Ben Cook is a doctoral candidate in philosophy at Syracuse University, with specializations in metaphysics and the philosophy of religion. When he’s not doing philosophy, he enjoys playing guitar, reading theology, playing basketball, and hiking.
What are you working on right now?
Currently, my work centers on the application of an ontology of powers to questions of grounding and fundamentality. In my dissertation I develop a novel theory of the grounding relation according to which it involves what I call ‘powerful, existential causation.’ In my view, one collection of entities grounds another when the former have a causal power to generate, and sustain, the latter in existence. I think this approach to ground provides the resources for developing a powerful (pun intended) argument for foundationalism (the view that all grounding chains must terminate in something fundamental). The basic idea is that there must be some primary source of the causal power that all intermediary members in a grounding chain exercise in a purely derivative way. I find infinite regresses rather distasteful, and I expect many philosophers share my distaste, so I figured the more arguments we can formulate against them the better!
What topic do you think is under explored in philosophy?
Although this has changed somewhat in recent years, I think by and large philosophers in the analytic tradition have failed to fully appreciate the extent to which their underlying methodological, metaphysical, and even moral presuppositions have been shaped by contingent historical influences flowing from the Enlightenment and Early Modern periods. That’s not to say none of those presuppositions might, when subject to examination, end up being rationally justified. It is to say, however, that we should have more of an awareness of how the intuitions that are often appealed to in analytic philosophical debates are profoundly theory-laden, and typically in ways that reflect idiosyncratically modern currents of thought, rather than (say) the pure light of reason. Increasing such ‘historical consciousness’ I think could help analytic philosophers both better appreciate pre-modern thought on its own terms, as well as perhaps incentivize them to subject their own implicit paradigms to more critical reflection.
What is your favorite sound in the world?
That’s a hard question, but the sound of birds chirping and singing in the forest is definitely up there. Upstate New York has a wonderful variety of birds, making our ‘arboreal orchestra’ particularly rich. I’m especially fond of chickadees.
Which books have changed your life? In what ways?
There have been many, but to narrow it down to two, I’d say ‘The Great Divorce’ by C.S. Lewis and ‘The Golden Key’ by George MacDonald. The former because of its penetrating insight into human nature (including my own), and the latter because it is the adult faerie tale par excellence, and faerie tales, in general, provide more transformative wisdom than works of philosophy. (As a side-note, anyone with an appreciation for Lewis, Tolkien, or Chesterton needs to read MacDonald, since he was the forebear and great influence behind these towering English writers.)
Who do you think is the most overrated / underrated philosopher?
This is easy. David Hume is the most overrated. He was brilliant, but only in the sort of way that one can construct a rather interesting and logical system beginning with premises so evidently false that only a philosopher could seriously entertain them. I find it astonishing that some philosophers will still casually speak of this or that proposition as having been ‘shown’ by Hume (that causation isn’t encountered in experience, that there’s a fundamental problem of induction, that it’s always irrational to believe in miracles, etc.), when, far from demonstrating any such proposition, he simply showed how they logically follow from an epistemology and theory of perception that (to my knowledge) scarcely anyone takes seriously anymore. I could go on about how Hume is the great corrupter of modern philosophy, but I’d likely never stop!
I think Leo Strauss is a philosopher who is rightly appreciated in some political theory circles, but who is not appreciated, and indeed seems scarcely known, in analytic political philosophy circles. Strauss’s ‘Natural Right and History’ is a work of greater depth, and I think greater significance, than anything (for example) Rawls or Nozick have written.
What’s your favorite quote?
“Dear Sir:
Regarding your article ‘What’s Wrong with the World?’ I am.
Yours truly,”
― G.K. Chesterton
What’s your poison? (Favorite drink.)
Gin and tonic.
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.
Interesting interview – always appreciate the focus on metaphysics. I’m also not a fan of an infinite regress. It’s my view that the extraordinary success of science has produced a kind of metaphysical error – elevating contingency at the expense of necessity. We forget that science remains fundamentally descriptive. Thanks for the post