Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

attribute vs quality

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I've picked up on these two words being used together in multiple texts. Right now in ITOE the relevant passage (where "concept" is defined) is:

...A concept is a mental integration of ....

"The units involved may be any aspect of reality: entities, attributes, actions, qualities and relationships"

 

Before this I didn't know the difference between attribute and quality. In the dictionary, one of of the definitions of quality, is a distinguishing characteristic So then I assume in the context of this, and other Objectivist texts which mention both attribute and quality, that the word "attribute" subsumes "qualities". Is there any particular reason why these two words need to be used at the same time? Isn't it enough to just mention attributes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think she uses the word attribute to mean the characteristics or aspects of an entity. She broke down the categories of the entity's attributes for purpose of distinction: quality (color, hardness, etc.), quantities (inches, etc.), actions, and relationships (to other entities). All are attributes or qualities (in the broader sense) of the entity.

 

Using the words the way that she did (for distinction purposes), the logic is as follows:

 

all qualities are attributes, but not all attributes are qualities (i.e. quantities, actions, relationships).

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 All are attributes or qualities (in the broader sense) of the entity.

 

This confused me a little. What is a quality in the broader sense?

 

So then all attributes are qualities if the categories of the entity's attributes are all qualities (in the broader sense).

 

I'm not sure if I'm being overly picky - I'm trying to make sure I'm not overlooking an important distinction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This confused me a little. What is a quality in the broader sense?

 

So then all attributes are qualities if the categories of the entity's attributes are all qualities (in the broader sense).

 

I'm not sure if I'm being overly picky - I'm trying to make sure I'm not overlooking an important distinction.

 

Quality could be used in a broader sense. i.e. can be used to mean a characteristic or attribute.

 

The way Ayn Rand used it was to show the distinction from the other categories of an entity.

 

So, an entity has four categories, which are its attributes (i.e. aspects, or characteristics) : 1) Qualities (blue or soft), 2) Quantities (5 inches wide, etc), 3) Actions, 4) Relationships (to other entities).

 

When she said:

 

...A concept is a mental integration of ....

"The units involved may be any aspect of reality: entities, attributes, actions, qualities and relationships"

She was going in hierarchical order (from widest concepts down). 

 

So, quality, the way she used it, means its characteristics, but in a limited sense. It means Qualities = Attributes - Quantities - Actions - Relationships.

 

That is my interpretation at least, hope I explained it well.

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't quite think that's what Rand was doing. There are differences when someone says quality versus attribute even if they are synonyms. You could say "the quality of that meat is good" but that's different than "the attribute of that meat is good". I wouldn't say quality is more general, it seems more like quality gives off a different connotation. It's more like she said entity, then also anything about entities. I don't think anything more needs to be read into the definition of concept. Personally, I tend to use quality like a scale of measurement, and attribute as discrete. To me, "the attribute of this meat is good" gives off an intrinsicist vibe, probably because thinking of "good" as discrete implies a thing either "has" good or doesn't. That's fine for something like "the attribute of that meat is red". If you use the terms differently than me, it still wouldn't change what Rand talks about regarding epistemology.

 

Looking at a thesaurus now, you seem to be right, Nelli, but I still would say the two have quite different connotations, so I think it makes sense then to use both in the definition of concept even if one is technically more broad.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't quite think that's what Rand was doing. There are differences when someone says quality versus attribute even if they are synonyms. You could say "the quality of that meat is good" but that's different than "the attribute of that meat is good". I wouldn't say quality is more general, it seems more like quality gives off a different connotation. It's more like she said entity, then also anything about entities. I don't think anything more needs to be read into the definition of concept. Personally, I tend to use quality like a scale of measurement, and attribute as discrete. To me, "the attribute of this meat is good" gives off an intrinsicist vibe, probably because thinking of "good" as discrete implies a thing either "has" good or doesn't. That's fine for something like "the attribute of that meat is red". If you use the terms differently than me, it still wouldn't change what Rand talks about regarding epistemology.

 

Looking at a thesaurus now, you seem to be right, Nelli, but I still would say the two have quite different connotations, so I think it makes sense then to use both in the definition of concept even if one is technically more broad.

 

Interesting.

 

I would ascribe to the term "attribute" something more or less only in the entity itself and independently of anyone's perception of it.  This tends to lend it a more quantitative aspect but in general I interpret it as just something only externally existent. 

 

"This surface comprises molecules in a structure so as to primarily reflect light at 660 mn wavelength and absorb or simply transmit most other wavelengths."  this is an attribute.

 

A quality can have non-external or perceptual/consciousness/experiential aspects... i.e. soft, bitter, red.  The attributes of the entities do of course give rise to the causal connection which give rise to the perceptual experiences we have and hence the qualities we associate with the entities, but the qualities themselves (softness, bitterness, redness) are not properly only in the entities.

 

"This surface appears red" this is a quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I am going to change my answer. Please disregard my previous posts.

StrictlyLogical is correct. Attributes are the nature of physical objects independent from man's form of perception. Qualities are the aspects of the object that we perceive.

An example given in OPAR p. 44 is the "two tables". The first table is what we perceive - which is brown, rectangular, solid, etc. (Their qualities) and the second table is the table of science, which is a largely empty space, inhabited by some colorless racing particles, rays, waves, etc. (Their attributes).

