"the nature" of X

[LoBagola]

Reading "What is capitalism?". The "nature of" resources was not defined in 19th century political economy (See first page of the essay).

 

I realized I don't know what "the nature of" means. I kinda / sort-a know, but not in a clear, properly integrated way. Vaguely I answered "more details" about something. 

 

Looking up the word I found this definition:

the basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something.

 

some resources have qualities, but I don't think this is what is being talked about. E.g. the colour of gold is a quality, the taste of food is a quality etc and all have been discussed in political economy.

 

What about character? resources don't have character.

 

"Feature" seems more promising. Defined as "a distinctive attribute or aspect of something."

 

Is this what is meant? In that case that would be a differentia, right? The nature of something is what differentiates it from other things. I.e. if you don't define the nature of resources, you are not defining the concept resource.

 

Am I on the right track?

Edited January 24, 2014 by LoBagola

[Devil's Advocate]

Yes, a distinguishing characteristic, or inherent feature.

[StrictlyLogical]

We should distinguish between metaphysical reality and knowledge of reality.

 

We can observe various things about an entity, and we can categorize those things into a many different concepts: characteristics, attributes, features, properties, etc.

 

The "nature" of an entity, according to Objectivism, should not be confused with the act of identifying the mental observations, or with a reference to any of our knowledge of an entity, it is meant to refer directly to the entity.

 

To say an entity has a nature is not to say it possesses something over and above its own identity it is to say the entity is what it is, and everything that entails: every possible thing we can know and can observe about the entity.  We can identify specifics of an entity and thereby describe more fully its nature, but an entity has a nature independent of any detailed description of it.

 

To conclude, the nature of an entity is what it is in all respects, not observations or knowledge we mentally have regarding the entity.

[LoBagola]

Ok so then understanding the nature of X means to conceptualize X, since a concept refers to what an entity is in all respects.

[Vik]

Ok so then understanding the nature of X means to conceptualize X, since a concept refers to what an entity is in all respects.

 

The concept "identity" does not indicate the particular natures of the existents it subsumes; it merely underscores the primary fact that they are what they are.

~~Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology 2nd ed, "6. Axiomatic Concepts", pg. 59

 

The meaning of a *concept* includes all referents, known and unknown, but leaves unspecified whatever variation exists among referents,. among the same kinds of existents.  A concept means existents viewed a certain way.

 

The wiktionary has a definition of "nature" that reads: "The innate characteristics of a thing. What something will tend by its own constitution, to be or do. Distinct from what might be expected or intended." 

 

This could be applied to explanation and prediction.  The *nature* of polyurethane *is* the chemical structure viewed in terms of how that structure causes the action-potentials of the material.  When you view existents as members of a group of a similar existents, you are dealing with units.  A concept IS a mental integration of units. Here, the "nature" of existents viewed as members of a group of similar existents and integrated by a concept IS the existents viewed in terms of entity-based causation. 

 

A thing is everything that it is.  A valid concept is an abstraction whose ultimate foundation can be found in perceptual experience of what is.