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 both
Abstract objects: Platonism or nominalism?Accept an intermediate viewThe regularities of abstractions and the ability to share them with others and confront to them as resisting things have the phenomenology of things, irreducible to "generalities in my mind", though non observable as independant objects in any shared world (they are of a status such that they would disappear with mankind). The disjunction of the question falls short of the subtleties linked to the questions around of such "consisting" objects.
Aesthetic value: objective or subjective?Skip
Analytic-synthetic distinction: yes or no?Accept another alternativeOnly in a given context. For instance, it may be considered, a set of definitions being given, that the statement suc term is its definition is analytic - or if axioms and rules are given any deduction is analytic, with respect to the context - and there would ne no synthetic proposition in such a context, the distinction falling short of any meaning. But I am not even sure A=A may always be considered analytic. I am indeed not even sure there is anything such analytic or synthetic propositions as such.
Epistemic justification: internalism or externalism?Skip
External world: idealism, skepticism, or non-skeptical realism?Accept another alternativeThere is no external world. Therefore either there is no fact of the matter, or all are correct whenever one is still holding the belief there is an exterior world, or all are incorrect in doing so. It will depend on your philosophical option. But actually, the question is to me totally irrelevant - and uninteresting.
Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?Skip
God: theism or atheism?Accept another alternativeGod as creator does not exist - no need of one, and too anthropocentric a view: no need to indulge into a category mistake. Fully atheistic in this respect. But "god" or rather (god), as the odd "thing" which we may be tempted to assigne to transcendent ou immanent non-dual experiences, insists. Not theistic there: I do not believe (god) is a being, like an electron is one nor even a concept like "liberty". Maybe a pure and rare quale?
Knowledge: empiricism or rationalism?Accept another alternativeTranscendantalism, contextualism, etc. Rationalism and empiricism are both (good) tools to locally solve such or such problem, but cannot account for the nature of "knowledge" as such.
Knowledge claims: contextualism, relativism, or invariantism?Skip
Laws of nature: Humean or non-Humean?Skip
Logic: classical or non-classical?Accept both
Mental content: internalism or externalism?Skip
Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism?Skip
Metaphilosophy: naturalism or non-naturalism?Skip
Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?SkipIf mind means "human mind", both are to be accepted. Their articulation is pf utmost important to understand why there is no free will, though we do still live as if there were one, why there is no truth outside af a mind percieving such truth, etc. It is impossible to naturalize the mind if is is fully reducible
Moral judgment: cognitivism or non-cognitivism?Skip
Moral motivation: internalism or externalism?Skip
Newcomb's problem: one box or two boxes?Skip
Normative ethics: deontology, consequentialism, or virtue ethics?Lean toward: virtue ethics
Perceptual experience: disjunctivism, qualia theory, representationalism, or sense-datum theory?Skip
Personal identity: biological view, psychological view, or further-fact view?Skip
Politics: communitarianism, egalitarianism, or libertarianism?Skip
Proper names: Fregean or Millian?Skip
Science: scientific realism or scientific anti-realism?Skip
Teletransporter (new matter): survival or death?Skip
Time: A-theory or B-theory?Skip
Trolley problem (five straight ahead, one on side track, turn requires switching, what ought one do?): switch or don't switch?Skip
Truth: correspondence, deflationary, or epistemic?Accept more than oneAll of these have good reasons. None of these is able to given a proper account of truth. I guess my main conception of truth is 1. heavily contextual (what does truth mean in such or such contexte) and 2. you cannot properly address the question about truth it you not adress it as a quale first.
Zombies: inconceivable, conceivable but not metaphysically possible, or metaphysically possible?Skip