Line 1: |
Line 1: |
− | [[Image:lighterstill.jpg]] | + | [[Image:lighterstill.jpg]][[Image:BrilliantQuality.jpg|right|frame]] |
− | [[Image:Postings-by-quality.jpg|right|frame]] | |
| ==Definition== | | ==Definition== |
| #[n] a degree or grade of excellence or worth; "the quality of students has risen"; "an executive of low caliber" | | #[n] a degree or grade of excellence or worth; "the quality of students has risen"; "an executive of low caliber" |
Line 9: |
Line 8: |
| #[adj] of superior grade; "choice wines"; "prime beef"; "prize carnations"; "quality paper"; "select peaches" | | #[adj] of superior grade; "choice wines"; "prime beef"; "prize carnations"; "quality paper"; "select peaches" |
| ---- | | ---- |
| + | <center>For lessons on the related [[topic]] of '''''[[Value]]''''', follow [https://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Value '''''this link'''''].</center> |
| ==Philosophy== | | ==Philosophy== |
− | A '''quality''' (from Lat. ''qualitas''(Morwood¹, 1995) is an attribute or a property. Attributes are ascribable, by a subject, whereas properties are possessible(Cargile², 1995). Some philosophers assert that a quality cannot be defined [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_of_Quality Metaphysics of Quality³]. In contemporary philosophy, the idea of qualities and especially how to distinguish certain kinds of qualities from one another remains controversial.(Cargile², 1995) | + | A '''quality''' (from Lat. ''qualitas''(Morwood¹, 1995) is an attribute or a property. Attributes are ascribable, by a subject, whereas properties are possessible(Cargile², 1995). Some philosophers assert that a quality cannot be defined [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_of_Quality Metaphysics of Quality³]. In contemporary philosophy, the idea of qualities and especially how to distinguish certain kinds of qualities from one another remains controversial.(Cargile², 1995) |
| | | |
| ===Background=== | | ===Background=== |
Line 28: |
Line 28: |
| Subjectively, something might be [[goodness|good]] because it is useful, because it is [[beauty|beautiful]], or simply because it exists. Determining or finding Quality therefore involves an understanding of use, beauty and existence - what is useful, what is beautiful and what exists. The usefulness aspect is reflected in the common usage of quality. | | Subjectively, something might be [[goodness|good]] because it is useful, because it is [[beauty|beautiful]], or simply because it exists. Determining or finding Quality therefore involves an understanding of use, beauty and existence - what is useful, what is beautiful and what exists. The usefulness aspect is reflected in the common usage of quality. |
| | | |
− | Robert M. Pirsig, in his book ''Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance'', studies the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_of_Quality Metaphysics of Quality], and examines the distinctions and relationship between classical and romantic quality, seeking to reconcile the two views and understand how they stand in relationship to each other. | + | Robert M. Pirsig, in his book ''Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance'', studies the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_of_Quality Metaphysics of Quality], and examines the distinctions and relationship between classical and romantic quality, seeking to reconcile the two views and understand how they stand in relationship to each other. |
| | | |
| In this [[context]] the two aspects of classical object-oriented and romantic subject-oriented quality roughly parallel ''aesthetic quality'' and ''functional quality''. The resolution of the book points to a view of quality which relegates this subject-object dualism to a product of a non-dualistic absolute. | | In this [[context]] the two aspects of classical object-oriented and romantic subject-oriented quality roughly parallel ''aesthetic quality'' and ''functional quality''. The resolution of the book points to a view of quality which relegates this subject-object dualism to a product of a non-dualistic absolute. |
Line 42: |
Line 42: |
| Cargile, J. (1995). qualities. in Honderich, T. (Ed.) (2005). ''The Oxford Companion to Philosophy'' (2nd ed.). Oxford. | | Cargile, J. (1995). qualities. in Honderich, T. (Ed.) (2005). ''The Oxford Companion to Philosophy'' (2nd ed.). Oxford. |
| | | |
− | Studtmann, P. (2007). Aristotle's Categories. in Zalta, E. N. (Ed.) ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (2008). [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-categories/#Quality] | + | Studtmann, P. (2007). Aristotle's Categories. in Zalta, E. N. (Ed.) ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (2008). [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-categories/#Quality] |
| [[Category: General Reference]] | | [[Category: General Reference]] |
| [[Category:Philosophy]] | | [[Category:Philosophy]] |