-
Supernatural: Agnostic
-
Philosophy of Mind: Dualism
-
Causality: Determinism
-
Meta-Ethics: Ethical subjectivism
-
Political: Burkean whig
-
Epistemology: Empiricism
-
Supernatural- Athiest.
-
Philosophy of Mind: Monist
-
Causality: I think that this is really just a ‘Philosphy of langauge’ problem and doesn’t really exist .
-
Meta-Ethics: Emotivism
-
Political: Minarchist
-
Epistemology: Foundationalist
-
Philosophy of mind: quietist (Wittgenstein, Hacker)
-
[Metaphysical] causality: quietist (Wittgenstein)
-
Meta-ethics: quietist (Wittgenstein, Joyce)
-
Political: libertarian anti-statist (David Friedman, Camus, Rothbard, Hayek, Mises, Coase, Vernon Smith, Stringham, Leeson, etc.)
-
Epistemology: quiest in most things, post-positvist methodological pluralist guided by whatever is useful or can successfully convince people of anything (in “science,” including economics), critical rationalist in personal practical ideal (Wittgenstein, Vernon Smith, Mises, Kuhn, Popper)
Cal, thanks for introducing me to quietism. I didn’t know there was a name for that. It pretty much matches what I wrote about word-based error above.
Quietist philosophers believe that philosophy has no positive thesis to contribute, but rather that its value is in defusing confusions in the linguistic and conceptual frameworks of other subjects, including non-quietist philosophy. By re-formulating supposed problems in a way that makes the misguided reasoning from which they arise apparent, the quietist hopes to put an end to our confusion, and help us return to a state of intellectual quietude.
Indeed, I knew of it, and it more or less speaks of my general outlook I think - though I guess I never really understood as to the boundries of the term, as I think I just heard of it a few months ago, If someone called me one though, I probably wouldn’t object.
Though I still think I may be concerned with a different angle on things… lol, kind of hard to talk about right now
Yeah not a perfect match for my views either, but probably much closer than anything I have seen. In a way, terms like noncognitivism, quietism, egoism, deflationism, and some others all seem to be getting at the same thing: “How about we just stop being confused by words?” That fact that there are so many names even for this kind of approach attests to the magnitude of the underlying problem of semantics. IMO it almost all is just semantic cotton candy.
I. Ryan once mentioned something to the effect that every theory or field that has to face a market test or engineering test will clear away the semantic dust out of raw necessity, but any field not subject to such a test is free to wallow in word confusion…and we collectively call such fields “philosophy” (they become science/engineering or something once they start getting subjected to practical tests).
-
Supernatural: Pro-monotheist agnostic (I consider statism and environmentalism pseudo-secular religions)
-
Philosophy of Mind: Materialist
-
Causality: Determinism
-
Meta-Ethics: Aesthetic nihilist / subjectivist
-
Political: Evolutionist
-
Epistemology: Foundationalist, I think
Supernatural:
Agnostic Christian. Religion is as exploititive as a boss which is to say, not at all. Also, of all the weird things I’ve seen in this world, a god would probably not rank in the top 5.
Philosophy of Mind:
I’ve seen some pretty interesting stuff in Hierarchical Memory, but the fact is we just don’t know how the brain works.
Causality:
We have free will, heavily influenced by what we ate the previous day.
Meta-Ethics:
Since all morality is determined by arbitrarily held values, I really don’t see the use for Meta-Ethics. Some people like skinning people and putting it on their furniture, some people think animal life is as valuable as human life.
Political:
Anarcho Capitalist. I’m typically afraid to use the word “Anarchy”, but I think I’m among people that know why.
Epistemology:
Abbreviationism: If you have to write a book on a subject for any one part to make sense, it probably isn’t true.
Contrary to what I wrote above, when I am actively doubtful of my naturalistic suppositions and pestered by questions like, “Where do the laws of logic come from?” then I tend toward a theistic, Platonistic world overgrown with objective values and truths accessible via a rationalist epistemology.
“The universe shows us two aspects: on one side it is physically wasting, on the other side it is spiritually ascending.” – A.N. Whitehead
Not being confused by words is only the beginning, then you have to actually say something.
Absolutely, but 99% of people - and an even higher percentage of intellectuals - seem partially or completely stuck in the first step.
Contrary to what I wrote above, when I am actively doubtful of my naturalistic suppositions and pestered by questions like, “Where do the laws of logic come from?” then I tend toward a theistic, Platonistic world overgrown with objective values and truths accessible via a rationalist epistemology.
!
I’m not inclined to apply so many labels that I don’t adequately understand to the way I think, but I don’t think that a personified first cause is useful as anything other than a loose metaphor, unless you want to risk projecting your own desires and idealised notions of the universe onto it.
And I’ve arrived at anarchy/anarcho-capitalism/voluntarism/let’s-stop-living-like-slaves-already as well.