Very good, then let's continue.
Maybe you thought that was a little bit abstract, hopefully we'll try that together later on in the
summary part on this lecture.
But let's go on let's talk about properties and relations.
So properties are the attributes or qualities or features or characteristics of things.
So we have, for example, an object or a thing here called a car.
And it could be cool, it could be pink, it could be slow and so on.
And that are properties of that object.
So they are phenomenal.
They are phenomena of interest, so properties are typically introduced to help explain or account for
phenomena of philosophical interest of the thing.
So if we have this thing, which is a paper that we sign signing here and we think this is an agreement,
it's a property, it's identifiable, you can have multiple agreements, but each should be unique.
It's have some type of temporality that it's valid for a specific date range mamy and so on.
So those are properties that we use and we introduce because those are important things when it comes
to agreements.
So we introduced the connection between the thing and the properties when we need them, and there's
a very interesting thing here, how do we know is actually properties and which properties comes up
in our minds that we need to think about when it comes to a thing?
And I will talk about this using what is called breakdown cases, and that's related to phenomenology
and the version of it introduced by Martin Heidegger, but also then made Popper and famous, especially
in the US by Bert Dreyfus.
So Botrytis is and hero of mine, of course, also still going strong, also in Berkeley, in the US,
still a professor, I think at least he will start a couple of years ago.
And for some reason, both Martin Heidegger and Botrytis is using hammers and all the examples.
That's a little bit funny with philosopher examples that I said.
So just use the word use the hammer example here again.
So a hammer is just perfect for me.
OK, let's analyze that.
So let's say that when I'm hammering along so I have this camera hammer on my house and building my
house and it weighs just perfect for me, then I just hammer away.
I will not think about the hammer a bit.
I will think about building the house, getting the planks up, driving the nails and so on.
But so I'm not hammering and at the same point thinking that this is such a perfect way to hammer.
That is probably not what I'm thinking.
It's just a natural part of my world.
In this case, it is almost part of me because it's kind of almost an extension of what I'm what I'm
trying to do.
So I won't be thinking about a hammer at all if it's functioning perfect for me in that context.
But let's say that something stops us.
And for some reason, we stop hammering and we start contemplating the tool as such and start actually
taking up a hammer and look at it or feels it, and then for some reason, it suddenly strikes me that
this is actually too heavy right now for this particular job I'm going to do or it's too clumsy or whatever,
because I ran into another concrete scenario, but I wanted to use it.
And so for me now it's too heavy for this particular job.
So and then we have more Bourges calling a breakdown case.
So we contemplate on the hammer and notice the hammers in general actually could be too light, just
perfect, too heavy.
But still for me in relationship to what I need and who I am, they can be too light for me.
But then we do welding this.
So then we remove ourselves from that equation.
So we remove ourselves and we attribute hammers of having weight.
So that tape goes took us from kind of this just phenomenal.
We're hammering away with a hammer to actually noticing that hammers her weight.
The interesting thing here is that if there is no breakdown case, we wouldn't have actually found or
start using that.
And I will show you that in two slides from here.
I mean, ninety nine point nine nine nine nine nine nine nine nine nine percent of the cases.
We do not notice the properties of an object unless the object does not do its job or if we are reflecting
on the nature of an object.
Or actually maybe you can even say that object doesn't have a property like that if we do not if we
never have a breakdown case of it.
So no breakdown case, no property, for example.
Domani, how the property wacht.
In the old days, it did because it was very important.
It was one of the main properties on our money that it had weight.
And the reason for that was that it was much harder to steal money if it weighed a lot.
But then we had paper money, which don't pay that much.
Still, if you want to steal and rob a bank there way, but nowadays you have digital money and there's
no need at all for having a property.
Wait, so we wouldn't even say that digital money actually our weight anymore as a property.
But back in the old days it was a very important property.
So if there are no breakdown cases here where the property can make a difference, then it stops being
a property on that object.
OK, there's other very famous distinction to do with properties here to to make regarding properties
that was done by John Locke in the in the late 7th century.
So he differentiated between primary and secondary properties.
So primary properties are objects are objective features of the world, which is a little bit problematic,
as we saw before, but so like shape, size, mass, etc..
So this flowers flower is 20 centimetres high and so on.
They are primary properties.
Secondary properties are mind dependent, so colours, tastes and so on.
It smells great.
And also Gelo actually, because you think about a colour that is something that and they'll be when
it hits our eyes for another animal who won't see yellow, they won't attribute it as being yellow.
It's also sometimes called interesting and observe a relative secondary and primary.
Intrinsic.
So now we'll talk a little bit about relations were going to relations, so being in love is a specific
type of property and why is that?
Because it involves multiple objects and not just one.
So that is a property which is a relation between different types of different things.
So relations are a type of property.
Relations are properties that exist in multiple things, the property being in love is to place relation
and of course, there could be multiple police relations as well.
So take an example here.
So relations have a single direction.
So Romeo loves Juliet and Juliet loves Romeo.
Right.
That is actually not the same relation, because as you know, wrongly, it could love Juliet, but
it could be the way that Juliet doesn't love Romeo
and they tend to have roles in that relation.
So Romeo is here.
He is an agent.
When it comes to that, he's loving Juliet and Juliet is a patient, impatient in that relationship,
and it's the opposite around in the other relation, of course.
Right, or they could actually be multidirectional, as I said, so they can have a single relation
in terms of love.
So Romeo loves Juliet, but it could also be multidirectional.
So we only have one relationship in here that they are in love.
So Romeo and Juliet are in love then?
We all have one relationship.
We could also have relations that link more than one object, as I said.
So these four people work well together.
So that's a multi multi node relationship.
Instantiation last before we go on to the next subject, so when we talk about instantiation, we mean
that that is a special kind of relation that is between an object and the property or an object of a
concept.
So that kind of a relation that goes over a meta meta level boundary.
So that is the relation between the things that we tend to think out there and the things that we know
that we have in our mind.
So it's instantiate a concept.
So an object, instantiates a concept instead of an object being in front of another object, for example,
they are both in the same atmosphere here in the same world out there.
But an object instantiate a car is something that we tend to think is out there, is relating to something
that we think is in here.
And of course, our mind is part of the world as well.
And we'll come to that later on.
But you see a little bit of a subtle difference here.
Good.
So that was the last thing I want to talk about when it comes to properties and relations and will come
back to that much later.
I just want to introduce the philosophical foundation of some of the parts that we will use and the
and the analysis a little bit later.
Wrong, which are very important.
Very good.
The next thing we're going to talk about now are facts.
Get to you there.