Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T00:57:48.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Disposition And Occurrence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Hung Hin-Chung
Hung Hin-Chung*
Affiliation:
University of Waikato
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Can ‘disposition’ be understood as a contrast term, the contrast being ‘occurrence'? Put it another way: do ‘dispositional predicate’ and ‘occurrent predicate’ form a contrast pair? I shall show that if ‘occurrent’ is taken as simply meaning ‘non-dispositional', then ‘occurrent’ has no applications (i.e., no predicates are occurrent (Sec. 2). However, if ‘occurrent’ is given an independent meaning so that predicates like ‘break', ‘bend', ‘disintegrate’ etc. are occurrent predicates, then it is not the contrast of ‘dispositional'. Its contrast is rather what I shall call ‘remainant’ (Sec. 3).

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , September 1975 , pp. 123 - 135
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 1975

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.)

References

References:

Achinstein, P. Concepts of Science, (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1968).Google Scholar
Alston, W.P. ‘Dispositions & Occurrences’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 1:2 (1971).10.1080/00455091.1971.10716013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, D.M. ‘Dispositions are Causes’, Analysis 30: I (1969).10.1093/analys/30.1.23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayer, A.J. Probability and Evidence (London>: Macmillan, 1972).10.1007/978-1-349-01907-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. ‘Meaning & Testability’, Philosophy of Science 3 (1936>) and 4 (1937), reprinted in Readings in the Philosophy of Science by H. Feigl & M. Brodbeck (ed) 1953.10.1086/286432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
N, Goodman. Fact, Fiction & Forecast 2nd ed. (Indianapolis, New York, Kansas City: The Bobbs-Merrill Co. Inc. 1965).Google Scholar
Levi, I. & Morgenbesser, S. ‘Belief & Disposition’, American Philosophical Quarterly 1:3, 1964.Google Scholar
Mackie, J.L. Truth, Probability & Paradox, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973).Google Scholar
Pap, A. ‘Disposition Concepts & Extensional Logic’, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science Vol. 2 by Feigl, H. Scriven, M. & Maxwell, G. (ed.) 1958.Google Scholar
Pap, A. ‘Reduction Sentences and Disposition Concepts’, in The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap ed. by Schilpp, P.A. 1963.Google Scholar
Popper, K.R. Logic of Scientific Discovery (London: Hutchinson 1959).10.1063/1.3060577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryle, G. The Concept of Mind (Harmondsworth: Penguin 1949, 1963).Google Scholar
Spilsbury, E.J. ‘Dispositions and Phenomenalism', Mind 1953.Google Scholar
Squires, R. ‘Are Dispositions Lost Causes’, Analysis 31:1 (Oct. 1970).10.1093/analys/31.1-2.15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Z. ‘Verbs and Times’, Philosophical Review 66 (1957).10.2307/2182371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1961).Google Scholar