more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 17772

[filed under theme 8. Modes of Existence / C. Powers and Dispositions / 7. Against Powers ]

Full Idea

Kant argues that an object's causal powers are not intrinsic to it but feature among its relational properties.

Gist of Idea

Kant claims causal powers are relational rather than intrinsic

Source

report of Immanuel Kant (Critique of Pure Reason [1781]) by Tim Bayne - Thought: a very short introduction Ch.7

Book Ref

Bayne,Tim: 'Thought: a very short introduction' [OUP 2013], p.107


A Reaction

[He doesn't give a reference for this] Put in this simple way, rather than obfuscated by Kant's arcane lexis, this sounds utterly false to me. Giving relations and functions explains nothing. How are those relations and functions possible?


The 18 ideas with the same theme [criticisms of the idea that there are 'powers' in reality]:

Locke explains powers, but effectively eliminates them with his talk of internal structure [Locke, by Alexander,P]
We cannot form an idea of a 'power', and the word is without meaning [Hume]
We have no idea of powers, because we have no impressions of them [Hume]
The distinction between a power and its exercise is entirely frivolous [Hume]
Kant claims causal powers are relational rather than intrinsic [Kant, by Bayne]
No physical scientist now believes in an occult force-exerting agency [Ryle]
Propensities are part of a situation, not part of the objects [Popper]
Powers must result in some non-powers, or there would only be potential without result [Armstrong]
How does the power of gravity know the distance it acts over? [Armstrong]
Actualism means that ontology cannot contain what is merely physically possible [Armstrong]
Dispositions exist, but their truth-makers are actual or categorical properties [Armstrong]
If everything is powers there is a vicious regress, as powers are defined by more powers [Armstrong]
Most properties are causally irrelevant, and we can't spot the relevant ones. [Lewis]
If every event has a cause, it is easy to invent a power to explain each case [Mumford]
Traditional powers initiate change, but are mysterious between those changes [Mumford]
Categorical eliminativists say there are no dispositions, just categorical states or mechanisms [Mumford]
Might dispositions be reduced to normativity, or to intentionality? [Mumford/Anjum]
How can spatiotemporal relations be understood in dispositional terms? [Vetter]