Pure vs Impure Properties (Metaphysics)

An explanation of pure and impure properties including a comparison between the pure/impure distinction and the intrinsic/extrinsic distinction.

Sponsors: Joshua Furman, Joshua Opell, NBA_Ruby, Eugene SY, Antoinemp1, Antibody, Ismail Fagundes, Adrien Ecoffet, Tom Amedro, Christopher McGevna, Joao Sa, and Dennis Sexton. Thanks for your support!

Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy and more!

[BelegaerTheGreat]

Pure properties describe universal features, like "being a father", Impure properties describe particular features, like "being the father of Tom Cruise".

"'being red' is Pure, but 'being the same color as this rose' (even if it is red) is Impure."

Intrinsic properties can also be Impure: "being a landmass containing Colorado"
Extrinsic can be Impure: "being a father".

(Well, if we follow the notion that everything is a SLoop, defined only by itself, then all properties are Impure. But I am nowhere near assuredness with that theory.)

[skepticedge]

Very nice informative presentation. But what about emergent properties where do they fit in relation to pure or not & intrinsic or extrinsic ?

[DarrenMcStravick]

Where does the essential / accidental distinction map onto?

[msmhao]

The idea of pure properties is abstracted from impure properties, basically?

[Dystisis]

"Pure properties are those that do not reference any other particular substance. So being a father is a pure property"

So this metaphysics is purely concerned with surface grammar? Because it is obviously only on the absolute surface level of grammar that "is a father" could possibly be considered a property rather than a relation.

[cliffordhodge]

I take it that a property would be impure even if the particular object referenced were the universe itself. So if we say the universe had the property of including Napoleon, and later had the property of lacking Napoleon or being Napoleon-less, these would be impure properties.

[NicoAssaf]

Why is being red or green a pure property? Wouldn't those be particular instances of being a color? Sorry if this has something to do with intrinsic properties, but I don't see the relationship at the moment.

[johnhill]

Cool channel, similar to this new YouTube channel called Friendly Philosophy.

[raen]

I have a question: Is “having no properties” a property? Sure, it makes no sense unless one is talking about nonexistent objects, which is debatably impossible, but I was curious.