Open-Future Rationalist
M · R · C · L · F · I
Reason tracks a physical order, a person could have done otherwise, and the effort answers to a meaning it does not invent.
This is not a measure of personality, mental health, intelligence, or character.
Reality is taken to be physical, and reason is trusted to reach something of its structure. Observation still matters, but a demonstration of what must be so can outweigh a first look.
Acts are judged by what they produce, and the agent is treated as someone who could have produced something else. Responsibility tracks a difference the person could actually have made.
Meaning is something a life answers to, and the one who answers is the person. Other people may help the search. They do not own it.
The axes in this code
- Reality — Physicalism
- Knowledge — Rationalism
- Morality — Consequentialism
- Freedom — Libertarian free will
- Meaning — Discovery
- Social life — Individual priority
What this stance can see
- You keep explanations answerable to a world that can resist them.
- You look for the difference between a coincidence and a reason.
- You keep harm and benefit in view when a principle starts to feel abstract.
- You protect the thought that a person can be the source of a turn not already written.
- You can care about a value you did not happen to prefer.
- You refuse to dissolve a person into a collective aim.
What this stance can miss
- You may decide too quickly that a physical description has already said what experience is.
- You may trust an elegant argument after the world has already spoken against it.
- You may talk yourself into using a person once the sum looks favorable.
- You may ignore how much of a choice arrives already shaped.
- You may treat your reading of what was “already there” as if it were not also an interpretation.
- You may understate debts and dependencies that were never the product of consent.
A pressure in the pairing
A pressure in this pairing: an open alternative matters because the results could have differed. It is worth asking whether that is the whole of responsibility, or only the part this profile uses.
Questions this combination has to face
The explanatory gap
A physicalist picture has to say what a completed physics would have done with the fact that seeing, hurting, and understanding are like something. Some physicalists treat the difficulty as a limit on our concepts. The difficulty is not yet a formal contradiction.
The sum and the person
Judging by outcomes and refusing to use a person can recommend opposite acts. Mill tried to defend liberty because of its benefits. Nozick treated rights as constraints that are not derived from the sum. The disagreement is real, and neither side is a personality flaw.
Luck inside an open will
If more than one act was open, the ability to take the better one may still be a matter of luck in character, upbringing, or timing. Galen Strawson pressed a related regress: a free act seems to require a self that is already responsible for the way it chooses. The regress is a problem for this pole, not a refutation delivered by the questionnaire.
Debts that were not consented to
A strong priority for the person still meets relationships, languages, and care that no one contracted for. The profile can keep the person as a limit and still ask which of those debts are real.
Questions for reflection
- What would count as a reason to say that some part of experience is not captured by a physical description?
- Which of your convictions about the world would still stand if you had never had the relevant observations, and why?
- If a person could have done otherwise, does that matter because the outcomes would have differed, or for some further reason?
- What would it be to find a meaning that is yours, without inventing it and without inheriting it unexamined?
Traditions in the neighborhood
Reading, not a syllabus ranking
- The Analects, a later compilation of Confucian teaching
- Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics
- Simone de Beauvoir, The Ethics of Ambiguity (1947)
- René Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy (1641)
- Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785)
- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859)
Editorial family: Physicalism, discovered meaning, and the priority of the person.