Papers by Christophe de Ray
European Journal of Philosophy, 2024
This is a draft of a forthcoming paper - please cite the final version.
Universals in the Platon... more This is a draft of a forthcoming paper - please cite the final version.
Universals in the Platonic tradition were intended to play both metaphysical and epistemological roles. The contemporary debate around universals has focused overwhelmingly on the former, with even 'platonists' typically holding that our knowledge of universals is derived from our knowledge of particulars. In contrast, I wish to argue for the epistemological primacy of the universal: specifically, I defend the thesis that we perceive particulars as a result of knowing universals, and not the other way around. My argument draws from the work of Malebranche, who notoriously contended that we see ordinary objects through the immutable 'ideas'. I conclude with the suggestion that the resulting account of the relationship between our knowledge of universals and our perception of particulars may be thought of as a kind of Platonic indirect realism.
Ratio, 2024
This is a draft of a forthcoming paper - please cite published version.
The classic 'privatio... more This is a draft of a forthcoming paper - please cite published version.
The classic 'privation theory' of evil defines evil as an absence (or 'privation') of a good that ought to obtain. Despite its historical importance, privation theory is faced with a number of serious difficulties. I outline two of these difficulties and argue that they continue to pose a threat. I then present 'corruption theory', an alternative theory of evil reconstructed from some of Augustine's writings on the subject. I argue that this theory shares the strengths of privation theory, while evading its problems.
Religious Studies, 2022
This is a draft of a forthcoming paper, please cite published version.
The question of the meani... more This is a draft of a forthcoming paper, please cite published version.
The question of the meaning of life has long been thought to be closely intertwined with that of the existence of God. I offer a new theistic, anti-naturalist argument from the meaning of life. It is argued that the desire for life is irrational on naturalism, since there would be no good reason to believe that life is worthwhile on the whole if naturalism were true. As I show, the same cannot be argued of theism. Since it is clear that the desire for life is not irrational, it is concluded that we have strong reason to prefer theism over naturalism.
Religious Studies, 2022
This is a draft of a forthcoming paper, please cite final version
Much of historic Christian phi... more This is a draft of a forthcoming paper, please cite final version
Much of historic Christian philosophical theology has affirmed that God not only exists, but is Existence itself. Nowadays, this claim is widely rejected as unintelligible by theists and non-theists alike. I argue in contrast that if there is such a thing as Existence itself, that thing must be a maximally excellent being, which is what many philosophers call God. This is because Existence would itself need to exist, which is only possible if Existence exists in a paradigmatic way, that is, as a perfect instance of existence. My argument thus offers both a defence of the coherence of the claim that God is Existence itself, and a new way of arguing for theism.
Religious Studies, 2021
This is a draft of a forthcoming paper, please cite final version
The opening chapters of Anselm... more This is a draft of a forthcoming paper, please cite final version
The opening chapters of Anselm’s Monologion contain a ‘proof’ of a perfect being, which has received far less attention than the more famous Proslogion proof, and the ontological arguments derived from it. I wish to rectify this by developing an argument in defence of a crucial premise of the Monologion proof. This premise states that ‘the Good’, i.e. that in virtue of which numerically distinct things may all be good, must itself be a supremely good thing (if it exists). I motivate the argument before considering objections to both premises, as well as putative ‘parodies’ of my argument. Part of the motivation of my argument will involve the claim that the Good, if it is good at all, must be a paradigm good thing. I conclude that theists have a second kind of ontological argument at their disposal.
Religious Studies, 2020
This is a draft, please cite final version
Relying on inference to the best explanation (IBE) re... more This is a draft, please cite final version
Relying on inference to the best explanation (IBE) requires one to hold the intuition that the world is ‘intelligible’, i.e. such that states of affairs at least generally have explanations for their obtaining. I argue that metaphysical naturalists are rationally required to withhold this intuition, unless they cease to be naturalists. This is because all plausible naturalistic etiologies of the intuition entail that the intuition and the state of affairs which it represents are not causally connected in an epistemically appropriate way. Given that one ought to rely on IBE, naturalists are forced to pick the latter and change their world-view.Traditional theists, in contrast, do not face this predicament. This, I argue, is strong grounds for preferring traditional theism to naturalism.
