more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
Potentialities are 'potentialities to ....', while possibilities are 'possibilities that ....'.
Gist of Idea
There are potentialities 'to ...', but possibilities are 'that ....'.
Source
Barbara Vetter (Potentiality [2015], 6.4)
Book Ref
Vetter,Barbara: 'Potentiality: from Dispositions to Modality' [OUP 2015], p.207
A Reaction
This feels a bit like a stipulation, rather than a precise description of normal usage. That said, it is quite a nice distinction. It sounds as if an event follows a potentiality, and a state of affairs follows a possibility. Active and passive?
15777 | A 'potentiality' is a principle of change or process in a thing [Aristotle] |
15778 | Things are destroyed not by their powers, but by their lack of them [Aristotle] |
14544 | Potentialities are always for action, but are conditional on circumstances [Aristotle] |
15774 | We recognise potentiality from actuality [Aristotle] |
11254 | Matter is potentiality [Aristotle, by Politis] |
12250 | Bodies have act and potency, the latter explaining new kinds of existence [Oderberg] |
23705 | A potentiality may not be a disposition, but dispositions are strong potentialities [Vetter, by Friend/Kimpton-Nye] |
19009 | Potentiality does the explaining in metaphysics; we don't explain it away or reduce it [Vetter] |
19019 | Potentiality is the common genus of dispositions, abilities, and similar properties [Vetter] |
19022 | Water has a potentiality to acquire a potentiality to break (by freezing) [Vetter] |
19025 | Potentialities may be too weak to count as 'dispositions' [Vetter] |
19027 | Potentiality logic is modal system T. Stronger systems collapse iterations, and necessitate potentials [Vetter] |
19031 | There are potentialities 'to ...', but possibilities are 'that ....'. [Vetter] |