Talk:Relation (philosophy)

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Changes to the article

I'm considering making some changes to this article and maybe preparing it for a GA nomination. But this would still be a long way since the article currently has various problems. For one, it lacks many key topics. It should discuss arity and direction. Many types of relations are either not mentioned or only mentioned very briefly, like logical and causal relations, spatial and temporal relations, and necessary and contingent relations. They deserve a proper discussion. Types based on formal properties, like reflexive relations and symmetric relations should also be explained. The article should further give a more detailed explanation of many of the metaphysical problems associated with relations, like reductionism and eliminativism, specifically Bradley's regress argument should be mentioned.

There are also some issues with what is already there. Most of the history section is based on primary sources. Primary sources can't support the various interpretative claims in this section and they can't demonstrate that the views are important enough to be mentioned at all. I've had a look at a few overview sources and none of them presents a comprehensive history of this concept so I'm not sure that our article should. The more common approach is to discuss the topic based on different themes, in which case the current content of the history section would have to be reorganized. But I have to do some more research and maybe I find something better in the process. Apart from that there is also a citation needed tag and several other passages lack citations. It will take me a while to go through the sources and prepare a draft. Feedback on these ideas and other suggestions are also welcome. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Short update: I've been working on a draft to implement the points above, see User:Phlsph7/Relation. It's still in an early stage but shows roughly the direction in which this is going. It provides a more general overview of what relations are and what characteristic features they have. I also added the discussion of many types of relations that were absent before. The draft further includes a section on the problematic ontological status of relations, which is one of the main topics in metaphysical discussions of relations. I managed to find some secondary sources to retain a history section. However, a lot of the text had to be rewritten to be based on secondary sources and avoid original research by interpreting primary sources.

There are still many things to do. Some sections are composed of notes rather than a coherent text. The ones that have coherent text have not yet been copy-edited. So far, there is no lead section. Many wikilinks are missing and there are no images yet. I plan to address those issues in the next few days and I'm also open for further feedback. It may still be a little before this is ready for mainspace. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and published the draft. I tried to include most of the ideas from the previous version in this one. Some only survived in summarized form and a few did not fit in. Please let me know if you think that some essential information was removed in the process so we can explore options for its inclusion in the updated version. Other feedback on further improvements is also welcome. There remain a few minor issues that I plan to address in the next few days. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hey man im josh talk 19:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that according to some metaphysicians, there are no relations?

• Source:

• ALT1: ... that the relation "being a sibling" is irreflexive because no one can be their own sibling? Source:
• ALT2: ... that in the 19th century, philosophers changed their understanding of relations in response to developments in logic, mathematics, and science? Source:
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Maria Luigia Pizzoli

References

Sources

• Mulligan, Kevin (1998). "Relations: Through Thick and Thin". Erkenntnis. 48 (2/3): 325–353. doi:10.1023/a:1005454805376.
• Heil, John (2009). "Relations". In Le Poidevin, Robin; Peter, Simons; Andrew, McGonigal; Cameron, Ross P. (eds.). The Routledge Companion to Metaphysics. Routledge. pp. 310–321. doi:10.4324/9780203879306-34. ISBN 978-0-203-87930-6.
• Makridis, Odysseus (2022). Symbolic Logic. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-3-030-67396-3.
• Bogen, James (2005). Honderich, Ted (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199264797.
• MacBride, Fraser (2020). "Relations". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 5 October 2023.

Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 21 past nominations.

Phlsph7 (talk) 08:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC).

• Freshly promoted GA, looks quite solid, not copyvio. ALT0 and ALT1 are good hooks, correctly sourced and interesting. For ALT2, the sources could be a bit more explicit about the 19th century, but I agree this is correct. I am not sure it is as interesting as the other two. QPQ has been done. Approved. —Kusma (talk) 11:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)