Matthew Bedke University of British Columbia

  • Faculty, University of British Columbia
  • PhD, University of Arizona, 2007.

Areas of specialization

Areas of interest

My philosophical views


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?Accept: yes
Abstract objects: Platonism or nominalism?Accept: nominalism
Aesthetic value: objective or subjective?The question is too unclear to answerFor aesthetic status A, I'd give criteria for having A that is not sensitive to the stance of any subject. So it's not subjectivist in that sense. But I'd be an expressivist about aesthetic discourse, I suppose.
Analytic-synthetic distinction: yes or no?Accept: yesI think there are truths that fall out of the characters/intensions of the expressions we use. E.g., I am here now. So I'm Kaplanian about this.
Epistemic justification: internalism or externalism?Accept: internalism
External world: idealism, skepticism, or non-skeptical realism?Accept: non-skeptical realism
Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?Lean toward: compatibilism
God: theism or atheism?Accept: atheism
Knowledge: empiricism or rationalism?Lean toward: empiricismThe distinction is obscure to me if it is not the a priori - a posteriori distinction. I do think there is a priori knowledge.
Knowledge claims: contextualism, relativism, or invariantism?Agnostic/undecided
Laws of nature: Humean or non-Humean?Insufficiently familiar with the issue
Logic: classical or non-classical?Lean toward: non-classicalI like supervaluation views for handling indeterminate truth values in vague discourse, but that's minimally non-classical. I think something else must be done about the boundarylessness issue.
Mental content: internalism or externalism?Accept both
Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism?Accept: moral anti-realism
Metaphilosophy: naturalism or non-naturalism?Accept: naturalismI think naturalism is meant to include irreducibly phenomenal properties.
Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?Lean toward: non-physicalism
Moral judgment: cognitivism or non-cognitivism?Accept bothBut more non-cognitivism than cognitivism
Moral motivation: internalism or externalism?Accept an intermediate viewMoral judgments typically but not invariantly motivate and this needs to be explained.
Newcomb's problem: one box or two boxes?Lean toward: two boxes
Normative ethics: deontology, consequentialism, or virtue ethics?Lean toward: deontologyI think reasons are the basic normative unit, and this seems a bit deontological to me. But it's probably not one of the things people have in mind by 'deontology.'
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?Agnostic/undecided
Politics: communitarianism, egalitarianism, or libertarianism?Accept: egalitarianism
Proper names: Fregean or Millian?Lean toward: FregeanI think the sense of proper names tell us what external relations between word and object fix the referent.
Science: scientific realism or scientific anti-realism?Lean toward: scientific realism
Teletransporter (new matter): survival or death?Agnostic/undecided
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?Accept: switch
Truth: correspondence, deflationary, or epistemic?Lean toward: deflationaryI like the T-schema. When expressions have descriptive semantics, the T-schema is satisfied by (indirect, Horgan-type) correspondence.
Zombies: inconceivable, conceivable but not metaphysically possible, or metaphysically possible?Lean toward: metaphysically possible