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?The question is too unclear to answerA priori and a posteriori share an obvious (overlooked for 10000 years) circle.
Abstract objects: Platonism or nominalism?Accept bothNominalism and Platonism share a circular relationship. That is, you cannot have one without the other.
Aesthetic value: objective or subjective?Accept bothSubject and object share an obvious circle. Thus no subjects, no objects, just pi.
Analytic-synthetic distinction: yes or no?Accept bothNeed one for the other.
Epistemic justification: internalism or externalism?The question is too unclear to answerEpistemology and ontology share a circle thus I am, God is. The background is a circle (more realistically, pi).
External world: idealism, skepticism, or non-skeptical realism?Accept more than oneSkepticism and stoicism share a necessary circle. You need one for the other, obviously.
Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?Reject allWhat difference does it make? Nature has us covered (already made the 50-50 available, choice).
God: theism or atheism?There is no fact of the matterNegation shares a circle with duplication, thus two (not-one) is the basis for reality, any system.
Knowledge: empiricism or rationalism?Accept bothHave to have one to have the other.
Knowledge claims: contextualism, relativism, or invariantism?Accept more than oneAny name reduces and expands to the same name (a different name). Basis for naming: circular relationship between one name and another. Complementary is the basis for identity.
Laws of nature: Humean or non-Humean?The question is too unclear to answerNature is lawless. Obviously.
Logic: classical or non-classical?Accept bothClassical and modern (non-classical) share a circle thus nothing changes because everything changes and the men will (all) be forgotten (also, their ideas, classification schemes).
Mental content: internalism or externalism?Accept bothExternal and internal share an obvious circular relationship thus 50-50 is the norm (all disciplines, systems).
Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism?Accept bothEthics is a circular relationship called nature.
Metaphilosophy: naturalism or non-naturalism?Accept bothCannot have nature without something called anti-nature. This is another way to say symbolic relationships share a circle (cycle) with nature.
Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?Accept bothCannot have mind without matter and vice versa. They share a circular relationship thus pi is the most (only) realistic observation (observer).
Moral judgment: cognitivism or non-cognitivism?Accept bothNegation and duplication share a circular relationship, thus you need both to have either (neither).
Moral motivation: internalism or externalism?Accept an intermediate viewDoesn't matter what you call it. Observation and observer share a circle (circular relationship) thus circle is the most realistic externistic=internalism.
Newcomb's problem: one box or two boxes?There is no fact of the matterOne and two share a circular relationship.
Normative ethics: deontology, consequentialism, or virtue ethics?Accept more than oneNature normalizes behavior 50-50.
Perceptual experience: disjunctivism, qualia theory, representationalism, or sense-datum theory?Accept more than oneNature normalizes behavior all systems 50-50.
Personal identity: biological view, psychological view, or further-fact view?There is no fact of the matterBiology and psychology (philosophy and technology) share a 0-1 circle, thus either-or is both-and, neither-either. Circular relationship between any X and Y.
Politics: communitarianism, egalitarianism, or libertarianism?There is no fact of the matterUnit shares a circular relationship with a group, any system.
Proper names: Fregean or Millian?Accept bothDoes not matter what the name 'is...'
Science: scientific realism or scientific anti-realism?Accept bothNot possible to have physical without symbolic. These share an obvious circle.
Teletransporter (new matter): survival or death?There is no fact of the matterLife and death share an obvious circle.
Time: A-theory or B-theory?Accept bothA and B share a circular relationship. You need both to have either (neither).
Trolley problem (five straight ahead, one on side track, turn requires switching, what ought one do?): switch or don't switch?There is no fact of the matterDoesn't matter. Nature has you covered.
Truth: correspondence, deflationary, or epistemic?Accept: correspondenceRepresentational reality is based on (articulates, proves) a circle.
Zombies: inconceivable, conceivable but not metaphysically possible, or metaphysically possible?There is no fact of the matterAny observation is true (shares a circle with an alternative observation) because 50-50 is the base observation.