Properties and Characteristics

[Vik]

"What is knowledge? And what is study, what is observation? It's the discovery of properties in the nature of certain objects, existents, entities. All knowledge consists of learning more and more about the nature - the properties and characteristics - of given objects."

~Ayn Rand, ITOE, pg. 298

[dream_weaver]

"What is knowledge? And what is study, what is observation? It's the discovery of properties in the nature of certain objects, existents, entities. All knowledge consists of learning more and more about the nature - the properties and characteristics - of given objects."

~Ayn Rand, ITOE, pg. 298

The characteristics of a person or thing are the qualities or features that belong to them and make them recognizable.

The properties of a substance or object are the ways in which it behaves in particular conditions.

[Vik]

The characteristics of a person or thing are the qualities or features that belong to them and make them recognizable.

The properties of a substance or object are the ways in which it behaves in particular conditions.

'

Sometimes, the behavior of something is sufficient for you to recognize what kind of thing it is.

For example, the trajectory of a particle in an electric field of known value is sufficient to determine the particle's charge and mass. If those match certain numbers associated with electrons, they are classified as electrons.

Would you say that "characteristics" refers to attributes insofar as they are used to classify existents, while "properties" refers to attributes in the context of identity and causality?

[dream_weaver]

Sometimes, the behavior of something is sufficient for you to recognize what kind of thing it is.

For example, the trajectory of a particle in an electric field of known value is sufficient to determine the particle's charge and mass. If those match certain numbers associated with electrons, they are classified as electrons.

Would you say that "characteristics" refers to attributes insofar as they are used to classify existents, while "properties" refers to attributes in the context of identity and causality?

Since I only looked up the definition, the initial thought is that the 'characteristic' falls more in line with the Common Conceptual Denominator while the 'property' appears to align more readily with the Law of Causality.

[Grames]

"What is knowledge? And what is study, what is observation? It's the discovery of properties in the nature of certain objects, existents, entities. All knowledge consists of learning more and more about the nature - the properties and characteristics - of given objects."

~Ayn Rand, ITOE, pg. 298

Knowledge includes both relational and intrinsic aspects of identity.

[Vik]

Knowledge includes both relational and intrinsic aspects of identity.

What is the basis for your distinction?

[Vik]

Since I only looked up the definition, the initial thought is that the 'characteristic' falls more in line with the Common Conceptual Denominator while the 'property' appears to align more readily with the Law of Causality.

Distinguishing characteristics represent a specified category of measurements within the CCD involved, but I am not sure what to make of characteristics in general.

The Law of Causality means that:

1) action must be attributed to constitutive properties and

2) what something with certain properties will do are potentials for action, not properties in their own right

But I am still fuzzy on what constitutive properties ARE.

[JayR]

Which is the wider concept here? Can it be said that a things characteristics follow from its properties? "Property" seems to be a metaphysical attribute, what a thing is made of, its structure, its intrinsic attributes. "Characteristic" seems to denote a things qualities that we use to differentiate it from other things, an epistemic tool. (not to say that characteristics arent metaphysical, they certainly are)

j..

[Vik]

Which is the wider concept here? Can it be said that a things characteristics follow from its properties? "Property" seems to be a metaphysical attribute, what a thing is made of, its structure, its intrinsic attributes. "Characteristic" seems to denote a things qualities that we use to differentiate it from other things, an epistemic tool. (not to say that characteristics arent metaphysical, they certainly are)

j..

I wouldn't call them "intrinsic". "Intrinsic" suggests a distinction between "dispositional properties" and "intrinsic properties". Such a distinction puts a wedge between constituent properties and potentialities for action. That denies the nature of causality.

I think what you're trying to say is that properties such as structure MAKE a thing what it is and ENABLE it to interact with other things, while characteristics IDENTIFY what a thing is and GUIDES conceptual processes.

But do properties subsume characteristics?

Or are characteristics and properties simply attributes viewed or used in different ways?

[Grames]

What is the basis for your distinction?

Characteristics refer to the dynamic and relational attributes of things. See characteristic curve for several usage examples. That leaves properties for the static nonrelational intrinsic attributes.

