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:

A priori knowledge: yes or no?Lean toward: yesDepends on one's theory of what we can get from experience. If it's spare, then I think there is indeed a priori knowledge. On the other hand, if we have a richer notion of experience, maybe not.
Abstract objects: Platonism or nominalism?Accept: nominalismSupposing that term "object" has some meaning to the effect of applying only to those things that can be objectively individuated by spatio-temporal location, the term "abstract object" is an oxymoron.
Aesthetic value: objective or subjective?Accept: objectiveSince defenses of moral objectivism would, I suppose, apply in a similar manner to any value-laden judgments, including aesthetic judgments, I don't see why if I accept the former, I shouldn't accept the latter, even though, I feel, as a matter of "intuition," that moral objectivism has more warrant. I fear, however, that any objections to defenses of the objectivity of aesthetic value would also degrade defenses of moral objectivism. Since I can't find a rational basis for my intuition that there is a difference between the two, prudence requires that I accept aesthetic objectivism. Though, I admit, I haven't been keeping up with the literature on this topic.
Analytic-synthetic distinction: yes or no?Accept: yes
Epistemic justification: internalism or externalism?Agnostic/undecided
External world: idealism, skepticism, or non-skeptical realism?Lean toward: non-skeptical realism
Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?Lean toward: libertarianism
God: theism or atheism?Lean toward: atheism
Knowledge: empiricism or rationalism?Agnostic/undecidedSee my answer to (1)
Knowledge claims: contextualism, relativism, or invariantism?Accept: invariantism
Laws of nature: Humean or non-Humean?Insufficiently familiar with the issue
Logic: classical or non-classical?Lean toward: non-classical
Mental content: internalism or externalism?Accept an intermediate viewIn this case, I do feel that the debate has taken on the characteristics of typical debates between religious extremists. Also, I don't see why Burge's article on mental content didn't conclusively muddy the waters here.
Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism?Accept: moral realism
Metaphilosophy: naturalism or non-naturalism?Accept: non-naturalismAdmittedly, I am uncertain about what the contrast between these two positions is supposed to be. However, if being a naturalist means something like what Quine suggests in "Epistemology Naturalized," then I suppose we should all quit our jobs and take up scientific investigation, whatever that means. At least Rorty, having come to the conclusion that traditional philosophy is hopelessly confused, put his money where his mouth was and left.
Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?Lean toward: non-physicalism
Moral judgment: cognitivism or non-cognitivism?Lean toward: cognitivism
Moral motivation: internalism or externalism?Lean toward: internalism
Newcomb's problem: one box or two boxes?Accept: one boxIf the predictor is infallible and knows what will happen, it also knows what you will be thinking, your decision process and cetera. So one box is the right answer.
Normative ethics: deontology, consequentialism, or virtue ethics?Accept: deontology
Perceptual experience: disjunctivism, qualia theory, representationalism, or sense-datum theory?Accept: disjunctivism
Personal identity: biological view, psychological view, or further-fact view?Accept another alternativeWhile I accept Parfit's conclusion that identity is not what matters in survival, I do not reject it based on considerations about fission.
Politics: communitarianism, egalitarianism, or libertarianism?OtherIf we're talking which theory is morally ideal here, then I don't see how one could fail to accept some form of egalitarianism as an over-arching value, given some plausible definition of "equality." The real question is which policies would have the consequence of producing that equality, and these might not necessarily directly reflect our moral commitment to equality. I honestly don't know how to assess this question given my training.
Proper names: Fregean or Millian?Accept another alternativeA shameless plug: see my recent paper in AJP on the topic :)
Science: scientific realism or scientific anti-realism?Other
Teletransporter (new matter): survival or death?Accept: survival
Time: A-theory or B-theory?Accept: A-theory
Trolley problem (five straight ahead, one on side track, turn requires switching, what ought one do?): switch or don't switch?Accept: switchOn pain of inconsistency when considering other similar cases that don't require my active participation. The killing/letting die distinction doesn't do it for me.
Truth: correspondence, deflationary, or epistemic?Accept: correspondence
Zombies: inconceivable, conceivable but not metaphysically possible, or metaphysically possible?Agnostic/undecidedIntuitively, I suppose they *must* be conceivable, though I am uncertain what counts as conceivable, and I suppose I might be a skeptic about this.