[adjective][species] Philosophy Survey

The [adjective][species] Philosophy Survey is an investigation into what furries think of the world, morality, and knowledge, amongst other things. No prior knowledge of philosophy is needed to complete the survey, and most of the questions will be ones that most people have thought of in their spare time anyway. What we are particularly interested in is if the answers given have any correlation, both with one another, and with the fandom’s demographics: Do older furries tend to hold different views than others? Does one species lean more towards scientific explanation than others? This survey hopes to give insight on these questions.

Overall, the survey will likely take about five minutes or less, though participants are encouraged to think about each question as they go. The results will be anonymous, and used in visualizations. Various comparisons with the general views of society will also help to understand if furries have any majorly varying ideas to the general public. Additionally, where applicable, the results will also be contrasted with David Chalmers “What Do Philosophers Believe?” survey, which gathered the beliefs of professional philosophers from across the world. The survey will run for 2 months, after which, after some time for analysis, the results will be made public (though no personal information will be given, and all results will forever be anonymous).

Thank you for your time. This is an area of furry that many of us wish to explore deeper, and the data from this survey will go a long way to analyzing the community at a deeper level.

You can take the survey here.

About Corgi W.

Corgi is currently studying for a degree in philosophy. She enjoys writing and writing anthropomorphic fiction, and has a passion for philosophical debate.

Before posting a comment, please read our Code of Conduct

5 thoughts on “[adjective][species] Philosophy Survey

  1. Free market economics isn’t in my opinion the best way to distribute wealth equally among many. However, (also in my opinion) it’s by far the best known way to create it in the first place so there is in fact wealth to distribute. I’d suggest a reword of the question.

  2. As someone who’s considered philosophy a hobby and part-time academic pursuit (I’m an undergraduate in mathematics) for many years, I’m extremely excited you decided to do this. Given the author’s purposes, I thought it might be interesting if I also added my current responses to the actual PhilPapers survey that Bourget and Chalmers based their paper off of, with some elaboration I couldn’t provide in the survey:

    A priori knowledge: Lean towards no.

    Abstract objects: Accept an intermediate view.

    Aesthetic value: Accept subjective

    Analytic-synthetic distinction: Agnostic/undecided

    Epistemic justification: Accept externalism

    External world: Accept non-skeptical realism

    Free will: Accept compatibilism

    God: Accept atheism

    Knowledge: Accept empiricism

    Knowledge claims: Lean towards invariantism

    Laws of nature: Accept an intermediate view

    Logic: There is no fact of the matter

    Mental content: Lean towards externalism

    Metaethics: Accept moral anti-realism

    Metaphilosophy: Accept naturalism

    Mind: Accept physicalism[1]

    Moral judgment: Accept an intermediate view

    Moral motivation: Agnostic/undecided

    Newcomb’s problem: There is no fact of the matter

    Normative ethics: Accept an intermediate view

    Perceptual experience: Accept representationalism

    Personal identity: Lean towards an intermediate view

    Politics: Accept an intermediate view (between egalitarianism and libetarianism, communitarianism is my sworn enemy c:)

    Proper names: Fregean or Millian?: Insufficiently familiar with the issue

    Science: Accept scientific realism[2]

    Teletransporter: Lean towards death

    Time: Lean towards reject both[3]

    Trolley problem: Accept switch[4]

    Truth: Correspondence, deflationary, or epistemic?: Accept an intermediate view

    Zombies: Accept another alternative

    [1]Only in a minimal sense of “not dualism.” I follow Ladyman and Ross (2007) in finding the stronger sense of “physical” used in much metaphysics and philosophy of mind either vacuous or scientifically ridiculous.

    [2]Again, only in a weak sense. I think scientific models and theories can tell us about the nature of mind-independent reality. I do not think they always do this or that we’re ontologically committed to all the core elements of our most successful scientific theories; I’m a local realist.

    [3]I’m closer to B-theory in spirit, but I don’t think the way these positions are staked-out in analytic metaphysics tracks the relevant scientific debates closely enough to be worth taking seriously.

    [4]As it is usually phrased, but I’m also skeptical of the normative relevance of this thought experiment.

    Please feel free to contact me at the provided email with any further questions/if you’d like me to expand on these answers or otherwise go beyond my survey answers and/or get demographic information.

  3. Done. Weirdest part was before the test. I couldn’t select species and then say feral or anthro. It was either species or feral. But feral and anthro describe the species, they aren’t separate categories so…

  4. For some of these I wished I had an “It’s complicated” option. I tended to pick neutral in situations when I thought the answer couldn’t be put down to a simple agree or disagree. Maybe I should have picked that I don’t know, but I do have opinions on most of them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.