User:Sanderyu/sandbox

Article Evaluation

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * 1) Everything in the article is relevant, but certain areas are not as detailed as they could be.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * 1) Extremely natural article. The article appears as a well cited summarization of a translated Categories work.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * 1) As a majority, the work is correctly represented and each section is given adequate attention.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * 1) Yes
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * 1) There is little to no notable bias. As standard, the Wikipedia page summarizes using proper citations the translated texts of Aristotle.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * 1) No information is outdated because little has been formally written regarding Categories since the start of this decade. However, information to more succinctly describe Aristotle's meaning of 'IN' and 'OF' is necessary.
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * 1) The main discussion for the article regards the entry-level overview of the subject, but that certain areas need greater characterization. In addition, a major aspect of the paper is finding properly cited sources to define the meaning of a "category".
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * 1) The articles is rated "Start-Class" and is given "High-Importance". The Article is part of the WikiProject for Philosophy.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Potential Topics

 * Categorical proposition

Whilst there is a dedicated page for categories, it feels all together too short. Many of the areas regarded on Wikipedia need more citation. However, attributing acceptable sources will be difficult as not much has been written in the past five years.
 * Categories

Useful sources:
 * 1) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-categories/
 * 2) https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cats320.htm
 * 3) http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~davpy35701/text/aris-cats-subs.pdf
 * 4) people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/341/Introduction%20to%20Categories.doc

The Antepraedicamenta (Present "In" and Said "Of")
Aristotle discusses semantical relations to develop four types of a subject using the foundational relationship between being said "of" a subject and being present "in" [present "in" does not define present as pieces to a whole, but rather existence contingent upon a subject] a subject.

The four characterizations of a subject are understood whether a subject is said "of" (Universals), is not said "of" (Particulars), is present "in" (Accidental), is not present "in" (non-accidental). In combination, a non-accidental, universals subject is referred to as Essential; where as a non-accidental, particulars subject is simply non-accidental.

The four characterizations create four classification permutations:

1. Accidental Universals - said "of" and present "in" - For example, while knowledge is present "in" the human mind, one can have the knowledge (said "of") of grammar.

2. Essential Universals - said "of" and not present "in" - refers to a general subject, but cannot be present "in" a unit of the subject; like man, horse, animal.

3. Accidental Particulars - Not said "of" and present "in" - for example, a certain point of grammatical knowledge is present "in" a subject, but it cannot designate a subject.

4. Non-Accidental Particulars - Not said "of" and not present "in" (defines Primary Substances - covered under Substances) - Aristotle views that which is individual and has the character of a unit is neither said "of" or present "in" of a subject.

Category 7. Relative
Relative (πρός τι, pros ti, things toward something ) is defined by Aristotle on separate occasions in Category 7. At first, Aristotle defines relative such that to be relative is the characteristic of being something - what is something is in relation to another. Then Aristotle redefines relative in that being is the same as being somehow related to something. Not explicitly, Aristotle then produced two sets of words to exemplify relative: the first set containing the words greater and double, and the second set: knowledge, master, condition, and state. Both Aristotle’s lack of a definitive definition and vague examples have created a contentious interpretation between speculative theories of relative. Classically, the first set of words - comprised of relational attributes - is a linguistic criterion, the second set an ontological one.