Properties are features of some thing, like redness, or height, or intelligence, or beauty. Ideas do exist, for instance, the idea of a unicorn, or the idea of democracy. Words certainly exist. The properties of words are, how they are spelled, pronounced, what they mean, and so on.

Properties (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Isn't it true that when we seek a definition of a referring term, that we are asking about the properties of what the term refers to?

I think it depends on the thing being defined. If we're defining a kind or category, like mermaids, we can easily define it by its properties. But remember, a kind has no outward representation. A kind is an abstraction.

Consider defining Dublin, Ireland by its properties.

We can do that. Dublin, Ireland has a specific set of properties.

Dublin, Ireland existed 200 years ago with a different set of properties.

How many Dublins are there? (flux)

I'll be out of touch for a while, so I'll cut to the chase. Start subtracting properties so that you can get to the ones that haven't changed. When you get there, you'll discover that you have defined Dublin by saying that Dublin, Ireland is itself. That's not defining it by it's properties.

I'll be out of touch for a while, so I'll cut to the chase. Start subtracting properties so that you can get to the ones that haven't changed. When you get there, you'll discover that you have defined Dublin by saying that Dublin, Ireland is itself. That's not defining it by it's properties.

The fact that properties change with time does not mean that things aren't defined by their properties. Indeed, no matter the amount or speed of the change, the thing is still defined by its properties. Would we not call Dublin Dublin any more simply because a bakery burned down?

This all raises the ancient philosophical issue of, persistence through change. How do things remain the same, although they change? Maybe I'll start a thread on this.

Properties are subjected to interpretation like anything else, they express comprehension up to a certain scale, just look at Newton and Einstein position about Gravity...no further...

Yeah, I was thinking of the ship example when I typed that. I think persistence through change definitely is relevant to this thread. We may not even need a new thread, to be honest.

Sometimes they are open to interpretation. For instance, the meaning of words (which, as kennethamy noted, is a property of words) can be interpreted differently depending on context. This does not mean that the word does not have properties, though. Don't go too far into the relativist realm or you'll find yourself persistently doubting even those things which are blatantly obvious. Then you'll just be one of those skeptics that liberally uses "subjective" in application to everything. :phone:

I would love to see that related with randomness...

What has "open to interpretation" to do with whether something has a property? A person has height however that is "interpreted" (whatever that means).

What difference do those questions make? The person still has height whatever height is.

Right...:detective:

Better to have a new thread. The issues are not the same, although they are related. Otherwise, confusion will reign.

I'm in favor of that. A new thread, that is, not in letting confusion reign.
I was confused enough by the initial question, and now that I think I have
a grasp on it, I'd prefer my grip not be loosened by a related but divergent topic.

So, now the question is, what do things that exist have, that things that don't exist do not have?

So, now the question is, what do things that exist have, that things that don't exist do not have?