Philosophical Quarterly 60 (240):624-630 (2010)
|Abstract||Michael Fara's ‘habitual analysis’ of disposition ascriptions is equivalent to a kind of ceteris paribus conditional analysis which has no evident advantage over Martin's well known and simpler analysis. I describe an unsatisfactory hypothetical response to Martin's challenge, which is lacking in just the same respect as the analysis considered by Martin; Fara's habitual analysis is equivalent to this hypothetical analysis. The feature of the habitual analysis that is responsible for this cannot be harmlessly excised, for the resulting analysis would be subject to familiar counter-examples|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Sungho Choi (2009). The Conditional Analysis of Dispositions and the Intrinsic Dispositions Thesis. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 78 (3):568-590.
Jaeho Lee (2011). Genuine Counterexamples to the Simple Conditional Analysis of Disposition: A Reply to Choi. Philosophia 39 (2):327-334.
Jan Hauska (2008). In Defence of Causal Bases. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 86 (1):23 – 43.
Tobias Hansson (2006). Too Many Dispositional Properties. Sats - Northern European Journal of Philosophy 7 (2):37-42.
Jan Hauska (2009). Dispositions Unmasked. Theoria 75 (4):304-335.
Justin C. Fisher (2013). Dispositions, Conditionals and Auspicious Circumstances. Philosophical Studies 164 (2):443-464.
Sungho Choi (2006). The Simple Vs. Reformed Conditional Analysis of Dispositions. Synthese 148 (2):369 - 379.
Added to index2010-01-23
Total downloads125 ( #3,836 of 548,969 )
Recent downloads (6 months)14 ( #4,457 of 548,969 )
How can I increase my downloads?