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?Accept: yes
Abstract objects: Platonism or nominalism?Agnostic/undecided
Aesthetic value: objective or subjective?Lean toward: subjective
Analytic-synthetic distinction: yes or no?Accept: yes
Epistemic justification: internalism or externalism?Agnostic/undecided
External world: idealism, skepticism, or non-skeptical realism?Reject one, undecided between othersit would be idiotic to completely accept non skeptical realism. That said, adjudicating between Bishop berkely and variants requires way more work than I have done so far.
Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?Reject one, undecided between othersreject no free will
God: theism or atheism?Accept another alternativeWhat happened to pantheism?
Knowledge: empiricism or rationalism?Accept bothBoth a priori and a posteriori knowledge is possible
Knowledge claims: contextualism, relativism, or invariantism?Insufficiently familiar with the issue
Laws of nature: Humean or non-Humean?Insufficiently familiar with the issue
Logic: classical or non-classical?Insufficiently familiar with the issue
Mental content: internalism or externalism?Insufficiently familiar with the issue
Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism?Accept: moral realism
Metaphilosophy: naturalism or non-naturalism?Insufficiently familiar with the issue
Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?Agnostic/undecided
Moral judgment: cognitivism or non-cognitivism?Accept: cognitivism
Moral motivation: internalism or externalism?Lean toward: externalism
Newcomb's problem: one box or two boxes?Lean toward: one boxMore has to be specified about the nature of the predictor. The mere fact that he has been 100% accurate so far (without any specification on how many times he as guessed) has no bearing on whether or not he will always be accurate. However, in the case of indeterminacy,cf rawls in the original position, maximin is the answer
Normative ethics: deontology, consequentialism, or virtue ethics?Lean toward: deontology
Perceptual experience: disjunctivism, qualia theory, representationalism, or sense-datum theory?Insufficiently familiar with the issue
Personal identity: biological view, psychological view, or further-fact view?Agnostic/undecided
Politics: communitarianism, egalitarianism, or libertarianism?Lean toward: libertarianismDepends on the type of libertarianism. Moderaate, Hard-core or Anarcho-capitalism. cf Bryan Caplan's libertarianism survey.
Proper names: Fregean or Millian?Insufficiently familiar with the issue
Science: scientific realism or scientific anti-realism?Lean toward: scientific realismInstitutional biases speaking here (faculty of science)
Teletransporter (new matter): survival or death?Agnostic/undecided
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: don't switchHow to balance between number of lives lost and act/omission distinction. Also, would definitely reject survival lottery
Truth: correspondence, deflationary, or epistemic?Accept: correspondence
Zombies: inconceivable, conceivable but not metaphysically possible, or metaphysically possible?Agnostic/undecidedIt may be prima facie conceivable, but not conceivable in the deep sense. i.e Given a full understanding of what having the same physical apparatus means, it is not clear that we can actually conceive of one who is physically identical, but lacks qualia. To say it is either conceivable or not presupposes the conclusion. Also depending on your definition of conceivable and metaphysically possible, that it is metaphysically possible may or may not follow.