Erkenntnis, 2020
This is a draft, please cite final version
Evolutionary scepticism holds that the evolutionary a... more This is a draft, please cite final version
Evolutionary scepticism holds that the evolutionary account of the origens of the human cognitive apparatus has sceptical implications for at least some of our beliefs. A common target of evolutionary scepticism is moral realism. Scientific realism, on the other hand, is much less frequently targeted, though the idea that evolutionary theory should make us distrustful of science is by no means absent from the literature. This line of thought has received unduly little attention. I propose to remedy this by advancing what I will call an evolutionary sceptical challenge to scientific realism. I argue that, given standard evolutionary theory, our possession of sound innate metaphysical intuitions would have taken an epistemically problematic 'lucky accident'. This, as I will show, entails that scientific realism is a self-undermining position. I discuss objections to my argument's two premises, including ones that appeal to the success of the sciences and to the possibility that sound innate metaphysical intuitions evolved as an evolutionary 'by-product'. I then draw out an advantage of my argument over a similar one recently put forward by Graber and Golemon (Sophia, 2019. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1184 1-018-0695-0). I finish by submitting that scientific realism, given the soundness of my argument, is faced with a new 'Darwinian Dilemma', and briefly address the significance of this for the debate between realists and anti-realists in the philosophy of science.
Drafts by Christophe de Ray
Standpoint epistemologists argue that members of dominant social groups are at an epistemic disad... more Standpoint epistemologists argue that members of dominant social groups are at an epistemic disadvantage with respect to at least some kinds of moral and social facts. This is due to the distorting effects of ideology on dominant cultures and worldviews. In contrast, members of marginalised groups are less vulnerable to such distortions, thanks to distinctive experiences of marginalisation which give them unique insights into the oppressive nature of various social relations. I argue that accepting the core theses of standpoint epistemology would give us a reason to distrust what I will call the dignity principle, a principle to the effect that it is immoral for an individual or group to victimise another individual or group. Since liberating victimised groups is a crucial part of the purpose of standpoint epistemology, distrusting the humanist principle undermines standpoint epistemology. I conclude that standpoint epistemology undermines itself.
Thesis Chapters by Christophe de Ray
I am very grateful to my supervisor Alexander Bird for his detailed, insightful feedback on my wo... more I am very grateful to my supervisor Alexander Bird for his detailed, insightful feedback on my work, which he continued to give even after officially leaving King's. His warmth and encouragement were a much-needed source of support throughout the pandemic.
Uploads
Papers by Christophe de Ray
Universals in the Platonic tradition were intended to play both metaphysical and epistemological roles. The contemporary debate around universals has focused overwhelmingly on the former, with even 'platonists' typically holding that our knowledge of universals is derived from our knowledge of particulars. In contrast, I wish to argue for the epistemological primacy of the universal: specifically, I defend the thesis that we perceive particulars as a result of knowing universals, and not the other way around. My argument draws from the work of Malebranche, who notoriously contended that we see ordinary objects through the immutable 'ideas'. I conclude with the suggestion that the resulting account of the relationship between our knowledge of universals and our perception of particulars may be thought of as a kind of Platonic indirect realism.
The classic 'privation theory' of evil defines evil as an absence (or 'privation') of a good that ought to obtain. Despite its historical importance, privation theory is faced with a number of serious difficulties. I outline two of these difficulties and argue that they continue to pose a threat. I then present 'corruption theory', an alternative theory of evil reconstructed from some of Augustine's writings on the subject. I argue that this theory shares the strengths of privation theory, while evading its problems.
