David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Studies 164 (2):443-464 (2013)
A number of authors have suggested that a conditional analysis of dispositions must take roughly the following form: Thing X is disposed to produce response R to stimulus S just in case, if X were exposed to S and surrounding circumstances were auspicious, then X would produce R. The great challenge is cashing out the relevant notion of ‘auspicious circumstances’. I give a general argument which entails that all existing conditional analyses fail, and that there is no satisfactory way to define ‘auspicious circumstances’ just in terms of S, R, and X. Instead, I argue that the auspicious circumstances C for the manifestation of a disposition constitute a third irreducible element of that disposition, and that to pick out (or to ‘individuate’) that disposition one must specify C along with S and R. This enables a new conditional analysis of dispositions that gives intuitively satisfying answers in cases that pose problems for other approaches
|Keywords||Dispositions Conditionals Counterfactuals Finkish Intrinsic Extrinsic|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Frank Jackson (1998). From Metaphysics to Ethics: A Defence of Conceptual Analysis. Oxford University Press.
David K. Lewis (1986). On the Plurality of Worlds. Blackwell Publishers.
David K. Lewis (1973). Counterfactuals. Blackwell Publishers.
Citations of this work BETA
Simon Kittle (2015). Powers Opposed and Intrinsic Finks. Philosophical Quarterly 65 (260):372-380.
Similar books and articles
Ian J. Thompson (2011). Derivative Dispositions and Multiple Generative Levels. In Mauricio Suarez (ed.), Probabilities, Causes and Propensities in Physics.
Lars Gundersen (2010). Tracking, Epistemic Dispositions and the Conditional Analysis. Erkenntnis 72 (3):353 - 364.
Barbara Vetter (2013). Multi‐Track Dispositions. Philosophical Quarterly 63 (251):330-352.
D. Manley & R. Wasserman (2012). Dispositions, Conditionals, and Counterexamples. Mind 120 (480):1191-1227.
Gabriele Contessa (2013). Dispositions and Interferences. Philosophical Studies 165 (2):401-419.
Sungho Choi (2009). The Conditional Analysis of Dispositions and the Intrinsic Dispositions Thesis. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 78 (3):568-590.
Sungho Choi (2006). The Simple Vs. Reformed Conditional Analysis of Dispositions. Synthese 148 (2):369 - 379.
Sungho Choi (2008). Dispositional Properties and Counterfactual Conditionals. Mind 117 (468):795-841.
Sungho Choi (2010). Dispositions and Bogus Counterexamples: Reply to Lee. [REVIEW] Philosophia 38 (3):579-588.
Igor Douven (2008). Kaufmann on the Probabilities of Conditionals. Journal of Philosophical Logic 37 (3):259 - 266.
William A. Bauer (2010). The Ontology of Pure Dispositions. Dissertation, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Markus Schrenk (2007). Can Capacities Rescue Us From Ceteris Paribus Laws? In B. Gnassounou & M. Kistler (eds.), Dispositions in Philosophy and Science. Ashgate
Barbara Vetter (2012). On Linking Dispositions and Which Conditionals? Mind 120 (480):1173-1189.
David Manley & Ryan Wasserman (2008). On Linking Dispositions and Conditionals. Mind 117 (465):59-84.
Jennifer McKitrick (2003). The Bare Metaphysical Possibility of Bare Dispositions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (2):349–369.
Added to index2012-01-30
Total downloads87 ( #49,655 of 1,911,321 )
Recent downloads (6 months)11 ( #53,919 of 1,911,321 )
How can I increase my downloads?