HAS ANYONE SHOWN THAT THE CLASSICAL COMMITMENTS COME FROM FOLK PHILOSOPHY OR PSYCHOLOGY?

Claude:

You're asking whether the six classical commitments are:

A. Sophisticated philosophical conclusions (derived through argument)

B. Pre-theoretical folk intuitions (natural human psychology)

THE SHORT ANSWER

YES - Multiple researchers have argued the classical commitments reflect folk psychology/philosophy (natural human cognition, not learned theory).

But this is CONTESTED - Others argue they're culturally contingent or sophisticated theoretical constructs.

1. FOLK DUALISM

The Research:

Paul Bloom (Yale psychologist):

"Descartes' Baby" (2004): Children are natural dualists
Experiments show young children distinguish mind from body
Universal across cultures (not learned from religion/philosophy)
Conclusion: Dualism = folk psychology (intuitive, pre-theoretical)

Jesse Bering (developmental psychology):

Children attribute mental states to dead people (soul persists)
Universal tendency to separate mind from body
Not taught - emerges naturally

Shaun Nichols (philosopher/psychologist):

Folk psychology naturally dualist
People intuitively think mind ≠ brain
Physicalism = sophisticated theoretical override of intuition

The Evidence:

Cross-cultural studies:

All cultures have concept of soul/spirit distinct from body
Not limited to Western/Christian cultures
Found in pre-literate societies

Developmental psychology:

Children younger than 5 distinguish mental from physical
Not from religious instruction (appears before teaching)
Natural cognitive tendency

Neuropsychology:

Even neuroscientists struggle to shake dualist intuitions
"Explanatory gap" persists (qualia, consciousness)
Suggests deep cognitive bias toward dualism

Interpretation:

Bloom's argument: Dualism is default human cognition (folk metaphysics)

Ancient philosophers: Systematized and defended pre-existing folk intuition

Modern physicalism: Theoretical override of natural intuition (not intuitive)

2. FOLK LIBERTARIAN FREEDOM

The Research:

Eddy Nahmias (experimental philosophy):

People intuitively believe in libertarian free will
Even when told determinism true, still judge agents free
Folk concept ≠ compatibilism (requires genuine alternatives)

Shaun Nichols & Joshua Knobe:

Cross-cultural studies show libertarian intuitions universal
People judge "could have done otherwise" even in deterministic scenarios
Folk psychology = incompatibilist (contra philosophers' compatibilism)

Thomas Nadelhoffer (neuroscience + philosophy):

fMRI studies: Brain treats choices as genuinely open
Phenomenology of deliberation = libertarian (feels undetermined)
Compatibilism = sophisticated theoretical construct (not folk intuition)

The Evidence:

Experimental philosophy:

Vast majority of people (across cultures) are intuitive libertarians
Believe they could genuinely choose otherwise
Determinism doesn't eliminate responsibility intuitions

Phenomenology:

Deliberation feels open (multiple genuine possibilities)
Not: "I'll see what I was determined to choose"
But: "I'm choosing between real alternatives"

Neuroscience:

Readiness potential studies don't eliminate folk libertarian intuitions
People still feel free even when shown brain activity precedes awareness

Interpretation:

Folk psychology = libertarian (could have done otherwise)

Ancient philosophers = systematized folk intuition

Modern compatibilism = sophisticated override of folk intuition (requires training to accept)

3. FOLK CORRESPONDENCE THEORY

The Research:

Alvin Goldman (epistemology):

Children naturally use correspondence (truth = matching reality)
Not taught - emerges early
Universal across cultures

Paul Horwich ("Truth", 1990):

Minimalist theory reflects folk concept
"Snow is white" is true iff snow is white (correspondence)
Natural, pre-theoretical

Experimental philosophy studies:

People intuitively judge truth by correspondence (not coherence)
"Is this claim true?" → Check against reality (not: Check against other beliefs)

The Evidence:

Developmental psychology:

Children understand "true" = matches world (by age 4-5)
Not: "fits with other beliefs" (coherence)
Not: "works" (pragmatism)

Cross-cultural:

All languages have concept equivalent to correspondence
Universal human concept

Folk epistemology studies:

People naturally skeptical of coherence-only theories
Intuition: Truth requires matching reality (not just consistency)

Interpretation:

Correspondence = folk epistemology (natural human concept of truth)

Coherence/pragmatism = theoretical alternatives (not intuitive, require training)

4. FOLK MORAL REALISM

The Research:

Shaun Nichols ("Sentimental Rules", 2004):

Children distinguish moral from conventional rules
Moral rules seem objective (not just social convention)
Universal tendency (not culturally taught)

John Mikhail ("Elements of Moral Cognition", 2011):