Properties cause characteristics, but don't subsume them. The distinction is between what something is and what something does.

[Vik]

Characteristics refer to the dynamic and relational attributes of things. See characteristic curve for several usage examples. That leaves properties for the static nonrelational intrinsic attributes.

Properties cause characteristics, but don't subsume them. The distinction is between what something is and what something does.

I am having difficulty reconciling this definition of characteristics with AR's writings.

Again, I am trying to figure out why Rand mentioned both properties and characteristics.

Consider this:

"As living beings of a certain kind, they possess innumerable characteristics in common: the same shape, the same range of size..." ~ITOE pg.17

How do these characteristics reflect what human beings DO?

[Grames]

How do these characteristics reflect what human beings DO?

They are the results of living and growing up human, and also a snapshot of the continuing process of living.

[Vik]

They are the results of living and growing up human, and also a snapshot of the continuing process of living.

So if an attribute is the result of another attribute, it's a characteristic?

Then what's left to classify as "properties"?

This is starting to sound like the "dispositional properties" discussion on pg. 282-288 all over again...

[Vik]

They are the results of living and growing up human, and also a snapshot of the continuing process of living.

Also:

Fundamental characteristics are supposed to explain the most others.

If characteristics are defined as being the result of properties, then fundamental characteristics must be the result of properties. Which means that some attributes constituting the identity of a thing aren't included in the concept about that thing.

The view of characteristics given to me must be incorrect.

[Grames]

If characteristics are defined as being the result of properties, then fundamental characteristics must be the result of properties. Which means that some attributes constituting the identity of a thing aren't included in the concept about that thing.

Non sequitor. A concept can have any number of contextually correct definitions and the yet the same set of referents are picked out by the concept. A concept is about its referents, not the definition used.

[JayR]

Also:

Fundamental characteristics are supposed to explain the most others.

If characteristics are defined as being the result of properties, then fundamental characteristics must be the result of properties. Which means that some attributes constituting the identity of a thing aren't included in the concept about that thing.

The view of characteristics given to me must be incorrect.

I dont follow your reasoning here. Some attributes are certainly not included in the definition, but they are most definitely a part of the concept, whether those attributes are known to us or not.

At the risk of confusing the issue, on p. 16 she states "Adverbs are concepts of the characteristics of motion (or action); they are formed by specifying a characteristic and omitting the mesurement of the motion and of the entities involved.."

j..

[A is A]

Properties can be measured quantitatively. Characterstics are evaluated qualitatively or descriptively.

Wavelength is a property of light; blue is a characteristic of light. Weight or mass is a property of solid entities; whether the entity is a horse or a turtle is a characteristic of the entity.

[Vik]

Non sequitor. A concept can have any number of contextually correct definitions and the yet the same set of referents are picked out by the concept. A concept is about its referents, not the definition used.

Do you or do you not hold that characteristics refer to the dynamic and relational attributes of things? If you do, then, logically, fundamental characteristics must be the result of properties. Which means that some attributes constituting the identity of a thing aren't included in the concept about that thing.

I do not believe that the concept of characteristics you have elucidated is compatible with Rand's writings.

I will be moving on.

[Vik]

I dont follow your reasoning here. Some attributes are certainly not included in the definition, but they are most definitely a part of the concept, whether those attributes are known to us or not.

Quite right. Definitions name the essential, distinguishing characteristics.

At the risk of confusing the issue, on p. 16 she states "Adverbs are concepts of the characteristics of motion (or action); they are formed by specifying a characteristic and omitting the mesurement of the motion and of the entities involved.."

Actually, that was another problem I had with Grames' concept of characteristics. It doesn't seem to fit any of the places where the term "characteristic" appears in chapter 1.

[Vik]

Properties can be measured quantitatively. Characteristics are evaluated qualitatively or descriptively.

Wavelength is a property of light; blue is a characteristic of light. Weight or mass is a property of solid entities; whether the entity is a horse or a turtle is a characteristic of the entity.

Molecular structure is a property (pg. 284) but it can't be measured. Consider BH3. It has a trigonal planar structure. You can measure the bond angle. But you can't measure structure as such.

The unit of the conceptual common denominator of color is wavelength. "Blue" designates a measurement-range. All attributes are grasped through measurement-omission. OTOH, "color" refers to all wavelengths visible to human beings and therefore it's a measurement range too--a quantitative subcategory of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Weight is a gravitational force exerted by the earth on an object possessing mass. Electrons have a specific mass which distinguishes them from other leptons. That mass quantity serves as a distinguishing characteristic. But mass could still be a property as well.

Hm...

[Vik]

Properties can be measured quantitatively. Characterstics are evaluated qualitatively or descriptively.

Wavelength is a property of light; blue is a characteristic of light. Weight or mass is a property of solid entities; whether the entity is a horse or a turtle is a characteristic of the entity.

Also, I don't see how the classification of an entity constitutes a characteristic of that entity.

What characterizes turtles as reptiles is the fact that they're scaled tetrapods that lay tough-shelled amniotic eggs.

But THAT they are reptiles is simply a way of saying they have the same properties as certain other organisms. I don't see how that qualifies as a separate characteristic on top of those properties.

[Grames]

Do you or do you not hold that characteristics refer to the dynamic and relational attributes of things? If you do, then, logically, fundamental characteristics must be the result of properties. Which means that some attributes constituting the identity of a thing aren't included in the concept about that thing.

Yes.

Okay.

Huh? Why? Is there something special about the fundamental characteristic that means it cannot also be the result of some other attribute?

Molecular structure is a property (pg. 284) but it can't be measured. Consider BH3. It has a trigonal planar structure. You can measure the bond angle. But you can't measure structure as such.

The unit of the conceptual common denominator of color is wavelength. "Blue" designates a measurement-range. All attributes are grasped through measurement-omission. OTOH, "color" refers to all wavelengths visible to human beings and therefore it's a measurement range too--a quantitative subcategory of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Weight is a gravitational force exerted by the earth on an object possessing mass. Electrons have a specific mass which distinguishes them from other leptons. That mass quantity serves as a distinguishing characteristic. But mass could still be a property as well.

Hm...

Measuring bond angles is measuring molecular structure, that is how you get it done. You measure the structure of a building by taking a series of single linear measurements of the exterior and interior walls, floors, ceilings windows and doors.

Mass (rest mass) is an intrinsic property that can never be known directly but only inferred from its effects on trajectories or other signs of the force resulting from gravity. Weight and inertia are characteristics.

[A is A]

Do you or do you not hold that characteristics refer to the dynamic and relational attributes of things? If you do, then, logically, fundamental characteristics must be the result of properties. Which means that some attributes constituting the identity of a thing aren't included in the concept about that thing.

Yes.

Okay.

Huh? Why? Is there something special about the fundamental characteristic that means it cannot also be the result of some other attribute?

Measuring bond angles is measuring molecular structure, that is how you get it done. You measure the structure of a building by taking a series of single linear measurements of the exterior and interior walls, floors, ceilings windows and doors.

Mass (rest mass) is an intrinsic property that can never be known directly but only inferred from its effects on trajectories or other signs of the force resulting from gravity. Weight and inertia are characteristics.

If it ever becomes possible to count atoms, all one would have to do is count an Avogadro's number of atoms and one would have that element's mass independent of gravity or forces.

Edited June 19, 2010 by A is A

[TuringAI]

If it ever becomes possible to count atoms, all one would have to do is count an Avogadro's number of atoms and one would have that element's mass independent of gravity or forces.

Which atoms? What if different atoms have different masses? (Hint: They do.)

[Grames]

If it ever becomes possible to count atoms, all one would have to do is count an Avogadro's number of atoms and one would have that element's mass independent of gravity or forces.

The prior existence of the mass unit 'gram' and the very concept of mass is presupposed by the Avogadro constant. To use the correlation between the Avogadro number of atoms and the resulting mass in this way to deny the necessity of dealing with forces is a perfect example of a stolen concept.