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?Accept: yesClearly, we have at least some built-in knowledge or we could make no s3ense of the world.
Abstract objects: Platonism or nominalism?Accept both
Aesthetic value: objective or subjective?Lean toward: objectiveWho is the better poet: Burns or McGonagall? This is not to deny there is influence from peer-group pressure, 'culture' or other factors.
Analytic-synthetic distinction: yes or no?The question is too unclear to answer
Epistemic justification: internalism or externalism?Agnostic/undecided
External world: idealism, skepticism, or non-skeptical realism?Accept: non-skeptical realismA basic assumption, which to me, makes most sense. I have not found really strong arguments against there being a real world. [Maybe I should look harder]
Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?Lean toward: libertarianismI accept there is limited free will; most, but not all, of our choices are determined, but some are merely influenced. If we had no free will, would any of us being doing something as useless to survival as philosophy?
God: theism or atheism?Accept: atheismI could ask where is the evidence, but this sets the bar rather too high, so instead ask where are the reasonable grounds instead. There seem to be no reasonable grounds (not since Darwinism anyway).
Knowledge: empiricism or rationalism?Accept bothIs this actually a live issue?
Knowledge claims: contextualism, relativism, or invariantism?Lean toward: contextualismI guess that some knowledge is invariant, but accept that most knowledge is true is others facts are true. There is a lot of provinciality. Relativism is just another term for there is no such thing as knowledge.
Laws of nature: Humean or non-Humean?Insufficiently familiar with the issue
Logic: classical or non-classical?Lean toward: classical
Mental content: internalism or externalism?Insufficiently familiar with the issue
Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism?Lean toward: moral realismBit of a side issue to me, but I incline to morality being real.
Metaphilosophy: naturalism or non-naturalism?Agnostic/undecided
Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?Lean toward: non-physicalismBasically, I am an emergentist; mind has a dependent existence on matter, but not just any matter.
Moral judgment: cognitivism or non-cognitivism?Insufficiently familiar with the issue
Moral motivation: internalism or externalism?Accept another alternativeNot entirely clear on the issue. I lean towards a mixture of instinct(in that we need to have an internal simple moral compass to guide us in simple issues or collapse as a society) and having a real developing external morality has been formed by and developed by rational discussion and which we look to for more complex issues. This is an issue with which I am not very familiar and a(n extremely important) side issue to my interest in social and political philosophy.
Newcomb's problem: one box or two boxes?Insufficiently familiar with the issue
Normative ethics: deontology, consequentialism, or virtue ethics?Accept an intermediate viewInclined to a consequentialism (but not utilitarianism). I see the public act (which may, of course, go unnoticed by the general public) as vital and that ends do not necessarily justify the means and that ends are shaped by the means used to achieve them, leading to the 'wrong' ends being achieved. Character may be private, but we judge whether someone is 'good' or 'bad' by their public acts, although character is important. How else is it to be judged or developed?
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?Lean toward: psychological viewInclined towards the mind, but at least sometimes the body is important. If by further-fact, you mean soul, no, this does not exist - no strong grounds for it.
Politics: communitarianism, egalitarianism, or libertarianism?Accept another alternativeI call myself a democrat, so accept at the very least social and political equality, with a strong dose of positive freedom (so that equality can be exercised)within as wide as possible a franchise. I would, if pressed, declare myself a social democrat, but do not find being declared a liberal an insult, just as inaccurate. I see the liberal critique of democracy as useful and some of it as to be accepted. The community is made up of individuals, but one criticism I have of modern liberalism is that some individuals are allowed too much power and distort that system; sometimes the individual is not as import as the community. As to (right) libertarians, their interest lies not in liberty, but in property. The ownership of too much property leads to a level of social and political inequality that is unacceptable in a democracy and should be curtailed for the good of (the rest of the individuals in) a community. Also what about peoples who do not regarde property as on any importance (nomads)?
Proper names: Fregean or Millian?Insufficiently familiar with the issue
Science: scientific realism or scientific anti-realism?Accept: scientific realism
Teletransporter (new matter): survival or death?Lean toward: survivalI am supposing that character is somehow transferred; leaving aside issues about 'what is character?' here.
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: switchAssume this si areal dilemma and not a 'Batman's' one; numerous stories of Batman faced with saving either a close colleague or an innocent member of the public and saves both. Could the trolley not be derailed?
Truth: correspondence, deflationary, or epistemic?Agnostic/undecided
Zombies: inconceivable, conceivable but not metaphysically possible, or metaphysically possible?Accept: metaphysically possible