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.
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: 437–53.10.1007/s10670-017-9966-3Search 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: 303–24.10.1007/s11229-004-6212-8Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston