Andrew Brook Carleton University

  • Faculty, Carleton University
  • DPhil, Oxford University, 1973.

Areas of specialization
  • None specified

Areas of interest
  • None specified

My philosophical views


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:

A priori knowledge: yes or no?Lean toward: yesI clicked only lean toward because it seems to me clear that there are a priori elements in most knowledge but not much knowledge is entirely a priori. Classify my answer as you choose.
Abstract objects: Platonism or nominalism?Accept another alternativeWow, here the choice field is seriously deficient.
Aesthetic value: objective or subjective?Lean toward: subjectiveOn the basis of absolutely nothing, however.
Analytic-synthetic distinction: yes or no?Accept: yesCan't do phil of science without it.
Epistemic justification: internalism or externalism?Lean toward: internalism
External world: idealism, skepticism, or non-skeptical realism?Accept: non-skeptical realismSee the previous comment.
Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?Lean toward: libertarianismBut the good lord alone knows. If I could come up with one good new idea about free will, I'd die happy.
God: theism or atheism?Accept: atheismThere is not the slightest reason to believe in a 'supreme being' of any sort, let alone one who cares about me.
Knowledge: empiricism or rationalism?Accept bothThis is the one silly question so far. Both mind and world are involved and, as Kant already argued, neither can do it alone.
Knowledge claims: contextualism, relativism, or invariantism?Lean toward: invariantism
Laws of nature: Humean or non-Humean?Accept: non-HumeanMechanisms
Logic: classical or non-classical?Accept: non-classical
Mental content: internalism or externalism?Lean toward: externalismBut not about consciousness.
Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism?Lean toward: moral realismWhat an ugly, complicated topic!
Metaphilosophy: naturalism or non-naturalism?Accept: non-naturalismNaturalism has dick to say about epistemic or moral norms.
Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?Accept: physicalismDuh!
Moral judgment: cognitivism or non-cognitivism?Accept: non-cognitivismBut this does not mean relativism
Moral motivation: internalism or externalism?Insufficiently familiar with the issue
Newcomb's problem: one box or two boxes?Insufficiently familiar with the issue
Normative ethics: deontology, consequentialism, or virtue ethics?Accept more than oneAll in different contexts.
Perceptual experience: disjunctivism, qualia theory, representationalism, or sense-datum theory?Accept: representationalismThere is a serious alternative? (Not a serious comment. It is getting late and I am getting bored.)
Personal identity: biological view, psychological view, or further-fact view?Accept: psychological viewIn a nutshell, memory is so important in such a high proportion of cases.
Politics: communitarianism, egalitarianism, or libertarianism?Accept: egalitarianismThe others are justifications for treating some people savagely.
Proper names: Fregean or Millian?Lean toward: Millian
Science: scientific realism or scientific anti-realism?Accept: scientific realismI am far from convinced that any serious form of antirealism can even be coherently described.
Teletransporter (new matter): survival or death?Lean toward: survivalThe crucial alternative is missing: As good as survival.
Time: A-theory or B-theory?Accept both
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?Lean toward: correspondence
Zombies: inconceivable, conceivable but not metaphysically possible, or metaphysically possible?Accept: inconceivableThere is not one good reason to believe that (philosophers') zombies are possible in any way stronger than round squares are possible