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?Reject bothI think the question of a priori knowledge is largely irrelevant. Even if a priori knowledge existed, we would not be able to answer it, as an a priori standpoint is a pure thought construction--it is impossible for us to actually examine a priori knowledge because we are never in an "a priori state", so to speak.
Abstract objects: Platonism or nominalism?Accept: nominalism
Aesthetic value: objective or subjective?Accept: subjective
Analytic-synthetic distinction: yes or no?Accept: yesI don't think the distinction is really something one can "accept" or not--I see it more as a useful tool for structuring concepts.
Epistemic justification: internalism or externalism?Lean toward: externalism
External world: idealism, skepticism, or non-skeptical realism?Accept: non-skeptical realism
Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?Lean toward: no free willI don't really see any room within our understanding of the physical world for free will to act--despite this, however, I'm not sure how the apparent result that free will must be an illusion should affect our daily lives, since I don't think we'll ever be able to escape that illusion...
God: theism or atheism?Accept: atheism
Knowledge: empiricism or rationalism?Lean toward: empiricismIt depends on what knowledge is being considered. If we're talking about a sort of meta-knowledge (i.e. as in the Critique of Pure Reason) then rationalism is preferable, but in terms of the nature of the outside world, empirical determinations are all we have. Though I'm also inclined towards eschewing the question altogether and accepting some synthesis of the two.
Knowledge claims: contextualism, relativism, or invariantism?Insufficiently familiar with the issue
Laws of nature: Humean or non-Humean?Insufficiently familiar with the issue
Logic: classical or non-classical?There is no fact of the matterAgain, logic seems to me to be a tool, not a fact of the matter one can "accept" or not...
Mental content: internalism or externalism?Insufficiently familiar with the issue
Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism?Accept: moral anti-realism
Metaphilosophy: naturalism or non-naturalism?Lean toward: naturalism
Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?Accept: physicalism
Moral judgment: cognitivism or non-cognitivism?Accept an intermediate viewAs an anti-realist I do not think that moral qualities are something that can be found in the world, but I would accept the proposition that our moral judgments are sourced within certain mental structures which have been evolutionarily developed (and thus with regards to/in comparison with these evolutionary structures/predispositions moral statements could be regarded as having a truth value)
Moral motivation: internalism or externalism?Lean toward: internalism
Newcomb's problem: one box or two boxes?Lean toward: one boxIt depends on the characterization of the problem, really, but if you accept that Omega or the Predictor or whoever's predictions are almost always right, then one-boxing seems like the obvious choice...
Normative ethics: deontology, consequentialism, or virtue ethics?Lean toward: consequentialism
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 view
Politics: communitarianism, egalitarianism, or libertarianism?Lean toward: libertarianism
Proper names: Fregean or Millian?Lean toward: Millian
Science: scientific realism or scientific anti-realism?Accept: scientific realism
Teletransporter (new matter): survival or death?Insufficiently familiar with the issue
Time: A-theory or B-theory?Accept: B-theory
Trolley problem (five straight ahead, one on side track, turn requires switching, what ought one do?): switch or don't switch?Lean toward: switch
Truth: correspondence, deflationary, or epistemic?Lean toward: correspondence
Zombies: inconceivable, conceivable but not metaphysically possible, or metaphysically possible?Accept: inconceivableI mean "inconceivable" in the sense that I think "zombie-ism", as a concept, is utterly contradictory and really doesn't make any sense.