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?The question is too unclear to answerA priori means independent from experience. What do we mean by experience? It's a word with several senses. If we mean experience as sensorial knowledge, I think we can say that knowledge begins with experience but transcendes the sensorial, sensitive knowing. If we mean by experience a concept much more complex, including all our beliefs, memories, desires, ambitions, activities, etc., then we can't speak of a priori in the sense of experience autonomy.
Abstract objects: Platonism or nominalism?Accept an intermediate viewIt's not easy to decide. Platonism considered as a view about the world of ideas separated from our real world is certainly not my view. But there much more to say on Platonism. I'm certainly not affiliated to the platonic tradition, but I admire Plato's dialogues. My profile is more aristotelic, in general. Not nominalist, certainly not. I mean not ockhamist. But the issue is rather complex. If you are not platonist, you don't have necessarily to be nominalist and vice versa.
Aesthetic value: objective or subjective?Accept another alternativeThe subjective/objective alternative must be overcome. The concepts are not exhaustive neither disjuntive. And thinking with these apparente dualities is too misleading. So I prefer to eliminate the disjunction subjective/objective
Analytic-synthetic distinction: yes or no?Accept an intermediate viewI Think that Kripke has shown that this distinction has many exceptions, so we must be carefull and take case by case. See Kripke, Naming and Necessity. Ilean toward Kripke.
Epistemic justification: internalism or externalism?Accept an intermediate view
External world: idealism, skepticism, or non-skeptical realism?Lean toward: non-skeptical realismI'm not a skeptic, I'm not an idealist. But I think that a realistic view must be well founded. It is not an ingenuos position.
Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?Accept: compatibilism
God: theism or atheism?Accept: theismGod exists, I'm sure. I believe God exists. Itsn't an irrational belief, but a strong faith based on God's authority and love.
Knowledge: empiricism or rationalism?Accept another alternativeThe traditional isolation and radical distance between experience and reason contributes always to an icompete and partial view about knowledge.
Knowledge claims: contextualism, relativism, or invariantism?Accept more than one
Laws of nature: Humean or non-Humean?Accept: non-Humean
Logic: classical or non-classical?Accept both
Mental content: internalism or externalism?Accept: externalism
Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism?Accept: moral realism
Metaphilosophy: naturalism or non-naturalism?Lean toward: non-naturalism
Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?Accept: non-physicalism
Moral judgment: cognitivism or non-cognitivism?Other
Moral motivation: internalism or externalism?Accept an intermediate viewIt is not easy to choose between two extreme view. Generally the problem is much more complex and need a carefull and sound examination
Newcomb's problem: one box or two boxes?Insufficiently familiar with the issue
Normative ethics: deontology, consequentialism, or virtue ethics?Accept: virtue ethics
Perceptual experience: disjunctivism, qualia theory, representationalism, or sense-datum theory?Reject all
Personal identity: biological view, psychological view, or further-fact view?Accept: further-fact view
Politics: communitarianism, egalitarianism, or libertarianism?Accept another alternative
Proper names: Fregean or Millian?Accept: Fregean
Science: scientific realism or scientific anti-realism?Lean toward: scientific realism
Teletransporter (new matter): survival or death?Accept: survivalI believe that human being has an eternal life. He is not an animal, he has a soul, a mind, a spirituality, and this spiritual dimension will survive
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?Other
Truth: correspondence, deflationary, or epistemic?Accept another alternativeCorrespondence, that is, correspondence between a theory or a proposition and the reality is not enough; you must consider the reflexive dimension, that is, the knower must «see» himself thie correspondence.
Zombies: inconceivable, conceivable but not metaphysically possible, or metaphysically possible?Accept: conceivable but not metaphysically possible