Talk:Theory of categories

Types and tokens

Disclaimer - I don't understand this at all - can you tell? :o). Seeking clarification, please. Type_(metaphysics) says "Types are a category of being." Then, should "type" not also be in the list of "Physical thoughts, Minds, Classes, Properties, Relations...."? It also says "an instance of a type is called a token of that thing" - is the term 'token' specific to types or does it also refer to instances of other categories? --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.240.229.6 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 9 March 2004

Unified, there is no distinction. - [Media:http://mum.edu/multimedia/mmy_apr23_wmv.html] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.233.212.18 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 27 June 2004

Called for an expert

As a major topic in metaphysics, perhaps the biggest, it strikes me how poor this page is. It is clearly a mish-mash of different writers using inconsistent terminology (the poor quality is even reflected in the article's title: the article is called "category of being," even though the bolded word in the opening sentence is "categories of being." Before I added it, searching for "ontological scheme" did not even redirect here.

I think an expert should rewrite the whole thing, starting off by giving the goal (to create a minimal, exhaustive, and exclusive list of all the fundamental kinds (no universal negative categories, or disjunctive categories) of things that exist) - i.e. a category has to "earn" a place on the list by proving itself to be irreducible to other categories, or capable of being eliminated entirely. In the second part, s/he should then list the categories that have been argued to exist (be generous in this part, since reductive/eliminative arguments will come next). And in the third part, s/he should discuss arguments for/against certain categories e.g. Hume argued that space and time don't "deserve" a category on the list because they are only constructs of the human mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KSchutte (talk • contribs) 20:34, 31 January 2007

I generally agree with the unsigned comment above (by Nathanjones15). 1Z 21:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Any real expert in this subject would not admit to it. An "expert" would tell you "all I know is that i know not." Basically states that we are all ignorant. sorry just my two cents( please note this is not to be taken as anything more then a trivial point being made)--[[User:Designdroide|Design[[user_talk:Designdroide|droide]]]] 00:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Point of View

The link to point of view in the Categorical distinctions section is pointing to a disambiguation page that I'm currently working on. I have no idea where the proper location of this link should go. Could one of the article editors please take a look at Point of view and move the link accordingly? Or post here and let me know and I'll do it? - Thank you. - Zvar 17:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ousia

There is a take on ousia which regards every individual thing as infinite. I believe it is so in The Symposium, certainly in Blake, and elsewhere. If it is taken as such the 'bundle theory' and phylogenic and culturo-symbolic adaptations in man create a very interesting system. Wblakesx (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

biased uneducated opinion | Assisted by Citation bot r579,  

Fink, Eugen, Ute Saine, and Thomas Saine. "The oasis of happiness: Toward an ontology of play." Yale French Studies (1968): 19-30. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idrisdaneel (talk • contribs) 09:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)