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:

QuestionAnswerComments
A priori knowledge: yes or no?Lean toward: yesThis is a weak acceptance that is characterized by the possibility of some non-linguistic conceptual a priori which might be necessary for us to have any concepts at all. I have trouble with the idea of linguistic a priori. none of these ideas are well defined as of yet.
Abstract objects: Platonism or nominalism?Lean toward: nominalism
Aesthetic value: objective or subjective?Lean toward: subjective
Analytic-synthetic distinction: yes or no?Lean toward: yes
Epistemic justification: internalism or externalism?Lean toward: externalism
External world: idealism, skepticism, or non-skeptical realism?Lean toward: non-skeptical realism
Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?Lean toward: no free willI am inclined to think that this is more of a definitional problem revolving around what we mean by free will than a metaphysical problem of choice.
God: theism or atheism?Accept: atheism
Knowledge: empiricism or rationalism?Lean toward: empiricism
Knowledge claims: contextualism, relativism, or invariantism?Lean toward: contextualism
Laws of nature: Humean or non-Humean?Lean toward: Humean
Logic: classical or non-classical?Lean toward: non-classical
Mental content: internalism or externalism?Lean toward: externalism
Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism?Lean toward: moral realism
Metaphilosophy: naturalism or non-naturalism?Lean toward: naturalism
Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?Lean toward: physicalism
Moral judgment: cognitivism or non-cognitivism?Lean toward: cognitivism
Moral motivation: internalism or externalism?Lean toward: externalism
Newcomb's problem: one box or two boxes?Accept: one box
Normative ethics: deontology, consequentialism, or virtue ethics?Accept more than oneit seems that each theory has its difficulties in dealing with specific problems. Taking one position would limit ones ability to address certian moral problems.
Perceptual experience: disjunctivism, qualia theory, representationalism, or sense-datum theory?Lean toward: qualia theory
Personal identity: biological view, psychological view, or further-fact view?Lean toward: psychological view
Politics: communitarianism, egalitarianism, or libertarianism?Lean toward: egalitarianismI have questions as to whether or not this is actually possible to implement, but Egalitarianism should be the goal.
Proper names: Fregean or Millian?Lean toward: Fregean
Science: scientific realism or scientific anti-realism?Insufficiently familiar with the issue
Teletransporter (new matter): survival or death?Accept: deathWhether this is an important distinction is unclear.
Time: A-theory or B-theory?Lean toward: B-theory
Trolley problem (five straight ahead, one on side track, turn requires switching, what ought one do?): switch or don't switch?Accept: switchThis is not a consequentialist response. The experiment assumes a negative outcome; the respondent simply determines the extent of that outcome.The trolley does not do the intended job.
Truth: correspondence, deflationary, or epistemic?Lean toward: epistemic
Zombies: inconceivable, conceivable but not metaphysically possible, or metaphysically possible?Accept: conceivable but not metaphysically possiblenote that this a limited view of the zombie. The zombie in question cannot have the same mental states as its feeling antecedent.