The question of the meaning of life has long been thought to be closely intertwined with that of the existence of God. I offer a new theistic, anti-naturalist argument from the meaning of life. It is argued that the desire for life is irrational on naturalism, since there would be no good reason to believe that life is worthwhile on the whole if naturalism were true. As I show, the same cannot be argued of theism. Since it is clear that the desire for life is not irrational, it is concluded that we have strong reason to prefer theism over naturalism.
Much of historic Christian philosophical theology has affirmed that God not only exists, but is Existence itself. Nowadays, this claim is widely rejected as unintelligible by theists and non-theists alike. I argue in contrast that if there is such a thing as Existence itself, that thing must be a maximally excellent being, which is what many philosophers call God. This is because Existence would itself need to exist, which is only possible if Existence exists in a paradigmatic way, that is, as a perfect instance of existence. My argument thus offers both a defence of the coherence of the claim that God is Existence itself, and a new way of arguing for theism.
The opening chapters of Anselm’s Monologion contain a ‘proof’ of a perfect being, which has received far less attention than the more famous Proslogion proof, and the ontological arguments derived from it. I wish to rectify this by developing an argument in defence of a crucial premise of the Monologion proof. This premise states that ‘the Good’, i.e. that in virtue of which numerically distinct things may all be good, must itself be a supremely good thing (if it exists). I motivate the argument before considering objections to both premises, as well as putative ‘parodies’ of my argument. Part of the motivation of my argument will involve the claim that the Good, if it is good at all, must be a paradigm good thing. I conclude that theists have a second kind of ontological argument at their disposal.
Relying on inference to the best explanation (IBE) requires one to hold the intuition that the world is ‘intelligible’, i.e. such that states of affairs at least generally have explanations for their obtaining. I argue that metaphysical naturalists are rationally required to withhold this intuition, unless they cease to be naturalists. This is because all plausible naturalistic etiologies of the intuition entail that the intuition and the state of affairs which it represents are not causally connected in an epistemically appropriate way. Given that one ought to rely on IBE, naturalists are forced to pick the latter and change their world-view.Traditional theists, in contrast, do not face this predicament. This, I argue, is strong grounds for preferring traditional theism to naturalism.
Evolutionary scepticism holds that the evolutionary account of the origens of the human cognitive apparatus has sceptical implications for at least some of our beliefs. A common target of evolutionary scepticism is moral realism. Scientific realism, on the other hand, is much less frequently targeted, though the idea that evolutionary theory should make us distrustful of science is by no means absent from the literature. This line of thought has received unduly little attention. I propose to remedy this by advancing what I will call an evolutionary sceptical challenge to scientific realism. I argue that, given standard evolutionary theory, our possession of sound innate metaphysical intuitions would have taken an epistemically problematic 'lucky accident'. This, as I will show, entails that scientific realism is a self-undermining position. I discuss objections to my argument's two premises, including ones that appeal to the success of the sciences and to the possibility that sound innate metaphysical intuitions evolved as an evolutionary 'by-product'. I then draw out an advantage of my argument over a similar one recently put forward by Graber and Golemon (Sophia, 2019. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1184 1-018-0695-0). I finish by submitting that scientific realism, given the soundness of my argument, is faced with a new 'Darwinian Dilemma', and briefly address the significance of this for the debate between realists and anti-realists in the philosophy of science.
Drafts by Christophe de Ray
Thesis Chapters by Christophe de Ray
Universals in the Platonic tradition were intended to play both metaphysical and epistemological roles. The contemporary debate around universals has focused overwhelmingly on the former, with even 'platonists' typically holding that our knowledge of universals is derived from our knowledge of particulars. In contrast, I wish to argue for the epistemological primacy of the universal: specifically, I defend the thesis that we perceive particulars as a result of knowing universals, and not the other way around. My argument draws from the work of Malebranche, who notoriously contended that we see ordinary objects through the immutable 'ideas'. I conclude with the suggestion that the resulting account of the relationship between our knowledge of universals and our perception of particulars may be thought of as a kind of Platonic indirect realism.
