Profile for Seth Miller

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:

Question	Answer	Comments
A priori knowledge: yes or no?	Other	the foundation of epistemology is recursive, neither a priori nor a posteriori; it is an esoteric performance, not a thought content; the a priori arrives as an act of becoming, the nature of the a priori qua a priori is NOT itself a priori.
Abstract objects: Platonism or nominalism?	Lean toward: Platonism	not in the usual sense; they have more reality than "mere convention", but that reality is spiritual in nature, and can have real effects despite being non-physical
Aesthetic value: objective or subjective?	Other	both/and.
Analytic-synthetic distinction: yes or no?	Other	this distinction is possible to make, but it is also possible to make a different distinction; the question is more about whether and how each dance yields joy
Epistemic justification: internalism or externalism?	Other	both/and, and neither/nor. epistemic justification rests on a recursion which can be made explicit to thinking as an activity in which thinking reveals itself to itself as such. The distinction of internal/external is secondary to the actual source of epistemology in thinking that reveals its unfolding to itself, not as an abstraction but as a lived activity.
External world: idealism, skepticism, or non-skeptical realism?	Other	external world is maya, but a REAL maya. the extent of its illusoriness depends upon esoteric development, and cannot be dealt with abstractly
Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?	Other	Free will. But not in the 'normal' sense; rather, what is free in us has to be developed, it is not already 'given' for us to exercise; we must (continually) earn our capacity to be un-bound; this is an esoteric path
God: theism or atheism?	Accept: theism	not your usual God
Knowledge: empiricism or rationalism?	Other	both/and
Knowledge claims: contextualism, relativism, or invariantism?	Other	depends: not all knowledge is of the same type, it depends on the particular epistemological process at work in a given circumstance
Laws of nature: Humean or non-Humean?	Lean toward: non-Humean	the laws of nature are the ideal corpse of non-physical realtions; they are to their ongoing source as a description of my physical body is to my whole being
Logic: classical or non-classical?	Accept both	logic is a result of thinking when it begins to take its own activity seriously; there are no limits to the possible logics
Mental content: internalism or externalism?	Accept both	thoughts are real; they are also not fully reducible to purely physical causes, because there are no such things
Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism?	Other	the source of moral action is real, and has ontological effects, and is nevertheless subjective (until it becomes subjective-objective)
Metaphilosophy: naturalism or non-naturalism?	Accept both
Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?	Other	both/and; mind is physical, but the physical is not physical.
Moral judgment: cognitivism or non-cognitivism?	Other	again, depends upon the moral development and actual situation; can be either or both
Moral motivation: internalism or externalism?	Other	the answer depends on the moral development of the individual and the actual details of the situation; both/and.
Newcomb's problem: one box or two boxes?	Other	have tea and laugh at the idea that either choice is better
Normative ethics: deontology, consequentialism, or virtue ethics?	Other	consequentialism has some validity only when taken in a larger (karmic) context; virtue ethics is closer, but all three have some merit.
Perceptual experience: disjunctivism, qualia theory, representationalism, or sense-datum theory?	Other	many of these views have merits, none are complete; not all perceptual experience is the same, and which parts of which theory help us toward understanding changes on this basis.
Personal identity: biological view, psychological view, or further-fact view?	Other	biological: yes, psychological: yes, spiritual: YES, it depends on the level at which you address the concept of identity
Politics: communitarianism, egalitarianism, or libertarianism?	Other
Proper names: Fregean or Millian?	Other	both/and
Science: scientific realism or scientific anti-realism?	Other	both/and
Teletransporter (new matter): survival or death?	Other	false premises; consciousness is not reducible to physical configuration, i.e. the situation is hypothetical only
Time: A-theory or B-theory?	Other	both/and
Trolley problem (five straight ahead, one on side track, turn requires switching, what ought one do?): switch or don't switch?	Other	to think that the question can be addressed by thinking alone is the error of this setup; a more appropriate view would be one that included a larger perspective inclusive of karma and spiritual realities; the problem must be considered in that type of larger context and cannot be reduced to a thought content
Truth: correspondence, deflationary, or epistemic?	Other	truth is constructed, real, and rests on an epistemological recursion; all knowing is ultimately a paradox, the function of which is to mediate our transformation
Zombies: inconceivable, conceivable but not metaphysically possible, or metaphysically possible?	Lean toward: conceivable but not metaphysically possible

Applied ethics	Epistemology	History of Western Philosophy	Meta-ethics	Metaphysics	Normative ethics
Philosophy of biology	Philosophy of language	Philosophy of mind	Philosophy of religion	Science Logic and Mathematics	More ...