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An attribute is a physical characteristic of an entity that can be physically separated from it.  A quality is a physical characteristic that cannot be physically separated.  

 

 

Is this from a specific source, dealing with these words in a specific context?  The definitions of the English words according to for example the Oxford dictionary (as opposed to philosophical jargonization) provide precious little distinction.

 

That aside:

What kinds of "physical characteristics" can actually be "physically separated" from an entity?  I'm really curious now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The index of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology 2nd ed does not mention all appearances of "attribute".  Here are some more:

  • "3. Abstraction from Abstractions", pg. 25-26
  • "4. Concepts of Consciousness", pg. 31-32
  • "6. Axiomatic Concepts", pg. 56

 

And here is what I think of attributes:

  • Attributes are attributes of something.  A thing is its attributes.  Attributes of actions do not exist apart from the actions.
  • Attributes must be mentally isolated from entities or actions through a process of abstraction.
  • Adjectives name concepts of attributes.
  • Mental states have attributes too, namely such attributes as content and action.
  • Attributes are measurable.
  • Attributes must be discovered before their causes can be discovered.
  • Actions are attributed to entities.
  • The concept of "attribute" is formed by distinguishing it as an aspect of the character, the identity, of the thing.

 

 

I've picked up on these two words being used together in multiple texts. Right now in ITOE the relevant passage (where "concept" is defined) is:

...A concept is a mental integration of ....

"The units involved may be any aspect of reality: entities, attributes, actions, qualities and relationships"

 

Before this I didn't know the difference between attribute and quality. In the dictionary, one of of the definitions of quality, is a distinguishing characteristic So then I assume in the context of this, and other Objectivist texts which mention both attribute and quality, that the word "attribute" subsumes "qualities". Is there any particular reason why these two words need to be used at the same time? Isn't it enough to just mention attributes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given Rand's departure from Aristotle's theory of universals, it might be worth bringing up Aristotlean categories:

 

ποιόν poion, of what kind or quality.

 

e.g.: green, loud, sour, curved, hot

 

 

 

 


I've picked up on these two words being used together in multiple texts. Right now in ITOE the relevant passage (where "concept" is defined) is:

...A concept is a mental integration of ....

"The units involved may be any aspect of reality: entities, attributes, actions, qualities and relationships"

 

Before this I didn't know the difference between attribute and quality. In the dictionary, one of of the definitions of quality, is a distinguishing characteristic So then I assume in the context of this, and other Objectivist texts which mention both attribute and quality, that the word "attribute" subsumes "qualities". Is there any particular reason why these two words need to be used at the same time? Isn't it enough to just mention attributes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An attribute is a physical characteristic of an entity that can be physically separated from it.  A quality is a physical characteristic that cannot be physically separated.

Rand uses the term "part" to name a physical characteristic of an entity that can be physically separated from it, and uses "attribute" for one that cannot.

 

 

If it can be separated for a split second it is a part, it is not an attribute. An attribute is that which cannot be physically separated.

With respect to the OP, qualities merit special mention because of the long standing philosophical problem of primary versus secondary qualities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 With respect to the OP, qualities merit special mention because of the long standing philosophical problem of primary versus secondary qualities.

 

With this you are referring to the entity's nature independent of man's senses as the primary, and man's perception of the entity (i.e. the relationship between man's sense organs and the entity) as the secondary, correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand uses the term "part" to name a physical characteristic of an entity that can be physically separated from it, and uses "attribute" for one that cannot.

 

 

With respect to the OP, qualities merit special mention because of the long standing philosophical problem of primary versus secondary qualities.

Thanks for the correction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand uses the term "part" to name a physical characteristic of an entity that can be physically separated from it, and uses "attribute" for one that cannot.

 

 

With respect to the OP, qualities merit special mention because of the long standing philosophical problem of primary versus secondary qualities.

 

What does Rand mean by "can be separated" and "cannot be physically separated"?  Can you give me an examples of each type? 

 

Also, does Rand herself characterise both of these as "physical characteristics"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Can be separated" means "split apart from" resulting in two entities ("for even a split-second" Ayn Rand said).

One take a man's legs off at the knees, but you can't take away his height. Without his legs he would have a new and shorter height but he would still have height.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Can be separated" means "split apart from" resulting in two entities ("for even a split-second" Ayn Rand said).

One take a man's legs off at the knees, but you can't take away his height. Without his legs he would have a new and shorter height but he would still have height.

 

Seems that "part" is meant to be a portion of the substance of something, like a protrusion, or an extension or a sub-portion.  This type of thing is quite different from a quality or attribute correct?  I would think the thing and its parts equally could have attributes and/or qualities.

 

So did we arrive at a conclusion re. what Rand meant by attribute and what she meant by quality in the quote given at the start of the thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll endorse the answer arrived at by StictlyLogical and thenelli01, that 'quality' strongly implies "as perceived by a subject".  Then we have Rand saying it was legitimate to conceptualize 'red' and to classify things based on their redness (such as the ripeness of fruit or whatever) long before it was discovered that light had wavelengths.    That makes sense and comports with her concept of objectivity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...