Few assumptions feel as natural as this one. We speak as if things simply have properties: objects are solid, colours belong to surfaces, mass is contained in bodies, and qualities adhere to things as part of what they are.
From this everyday fluency arises a deeper question: are properties intrinsic to things, or do they depend on relations?
“Do things have intrinsic properties?” appears to ask whether entities possess features independently of everything else.
But this framing depends on a prior move: treating relational constraints as if they could be localised within self-contained objects.
Once that move is examined, the question no longer contrasts independence and dependence. It reveals a familiar distortion: the compression of relational structure into isolated attributes.
1. The surface form of the question
“Do things have intrinsic properties?”
In its everyday philosophical form, this asks:
- whether objects possess features independently of their relations
- whether properties belong to things “in themselves”
- whether qualities depend on observers, contexts, or interactions
- whether there is a core set of attributes that define an object absolutely
It presupposes:
- that objects are self-contained entities
- that properties can belong to them independently
- that relations are secondary or external
2. Hidden ontological commitments
For the question to stabilise, several assumptions must already be in place:
- that objects can be specified independently of relational context
- that properties are things that can be attached to objects
- that relations are optional or external to what things are
- that it is meaningful to speak of “in itself” without reference to interaction
- that properties can be cleanly separated from the systems in which they are realised
These assumptions detach attributes from the relational conditions that generate them.
3. Stratal misalignment
Within relational ontology, the distortion involves reification, isolation, and de-stratification.
(a) Reification of properties
Properties are treated as things.
- instead of relational constraints or effects
- they become attributes that objects possess
(b) Isolation of objects
Objects are treated as self-contained units.
- relations are treated as external connections between already-defined things
- the internal relational structure of systems is ignored
(c) De-stratification of constraint
Different relational conditions are collapsed.
- physical, perceptual, and semiotic constraints
- are treated as if they produce a single layer of intrinsic attributes
4. Relational re-description
If we remain within relational ontology, properties are not intrinsic possessions of objects. They are relationally actualised features arising within systems of constraint and interaction.
More precisely:
- systems instantiate structured relations under constraint
- what appears as a “property” is a stable pattern within those relations
- this pattern depends on:
- the system in which the object participates
- the interactions it undergoes
- the scale and mode of construal
From this perspective:
- properties are not located inside objects
- they are distributed across relational configurations
- stability of these configurations allows us to treat them as if they were intrinsic
Thus:
- what we call a property is a reliable relational effect, not a self-contained attribute
5. Dissolution of the problem-space
Once properties are no longer treated as intrinsic entities, the question “Do things have intrinsic properties?” loses its structure.
It depends on:
- reifying properties as objects
- isolating entities from their relational systems
- treating relations as secondary
- assuming that “in itself” can be specified independently
If these assumptions are withdrawn, there is no meaningful contrast between intrinsic and relational properties.
What disappears is not stability, but the idea that stability must be grounded in self-contained attributes.
6. Residual attraction
The persistence of the idea is unsurprising.
It is sustained by:
- perceptual stability (objects appear to retain properties across contexts)
- linguistic structures that assign properties to subjects (“the apple is red”)
- scientific practices that measure and catalogue attributes
- the cognitive convenience of treating objects as self-contained
Most importantly, relational stability feels intrinsic:
- when patterns persist across many interactions
- they are easily misinterpreted as belonging to the object itself
Closing remark
“Do things have intrinsic properties?” appears to ask whether objects possess features independently of relations.
Once these moves are undone, properties do not vanish.
No comments:
Post a Comment