Armstrong and the modal inversion of dispositions
Philosophical Quarterly 55 (220):452–461 (2005)
| Abstract | D. M. Armstrong has objected that the Dispositionalist theory of laws and properties is modally inverted, for it entails that properties are constituted by relations to non-actual possibilia. I contend that, if this objection succeeds against Dispositionalism, then Armstrong's nomic necessitation relation is also modally inverted. This shows that at least one of Armstrong's reasons for preferring a nomic necessitation theory is specious. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,711 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesBart Streumer (2003). Does 'Ought' Conversationally Implicate 'Can'? European Journal of Philosophy 11 (2):219–228.
Charles B. Cross (2002). Armstrong and the Problem of Converse Relations. Erkenntnis 56 (2):215 - 227.
Harold W. Noonan (2010). Bird Against the Humeans. Ratio 23 (1):73-86.
M. Eddon (2007). Armstrong on Quantities and Resemblance. Philosophical Studies 136 (3):385 - 404.
Javier Kalhat (2011). Is There A Quasi-Mereological Account of Property Incompatibility? Acta Analytica 26 (2):115-133.
TIm de Mey & Markku Keinänen (eds.) (2008). Problems From Armstrong. Acta Philosophica Fennica 84.
James Franklin (1988). Reply to Armstrong on Dispositions. Philosophical Quarterly 38 (150):86-87.
Alexander Bird (2005). The Ultimate Argument Against Armstrong's Contingent Necessitation View of Laws. Analysis 65 (286):147-55.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads30 ( #40,930 of 551,105 )Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,370 of 551,105 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
