(February 16, 2018 at 4:40 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Both seem like loaded questions (though probably not intentionally so). My only point was that the discussion gets derailed when people fail to distinguish between the description of a thing and the thing itself. In this particular case, I am asserting that some qualities have ontological status.
When someone says that a sensible body is triangular, they are describing that body as having a distinct quality that is shares with other triangular bodies. Saying that something is triangular is an acknowledgement that it shares a certain kind of about-ness with other similar bodies, i.e. triangularity. It's simply not enough to say the word "triangle" is what we call the set of three-sided bodies. You also have to recognize that you are referring something which gives those objects similarity - the quality of triangularity they all share.
If qualities don't exist, then descriptive words do not refer to anything.
Could you give me an example of a triangle, and specifically, what makes it a triangle?
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)