# Locke’s Distinctions Between Primary and Secondary Qualities Michael Jacovides **Opening (not a real abstract):** Locke’s Distinctions Between Primary and Secondary Qualities Michael Jacovides1 Is there a distinction between primary and secondary qualities? The question may rest on a confusion. It is not obvious that it would be raised if the questioner knew what he meant by ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ qualities. There is at least this distinction. We may distinguish between the basic explanatory features of things and the derivative features they explain. In the disciplines that gave rise to chemistry, there’s a long tradition of calling the fundamental explanatory qualities or principles ‘firsts’ (Maier 1968: 17-18, Anstey 2000: 20-30). Aristotle’s ‘first qualities’ are hot, cold, dry, and wet; Paracelsus’s tria prima (‘three firsts’) are salt, sulphur, and mercury. Boyle was willing to follow Aristotelian usage in calling hot, cold, dry, and wet ‘first qualities’; he **Authors:** [[Michael Jacovides1]]