Abstract
This paper develops two ideas with respect to dispositional properties: (1) Adapting a suggestion of Sungho Choi, it appears the conceptual distinction between dispositional and categorical properties can be drawn in terms of susceptibility to finks and antidotes. Dispositional, but not categorical properties, are not susceptible to intrinsic finks, nor are they remediable by intrinsic antidotes. (2) If correct, this suggests the possibility that some dispositions—those which lack any causal basis—may be insusceptible to any fink or antidote. Since finks and antidotes are a major obstacle to a conditional analysis of dispositions, these dispositions that are unfinkable may be successfully analysed by the conditional analysis of dispositions. This result is of importance for those who think that the fundamental properties might be dispositions which lack any distinct causal basis, because it suggests that these properties, if they exist, can be analysed by simple conditionals and that they will not be subject to ceteris paribus laws.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bird A. (1998). Dispositions and antidotes. The Philosophical Quarterly 48, 227–234
Bird A. (2004). Antidotes all the way down?. Theoria 19, 259–269
Bird A. (2005). The dispositionalist conception of laws. Foundations of Science 10, 353–370
Choi S. (2003). Improving Bird’s antidotes. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 81, 573–580
Choi S. (2005). Do categorical ascriptions entail counterfactual conditionals?. The Philosophical Quarterly 55(220): 495–503
Cohen D., & Handfield T. (in press). Finking Frankfurt. Philosophical Studies.
Ellis B. (2001). Scientific essentialism. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Fara M. (2001). Dispositions and their ascriptions. Doctoral thesis. Princeton University. Available at <http://www.princeton.edu/~fara/papers/dissertation.pdf>.
Heil J. (2003). From an ontological point of view. New York, Oxford University Press
Johnston M. (1992). How to speak of the colours. Philosophical Studies 68, 221–263
Langton R., Lewis D. (1998). Defining ‘intrinsic’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58, 333–345
Lewis D. (1983). Extrinsic properties. Philosophical Studies 44, 197–200
Lewis D. (1997). Finkish dispositions. The Philosophical Quarterly 47, 143–158
Martin C.B. (1994). Dispositions and conditionals. The Philosophical Quarterly 44, 1–8
Martin C.B. (1997). On the need for properties: The road to pythagoreanism and back. Synthese 112, 193–231
Martin C.B., Heil J. (1999). The ontological turn. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 23, 34–60
McKitrick J. (2003a). The bare metaphysical possibility of bare dispositions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66, 349–369
McKitrick J. (2003b). A case for extrinsic dispositions. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 81, 155–174
Mellor D.H. (1974). In defence of dispositions. Philosophical Review 83, 157–181
Mumford S. (1998). Dispositions. New York, Oxford University Press
Mumford S. (2004). Laws in nature. London, Routledge
Shoemaker S. (1980). Causality and properties. In P. van Inwagen (Ed.), Time and cause (pp. 109–135). Dordrecht: Reidel. Reprinted (plus postscript) in his Identity, cause, and mind. pp. 206–233 Cambridge: Cambridge university Press.
Smith M. (1997). A theory of freedom and responsibility. In: Cullity G., Gaut B. (eds) Ethics and practical reason. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Reprinted in Smith (2004).
Smith M. (2003). Rational capacities, or: How to distinguish recklessness, weakness, and compulsion. In: Tappolet C., Stroud S. (eds), Weakness of will and practical irrationality. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Reprinted in Smith (2004).
Smith M. (2004). Ethics and the a priori. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Handfield, T. Unfinkable dispositions. Synthese 160, 297–308 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9148-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9148-3