Philosophy Lexicon of Arguments

Author Item Excerpt Meta data
Armstrong, D.M.
Books on Amazon
Junctions II 47
Junction/Armstrong: just as the state that the a"s are F contains the existence of a and F without being exhausted by the existence of the two constituents, the postulated junction of the universals implies the existence of regularity, without being exhausted by regularities
II 126
Junction/Martin: Armstrong must introduce it as a fundamental undefined causal basic concept. Only in this way can he distinguish between random and non-random (causal) co-occurrences between U-instantiations - Arm: not formal, more like meaning postulate - no mysterious necessary J between separate things - II 127 MartinVsArmstrong: we need connectivity instead of actual connection - II 128 Question. Connection betw. U itself 2nd-stage U?
II 128
Martin Example: MartinVsArmstrong: (example: distant particle) - because of the possibility of constellations remote in time and space, he needs connectivity U = disp U instead of connection U as the basic concept
II 129
MartinVsArmstrong: Connections between U can still be necessary or contingent, no progress against Regth - Solution/Martin: "dispositionality" "in" things
II 149
Junction/MartinVsArmstrong: certainly connectivity, but not connection - ArmstrongVsMartin: between different things a and b there is not even something like connectivity - > II 176

AR II = Disp
D. M. Armstrong

Dispositions, Tim Crane, London New York 1996

D. Armstrong
What is a Law of Nature? Cambridge 1983

> Counter arguments against Armstrong

> Suggest your own contribution | > Suggest a correction | > Export as BibTeX file
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2017-04-30