Do Categorical Properties Confer Dispositions on Their Bearers?

Vassilis Livanios
{"title":"Do Categorical Properties Confer Dispositions on Their Bearers?","authors":"Vassilis Livanios","doi":"10.1515/krt-2018-320205","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":107351,"journal":{"name":"KRITERION – Journal of Philosophy","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"KRITERION – Journal of Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/krt-2018-320205","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
范畴属性会赋予其持有者性格吗?
直言一元论(即认为所有基本的自然属性都是纯粹直言的观点)最近受到了一些哲学家的挑战。在本文中,我考察了一个挑战,这个挑战可以基于加布里埃尔·康特萨[10]对只有权力才能赋予性情的观点的辩护。在他的论文中,康特萨反对他所称的授予处分的经济学理论(NTDC)。根据国家结核控制中心的说法,在它们存在的每个世界中,(分类)属性赋予它们的持有者特定的性格;然而,一种(绝对的)财产赋予它的持有者的处置取决于自然的(偶然的)法则是什么。Contessa,除其他外,将他的案例建立在模仿案例(其中对象实际上并不拥有与其所显示的行为相关的倾向)和通过法律作用授予的倾向案例之间的直观类比上。在本文中,我批判了康特萨论证的各个方面,并表明他得出的结论(即只有权力才能赋予性情)是有争议的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Vague Disagreements: Vagueness Without Arbitrary Stipulation An Argument for Micropsychism: If There is a Conscious Whole, There Must be Conscious Parts Abduction in Animal Minds The Unity of Religious Experience: An Analytic Reading of Friedrich Schleiermacher’s Second Speech On Religion A Liberal Theory of Commodification
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1