, Volume 160, Issue 2, pp 297–308

Unfinkable dispositions

Original Paper


This paper develops two ideas with respect to dispositional properties: (1) Adapting a suggestion of Sungho Choi, it appears the conceptual distinction between dispositional and categorical properties can be drawn in terms of susceptibility to finks and antidotes. Dispositional, but not categorical properties, are not susceptible to intrinsic finks, nor are they remediable by intrinsic antidotes. (2) If correct, this suggests the possibility that some dispositions—those which lack any causal basis—may be insusceptible to any fink or antidote. Since finks and antidotes are a major obstacle to a conditional analysis of dispositions, these dispositions that are unfinkable may be successfully analysed by the conditional analysis of dispositions. This result is of importance for those who think that the fundamental properties might be dispositions which lack any distinct causal basis, because it suggests that these properties, if they exist, can be analysed by simple conditionals and that they will not be subject to ceteris paribus laws.


Dispositions Finks Conditional analysis Ceteris paribus laws 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bird A. (1998). Dispositions and antidotes. The Philosophical Quarterly 48, 227–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bird A. (2004). Antidotes all the way down?. Theoria 19, 259–269Google Scholar
  3. Bird A. (2005). The dispositionalist conception of laws. Foundations of Science 10, 353–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Choi S. (2003). Improving Bird’s antidotes. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 81, 573–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Choi S. (2005). Do categorical ascriptions entail counterfactual conditionals?. The Philosophical Quarterly 55(220): 495–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen D., & Handfield T. (in press). Finking Frankfurt. Philosophical Studies.Google Scholar
  7. Ellis B. (2001). Scientific essentialism. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Fara M. (2001). Dispositions and their ascriptions. Doctoral thesis. Princeton University. Available at <>.Google Scholar
  9. Heil J. (2003). From an ontological point of view. New York, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  10. Johnston M. (1992). How to speak of the colours. Philosophical Studies 68, 221–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Langton R., Lewis D. (1998). Defining ‘intrinsic’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58, 333–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lewis D. (1983). Extrinsic properties. Philosophical Studies 44, 197–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lewis D. (1997). Finkish dispositions. The Philosophical Quarterly 47, 143–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Martin C.B. (1994). Dispositions and conditionals. The Philosophical Quarterly 44, 1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Martin C.B. (1997). On the need for properties: The road to pythagoreanism and back. Synthese 112, 193–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Martin C.B., Heil J. (1999). The ontological turn. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 23, 34–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McKitrick J. (2003a). The bare metaphysical possibility of bare dispositions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66, 349–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McKitrick J. (2003b). A case for extrinsic dispositions. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 81, 155–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mellor D.H. (1974). In defence of dispositions. Philosophical Review 83, 157–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mumford S. (1998). Dispositions. New York, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  21. Mumford S. (2004). Laws in nature. London, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Shoemaker S. (1980). Causality and properties. In P. van Inwagen (Ed.), Time and cause (pp. 109–135). Dordrecht: Reidel. Reprinted (plus postscript) in his Identity, cause, and mind. pp. 206–233 Cambridge: Cambridge university Press.Google Scholar
  23. Smith M. (1997). A theory of freedom and responsibility. In: Cullity G., Gaut B. (eds) Ethics and practical reason. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Reprinted in Smith (2004).Google Scholar
  24. Smith M. (2003). Rational capacities, or: How to distinguish recklessness, weakness, and compulsion. In: Tappolet C., Stroud S. (eds), Weakness of will and practical irrationality. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Reprinted in Smith (2004).Google Scholar
  25. Smith M. (2004). Ethics and the a priori. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations