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 bothmemory.
Abstract objects: Platonism or nominalism?Accept bothoh. Halloween movies! I go for both.
Aesthetic value: objective or subjective?Accept bothMust be a question about dreams. All values are objective until you wake up.
Analytic-synthetic distinction: yes or no?Accept boththey'just terms, and terms are at least self-refential
Epistemic justification: internalism or externalism?Accept bothExternal to the material world? Or internally, that out-there i all illusion as posit of still another possible unknowable?
External world: idealism, skepticism, or non-skeptical realism?Accept more than oneI had a student once, who wrote an entire paper without a single footnote, and no other references except these amphibologies--no books cited, no people references, no explanations.
Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?Lean toward: no free willprior restrictions? such as kingdom, phylum, species, gender, bad luck? posterior considerations of effect? perhaps free will--agent, event, or non-causal--is just another riddle term..
God: theism or atheism?Accept bothreligion =>'God - a much neater term than auto-hypnotism-'Frank Kuppner “Theism: an identity of self and a projection into grammar with authority.”— Paavo Tork Alchemical Medallions 2003 Perhaps 'religion' is a more inclusive term for this survey, and then the contrary would ..well...there wouldn't be an opportunity for that is the nullification argument?
Knowledge: empiricism or rationalism?Otherrationalism without an empiric, even of the observer of this question? that's would not leave much of anything...a black and white fallacy? but then, maybe some other dictionary applies here so..
Knowledge claims: contextualism, relativism, or invariantism?Accept more than oneevery term it its own invariant and that's a spell off rule
Laws of nature: Humean or non-Humean?The question is too unclear to answerwhich Hume, what part of Hume? who is to say it's Hume? what about asking Hume?
Logic: classical or non-classical?Accept bothweee! classical might be mathesis in some primal soup of astrophysics, or maybe angels, in a pin dance, but they are still just terms
Mental content: internalism or externalism?Accept bothwhat about a pacemaker? or a professor?
Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism?Otherwell, now, more spelling guesses: they are both 'moral' and that would include a judgment, perhaps even a judgment of an non-living system. maybe this is a Buddhist litmus of nothingness?
Metaphilosophy: naturalism or non-naturalism?OtherMaybe this should be a Metareligion question? What about meta-non-naturalistic leanings? Is that the Quentin Smith set up? Or meta-atheistic anomalous naturalism?
Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?Accept bothnon-physicalism still has physical presence in this questionaire so...
Moral judgment: cognitivism or non-cognitivism?Accept: cognitivismhaha! Non-cognitivism Error Theory (Mackie), the view that sentences containing moral predicates (henceforth moral sentences) do not have truthconditions: hence, liarly , nothing follows
Moral motivation: internalism or externalism?Accept bothpreference in space/time: morals; outside the box of all, externalism? but there is a supervenient valuation still.
Newcomb's problem: one box or two boxes?The question is too unclear to answerthis is the fake download problem: do you get a virus with your winnings? TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE? TAKING CANDY FROM A BABY? NO FREE LUNCH? Newcomb’s paradox: you are offered two boxes, one of which contains $ and the second is either empty or has beaucoup$…you can either take the first box, or take BOTH boxes, seemingly ensuring that you make a bundle. But what is the catch? Are those really beaucoup$? Or does that bring ruin from the relatives or???
Normative ethics: deontology, consequentialism, or virtue ethics?Accept more than onespelling difference with footnotes
Perceptual experience: disjunctivism, qualia theory, representationalism, or sense-datum theory?Accept more than oneoh. a reincarnation question! wow!
Personal identity: biological view, psychological view, or further-fact view?Accept more than onea set up for occasionalism?
Politics: communitarianism, egalitarianism, or libertarianism?Accept more than onelibertarianism: egalitarian community of self-interest? looks like the dream state again
Proper names: Fregean or Millian?Accept bothit's millian in print, and fregean on the interpretative reading
Science: scientific realism or scientific anti-realism?Accept bothlooks like a clean sweep for science of x
Teletransporter (new matter): survival or death?Accept bothMcTaggart! How do we get from A, to B to C to D? oh more death in space time. And there's this survey as telesport.
Time: A-theory or B-theory?OtherNowism: it's all now anyway, A B C or D...where's that option anyway?
Trolley problem (five straight ahead, one on side track, turn requires switching, what ought one do?): switch or don't switch?The question is too unclear to answerOh..yes, there are those Jains I learned about in Philosophy-nonce, who couldn't bear to eat because of the trolley problem, and so starved themselves to death...
Truth: correspondence, deflationary, or epistemic?Accept more than onecorrespondence of transfer to respondent in this questionnaire? or should one answer with deflationary randomness? there would still be an epistemic consideration, even if this were a machine generated answer
Zombies: inconceivable, conceivable but not metaphysically possible, or metaphysically possible?Accept more than oneghosts, way down at the bottom of the Latin alphabet