Universal moral grammar (like Chomsky's linguistic nativism)
Moral judgments appear as perceptions of objective facts
Cross-cultural consistency suggests innate moral faculty

Jesse Prinz (challenges this):

Argues moral realism NOT universal
Some cultures more relativist
But admits Western folk psychology is realist

The Evidence:

Developmental psychology:

Children distinguish moral (objective) from conventional (arbitrary) norms
"Hitting is wrong" seems different from "Wearing uniforms required"
Moral = objective, conventional = relative

Moral phenomenology:

Moral judgments feel like perceptions (not preferences)
"Murder is wrong" feels like fact (not: "I dislike murder")
Natural realism (requires training to accept subjectivism)

Cross-cultural (debated):

Some argue universal moral realism
Others argue cultural variation
At minimum: Western folk psychology = realist

Interpretation:

Strong claim: Moral realism = universal folk psychology (Mikhail, Nichols)

Weaker claim: Western folk psychology = realist (even if not universal)

Emotivism/subjectivism = theoretical override (not intuitive)

5. FOLK FOUNDATIONALISM

The Research:

Susan Haack ("Evidence and Inquiry", 1993):

Foundationalism closer to folk epistemology than coherentism
People naturally terminate justification ("just obvious")
Coherentism = sophisticated theoretical move

Michael Huemer ("Skepticism and the Veil of Perception", 2001):

Phenomenal conservatism = folk epistemology
"Seems true → justified" (unless defeated)
Natural foundationalism (appearances = basic)

Experimental philosophy:

People naturally accept some beliefs as basic (not requiring justification)
Not: "Justify everything" (infinite regress)
Not: "Circular justification okay" (coherentism)

The Evidence:

Folk epistemology:

People naturally stop justification at "obvious" truths
"Why believe 2+2=4?" → "It's just obvious"
Not coherentist ("It coheres with other math beliefs")

Cognitive development:

Children accept some beliefs as basic (don't require infinite justification)
Natural stopping point (foundationalism)

Interpretation:

Foundationalism = folk epistemology (natural way humans justify beliefs)

Coherentism = theoretical alternative (sophisticated, counter-intuitive)

6. FOLK INTUITIONISM (CONTESTED)

The Research:

Jonathan Haidt ("The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail", 2001):

Moral judgments = intuitive (immediate, not reasoned)
Post-hoc rationalization (not deliberation first)
But: Emotivism interpretation (not realist intuitionism)

Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (challenges intuitionism):

Folk moral judgments unreliable
Cultural variation suggests no reliable moral intuition
Emotivism better explanation

Robert Audi (defends intuitionism):

Some moral truths self-evident
Rational intuition (not emotion)
Folk morality includes intuitionist element

The Evidence:

Mixed:

Supporting folk intuitionism:

Moral judgments feel immediate (like perception)
"That's wrong" seems obvious (not inferred)
People report "seeing" moral facts

Against folk intuitionism:

Cultural variation in moral judgments
Emotions confound intuitions
Unreliability suggests not genuine faculty

Interpretation:

Contested:

Some argue: Folk psychology includes moral intuitionism (Audi, some virtue ethicists)

Others argue: Folk moral judgments = emotion (Haidt, Prinz), not rational intuition

Ancient intuitionism = Systematization of folk tendency? Or sophisticated theory? Debated.

7. SYNTHESIZING THE RESEARCH

Strong Evidence for Folk Origins:

Dualism - Very strong (Bloom, Bering, Nichols) - universal, early-emerging, cross-cultural
Libertarian Freedom - Strong (Nahmias, Nichols, Knobe) - universal intuition, phenomenology
Correspondence - Strong (Goldman, folk epistemology studies) - natural concept of truth
Foundationalism - Moderate (Haack, Huemer) - folk justification practices

Weaker/Contested Evidence:

Moral Realism - Moderate to weak (cultural variation, though Western folk = realist)
Intuitionism - Weak/contested (emotion vs. rational intuition debate)

8. THE COUNTER-ARGUMENT

Cultural Constructivists Argue:

Richard Nisbett ("The Geography of Thought", 2003):

Eastern vs. Western cognition differs
Western = analytic, dualist, individualist
Eastern = holistic, less dualist, collectivist
Not universal folk psychology (culturally variant)

Joseph Henrich ("The WEIRDest People in the World", 2020):

Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic (WEIRD) psychology ≠ universal
Many "folk intuitions" actually WEIRD cultural products
Classical philosophy = WEIRD psychology systematized

The Implication:

If correct: Six commitments not universal folk psychology, but WEIRD cultural psychology

Ancient philosophy: Systematized Greek/Roman folk psychology (not universal human nature)

