The Regress of Pure Powers Revisited
European Journal of Philosophy 21 (1) (2012)
| Abstract | The paper aims to elucidate in better detail than before the dispute about whether or not dispositional monism—the view that all basic properties are pure powers—entails a vicious infinite regress. Particular focus is on Alexander Bird's and George Molnar's attempts to show that the arguments professing to demonstrate a vicious regress are inconclusive because they presuppose what they aim to prove, notably that powers are for their nature dependent on something else. I argue that Bird and Molnar are mistaken. It is true that dispositional monism is popularly assumed to characterize powers as dependent entities, but this is not what the arguments aim to prove. They merely aim to demonstrate that it would be absurd to assume that all properties are dependent in this way. Finally, it is argued that there is an unresolved tension in Bird's and Molnar's accounts of powers. They characterize them as being for their nature dependent on the manifestations that they are for, and yet ontologically independent of those same manifestations. Until that tension is resolved, their accounts are not equipped to remove the threat of vicious regress | |||||||||
| 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: 5,664 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesAlexander Bird (2007). The Regress of Pure Powers? Philosophical Quarterly 57 (229):513–534.
Stathis Psillos (2006). What Do Powers Do When They Are Not Manifested? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 72 (1):137-156.
Anna Marmodoro (2010). Do Powers Need Powers to Make Them Powerful?: From Pandispositionalism to Aristotle. In Anna Marmodoro (ed.), The Metaphysics of Powers: Their Grounding and Their Manifestations. Routledge.
Benjamin Smart & Stephen Barker (2013). The Ultimate Argument Against Dispositional Monist Accounts of Laws. Analysis 72 (4):714-723.
Brian Ellis (2010). Causal Powers and Categorical Properties. In Anna Marmodoro (ed.), The Metaphysics of Powers: Their Grounding and Their Manifestations. Routledge.
Jonathan D. Jacobs (2011). Powerful Qualities, Not Pure Powers. The Monist 94 (1):81-102.
Ricki Leigh Bliss (forthcoming). Viciousness and the Structure of Reality. Philosophical Studies.
Alexander Bird (2003). Structural Properties. In Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra & Hallvard Lillehammer (eds.), Real Metaphysics. Routledge.
Yuri Cath (forthcoming). Regarding a Regress. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly.
Tomasz Bigaj (2010). Dispositional Monism and the Circularity Objection. Metaphysica 11 (1):39-47.
Sharon Ford (2012). Objects, Discreteness, and Pure Power Theories: George Molnar’s Critique of Sydney Shoemaker’s Causal Theory of Properties. Metaphysica 13 (2):195-215.
Anna-Sofia Maurin, Infinite Regress - Virtue or Vice? Hommage à Wlodek.
Jan Willem Wieland (2013). Infinite Regress Arguments. Acta Analytica 28 (1):95-109.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2012-06-19Total downloads25 ( #49,547 of 549,014 )Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,706 of 549,014 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
