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.
Question | Answer | Comments | |
A priori knowledge: yes or no? | Other | Sceptic | |
Abstract objects: Platonism or nominalism? | Agnostic/undecided | | |
Aesthetic value: objective or subjective? | Accept another alternative | Subjective-Relativism | |
Analytic-synthetic distinction: yes or no? | Agnostic/undecided | | |
Epistemic justification: internalism or externalism? | Agnostic/undecided | | |
External world: idealism, skepticism, or non-skeptical realism? | Accept: skepticism | (and by scepticism I mean the actual sceptical view of 'suspending judgement', not the dogmatic doubt) | |
Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will? | Agnostic/undecided | Depends upon the ontology of our actual existence as the beings we are. Without 'knowing' what we are and how we exist, all are just possibilities. However even with 'realism', I believe Compatibilism is more preferable, especially as Determinism offers no more evidence than assuming one branch of an equally possible fork in the road. | |
God: theism or atheism? | Other | | |
Knowledge: empiricism or rationalism? | Accept another alternative | Scepticism | |
Knowledge claims: contextualism, relativism, or invariantism? | Accept another alternative | Sceptic | |
Laws of nature: Humean or non-Humean? | Lean toward: Humean | | |
Logic: classical or non-classical? | Lean toward: classical | | |
Mental content: internalism or externalism? | Lean toward: internalism | | |
Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism? | Accept: moral anti-realism | | |
Metaphilosophy: naturalism or non-naturalism? | Insufficiently familiar with the issue | | |
Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism? | Accept: physicalism | | |
Moral judgment: cognitivism or non-cognitivism? | Agnostic/undecided | | |
Moral motivation: internalism or externalism? | Agnostic/undecided | | |
Newcomb's problem: one box or two boxes? | Insufficiently familiar with the issue | | |
Normative ethics: deontology, consequentialism, or virtue ethics? | Agnostic/undecided | I believe that each has virtues, however that morality is the product of evolutionary behaviour focused on providing social cohesion and betterment, which has since evolved into more complex forms. Within this all three ethical stances (and others, including Care and Empathy-based theories) occur at times and are rejected at others, due to how our morality has developed. | |
Perceptual experience: disjunctivism, qualia theory, representationalism, or sense-datum theory? | Accept another alternative | Scepticism | |
Personal identity: biological view, psychological view, or further-fact view? | Accept another alternative | Projectivism | |
Politics: communitarianism, egalitarianism, or libertarianism? | Other | Cosmopolitan, anarchism, global community based on empathy, love, and focusing on the other - as the other and for the other. | |
Proper names: Fregean or Millian? | Insufficiently familiar with the issue | | |
Science: scientific realism or scientific anti-realism? | Accept: scientific realism | Qua my skeptic leanings I do not dogmatically accept any position, but within the phenomenal realm I lean more towards believing scientific theories established via empirical and reasoned evidence and investigation | |
Teletransporter (new matter): survival or death? | Agnostic/undecided | | |
Time: A-theory or B-theory? | Accept another alternative | Either both, or I simply do not believe in time (metaphysically-speaking) - but rather as a projected/mind-dependent concept. | |
Trolley problem (five straight ahead, one on side track, turn requires switching, what ought one do?): switch or don't switch? | Agnostic/undecided | | |
Truth: correspondence, deflationary, or epistemic? | Accept: correspondence | However I do not believe that many things are known. Moreover, many things (e.g. aesthetic value, ethical value, etc) are contextual/relative or a matter of true if one accepts the 'game', rather than true-in-themselves. | |
Zombies: inconceivable, conceivable but not metaphysically possible, or metaphysically possible? | Accept: metaphysically possible | | |