Skip to main content

A survey of contemporary philosophers

Image result for survey form

Nine hundred and thirty one contemporary philosophers took part in a recent survey. The word "philosopher" in this context means a member of a university department of philosophy. The 99 departments involved were generally Anglophonic and analytic in history/orientation. 
So ... given some commonality in education, profession, language, historic lineage ... has there come to be a consensus on the Big Questions? 
Not really. But the particulars of that answer are fascinating.

I’ll just select the ten questions on their survey that have given my mind the most solicitude over the years, and tell you what the survey results say, and only then answer those for myself:


1.      Abstract objects: Platonism or nominalism?


Accept or lean toward Platonism                    366 (39.3%)

Accept or lean toward nominalism                 351 (37.7%)

Other                                                               214 (23.0%)


2.      Analytic-synthetic distinction: yes or no?


Accept or lean toward yes                              604 (64.9%)

Accept or lean toward no                               252 (27.1%)

Other                                                               75 (8.1%)


3.      External world: Idealism, skepticism, or non-skeptical realism?


Accept or lean toward non-skeptical realism 750 (81.6%)

Other                                                               86 (9.2%)

Accept or lean toward skepticism                   45 (4.8%)

Accept or lean toward idealism                      40 (4.3%)


4.      Free will …


Accept or lean toward compatibilism             550 (59.1%)

Other                                                               139 (14.9%)

Accept or lean toward libertarianism              128 (13.7%)

Accept or lean toward no free will                 114 (12.2%)


5.      God: theism or atheism


Accept or lean toward atheism                       678 (72.8%)

Accept or lean toward theism                         136 (14.6%)

Other                                                               117 (12.6%)


6.      Moral judgement: cognitivism or non-cognitivism?


Accept or lean toward cognitivism                 612 (65.7%)

Other                                                              161 (17.3%)

Accept or lean toward non-cognitivism          158 (17%)

  

7.      Normative ethics: deontology, consequentialism, or virtue ethics?


Other                                                               301 (32.3%)

Accept or lean toward deontology                 241 (25.9%)

Accept or lean toward consequentialism        220 (23.6%)

Accept or lean toward virtue ethics                169 (18.2%)


8.      Personal identity: Biological view, psychological view, or further-fact view?


Other                                                               347 (37.3%)

Accept or lean toward psychological view     313 (33.6%)

Accept or lean toward biological view           157 (16.9%)

Accept or lean toward further-fact view        114 (12.2%)


9.      Politics: communitarianism, egalitarianism, or libertarianism?


Other                                                               382 (41%)

Accept or lean toward egalitarianism             324 (34.8%)

Accept or lean toward communitarianism      133 (14.3%)

Accept or lean toward libertarianism              92 (9.9%)


10.  Time: A-theory or B-theory


Translation: the A-theory holds that time is a reality, the B-theory that it is an illusion.                                            

Other                                                               542 (58.2%)

Accept or lean toward B-theory                     245 (26.3%)   

Accept or lean toward A-theory                     144 (15.5%)
-----------------------------
Had I been asked, despite the fact that I am not qualified by the surveys standards, I would have answered those ten as follows:
Yes on nominalism. No on the analytic/synthetic distinction. Yes on non-skeptical realism and incompatibilist free will (i.e. 'libertarianism' in the first sense in which it is used in this survey). "Other" on theism and "yes" to cognitivism in moral judgment. Yes to consequentialism and to a psychological view of identity (stream-of-consciousness and all that).  Yes to libertarianism in the second sense in which it is used here, and to the reality of time, aka the A theory.
On questions 3 and 6 I'm comfortably within a consensus view, although the more common situation, where there is something like a consensus, is that I'm against it, as with both free will and God.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak