Talk:Intrinsic and extrinsic properties (philosophy)

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.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Metaphysics

I was looking for relational properties but they are not even here.91.92.179.156 (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yes, they are the extrinsic ones, as stated in the first paragraph of the article, you just have to wrap your mind around the word "extrinsic" instead of "relational" when you think of it ! Or you could just add a "relational properties" redirection page to here. Zigomar7 (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Is mass really an intrinsic property ? edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I want to manifest against the cited example : "mass is an intrinsic property", since mass will also change with context, the mass will increase with speed, speed being relative to the environment, but maybe looking at things this way there is nothing left that is intrinsic, which seems an interesting proposition, but I'm not sure I can draw any useful conclusions of it - feel free to comment if you have some hints ? Zigomar7 (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

What you praobably mean is energy, in this case: energy of movement. Energy of movement increases with speed. Mass is measured in (kilo)grams, and this does not change with speed. See the article "Mass"! Steue (talk) 04:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Intrinsic example edit

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Does any significant source actually claim that guns are intrinsically evil? The reference does make the claim that people do, but I'd want to see a reliable source actually making such a claim; otherwise, it sounds rather like a strawman to me. --J. Randall Owens (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Valuable or not edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In: "3.1 Intrinsicism".

First: Value is on a scale (a scalar). Even a sandcorn has some value. There is no such thing as a valueless thing. A piece of ricin of the size or mass of a dust flake, if introduced into a body, is said to be enough to kill a man within a few days.

Second: The value of a thing depends on the person.
For example: To one person a specific lock of hair means everything and he would run into a burning house to rescue this lock, but to all other people it means almost nothing.

A thing is as valuable as a specific person: can make use of it or is willing to pay a specific price for it.

Intrinsicism is: pre-occupation and ignorance of the reality.

Steue (talk) 05:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add topic