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?Agnostic/undecided
Abstract objects: Platonism or nominalism?Agnostic/undecided
Aesthetic value: objective or subjective?The question is too unclear to answerFor I would need to know what *exactly* is meant with subjective/objective here.
Analytic-synthetic distinction: yes or no?Agnostic/undecided
Epistemic justification: internalism or externalism?Insufficiently familiar with the issue
External world: idealism, skepticism, or non-skeptical realism?Lean toward: non-skeptical realism
Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?Accept: compatibilism
God: theism or atheism?Accept: atheismHowever, many self-professed atheists dismiss the theist alternatives too easily.
Knowledge: empiricism or rationalism?Reject both
Knowledge claims: contextualism, relativism, or invariantism?Lean toward: invariantism
Laws of nature: Humean or non-Humean?Lean toward: HumeanBut if you include so-called 'psychological laws' under this heading, I reject both.
Logic: classical or non-classical?The question is too unclear to answerIt depends on what you want to do with logic. Isn't that the upshot of the last 100 years or so of proliferation of non-classical systems?
Mental content: internalism or externalism?Lean toward: externalism
Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism?Lean toward: moral realismReally hard as I have sympathies with certain constructivist views. I typically list those under 'realism', but I know most Ozzie types tend to dismiss constructivism altogether as a meta-ethical view. Furthermore, I recently have come to believe that moral realism makes sense for evaluative properties; that constructivism makes sense for deontic properties; and that anti-realism makes sense for some moral statements. But if I have to choose: my realist inclinations are strongest.
Metaphilosophy: naturalism or non-naturalism?Accept: naturalism
Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?Accept: physicalismHaving read too much Dennett....
Moral judgment: cognitivism or non-cognitivism?Accept: cognitivismSome lingering doubts, however,.... More acceptance that leaning though
Moral motivation: internalism or externalism?Lean toward: externalismJust because I used to hang out with externalist types...
Newcomb's problem: one box or two boxes?Lean toward: one boxAgainst my better judgment. I know it is a silly position to hold, and yet... and yet... Official answer is that this is connected to my views about constructivism in practical reason.
Normative ethics: deontology, consequentialism, or virtue ethics?Accept an intermediate viewThe three alternatives are straw-men of plausible normative ethical theories. A plausible theory will have elements of all three. Furthermore, *any* normative ethical theory will have elements of virtue, an axiology and deontic elements. Finally, you are comparing apples and pears as both consequentialism and deontology are typically characterized by the fact that they are very explicit about obligation, whereas this is very unclear with traditional virtue ethics.
Perceptual experience: disjunctivism, qualia theory, representationalism, or sense-datum theory?Insufficiently familiar with the issue
Personal identity: biological view, psychological view, or further-fact view?Agnostic/undecided
Politics: communitarianism, egalitarianism, or libertarianism?Accept another alternative
Proper names: Fregean or Millian?Insufficiently familiar with the issue
Science: scientific realism or scientific anti-realism?Lean toward: scientific realism
Teletransporter (new matter): survival or death?Agnostic/undecided
Time: A-theory or B-theory?Insufficiently familiar with the issue
Trolley problem (five straight ahead, one on side track, turn requires switching, what ought one do?): switch or don't switch?Lean toward: switchThis is not the real point about the Trolley problem in my opinion. Many people, including philosophers hold all kinds of contrasting and even inconsistent views on this. I sincerely hope you will not use this as a way to discriminate between those who have consequentialist leanings and those who do not.
Truth: correspondence, deflationary, or epistemic?Agnostic/undecided
Zombies: inconceivable, conceivable but not metaphysically possible, or metaphysically possible?Agnostic/undecided