4
  1. Why was the following post closed?

What does "disposition" mean in a philosophical context?

It's clearly a question of analytic philosophy related to the philosophy of mind and indirectly philosophy of law. The infamous Gilbert Ryle has a whole chapter in his Concept of Mind devoted to defining the term.

  1. Are there users at a certain level which can override this closing or is the vote the only way to reopen?

EDIT :

After doing some reading online, this issue of false closure seems to be a recurrent theme.

  1. The current moderator, Mr. Klöcking and some users seems, to agree this is troublesome and needs to be fixed. Has a fix been implemented, and if not, how can we bring about a fix? I believe that many capable users would be off-put if asking/responding to questions only to find a faulty mechanism in place for regulating expertise on what constitutes a good question.

See: Would it be better to show some amount of humbleness considering close votes?

| |
  • @Geoffrey_Thomas – J D Aug 25 at 19:31
  • @Philip_Klöcking – J D Aug 25 at 19:31
  • @Swami Vishwananda – J D Aug 25 at 19:31
  • @Clyde_Frog voted. – J D Aug 25 at 19:32
  • @curiousdannii voted. – J D Aug 25 at 19:32
  • Daniel Dennett works a lot with first-order and second-order dispositions as well. I think this is another case of needless closure, but that is my personal opinion and I am not authorised to simply overthrow community votes at a whim. – Philip Klöcking Aug 26 at 15:59
  • 1
    I’m not strongly opposed but I guess I do wonder if this isn’t sort of “general reference”? – Joseph Weissman Aug 28 at 17:30
  • 3
    @JosephWeissman If by "general reference" you mean asking the definition of a word found in the typical soft general-purpose language dictionary like OED, then I guess the response to your wondering would be whether or not philosophers have taken a general term and adopt it as a technical term. In this case, for instance, both dispositional and occurent can be found in MW. But these "general terms" are neither used colloquially (I've never heard anyone use occurent outside of a philosophy of mind context) nor are they used willy-nilly. They are prescribed to disambiguate two types of belief... – J D Aug 30 at 6:26
  • 3
    If someone said, aren't terms like belief and knowledge "general reference", then one would use the same measure. They are technical terms because they address very specifical contextually driven philosophical questions. A forensic psychological evaluator who is at the intersection of the philosophy of mind and philosophy of law may have to explain to a democratically elected judge who hasn't attended law school (I actually know one), that it is scientifically possible to hold contradictory beliefs on the basis that they might be dispositional beliefs and unexamined... – J D Aug 30 at 6:30
  • 3
    It is only by making the two occurrent that the cognitive dissonance is experienced, and that contradiction is consciously noted and resolved. And that explanation is made plain by the philosophical distinction of types of belief, a subject of great import to epistmemoligists. I'd be hard pressed to imagine Robert Audi consider either the notion of belief or distinctions of belief mere general reference to a natural language. – J D Aug 30 at 6:31
  • 4
    And what of, Mr. @Philip_Klocking, an effort to reform the mechanism of erroneous closures? What if a disgruntled mob of five such inclined individuals were to be offended by Stack Exchange (seems to be a real possibility given all the umbrage taken at Monica's treatment) and close every post. Of course, their accounts would suffer your administrative disapproval. But yet the same mob acting without coordination according to strange, but democratic impulses to close those same questions on innocent grounds is perfectly acceptable?... – J D Aug 30 at 6:45
  • 4
    So the tyranny of the masses is more important than the expertise of skilled professionals without any regard to reason? It seems some mechanism such as a democratically elected tribunal should be given the authority to reverse and defend the expertise of philosophers and philosophy equally by informed democratic vote. Indirect representation is a good compromise in governance between mobs and autocrats. – J D Aug 30 at 6:51
  • 2
    Thanks for your assistance and support! If you need anything, just ping me. – Nai Sep 4 at 20:13
  • 2
    You're welcome. Anytime. – J D Sep 4 at 22:24

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .