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: yesI accept a structured form of C.I. Lewis's pragmatic apriori, though I do not take such forms of knowledge to be bearers of truths.
Abstract objects: Platonism or nominalism?Accept another alternativeAbstract objects are ontologically neutral, like patterns. Much of our cognitive vocabulary is neutral in this way. It is not a big deal.
Aesthetic value: objective or subjective?Accept: subjective
Analytic-synthetic distinction: yes or no?The question is too unclear to answerToo unclear. Sentences or utterances? Truth-bearing or not?
Epistemic justification: internalism or externalism?Agnostic/undecided
External world: idealism, skepticism, or non-skeptical realism?Accept: non-skeptical realismThere is obviously a real world that is independent of my mind. And if it is dependent on some other mind, then that mind is so alien from mine that I could not consent to it being called a mind.
Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?Accept: compatibilism
God: theism or atheism?Accept an intermediate viewLean towards athiesm in my beliefs, but don't think belief needs to be the most important part of religious experience. I advocate quietism in public life.
Knowledge: empiricism or rationalism?Reject bothI'm too much of a skeptic about the fine-grained details of what is known to qualify as either of these.
Knowledge claims: contextualism, relativism, or invariantism?The question is too unclear to answerIt depends on the kind of proposition in question, and the context in question. Paradigmatically subjective truth-bearing propositions are amenable to relativism, while paradigmatically objective truth-bearing propositions lend themselves to invariantism. Contextualism seems like a good default interpretive strategy, but it's only a first pass; eventually, as we get more information about each other, contexts get carved at sharper joints.
Laws of nature: Humean or non-Humean?Agnostic/undecided
Logic: classical or non-classical?There is no fact of the matterIt depends on context of discourse. In factually defective discourse where intuitive inclinations towards judgment are assertable, and where communication goes through successfully, non-classical logics (e.g., intuitionism and paraconsistency) are fruitful.
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: naturalism
Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?Accept: physicalism
Moral judgment: cognitivism or non-cognitivism?Accept: cognitivism
Moral motivation: internalism or externalism?Accept bothMainly internalism, except when it comes to necessities. On that, I deny the force of the is/ought distinction.
Newcomb's problem: one box or two boxes?Accept both
Normative ethics: deontology, consequentialism, or virtue ethics?Accept more than oneContractualism, consequentialism, and virtue ethics are all valuable aspects of moral reasoning. Any aspect of moral deliberation that does not overlap with these categories is little more than a formal expression of what it would look like to have the right answers, without actually giving us a credible story on how to get them.
Perceptual experience: disjunctivism, qualia theory, representationalism, or sense-datum theory?Lean toward: disjunctivismI am willing to accept disjunctivism about perceptions, not sensations. That having been said, it is an open question as to whether or not perception is more central to experience than sensation.
Personal identity: biological view, psychological view, or further-fact view?Accept another alternativeI accept a version of the bundle theory that makes reference to grounded narratives.
Politics: communitarianism, egalitarianism, or libertarianism?Accept another alternativeThis feels like a kooky Cold War-era battle of labels. I'm a social democrat with modern liberal sensibilities. Virtually none of my beliefs fit well into those categories.
Proper names: Fregean or Millian?There is no fact of the matterThere are other alternatives to these two; you can adopt a mediated reference theory without appealing to kooky Fregean senses.
Science: scientific realism or scientific anti-realism?Accept: scientific anti-realism
Teletransporter (new matter): survival or death?Lean toward: survivalAll other things equal.
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?Lean toward: switch
Truth: correspondence, deflationary, or epistemic?Accept more than oneReject deflationism, accept correspondence and epistemic views.
Zombies: inconceivable, conceivable but not metaphysically possible, or metaphysically possible?Accept: metaphysically possible