Abstract
Lewis claims that Martin’s cases indeed refute the simple conditional analysis of dispositions and proposes the reformed conditional analysis that is purported to overcome them. In this paper I will first argue that Lewis’s defense of the reformed analysis can be understood to invoke the concepts of disposition-specific stimulus and manifestation. I will go on to argue that advocates of the simple analysis, just like Lewis, can also defend their analysis from alleged counterexamples including Martin’s cases by invoking the concepts of disposition-specific stimulus and manifestation. This means that Lewis’s own necessary defense of the reformed analysis invalidates his motivation of it. Finally, I will argue that we have a good reason to favor the simple analysis over Lewis’s analysis.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
A. Bird (1998) ArticleTitle‘Dispositions and Antidotes’ The Philosophical Quarterly 48 227–234 Occurrence Handle10.1111/1467-9213.00098
Choi, Sungho: forthcoming a, ‘Improving Bird’s Antidotes’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 81, 573–580.
S. Choi (2005) ArticleTitle‘Dispositions and Mimickers’ Philosophical Studies 122 183–188 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s11098-004-1253-x
L. Gundersen (2002) ArticleTitle‘In Defence of the Conditional Account of Dispositions’ Synthese 130 389–411 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1014845625688
D. Lewis (1997) ArticleTitle‘Finkish Dispositions’ The Philosophical Quarterly 47 143–158 Occurrence Handle10.1111/1467-9213.00052
W. Malzkorn (2000) ArticleTitle‘Realism, Functionalism and the Conditional Analysis of Dispositions’ The Philosophical Quarterly 50 452–469 Occurrence Handle10.1111/1467-9213.00199
Malzkorn, W.: 2001, ‘On the Conditional Analysis of Dispositions’, in U. Mexiner and P. Simon (eds.), Metaphysics in the Post-Metaphysical Age (Proceedings of the 22nd International Wittgenstein Symposium, 1999, Vienna: ÖLWG).
C. Martin (1994) ArticleTitle‘Dispositions and Conditionals’ The Philosophical Quarterly 44 1–8
S. Mumford (1998) Dispositions Oxford University Press Oxford
S. Mumford (2001) ArticleTitle‘Realism and the Conditional Analysis of Dispositions: Reply to Malzkorn’ The Philosophical Quarterly 51 375–378 Occurrence Handle10.1111/1467-9213.00235
E. W. Prior R. Pargetter F. Jackson (1982) ArticleTitle‘Three Theses about Dispositions’ American Philosophical Quarterly 19 251–257
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Choi, S. The Simple Vs. Reformed Conditional Analysis of Dispositions. Synthese 148, 369–379 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-004-6229-z
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-004-6229-z