Skip to main content
Log in

Unfinkable dispositions

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bird A. (1998). Dispositions and antidotes. The Philosophical Quarterly 48, 227–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird A. (2004). Antidotes all the way down?. Theoria 19, 259–269

    Google Scholar 

  • Bird A. (2005). The dispositionalist conception of laws. Foundations of Science 10, 353–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi S. (2003). Improving Bird’s antidotes. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 81, 573–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi S. (2005). Do categorical ascriptions entail counterfactual conditionals?. The Philosophical Quarterly 55(220): 495–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen D., & Handfield T. (in press). Finking Frankfurt. Philosophical Studies.

  • Ellis B. (2001). Scientific essentialism. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston M. (1992). How to speak of the colours. Philosophical Studies 68, 221–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langton R., Lewis D. (1998). Defining ‘intrinsic’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58, 333–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D. (1983). Extrinsic properties. Philosophical Studies 44, 197–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D. (1997). Finkish dispositions. The Philosophical Quarterly 47, 143–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin C.B. (1994). Dispositions and conditionals. The Philosophical Quarterly 44, 1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin C.B. (1997). On the need for properties: The road to pythagoreanism and back. Synthese 112, 193–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin C.B., Heil J. (1999). The ontological turn. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 23, 34–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKitrick J. (2003a). The bare metaphysical possibility of bare dispositions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66, 349–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKitrick J. (2003b). A case for extrinsic dispositions. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 81, 155–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mellor D.H. (1974). In defence of dispositions. Philosophical Review 83, 157–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford S. (1998). Dispositions. New York, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumford S. (2004). Laws in nature. London, Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith M. (2004). Ethics and the a priori. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Toby Handfield.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9148-3

Keywords

Navigation