| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立中正大學 === 哲學研究所 === 101 === Dispositions are commonplace in our life, but there is not a satisfactory analysis of dispositions yet. At 1920s, R. Carnap tried to construct an intuitive analysis of dispositions, but, he gave up that analysis because of unsolvable difficulties. After several attempts, he finally abandoned the task of analyzing of dispositions. At 1960s, David Lewis had an important development of conditionals, so he tried to use counterfactual conditionals to analyze dispositions. And, by two steps, Lewis defined a generally accepted analysis of dispositions, i.e. simple conditional analysis (SCA). However, C. B. Martin gave a sensible counterexample against SCA. Consequently, Lewis modified his SCA to dismiss the counterexample. The reformed version is also known as Reformed Conditional Analysis (RCA). RCA can resolve Martin’s counterexample, but it still is not a satisfactory analysis because it encounters Mark Johnston’s and other’s counterexamples. In this paper, I try to take C. S. Peirce's and J. H. Fezter's analysis of the notion of probability to analyze dispositions. I will show that if we use the notion of probability to analyze dispositions (PSCA), then we can endure those counterexamples in every case. However, there are still some difficulties for PSCA, I will try to resolve those difficulties in this paper. And if everything goes the right way, then there is, indeed, a satisfactory analysis of dispositions at hand.
|
|---|