The classic 'privation theory' of evil defines evil as an absence (or 'privation') of a good that ought to obtain. Despite its historical importance, privation theory is faced with a number of serious difficulties. I outline two of these difficulties and argue that they continue to pose a threat. I then present 'corruption theory', an alternative theory of evil reconstructed from some of Augustine's writings on the subject. I argue that this theory shares the strengths of privation theory, while evading its problems.
The question of the meaning of life has long been thought to be closely intertwined with that of the existence of God. I offer a new theistic, anti-naturalist argument from the meaning of life. It is argued that the desire for life is irrational on naturalism, since there would be no good reason to believe that life is worthwhile on the whole if naturalism were true. As I show, the same cannot be argued of theism. Since it is clear that the desire for life is not irrational, it is concluded that we have strong reason to prefer theism over naturalism.
Much of historic Christian philosophical theology has affirmed that God not only exists, but is Existence itself. Nowadays, this claim is widely rejected as unintelligible by theists and non-theists alike. I argue in contrast that if there is such a thing as Existence itself, that thing must be a maximally excellent being, which is what many philosophers call God. This is because Existence would itself need to exist, which is only possible if Existence exists in a paradigmatic way, that is, as a perfect instance of existence. My argument thus offers both a defence of the coherence of the claim that God is Existence itself, and a new way of arguing for theism.
The opening chapters of Anselm’s Monologion contain a ‘proof’ of a perfect being, which has received far less attention than the more famous Proslogion proof, and the ontological arguments derived from it. I wish to rectify this by developing an argument in defence of a crucial premise of the Monologion proof. This premise states that ‘the Good’, i.e. that in virtue of which numerically distinct things may all be good, must itself be a supremely good thing (if it exists). I motivate the argument before considering objections to both premises, as well as putative ‘parodies’ of my argument. Part of the motivation of my argument will involve the claim that the Good, if it is good at all, must be a paradigm good thing. I conclude that theists have a second kind of ontological argument at their disposal.
Relying on inference to the best explanation (IBE) requires one to hold the intuition that the world is ‘intelligible’, i.e. such that states of affairs at least generally have explanations for their obtaining. I argue that metaphysical naturalists are rationally required to withhold this intuition, unless they cease to be naturalists. This is because all plausible naturalistic etiologies of the intuition entail that the intuition and the state of affairs which it represents are not causally connected in an epistemically appropriate way. Given that one ought to rely on IBE, naturalists are forced to pick the latter and change their world-view.Traditional theists, in contrast, do not face this predicament. This, I argue, is strong grounds for preferring traditional theism to naturalism.
Evolutionary scepticism holds that the evolutionary account of the origens of the human cognitive apparatus has sceptical implications for at least some of our beliefs. A common target of evolutionary scepticism is moral realism. Scientific realism, on the other hand, is much less frequently targeted, though the idea that evolutionary theory should make us distrustful of science is by no means absent from the literature. This line of thought has received unduly little attention. I propose to remedy this by advancing what I will call an evolutionary sceptical challenge to scientific realism. I argue that, given standard evolutionary theory, our possession of sound innate metaphysical intuitions would have taken an epistemically problematic 'lucky accident'. This, as I will show, entails that scientific realism is a self-undermining position. I discuss objections to my argument's two premises, including ones that appeal to the success of the sciences and to the possibility that sound innate metaphysical intuitions evolved as an evolutionary 'by-product'. I then draw out an advantage of my argument over a similar one recently put forward by Graber and Golemon (Sophia, 2019. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1184 1-018-0695-0). I finish by submitting that scientific realism, given the soundness of my argument, is faced with a new 'Darwinian Dilemma', and briefly address the significance of this for the debate between realists and anti-realists in the philosophy of science.