Cookies   I display ads to cover the expenses. See the privacy policy for more information. You can keep or reject the ads.

Video thumbnail
So there are certain kinds of questions that have answers,
like what is the capital of Botswana
or like what is the largest prime less than a billion.
And then there are certain kinds of questions
that are too vague to imprecisely formulate
it to have correct answers, like what is the meaning of life
or why is it that things exist.
Philosophy is all about addressing
questions that lie at the boundary of these two
categories.
Questions that may at first look as if they
are too vague or imprecisely formulated
to have answers, and trying to make progress towards answering
these kinds of questions.
It is, to put it in a grand way, it's
about exploring the boundaries of the thinkable.
The kinds of questions that have interested me and excited
me recently have concerned rationality.
So many people like to think that they're rational,
but what is it to be rational?
How hard is it to be rational?
I've been developing a view according
to which it's much harder than we ordinarily
think to be rational.
Again, a grand way of putting it is
to say that this is the culmination
of a 2000-year-old research program in philosophy, which
is aiming to derive requirements of morality
from requirements of rationality.
I'm a pioneer in the extreme sport of skydive juggling,
which is harder than it sounds and you need very precisely
weighted balls, that's in the possible world in which I
don't have children.
In this world, I do have children.
And I spent most of my spare time
hanging out with them, which is great-- far superior to skydive
juggling.