Accessible Requires Authentication Pre-published online by De Gruyter March 11, 2021

Contra Static Dispositions

Andrei A. Buckareff ORCID logo, Marc Andrews and Shane Brennan
From the journal Metaphysica

Abstract

Work on dispositions focuses chiefly on dispositions that are manifested in dynamic causal processes. Williams, Neil. 2005. “Static and Dynamic Dispositions.” Synthese 146: 303–24 has argued that the focus on dynamic dispositions has been at the expense of a richer ontology of dispositions. He contends that we ought to distinguish between dynamic and static dispositions. The manifestation of a dynamic disposition involves some change in the world. The manifestation of a static disposition does not involve any change in the world. In this paper, we concede that making a conceptual distinction between dynamic and static dispositions is useful and we allow that we can truthfully represent objects as manifesting static dispositions. However, we argue that the distinction is not ontologically deep. Rather, the truthmakers for our representations of static dispositions are actually dynamic dispositions to whose manifestations we may fail to be sensitive.


Corresponding author: Andrei A. Buckareff, Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY, USA, E-mail:

References

Armstrong, D. M. 1996. “Dispositions as Categorical States.” In Dispositions: A Debate (15–18), edited by D. M. Armstrong, C. B. Martin, and U. T. Place. New York: Routledge. Search in Google Scholar

Baltimore, J. 2019. “The Powers View of Properties, Fundamental Ontology, and Williams’s Arguments for Static Dispositions.” Erkenntnis 84: 437–53. Search in Google Scholar

Molnar, G. 2003. Powers: A Study in Metaphysics. New York: Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Williams, N. 2005. “Static and Dynamic Dispositions.” Synthese 146: 303–24. Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2021-03-11

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston