.240.229.6 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 9 March 2004


 * Unified, there is no distinction. - [Media:http://mum.edu/multimedia/mmy_apr23_wmv.html] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.233.212.18 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 27 June 2004

Called for an expert
As a major topic in metaphysics, perhaps the biggest, it strikes me how poor this page is. It is clearly a mish-mash of different writers using inconsistent terminology (the poor quality is even reflected in the article's title: the article is called "category of being," even though the bolded word in the opening sentence is "categories of being." Before I added it, searching for "ontological scheme" did not even redirect here.

I think an expert should rewrite the whole thing, starting off by giving the goal (to create a minimal, exhaustive, and exclusive list of all the fundamental kinds (no universal negative categories, or disjunctive categories) of things that exist) - i.e. a category has to "earn" a place on the list by proving itself to be irreducible to other categories, or capable of being eliminated entirely. In the second part, s/he should then list the categories that have been argued to exist (be generous in this part, since reductive/eliminative arguments will come next). And in the third part, s/he should discuss arguments for/against certain categories e.g. Hume argued that space and time don't "deserve" a category on the list because they are only constructs of the human mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KSchutte (talk • contribs) 20:34, 31 January 2007


 * I generally agree with the unsigned comment above (by Nathanjones15). 1Z 21:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Any real expert in this subject would not admit to it. An "expert" would tell you "all I know is that i know not." Basically states that we are all ignorant. sorry just my two cents( please note this is not to be taken as anything more then a trivial point being made)--&#91;&#91;User:Designdroide&#124;Design&#91;&#91;user_talk:Designdroide&#124;droide]]]] 00:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Point of View
The link to point of view in the Categorical distinctions section is pointing to a disambiguation page that I'm currently working on. I have no idea where the proper location of this link should go. Could one of the article editors please take a look at Point of view and move the link accordingly? Or post here and let me know and I'll do it? - Thank you. - Zvar 17:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ousia
There is a take on ousia which regards every individual thing as infinite. I believe it is so in The Symposium, certainly in Blake, and elsewhere. If it is taken as such the 'bundle theory' and phylogenic and culturo-symbolic adaptations in man create a very interesting system. Wblakesx (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

biased uneducated opinion | Assisted by Citation bot r579,
Fink, Eugen, Ute Saine, and Thomas Saine. "The oasis of happiness: Toward an ontology of play." Yale French Studies (1968): 19-30. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idrisdaneel (talk • contribs) 09:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Category of being. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131102084057/http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2412/2412-h/2412-h.htm to http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2412/2412-h/2412-h.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Removing the "Multiple Issues" tag if I hear no objections
I'm glad to wait a few days, but I think the multiple issues tag should be removed from this article. Most sections have citations attached to practically every line and the sources cited are standard and non-problematic. ThomasMikael (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It would be helpful to re-add corresponding tags to the problematic sections or passages, if there are still any. Phlsph7 (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion to retitle (or "WP:MOVE") this page
The proper name for the territory that this page would be better be titled "Theory of Categories." Discussion of the categories of being is generally referred to by this phrase in the literature of philosophy and metaphysics. The lineage or imprimatur on using "Theory of Categories" vs. "Category of being" runs from Duns Scotus (who technically referred to the discussion as "The Doctrine of Being" to the latter-day 20th century philosophers from Ernst Bloch, Franz Rosenzweig, Walter Benjamin and even Gershom Scholem to (much more famously or infamously) Heidegger and other continental philosophers of his persuasion. Outside of the elder sources leading up to the competing modern spheres of discussion I've just mentioned, the question is not much discussed (though it is an important issue within that particular sphere of discourse). It is true that Aristotle did not designate that his work on Categories was a theory or doctrine--but he didn't organize recurrent themes in his work under headings like that elsewhere either. Rather this has been a convention for perhaps twelve hundred to two thousand years as a way to refer, for example, to recurrent themes in the work of authors from antiquity. So far as I can recall, "categories of being" used as an effective subject heading (rather than a descriptive phrase) is a form of nomination for this territory that I've only encountered on this particular Wikipedia page and though it's not a terrible descriptor (re: the Theory of Categories is concerned with ontology or questions of being and existence) I think it is not the recognized term. I move to rename the page, redirect categories of being and mention somewhere in the introductory. If I don't hear any objections in the next day or two and I'm going to go ahead and pull the trigger on this.
 * The technical term "categories of being" is often used, for example here, here, or here. But the term "Theory of Categories" is also often used. Personally, I find "categories of being" better since it is one level less abstract. But in the end, the more important point would be which term is more commonly used in the academic literature. Phlsph7 (talk) 04:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So, thank you, for your attention on this issue User:Phlsph7 : ) My preference for "Theory of Categories" is particularly cued by scholars who worked alongside of--at least coterminously with--but also had polemical (fruitful) arguments with Heidegger: Ernst Bloch, Gershom Scholem & Martin Buber (<<these two watch mostly from the sidelines but report the dispute as a dispute over Theory of Categories), and most especially Walter Benjamin. Hannah Arendt would be an adjudicator of this dispute who is quite as sympathetic to Martin Heidegger as she is to Walter Benjamin. I have no idea whether or not I could find support from the Heidegger school: Beauvoir, Foucault etc. Most likely the issue is addressed in Foucault but I'd rather not throw myself into a search for support from him at present : ) The issue came most directly to my attention through Wolfram Eilenberger's Time of the Magicians, but he only gestures at it and may not even use the term "Theory of Categories" in his gesture. As to my motivation here: I was disappointed to find that my Google Search for "Theory of Categories"--a central and non-trivial issue--dead ends right now in a mathematical theory which may be of interest...to mathematicians with whom I have no argument, and usually even less comprehension : ) Below the top search results (which lead, ultimately, here but not from the SERP) the issue dissolves even further into vagaries and an oblivion of forgetting on this argument which was important to many (who were among the few) of the greatest scholars from that period. Your sources are more standardized, but with gratitude for the conversation: this only raises my suspicion against them since they are, therefore, are secondary rather than primary.


 * I will concede, upon reflection, that my preference here *is* a preference for the polemical or in other words for active discussion rather than supine semi-invisibility. You say "Categories of Being" is less abstract: Fair. It also does not invite discussion or further refinement. It assumes authority rather than leaving the question open.


 * I will provide citations upon request--this will be laborious since they are in the midst of the most dense and difficult discussions which are for the most part, not indexed and I despise CTRL + F-ing through archive.org on questions like this since it is so often disappointing given the imperfect legibility of texts to OCR. This would be a project that I would be happy to undertake but the addition or mention of these citations will have nowhere to go (I don't mean them to disarrange but maybe they could have a little section) unless the page is called "Theory of Categories." So--expressing gratitude once more for your time and consideration, Phlsph7--what say you?ThomasMikael (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed explanation. From what I can tell, there are two advantages of the current title: (1) it is less abstract and (2) there is less danger of mistaking it for category theory in mathematics, which is also sometimes termed "theory of categories". But I don't think that these arguments by themselves are decisive and you have already mentioned many scholars who would favor the title "theory of categories". Since I'm at best weakly opposed, it's probably not worth the time to get into a detailed discussion on this issue. I suggest that you wait for a few more days to see if someone else has anything to say on this issue and, if not, you may go ahead with the move. Phlsph7 (talk) 04:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thank you, Phlsph7 ThomasMikael (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There has been more than enough time to respond, so feel free to go ahead with your proposal. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)