Australasian Journal of Philosophy 86 (1):23 – 43 (2008)
|Abstract||C. B. Martin's finkish cases raise one of the most serious objections to conditional analyses of dispositions. David Lewis's reformed analysis is widely considered the most promising response to the objection. Despite its sophistication, however, the reformed analysis still provokes questions concerning its ability to handle finkish cases. They focus on the applicability of the analysis to 'baseless' dispositions. After sketching Martin's objection and the reformed analysis, I argue that all dispositions have causal bases which the analysis can unproblematically invoke.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Sungho Choi (2003). Improving Bird's Antidotes. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 81 (4):573 – 580.
Jennifer Mckltrick (2003). The Bare Metaphysical Possibility of Bare Dispositions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (2):349–369.
Alexander Bird (1998). Dispositions and Antidotes. Philosophical Quarterly 48 (191):227-234.
Gabriele Contessa (2011). Do Extrinsic Dispositions Need Extrinsic Causal Bases? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 84 (3):622-638.
Jaeho Lee (forthcoming). Disposition, Explanation, and Causation—a Defense of the Reformed Conditional Analysis of Disposition. Philosophia.
Sungho Choi (2009). The Conditional Analysis of Dispositions and the Intrinsic Dispositions Thesis. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 78 (3):568-590.
Jan Hauska (2009). Dispositions Unmasked. Theoria 75 (4):304-335.
Sungho Choi (2006). The Simple Vs. Reformed Conditional Analysis of Dispositions. Synthese 148 (2):369 - 379.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads23 ( #53,940 of 550,917 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 550,917 )
How can I increase my downloads?