Talk:Class (philosophy)

message: nice link to natural kinds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.17.64.90 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 20 February 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I don’t get why classes aren’t considered universals.
The ambiguity between classes, types, kinds, and universals is a serious problem for philosophy.  However, the term class is most often used to denote a group of things, or in other words, to class something is to organize a set in a certain way.  Universals aren't used in this manner, most often becuase the term universal is used as a property (see predicate logic).--Sam 03:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universals and Classes 

message: The sentence structure is almost impossible in many sentences, f.ex.:
:One might well think they are not actually different categories of being, but typically while both are treated as abstract objects classes are not usually treated as universals, whereas types usually are).
Is not comprehensible without already knowing the background and the facts. F.ex. does the phrase "One might well think" apply to the whole sentence or just the rest of the phrase up to next comma? The phrase "while both are treated as abstract objects" is in fact one interspersed subclause that references outside the sentence – to "classes differ from types" – which is an unnecessarily far distance dependency. Interspersed subclauses are mostly acceptable if being a content clause specifying a noun, but weirdies like the one in the text preferrably should be separate clauses, referred to in the running sentence by short noun phrased "that fact" or "this". 
To untangle this messy language, reduction to single independent sentences is recommended. Those sentences should then be ordered sequentially so that all references, pronouns and short noun phrases, refer backwards, not forwards. Then the clauses can be rationalized by making subclauses, where this removes tedious nagging repetitions of the noun phrases used in the text. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 11:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Interpreting the contents of the article in computer science terms: a class is a set of item, while a type is an imaginary "prototypic exemplar" serving as a "pattern" for identification. According to philosophical language usage, that is. Ordinary language users rather regard type as now equivalent to "class", then as the set of "typical" qualities of that class. Philosophical language also use to confuse the set of items, a prototypical item and the set of qualities shared by all member items. Therefore the debate whether classes are "universals" or not. According to computer science, one should never confuse an item with the qualities of that item, making that debate moot. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 11:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence structure

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Class (philosophy). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141026111345/http://grahamberrisford.com/00EAframeworks/07Theory/A%20type%20theory%20for%20EA.htm to http://grahamberrisford.com/00EAframeworks/07Theory/A%20type%20theory%20for%20EA.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified