Talk:Relations (philosophy)

Relations (philosophy) is currently a Philosophy and religion good article nominee. Nominated by Phlsph7 (talk) at 12:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC) Anyone who has not contributed significantly to (or nominated) this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.) Short description: Ways how entities stand to each other

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 February 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Philosophy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I am currently working on repairing the WP:IBID issue on this page and Ref 36 confuses me. Which reference is the quote supposed to refer to? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Relation which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]