There's an interesting discussion of that question over at Right Reason. The post's author, Alexander Pruss, is certainly right to imply that love in the relevant sense, i.e. agape, cannot be merely a disposition. But neither do I think it right to say that agape entails no disposition to love, if indeed that's what is being said. I'd say that agape is fundamentally a kind of action which, when performed regularly, entails a non-necessitating habitus or disposition to act similarly.
Note from Philoponus
-
(turning his example into an analogy) As the sleeping geometer knows the
theorem, the structure of the living eye is vision.
2 hours ago
