Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 176, Issue 1, pp 65–92 | Cite as

Dispositional and categorical properties, and Russellian Monism

  • Eric HiddlestonEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper has two main aims. The first is to present a general approach for understanding “dispositional” (or “structural”) and “categorical” properties; the second aim is to use this approach to criticize Russellian Monism. On the approach I suggest, what are usually thought of as “dispositional” and “categorical” properties are really just the extreme ends of a spectrum of options. The approach allows for a number of options between these extremes, and it is plausible, I suggest, that just about everything of scientific interest falls in this middle ground. I argue that Russellian Monism depends for its plausibility on the unarticulated assumption that there are no properties in the middle ground.

Keywords

Metaphysics Properties Dispositional properties Powers Philosophy of mind Russellian Monism 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Though it may not be obvious from the text, I am especially indebted to Sydney Shoemaker.

References

  1. Alter, T., & Howell, R. (2015). The short slide from a posteriori physicalism to Russellian Monism. In T. Alter & Y. Nagasawa (2015), pp. 277–299.Google Scholar
  2. Alter, T., & Nagasawa, Y. (2015). Consciousness in the physical world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bird, A. (2007). The regress of pure powers? The Philosophical Quarterly, 57, 513–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bird, A. (2016). Overpowered: How the powers ontology has overreached itself. Mind, 125, 341–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Black, M. (1952). The identity of indiscernibles. Mind, 61, 153–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chalmers, D. (2012). Constructing the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chalmers, D. (2015). Panpsychism and panprotopsychism. In T. Alter & Y. Nagasawa (2015), pp. 246–276.Google Scholar
  8. Choi, S., & Fara, M. (2016). Dispositions. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Berlin: Spring.Google Scholar
  9. Ellis, B. (2010). Causal powers and categorical properties. In A. Marmadoro (Ed.), The metaphysics of powers (pp. 133–142). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Hawthorne, J. (2006). Causal structuralism. In J. Hawthorne (Ed.), Metaphysical essays (pp. 211–227). Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heil, J. (2003). From an ontological point of view. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jackson, F., & Priest, G. (2004). Lewisian themes. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kelly, A. (2013). Ramseyan humility, scepticism, and grasp. Philosophical Studies, 164, 705–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ladyman, J., & Ross, D. (2007). Every thing must go. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Langton, R. (2004). Elusive knowledge of things in themselves. In F. Jackson & G. Priest (2004), pp. 130–137.Google Scholar
  16. Lewis, D. (1986a). On the plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. Lewis, D. (1986b). Philosophical papers (Vol. II). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lewis, D. (2009). Ramseyan humility. In D. Braddon-Mitchell & R. Nola (Eds.), Conceptual analysis and philosophical naturalism (pp. 203–222). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Locke, D. (2012). Quidditism without quiddities. Philosophical Studies, 160, 345–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Martin, C. B. (1993). Power for realists. In J. Bacon, K. Campbell, & L. Reinhardt (Eds.), Ontology, causality, and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Mundy, B. (1987). The metaphysics of quantity. Philosophical Studies, 51, 29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ney, A. (2015). A physicalist critique of Russellian Monism. In T. Alter & Y. Nagasawa (2015), pp. 346–369.Google Scholar
  23. Pereboom, D. (2015). Consciousness, physicalism, and absolutely intrinsic properties. In In T. Alter & Y. Nagasawa (2015), pp. 300–323.Google Scholar
  24. Schaffer, J. (2004). Quiddistic knowledge. In F. Jackson & G. Priest (2004), pp. 210–230.Google Scholar
  25. Shoemaker, S. (1980). Causality and properties. In Shoemaker (2003), pp. 206–233.Google Scholar
  26. Shoemaker, S. (1998). Causal and metaphysical necessity. In Shoemaker (2003), pp. 407–426.Google Scholar
  27. Shoemaker, S. (2003). Identity, cause, and mind (expanded ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Stoljar, D. (2001). Two conceptions of the physical. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 62, 253–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Strawson, G. (2008). Realistic monism: Why physicalism entails panpsychism. In G. Strawson (Ed.), Real materialism and other essays (pp. 53–74). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Taylor, H. (2017). Powerful qualities and pure powers. Philosophical Studies.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-017-0918-1 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wayne State UniversityDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations