Talk:Property (philosophy)

Active discussions
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The sentence fragment " and from the philosophical concept of class in that a property is considered to be distinct from the objects which possess it." should be deleted from the page, since it is illogical. It implies that a class is considered non-distinct from the object which "posses" it. But of course a class is distinct from the objects is contains, and the notion possession cannot be applied naturally to the notion class. Furthermore the article on class (philosophy) is so vague that the link to it doesn't add much to the article. Logologics 21:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

This quotation: "Properties are therefore subject to the Russell's paradox/Grelling-Nelson paradox" needs support. I assume the original author was thinking that the property "being property that does not have itself" would lead to a contradiction. But it's open to the believer in properties simply to deny that there is such a property. There may be such a predicate, but it's not obvious that for every predicate, there's a property. In fact, this was Frege's view, but when confronted with Russell's paradox, Frege denied that there is a property for every predicate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

What properties are exhibited by everyone and everthing?Edit

Is there any thinking individual to answer the question- what properties are exhibited by everyone and everything? Divisibility, comparability, connectivity, disturbability, reorderability, substituability, and satisfiability are the properties exhibited by everyone and everything. Of course, wikipedia itself is against answerthing this question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Nodwick, 25 May 2011Edit

first link to "Modern Philosophy" links to wrong page.

Nodwick (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 25 May 2011Edit

remove the trollface link in "modern philosophy" at start of page (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 25 May 2011Edit

The very first link on this page has been changed to "trollface" which links to Internet Meme. Obvious troll. (talk) 10:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


Note that this page might be subject to frivolous edits as a result of this comic. The comic's mouseover text states:

Wikipedia trivia: if you take any article, click on the first link in the article text not in parentheses or italics, and then repeat, you will eventually end up at "Philosophy".

This is actually a somewhat accurate claim, since by following such links you typically end up at more and more general topics, and Philosophy is one of the most general topics around. However, this particular article participates in a cycle that goes:

Property (philosophy)MathematicsQuantity (and then repeats.)

Since "Modern Philosophy" is already one of the first links in this article, it might draw unwanted attention (and apparently already has) since it would be a simple edit to change the order of the list in the lede.

XKCD is known for provoking such silly edits on Wikipedia, but since this one might be a bit obscure (since it doesn't refer to this page directly) I thought I'd share.

--Oski Jr (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This little gem has been floating around the internet for a while before xkcd mentioned it today - note that it was protected on Monday! I am guessing it first got moderately widespread attention on 14 April, as that's when edits switching the initial links back and forth began. The version immediately preceding that had "modern philosophy" as the first link. Examining the history, this is the stable version back to November 2010, when it was changed from "philosophy"; that had been the first link since links were added to the lead sentence in May 2005. Playing around with the links may well be xkcd-inspired silliness, but the modern philosophy link wasn't put in here for that purpose and I think we may be overreacting to take it out. Shimgray | talk | 17:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
As an interesting philosophical aside (sorry) I wonder if there isn't some argument in favor of actually arranging the links to conform to the "rule" that all first links eventually lead to Philosophy. If you think about the reasons that the "rule" (mostly) works in the first place, it has a sort of interesting logic to it. There's also a pragmatic benefit, in that one might argue that clicking on first links shouldn't take you in loops (other than some universal, ultimate loop or self-linking page I suppose.) I'm only half joking, here.. it would be an interesting exercise to map out all of the paths, to see how many such cycles occur and what general topic they're attracted by. --Oski Jr (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Having thought about this for a bit, the protected version led off with modern philosophy. Per the notes above, the long-term stable version was modern philosophy or philosophy; it doesn't seem to have been any other way for a prolonged period. It's certainly true that switching the order around for the sake of it is silly, but so is changing the content of the article solely for the purpose of breaking a harmless and amusing game... Shimgray | talk | 18:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Since the protected page started with philosophy, shouldn't it be reverted to that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
That's certainly how I'm leaning; I'm just trying to work out if there's any good reasons not to :-) Shimgray | talk | 18:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes Shim, I have to agree with you. This nonsense is getting too out of hand...I really wish only people with the proper rights could touch an article like this as it's a little annoying and misleading. Swifty705 (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Done, pending the appearance of a reason why not... Shimgray | talk | 19:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
It makes sense more than not, after all isn't this article about Property in Philosophy? It would only make sense to have Philosophy come first, instead of mathematics. Swifty705 (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I've tried the XKCD thing for several articles and getting to the philosophy entry often depends on this entry. - Atfyfe (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Opinion: I think we should leave the current order (logic, modern philsophy, mathematics), if only to discourage edits made to Wikipedia for the sake of a so-called game. Especially given how many people appear to edit this article (and related articles) with enthusiasm for making the philosophy "game" work.Divergentgrad (talk) 01:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

And for now, toward that end, I will henceforth undo any change that is clearly made for the sake of said "game."Divergentgrad (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
But what's so bad about that said "game"? It's a great way to waste time in class! Follow the first links until you get to Philosophy. Anyways, I think that the first link should be philosophy because philosophy is in the NAME of the article, and "logic" isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stinkopus (talkcontribs) 14:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't buy it. By using the existence of the game (your word) to justify logic-first (which was, as has been pointed out, not the original state of the article), you are yourself influenced by the game. I see several rational arguments to put philosophy before logic, and none for the reverse. If there is merit for putting logic first, please put it forth here. Otherwise you simply come across as a power-grabbing unilateralist. Larry Doolittle (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
It might be preferable to let the first line be "A property...", or to disambiguate. I say so because this article obviously talks about the definition of "property" in multiple contexts, not all of them meeting. In fact, the article is kind of a hodge-podge of brief ideas.Divergentgrad (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Any update on this? Currently, the game doesn't work because someone put math first. I don't see much reason to put math first, as it is quite clearly a philosophy topic (which is also shown in the name, as someone mentioned above). As such, it seems primarily to be related to philosophy. Whether it should modern philosophy or philosophy, does not matter much to me, but I suppose one could look a look at the history of thought about properties. If people first began seriously thinking about properties in modern times, then modern philosophy seems apt. Ofc, properties are rather important in logic (predicate logic) and math too. Philosophy is the most general field of study, and articles should 'reflect' this. --Deleet (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I propose putting 'logic' first, using alphabetical ordering. -- (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary hatnoteEdit

{{editprotected}} Please remove the "For other uses" hatnote per WP:NAMB. This article is at a parenthetically disambiguated title so this hatnote is unnecessary. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. no longer protected. You can do the edit your self now.--Breawycker (talk to me!) 23:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


The section on Relations starts with a link to the Relations disambiguation page, which in turn links to relation (philosophy), which leads back to this section. Seeing as Relation (philosophy) has no actual page, I suggest removing the link to the disambiguation page for "more information", since there is none to be had.Apkchu (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Not sure why you didn't do it yrself, since it takes less time than explaining it. 1Z (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 8 August 2011Edit

In the first line please change "modern philosophy, logic, and mathematics" to "logic, mathematics, and modern philosophy" because this alphabetical ordering suggests no bias to the importance of these related topics to the article's topic. The sentence also seems to flow better with them in this order. (talk) 07:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

  Not done for now: There's a thread above discussing the best word order, so any change ought to be made by consensus. And yes, I'm aware that the change you're proposing might have some curious consequences... Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 12:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 4 November 2011Edit

The old trick of some 95% of Wikipedia pages leading to philosophy gets stuck in a loop with mathematics from this page now! Suggestion: Switch the links for "Logic" and "Modern Philosophy" so that Modern Philosophy is the first link in the article. Then it will work again! Just for fun :)

KC2YSR (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  Not done, not going to make a change just for a game--Jac16888 Talk 19:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 4 November 2011Edit

I think Modern philosophy should go before Logic in the first paragraph because it is more relevant to the topic. Ermis Willard (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  Not done, See the various sections above, including the XKCD section--Jac16888 Talk 22:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 December 2011Edit

switch the links for "mathematics" and "modern philosophy" at the beginning of the article, to eliminate the endless loop of 1st links and direct the flow towards the end result of Philosophy. Mostly to prove the point that all knowledge stems from philosophy.....just saying...

Jth2d (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

  Not done: See many previous edit requests for the same thing. — Bility (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on, May 8 2014Edit

a property is not solely a part of philosophy. as such the article should be labled as Property (ambiguous), as there is more than one use of the word Stop renaming it incorrectly as Property (philosophy) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuraimizu (talkcontribs) 16:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

a property is not solely a part of philosophy. as such the article should be labelled as Property (ambiguous), as there is more than one use of the word in the article or the article needs to be split into separate articles Property (ambiguous), Property (philosophy) Property (Scientific, Mathematical) labelling all definitions under philosophy is incorrect and confusing to those using wikipedia Shikamakiba Kuraimizu (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It clearly states that it is Philosophy, that is the purpose of the bracket. Other articles and a disambiguation page would be a more sensible route.----Snowded TALK 17:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
then either remove the mathematics section from the article or split the article so there is two. Math does not fall under philosophy.

Shikamakiba Kuraimizu (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Order of "logic, mathematics, and philosophy"Edit

People keeps change the order of this three words in the firsst sentence in order to achieve "By clicking the first link of any page on Wikipedia articles in repetition, you will always ultimately end up on the page for Philosophy." See this website and this discussion on Reddit.

While this phenomenon is interesting, I don't think it should affect the way we write Wikipedia. So I changed it back to its original order.--fireattack (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I think it would make more sense to list philosophy first. It had been that way for several years until an IP changed the order in 2011. Sro23 (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I protestEdit

Property dualism is a hoax overleaf. The real thing does not have those properties. The mind of the observer may possess them. Also on Relations You cannot compare two objects, but their properties. In fact, a property they both have to some degree. So the external relation term is bla-bla.

Split into property (philosophy) and property (mathematics)Edit

They are different concepts that belongs to two different topics. The Italian Wikipedia already has an article about it:proprietà (matematica). Articles in other languages are simply translated from the English one.--Malore (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Return to "Property (philosophy)" page.