Jonathan Livengood University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Contact

Affiliations
  • Faculty, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Areas of specialization

Areas of interest

My philosophical views


blank

My philosophical views

The answers shown here are not necessarily the same provided as part of the 2009 PhilPapers Survey. These answers can be updated at any time.

See also:

QuestionAnswerComments
A priori knowledge: yes or no?The question is too unclear to answer
Abstract objects: Platonism or nominalism?Insufficiently familiar with the issue
Aesthetic value: objective or subjective?Lean toward: objective
Analytic-synthetic distinction: yes or no?Accept: yes
Epistemic justification: internalism or externalism?Lean toward: internalism
External world: idealism, skepticism, or non-skeptical realism?Accept: non-skeptical realism
Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?Accept: compatibilism
God: theism or atheism?Lean toward: atheism
Knowledge: empiricism or rationalism?The question is too unclear to answerFormerly, I answered that I lean toward empiricism. But on further thought, I think the question is too unclear to answer. I don't know, for example, if the choice is between classical empiricism / rationalism -- insofar as there is such a thing, as opposed to "Locke's empiricism" (or Berkeley's or Hume's) or "Descartes' rationalism" (or Spinoza's or Leibniz's) -- or some modernization. And if a modernization, which one. Carnap's, Quine's, van Fraassen's? I definitely resonate with Peirce's assertion: "The elements of every concept enter into logical thought at the gate of perception and make their exit at the gate of purposive action; and whatever cannot show its passports at both those two gates is to be arrested as unauthorized by reason." But a lot rides here on what is meant by "logical" and a lot of processing goes on in between those gates.
Knowledge claims: contextualism, relativism, or invariantism?Insufficiently familiar with the issue
Laws of nature: Humean or non-Humean?There is no fact of the matter
Logic: classical or non-classical?Lean toward: non-classical
Mental content: internalism or externalism?Lean toward: externalism
Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism?Lean toward: moral realism
Metaphilosophy: naturalism or non-naturalism?Lean toward: naturalism
Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?Lean toward: physicalism
Moral judgment: cognitivism or non-cognitivism?Lean toward: cognitivism
Moral motivation: internalism or externalism?Insufficiently familiar with the issue
Newcomb's problem: one box or two boxes?The question is too unclear to answer
Normative ethics: deontology, consequentialism, or virtue ethics?Reject one, undecided between others
Perceptual experience: disjunctivism, qualia theory, representationalism, or sense-datum theory?Lean toward: representationalism
Personal identity: biological view, psychological view, or further-fact view?Lean toward: psychological viewI worry that there is ultimately no fact of the matter here.
Politics: communitarianism, egalitarianism, or libertarianism?Insufficiently familiar with the issue
Proper names: Fregean or Millian?Lean toward: Millian
Science: scientific realism or scientific anti-realism?Lean toward: scientific realism
Teletransporter (new matter): survival or death?Lean toward: survival
Time: A-theory or B-theory?Lean toward: B-theory
Trolley problem (five straight ahead, one on side track, turn requires switching, what ought one do?): switch or don't switch?Accept: switch
Truth: correspondence, deflationary, or epistemic?Accept: epistemicMy theory of truth is roughly that of C.S. Peirce. The truth is the opinion to which rational inquirers would converge in the limit. I take this to be a (broadly) epistemic account of truth. But I think there are strongly deflationary *and* correspondence ideas in Peirce's account.
Zombies: inconceivable, conceivable but not metaphysically possible, or metaphysically possible?Accept: inconceivable