Online research in philosophy

• No contact info.

• Faculty, California State University, Northridge
• PhD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 2007.

• 17th/18th Century Philosophy
• Philosophy of Religion

• 17th/18th Century Philosophy
• Philosophy of Religion

My philosophical views

I wrote my dissertation on Kant's theory of evil at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, under Stephen Darwall, and I defended it in June of 2007. After that, I took a year-long postdoctoral position at Notre Dame's Center for Philosophy of Religion. In 2008, I started as an assistant professor of philosophy at California State University, Northridge. Right now I'm working primarily on Kant's moral psychologies, specifically his conceptions of character, evil, happiness, and maxims. In addition, I'm working on meta-atheism, the meaning of life, Kant's moral argument for belief in the existence of God, and figuring out which libertarian account of free will I accept (I'm leaning strongly to agent-causal).

6 items found. Sort by: publication yearfirst authorviewingsaddition date Rob Gressis (2010). Recent Work on Kantian Maxims I: Established Approaches. Philosophy Compass 5 (3):216-227. Maxims play a crucial role in Kant's ethical philosophy, but there is significant disagreement about what maxims are. In this two-part essay, I survey eight different views of Kantian maxims, presenting their strengths, and their weaknesses. Part I: Established Approaches, begins with Rüdiger Bubner's view that Kant took maxims to be what ordinary people of today take them to be, namely pithily expressed precepts of morality or prudence. Next comes the position, most associated with Rüdiger Bittner and Otfried Höffe, that (...) maxims are Lebensregeln, or 'life-rules'– quite general rules for how to conduct oneself based on equally general outlooks on how the world is. These first two interpretations make sense of Kant's claim, made in his anthropological and pedagogical writings, that we have to learn how to act on maxims, but they become less plausible in light of Kant's probable view that people always act on maxims – after all, how can people learn how to act on something they always act on anyway? The next two views, each advanced, at different times, by Onora O'Neill, make better sense of the fact that people always act on maxims, for they hold that maxims are intentions – either specific intentions, such as 'to open the door', or general intentions, such as 'to make guests feel welcome'– and it is perfectly sensible to claim that people always act on intentions. However, they face the same problem as the two previous views, which is that if people always act on maxims, what sense does it make to say they also have to learn how to act on them? Henry Allison, the main representative of the fifth view, claims, on the basis of Kant's doctrine of the 'highest maxim', that maxims are principles organized hierarchically, such that an agent endorses one maxim because she endorses a more general maxim. Unfortunately for Allison, there is little direct textual support for his claim that maxims are organized hierarchically. (shrink) Immanuel Kant in 17th/18th Century Philosophy Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |     My bibliography  |   Export citation  | Other links: blackwell-synergy.com dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ... Rob Gressis (2010). Recent Work on Kantian Maxims II. Philosophy Compass 5 (3):228-239. Maxims play a crucial role in Kant's ethical philosophy, but there is significant disagreement about what maxims are. In this two-part essay, I survey eight different views of Kantian maxims, presenting their strengths and their weaknesses. In Part II: New Approaches, I look at three more recent views in somewhat greater detail than I do the five treatments canvassed in 'Recent Works on Kantian Maxims I: Established Approaches'. First, there is Richard McCarty's Interpretation, which holds that Kant's understanding of maxims (...) can be illuminated by placing them in the context of the Wollfian tradition, according to which maxims are the major premises of practical syllogisms. The next subject Maria Schwartz, holds that careful attention to Kant's distinction between rules and maxims, as well as Kant's concept of happiness, allows us to make sense of almost all of Kant's remarks on maxims. It may be, however, that on Schwartz's view agents turn out to perform actions as opposed to thoughtlessly habitual behaviors much less often than is plausible. This leads to the final approach, exemplified by Jens Timmermann, which is that Kant understands maxims equivocally. I claim that something like Timmermann's approach is the only way to make sense of all of what Kant has to say on maxims. (shrink) Immanuel Kant in 17th/18th Century Philosophy Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |     My bibliography  |   Export citation  | Other links: blackwell-synergy.com dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ... Robert Gressis (2010). Review of Chris L. Firestone, Kant and Theology at the Boundaries of Reason. [REVIEW] International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 67 (3):187-191. Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason in 17th/18th Century Philosophy Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |     My bibliography  |   Export citation | Scholar | At my library | More options ... Robert Gressis (2010). Review of Sharon Anderson-Gold and Pablo Muchnik, Kant's Anatomy of Evil. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2010 (7). In this book review, I assess the merits of the book as a whole (it's good!) while focusing in particular on chapters by Claudia Card, Patrick Frierson, Robert Louden, Pablo Muchnik, Jeanine Grenberg, and Allen Wood. Immanuel Kant in 17th/18th Century Philosophy Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |     My bibliography  |   Export citation | Scholar | At my library | More options ... Robert Gressis (2009). Chris L. Firestone, Nathan Jacobs, in Defense of Kant's Religion (Indiana Series in Philosophy of Religion). International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 66 (3):167-171. Philosophy of Religion Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason in 17th/18th Century Philosophy Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |     My bibliography  |   Export citation | Scholar | At my library | More options ... Robert Gressis (2007). Review of John E. Hare, God and Morality: A Philosophical History. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2007 (11). In this book, John Hare talks about the relationship between theism and the moral theories of four influential philosophers: Aristotle, Duns Scotus, Kant, and R. M. Hare. Aristotle in Ancient Greek and Roman Philosophy History of Western Philosophy, Misc Religious Ethics in Normative Ethics Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |     My bibliography  |   Export citation | Scholar | At my library | More options ...

Is this list right? BibTeX / EndNote / RIS / etc Export this page: Choose a format.. Formatted textPlain textBibTeXZoteroEndNoteReference Manager Limit to items. Viewing options show categories categorization shortcuts hide abstracts open articles in new windows Off-campus access Using PhilPapers from home? Click here to configure this browser for off-campus access. Monitor this page Be alerted of all new items appearing on this page. Choose how you want to monitor it: Email   RSS feed About PhilPapers Institute of Philosophy School of Advanced Study University of London Centre for Consciousness Australian National University General Editors: David Bourget (London) David Chalmers (ANU, NYU) Area Editors: Anthony Beavers David Bourget Berit Brogaard Thom Brooks Margaret Cameron David Chalmers Gabriele Contessa Rafael De Clercq Catarina Dutilh Novaes Farhang Erfani Pablo Gilabert Hans Halvorson Jonathan Ichikawa Jonathan Kvanvig Øystein Linnebo JeeLoo Liu Paul Livingston Brandon Look Michiru Nagatsu Susana Nuccetelli Gualtiero Piccinini Darrell Rowbottom Constantine Sandis Jonathan Schaffer Thomas Senor Robin Smith Robert Sparrow Daniel Star Jussi Suikkanen Lynne Tirrell John Simpson Wilkins Other editors Contact us Learn more about PhilPapers