I commenced a series where I discuss the responses to the 2020 PhilPapers survey of almost 1,800 professional philosophers. This continues that conversation with questions 2 through 4 – in reverse order, not that it matters. Each is under 5 minutes; some are under 3.
For the main choices, you are given 4 options regarding the proposal:
- Accept
- Lean towards
- Reject
- Lean against
Besides the available choices, accepted answers for any of the questions were items, such as:
- Combinations (specify which.)
For the combos, you might Accept A and Reject B, so you can capture that here. - Alternate view (not entirely useful unless the view has already been catalogued)
- The question is too unclear to answer
- There is no fact of the matter (the question is fundamentally bollocks)
- Agnostic/undecided
- Other
Q4: The first one asks, ‘What is the aim of philosophy?’ Among the responses were:
- Truth/Knowledge
- Understanding
- Wisdom
- Happiness
- Goodness/Justice
Before you watch the video, how might you respond?
Q3: What’s your position on aesthetic value?
- Objective
- Subjective
Q2: What’s your position on abstract objects?
- Platonism (these objects exist “out there” in or beyond the world)
- Nominalism (the objects are human constructs)
Q1: What’s your position on à priori knowledge?
This video response was an earlier post, so find it there. This is asking if you believe one can have any knowledge apart from experience.
- Yes
- No
NB: I’ve recorded ten of these segments already, but they require editing. So I’ll release them as I wrap them up. Not that I’ve completed them, I realise I should have explained what the concepts mean more generally instead of talking around the topics in my preferred response. There are so many philosophy content sites, I feel this general information is already available, or by search, or even via an LLM.
What do you think – should I?
In the other hand, many of these sites – and I visit and enjoy them – support very conservative, orthodox views that, as I say, don’t seem to have progressed much beyond 1840 – Kant and a dash of Hegel, but all founded on Aristotelian ideas, some 2,500 years ago.
Spoiler alert, I think knowledge has advanced and disproved a lot of this. It turns out my brothers in arms don’t necessarily agree. Always the rebel, I suppose.
Philosophics 