Kriterion - Journal of Philosophy 32 (2):61-82 (2018)

Authors
Vassilis Livanios
University of Cyprus
Abstract
Categorical Monism (that is, the view that all fundamental natural properties are purely categorical) has recently been challenged by a number of philosophers. In this paper, I examine a challenge which can be based on Gabriele Contessa’s [10] defence of the view that only powers can confer dispositions. In his paper Contessa argues against what he calls the Nomic Theory of Disposition Conferral (NTDC). According to NTDC, in each world in which they exist, (categorical) properties confer specific dispositions on their bearers; yet, which disposition a (categorical) property confers on its bearers depends on what the (contingent) laws of nature happen to be. Contessa, inter alia, rests his case on an intuitive analogy between cases of mimicking (in which objects do not actually possess the dispositions associated with their displayed behaviour) and cases of disposition conferral through the action of laws. In this paper, I criticize various aspects of Contessa’s argumentation and show that the conclusion he arrives at (that is, only powers can confer dispositions) is controversial.
Keywords powers  dispositions  laws of nature  categorical properties  mimicking
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 50,118
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Powers: A Study in Metaphysics.George Molnar (ed.) - 2003 - Oxford University Press.
Defining 'Intrinsic'.Rae Langton & David Lewis - 1998 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58 (2):333-345.
Causal and Metaphysical Necessity.Sydney Shoemaker - 1998 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 79 (1):59–77.

View all 19 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Only Powers Can Confer Dispositions.Gabriele Contessa - 2015 - Philosophical Quarterly 65 (259):160-176.
Lawful Mimickers.Umut Baysan - 2017 - Analysis 77 (3):488-494.
Dispositions.James M. Bucknell - 2015 - Dissertation, Univeristy of New South Wales
Can Bare Dispositions Explain Categorical Regularities?Tyler Hildebrand - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 167 (3):569-584.
Opposing Powers.Randolph Clarke - 2010 - Philosophical Studies 149 (2):153 - 160.
Are Dispositions Ultimate-Reply.J. Franklin - 1988 - Philosophical Quarterly 38 (150):86-87.
Are Dispositions Reducible to Categorical Properties?James Franklin - 1986 - Philosophical Quarterly 36 (142):62-64.
Dispositions.Shungho Choi & Michael Fara - 2012 - The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Four Theories of Pure Dispositions.William A. Bauer - 2012 - In Alexander Bird, Brian Ellis & Howard Sankey (eds.), Properties, Powers, and Structures: Issues in the Metaphysics of Realism. Routledge. pp. 139-162.
Reply to Armstrong on Dispositions.James Franklin - 1988 - Philosophical Quarterly 38 (150):86-87.
Unfinkable Dispositions.Toby Handfield - 2008 - Synthese 160 (2):297 - 308.
Dispositions in Physics.Andreas Hüttemann - 2009 - In Gregor Damschen, Robert Schnepf & Karsten Stueber (eds.), Debating Dispositions. De Gruyter. pp. 221-237.
On the Nature of Dispositions.William Russell Payne - 2003 - Dissertation, University of California, Davis

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-06-01

Total views
30 ( #321,071 of 2,324,549 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #177,812 of 2,324,549 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes