2010-07-13 23:20:19 +02:00
|
|
|
% Philosophical Survey
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just a few thoughts on my answers to PhilPapers excellent [survey] for
|
|
|
|
|
philosophers. I'll explain my positions somewhat and almost certainly go into
|
|
|
|
|
more details in separate articles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Background
|
|
|
|
|
==========
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philosophically, my strongest early influence comes from Satanism and
|
|
|
|
|
Discordianism. I tried to, but never really got Nietzsche and felt very much at
|
|
|
|
|
home when reading Robert Anton Wilson. Later on, I picked up many Buddhist
|
|
|
|
|
influences (many distinctly Zen) and some Taoism. I am now more or less a
|
|
|
|
|
Buddhist, but my understanding is still too weak for my taste to fully identify
|
|
|
|
|
as one yet. I belong to no school of thought and my belief system is very
|
|
|
|
|
idiosyncratic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was motivated at first by fascinating problems, then making sense of madness
|
|
|
|
|
and currently understanding consciousness and fate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion, the two most important philosopher are the Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama,
|
|
|
|
|
for the three principles of [anatta](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta),
|
|
|
|
|
[anicca](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anicca) and
|
|
|
|
|
[dukkha](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha), and [Wang
|
|
|
|
|
Yangming](http://www.iep.utm.edu/wangyang/) for the unity of knowledge and
|
|
|
|
|
action. Without those, no understanding of the world is ever possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survey
|
|
|
|
|
======
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A priori knowledge?
|
|
|
|
|
-------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. There is no such thing as knowledge without experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract objects: Platonism or nominalism?
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neither. Abstract objects do not exist, but neither do particular ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aesthetic value: objective or subjective?
|
|
|
|
|
-----------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subjective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Analytic-synthetic distinction: yes or no?
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, as a priori knowledge does not exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epistemic justification: internalism or externalism?
|
|
|
|
|
----------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neither. There is no such thing as a distinction between mind and environment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External world: idealism, skepticism, or non-skeptical realism?
|
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skepticism, very similar to the most common Gnostic position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?
|
|
|
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no free will. Determinism is also provably false. Make of that what you
|
|
|
|
|
will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God: theism or atheism?
|
|
|
|
|
-----------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe in fate, which I often personify for easier comprehension. You might
|
|
|
|
|
call that theism and I wouldn't object. I don't believe in any monotheistic god,
|
2010-09-05 17:06:01 +02:00
|
|
|
so you might call me an atheist and I wouldn't object either. I have met
|
2010-07-13 23:20:19 +02:00
|
|
|
multiple gods, though, and consider them very much real, but I'm unsure of their
|
|
|
|
|
nature. I'm probably best described as a proper agnostic. In contrast to most
|
|
|
|
|
agnostics, I'm not just an "atheist with doubts", but consider atheism and
|
|
|
|
|
theism *both* to be about equally plausible, yet still undecided. Atheism is
|
|
|
|
|
logically somewhat stronger, theism has the bonus of experiential evidence on
|
|
|
|
|
its side. (Yes, I'm aware that most atheist will claim the opposite. I accept
|
|
|
|
|
that, as being able to experience gods is rare among people.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Knowledge: empiricism or rationalism?
|
|
|
|
|
-------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Strongly lean towards empiricism. I consider it very important, but it seems to
|
|
|
|
|
be not exhaustive. I'm still open to alternatives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Knowledge claims: contextualism, relativism, or invariantism?
|
|
|
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Relativism. There's no such thing as separate knowledge and certainly no
|
|
|
|
|
objective knowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Laws of nature: Humean or non-Humean?
|
|
|
|
|
-------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Humean, in the sense that there are no objective laws of nature. All order is
|
|
|
|
|
fictitious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logic: classical or non-classical?
|
|
|
|
|
----------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very strongly non-classical. Classical logic is absolutely bankrupt and should
|
|
|
|
|
be abandoned asap. I am strongly leaning towards
|
|
|
|
|
[dialetheism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism) and even
|
|
|
|
|
[trivialism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivialism). (A challenge: if you
|
|
|
|
|
believe trivialism is false, find an argument a trivialist can't see as support
|
|
|
|
|
for trivialism.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mental content: internalism or externalism?
|
|
|
|
|
-------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Externalism. Again, there is no distinction between mind and world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism?
|
|
|
|
|
-------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moral nihilism. There is no such thing as morality and you should abandon the
|
|
|
|
|
very concept.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Metaphilosophy: naturalism or non-naturalism?
|
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-naturalism. I reject materialism and without it, I find the distinction into
|
|
|
|
|
natural / non-natural to be a bit silly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mind: Anti-physicalism or physicalism?
|
|
|
|
|
--------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anti-physicalism. I'm a [nondualist](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism). I
|
|
|
|
|
strongly reject materialism, including physicalism, and have severe suspicions
|
|
|
|
|
against dualism, but wouldn't rule that one out just yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moral judgment: cognitivism or non-cognitivism?
|
|
|
|
|
-----------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-cognitivism. As mentioned, I'm a moral nihilist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moral motivation: internalism or externalism?
|
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neither. Again, moral nihilism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Newcomb's problem: one box or two boxes?
|
|
|
|
|
----------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One box, expecting the large reward. I play this game with fate all the time and
|
|
|
|
|
completely trust her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Normative ethics: deontology, consequentialism, or virtue ethics?
|
|
|
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neither. Again, moral nihilsm. Though I have a lot of sympathy for virtue
|
|
|
|
|
ethics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perceptual experience: disjunctivism, qualia theory, representationalism, or sense-datum theory?
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of those, mostly qualia theory. Otherwise nondualism. The question is far from
|
|
|
|
|
being answered, but anything that rejects the subjective reality of experience
|
|
|
|
|
is simply wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personal identity: biological view, psychological view, or further-fact view?
|
|
|
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
None. There is no self and no personal identity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Politics: communitarianism, egalitarianism, or libertarianism?
|
|
|
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neither. All fail. Solving problems through ideology never works. Solve them
|
|
|
|
|
through experiments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proper names: Fregean or Millian?
|
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unsure, though Frege seems to be sensible. I haven't thought much about this
|
|
|
|
|
problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Science: scientific realism or scientific anti-realism?
|
|
|
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anti-realism. There is no objective law to be discovered, only new ones to be
|
|
|
|
|
invented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teletransporter (new matter): survival or death?
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rebirth. Literally. (Similarly to sleep.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time: A-theory or B-theory?
|
|
|
|
|
---------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unsure. I'm not familiar with either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-07-13 23:23:33 +02:00
|
|
|
Trolley problem: switch or don't switch?
|
|
|
|
|
----------------------------------------
|
2010-07-13 23:20:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neither, in the sense that there is no such thing as something one "ought" to
|
|
|
|
|
do. Regardless, I would listen to fate and do what she tells me. I can not tell
|
|
|
|
|
ahead what I would do, but I suspect that I most likely would not switch. There
|
|
|
|
|
are rarely choices that are not meant to be taken, and if switching were right,
|
|
|
|
|
it would be too obvious a choice for most people (who would switch), so with me
|
|
|
|
|
getting there, fate already made clear that she is not interested in the most
|
|
|
|
|
common choice and wants someone who is willing to reject switching.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Truth: correspondence, deflationary, or epistemic?
|
|
|
|
|
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neither, really. I have a lot of sympathy for social constructivism, but would
|
|
|
|
|
probably just reject the concept of truth altogether. Everything is true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zombies: inconceivable, conceivable but not metaphysically possible, or metaphysically possible?
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Real. I'm only uncertain how widespread they are. *Most* people are zombies
|
|
|
|
|
without consciousness, but maybe not *all* are, including me. I'm unsure about
|
|
|
|
|
this, still. I have lots of sympathy for radical behaviorism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[survey]: http://philpapers.org/surveys/
|
