Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T05:47:38.368Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conceivability Arguments, Properties, and Powers: A New Defense of Dispositionalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2018

ROBERT SCHROER
ROBERT SCHROER*
Affiliation:
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA AT [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Dispositionalists maintain that the essence of a property is determined by the powers it confers upon its bearers and, as a result, that there is a necessary connection between properties and their powers. Contingentists, in contrast, maintain that the connection is contingent. The ability to conceive of a property as failing to confer some of its powers is often cited as an objection against dispositionalism. The standard dispositionalist response to this objection is to redescribe the imagined scenario so that it no longer serves as a threat. Using the literature on phenomenal concepts as inspiration, I develop a new defense of dispositionalism that echoes Brian Loar's (1990) response to conceivability arguments against physicalism. Not only can Loar's general strategy be usefully applied to this new context, there is a sense in which that strategy works better here than it does in the original context in which Loar deployed it.

Keywords

properties and powersdispositionalismconceivability argumentsthe phenomenal concept strategy
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the American Philosophical Association , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , Fall 2018 , pp. 352 - 370
Copyright
Copyright © American Philosophical Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

A number of people have helped me work through issues connected to this paper over the years; special thanks is owed to Alexis Elder and Brendan O'Sullivan for their recent comments. I also want thank several referees and an editor from the Journal of the American Philosophical Association for some tough questions and helpful suggestions.

References

Alter, T., and Walter, S., eds. (2007) Phenomenal Concepts and Phenomenal Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. (1997) A World of States of Affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bird, A. (1998) ‘Dispositions and Antidotes’. Philosophical Quarterly, 48, 227–34.Google Scholar
Bird, A. (2007) Nature's Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Black, R. (2000) ‘Against Quidditism’. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 78, 87–104.Google Scholar
Block, N., and Stalnaker, R.. (1999) ‘Conceptual Analysis, Dualism, and the Explanatory Gap’. The Philosophical Review, 108, 1–46.Google Scholar
Carruth, A. (2016) ‘Powerful Qualities, Zombies, and Conceivability’. The Philosophical Quarterly, 62, 25–46.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D. (1996) The Conscious Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D. (2002) ‘Does Conceivability Entail Possibility?’ In Gendler, T. and Hawthorne, J. (eds.), Conceivability and Possibility (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 145–200.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D. (2007) ‘Phenomenal Concepts and the Explanatory Gap’. In Alter, T. and Walter, S. (eds.), Phenomenal Concepts and Phenomenal Knowledge (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 167–94.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D. (2010) ‘The Two-Dimensional Argument against Materialism’. In Chalmers, , The Character of Consciousness (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 141–205.Google Scholar
Ellis, B. (2001) Scientific Essentialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gendler, T., and Hawthorne, J.. (2002) ‘Introduction: Conceivability and Possibility’. In Gendler, T. and Hawthorne, J. (eds.), Conceivability and Possibility (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 1–70.Google Scholar
Heil, J. (2003) From an Ontological Point of View. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heil, J. (2005) ‘Dispositions’. Synthese, 112, 193–231.Google Scholar
Jackson, F. (1998) From Metaphysics to Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. (1980) Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Langton, R. (1998) Kantian Humility: Our Ignorance of Things in Themselves. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, J. (2007) ‘What is a Phenomenal Concept?’ In Alter, T. and Walter, S. (eds.), Phenomenal Concepts and Phenomenal Knowledge (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 87–110.Google Scholar
Levine, J. (2001) Purple Haze. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levine, J. (2007) ‘Phenomenal Concepts and the Materialist Constraint’. In Alter, T. and Walter, S. (eds.), Phenomenal Concepts and Phenomenal Knowledge (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 145–66.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1986) On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (2009) ‘Ramseyan Humility’. In Braddon-Mitchell, D. and Nola, R. (eds.), Conceptual Analysis and Philosophical Naturalism (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 203–22.Google Scholar
Loar, B. (1990) ‘Phenomenal States’. In Tomberlin, J. (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives 4 (Northridge: Ridgeview), 81–108. Reprinted in Block, N., Flanagan, O., and Güzeldere, G. (eds.), The Nature of Consciousness (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 597–616.Google Scholar
Locke, D. (2012) ‘Quidditism without Quiddities’. Philosophical Studies, 160, 345–63.Google Scholar
Martin, C. B. (1994) ‘Dispositions and Conditionals’. Philosophical Quarterly, 44, 1–8.Google Scholar
Martin, C. B. (1997) ‘On the Need for Properties: The Road to Pythagoreanism and Back’. Synthese, 112, 193–231.Google Scholar
Martin, C. B. (2008) The Nature of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mellor, D. H. (1974) ‘In Defense of Dispositions’. Philosophical Review, 83, 157–81.Google Scholar
Molnar, G. (2003) Powers: A Study in Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mumford, S. (1998) Dispositions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Prior, E., Pargetter, R., and Jackson, F.. (1982) ‘Three Theses about Dispositions’. American Philosophical Quarterly, 19, 251–57.Google Scholar
Schaffer, J. (2005) ‘Quiddistic Knowledge’. Philosophical Studies, 123, 1–32.Google Scholar
Schroer, R. (2010) ‘Is There More Than Just One Categorical Property?’ Philosophical Quarterly, 60, 831–50.Google Scholar
Shoemaker, S. (1980) ‘Causality and Properties’. In van Inwagen, P. (ed.), Time and Cause (Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company), 109–35.Google Scholar
Shoemaker, S. (1998) ‘Causal and Metaphysical Necessity’. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 79, 59–77.Google Scholar
Smith, D. C. (2016) ‘Quid Quidditism Est?’ Erkenntnis, 81, 237–57.Google Scholar
Stoljar, D. (2006) Ignorance and Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Strawson, G. (2008) ‘The Identity of the Categorical and the Dispositional’. Analysis, 300, 271–82.Google Scholar
Veillet, B. (2005) ‘The Cognitive Significance of Phenomenal Knowledge’. Philosophical Studies, 172, 2955–74.Google Scholar
Yablo, S. (1993) ‘Is Conceivability a Guide to Possibility?’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 53, 1–42.Google Scholar