University of St Andrews: Journal Hosting Service
Not a member yet
1414 research outputs found
Sort by
Recent Developments in Neuroscience and Moral Objectivity
Get PDFIn this short paper I would like to propose the following: human judgments of morality are not, and can not be objective given unavoidable aspects of human neural anatomy. They can be influenced by brain damage, your genetics, or even switched up and down in intensity at will using methods like Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS), which I shall later discuss. Therefore any sense of an ability to make objective morality judgments is an illusio
Meaning in Gibberish: In Defence of Deep Bullshit
Get PDFIn this essay I examine G. A. Cohen’s notion of deep bullshit; I provide a counterexample to the often-implicit belief that deep bullshit is always bad, and unphilosophical. Section 1\u27s outline of deep bullshit includes an important criterion for being deep bullshit which philosophers often leave implicit; deep bullshit is a bad and undesirable phenomenon that we should root out. Section 2 examines whether the kōans of Chan Buddhists were deep bullshit. In this section I argue they were; not only do they fit all modern definitions of deep bullshit, the Chan teachers were intentional deep bullshitters. In section 3 I argue we should not see the deep bullshit of Chan Buddhism as bad and un-philosophical; in Chan, through deep bullshit came philosophical inquiry. Section 4 responds to the Cohenian position, which holds any text which is ``suggestive\u27\u27 is not deep bullshit; a Cohenian could claim Chan’s kōans are suggestive, and so are not deep bullshit. I criticise this position by arguing that since philosophers of deep bullshit categorise Sokal’s spoof article as deep bullshit, they must also categorise Chan kōans as deep bullshit. In section 5 I argue most allegations of deep bullshit are likely to be epistemic trespass. In section 6 I make recommendations for how to avoid trespassing deep bullshit allegations in future
Fraser Prize essay 2019: views of the reading panel
No full textPreface to Fraser Prize essay for 201
An \u27Electric Pow Wow\u27: Indigenous American use of Music Videos to Discuss Identity and Reclaim Visual Sovereignty
Get PDF  
How to tell Jerusalem from Athens: How a faith-methodology distinguishes theology from philosophy
Get PDFRecent developments in both philosophy and theology have blurred the line between the two disciplines: philosophers of religion have sought to use philosophical methodology to answer explicitly theological questions, while at the same time the rise of analytic theology has led to philosophical tools increasingly being used for the thelological task. This paper sets out to demonstrate that the most useful way to distinquish theology from philosophy of religion is to adopt a faith-methodology and goes on to outline what this would look like in practice
