Jon Marc Asper received his B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Oral Roberts University, his M.A. in Philosophy from Biola University, and is currently a PhD candidate (ABD) at the University of Missouri, advised by Dr. Peter Vallentyne. He philosophizes mostly about practical rationality, especially agent-relative value and why some evaluations are merely optional — see Ruth Chang’s (2002) ‘parity’ and Joshua Gert’s (2014) ‘merely justifying strength’ of reasons.
What is your favorite thing that you’ve written?
It would have to be the article that I just revised and resubmitted (my first R&R!). My heart was pounding when I hit submit. (Thud! Thud! Thud! Do veteran philosophers still experience that?) On the off-chance that it would mess up the blind review process to describe it in detail here, I’ll just briefly mention that its role in my dissertation is to respond to an objection against the existence of optional evaluations.
What common philosophical dilemma do you think has a clear answer?
Newcomb’s problem. I saw a survey that less than half of philosophers are decidedly two-boxers. Really? Here is some great practical advice from a philosopher: Never throw away $1000 just because some eccentric person gave away (in the past!) a lot of money to bad decision-makers. (Unless the predictor sees the future. Then you should make the predictor fill that box.)
What would your childhood self say if someone told you that you would grow up to be a philosopher?
“What’s that?” The naïve child Jon Marc wanted to be a football player (naïve because I couldn’t even start on my high school team).
Then, if you were to ask my undergrad self the same question, he would respond, “What’s that?” (And no, still not in the cool philosophical sense of the question.) The undergrad Jon Marc planned to be an engineer with humanitarian aims. But then, on a summer engineering internship in Uganda, I realized that I was more satisfied teaching Sunday school classes at village churches than doing engineering work. That began (12 years ago) a long turn towards philosophy.
What do you like to do outside work?
Long runs on dirt trails are so nice. After becoming a father a couple years ago (and again recently!), I hadn’t been running as much, but I’m getting back on the trails now. Not only is trail running fun in itself, but it also seems to have helped me concentrate better while I’m working. I feel less nervous and distractible.
When did you last sing to yourself, or to someone else?
Although I like to sing, I rarely sing to people. But I have kept a tradition of singing Boyz 2 Men’s “A Song for Mama” to my mom every Mother’s Day. She continues to have the same reaction as she had the first time — she just laughs.
Where is your favorite place you have ever traveled and why?
I love waterfalls. I have been to Yosemite when the falls were at their peak flow, which was awesome, but it still did not compare to waking up next to Havasu Falls inside the Grand Canyon. If you ever get the chance to go, you must!
What’s your top tip or advice for APA members reading this?
Philosophers tend to be fair. We understand the irrationality of ad hominem fallacies and genetic fallacies, so we usually give ideas a fair chance regardless of how and by whom they are presented—even some crazy ideas! But I have noticed a way in which philosophers sometimes do not treat others fairly. It is a subtle way, so it might not even feel wrong while we are doing it. Sometimes we presuppose controversial ideas in conversation. Doing so is a power play that signals to those who disagree that they are not welcome. It signals that a prerequisite of being in this group is agreeing with this set of presuppositions. If those who disagree want to stay ‘in’ the group, they might live a double life, hiding what they really believe. This is bad for their mental health — they lose a lot of peace and creativity. If we keep our conversational common ground (a la Stalnaker 2002) free of controversial presuppositions, then we will help each other live better lives. And we will probably make more philosophical progress together too!
I am sometimes tempted to live a double life. It can be tricky to be a Christian and a philosopher. I’m not sure if this is common knowledge among non-Christians. You worry that somehow your Christian beliefs will affect your job prospects or social status (not that I have been treated poorly — Mizzou is a welcoming department). It’s tempting to cram your Christian beliefs into something like an over-filled closet and hope they don’t spill out. Some advice I eventually got — which I hadn’t ever stopped to realize — was that this is bad for my mental health. So, my advice to anyone tempted to live a double life for any reason is that it is not worth it. Most people would rather actually know you.
This section of the APA Blog is designed to get to know our fellow philosophers a little better. We’re including profiles of APA members that spotlight what captures their interest not only inside the office, but also outside of it. We’d love for you to be a part of it, so please contact us via the interview nomination form here to nominate yourself or a friend.
Dr. Sabrina D. MisirHiralall is an editor at the Blog of the APA who currently teaches philosophy, religion, and education courses solely online for Montclair State University, Three Rivers Community College, and St. John’s University.