Modern rejection: Different cultures (or evolved WEIRD culture) rejecting earlier WEIRD intuitions

9. THE PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATE

Position 1: Folk Psychology (Naturalist)

Claim: Six commitments = natural human cognition (evolved, universal, pre-theoretical)

Evidence:

Developmental psychology (early-emerging)
Cross-cultural studies (universal or nearly so)
Phenomenology (feels natural)

Implication: Ancient philosophy systematized folk intuitions (not invented them)

Modern philosophy: Overriding natural intuitions with sophisticated theories (denaturalized)

Position 2: Cultural Construction (Anti-Naturalist)

Claim: Six commitments = WEIRD cultural products (Greek/Roman/Christian, not universal)

Evidence:

Cultural variation (Eastern vs. Western)
Historical contingency (not found in all cultures equally)
Require specific cultural context

Implication: Ancient philosophy created these commitments (not discovered in folk psychology)

Modern philosophy: Different cultural evolution (not denial of human nature, but cultural change)

Position 3: Mixed (Moderate)

Claim: Some commitments folk (dualism, freedom, correspondence), others cultural (moral realism, intuitionism)

Evidence: Mixed empirical results

Implication: Ancient philosophy partly systematized folk psychology, partly cultural construction

10. STERLING'S POSITION (IMPLIED)

Sterling Doesn't Explicitly Argue Folk Origins

But his approach suggests something like:

These commitments are NECESSARY for Stoic practice (necessary conditions) [

Whether they're:

Folk psychology (natural)
Cultural products (WEIRD)
Philosophical conclusions (derived)

Is separate question from whether they're necessary.

The Logic:

IF Stoicism requires all six commitments (Sterling's argument)

AND Stoicism works/is true (assumption)

THEN Six commitments must be true (or at least viable)



SEPARATE QUESTION: Are they folk psychology or cultural/philosophical?

11. WHY THIS MATTERS

If Six Commitments = Folk Psychology:

Then:

Ancient philosophy = systematized natural human cognition
Modern philosophy = denial of human nature (unnatural)
Stoicism = working with grain of human psychology
Modern rejection = working against human nature

Problem for moderns: Fighting uphill against natural cognition

If Six Commitments = WEIRD Cultural Products:

Then:

Ancient philosophy = one cultural possibility (not universal)
Modern philosophy = different cultural evolution (not denial)
Stoicism = culturally contingent (not universal human nature)
Modern rejection = legitimate cultural change

Problem for Stoics: Not universal (only works in certain cultural contexts)

12. THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE SUMMARY

Strong Evidence for Folk Origins:

Commitment	Folk Psychology Evidence	Status
Dualism	Very strong (Bloom, Bering, universal, early)	FOLK
Libertarian Freedom	Strong (Nahmias, phenomenology, cross-cultural)	FOLK
Correspondence	Strong (Goldman, natural concept of truth)	FOLK
Foundationalism	Moderate (folk justification practices)	LIKELY FOLK
Moral Realism	Weak to moderate (Western = yes, universal = debated)	CONTESTED
Intuitionism	Weak (emotion vs. reason debate)	CONTESTED

13. KEY RESEARCHERS & THEIR POSITIONS

Arguing FOR Folk Psychology:

Paul Bloom (Yale) - Dualism is natural
Shaun Nichols (Arizona) - Folk psychology = dualist, libertarian, realist
Eddy Nahmias (Georgia State) - Folk = libertarian
John Mikhail (Georgetown) - Universal moral grammar (realism)
Michael Huemer (Colorado) - Phenomenal conservatism = folk epistemology

Arguing AGAINST Universal Folk Psychology:

Richard Nisbett (Michigan) - Cultural variation (Eastern vs. Western)
Joseph Henrich (Harvard) - WEIRD psychology (not universal)
Jesse Prinz (CUNY) - Moral judgments = emotion (not realist intuition)
Joshua Greene (Harvard) - Moral intuitions = evolutionary artifacts (not reliable)

14. CONCLUSION

Yes - Multiple Researchers Have Shown Folk Origins:

Strong evidence:

Dualism = folk psychology (Bloom, Bering, Nichols)
Libertarian freedom = folk psychology (Nahmias, Nichols, Knobe)
Correspondence = folk epistemology (Goldman, natural truth concept)

Weaker evidence:

Foundationalism = likely folk (Haack, Huemer)
Moral realism = Western folk (debated if universal)
Intuitionism = contested (emotion vs. rational intuition)

But This Is Contested:

Cultural constructivists (Nisbett, Henrich):

These are WEIRD cultural products (not universal human nature)
Ancient philosophy systematized Greek/Roman psychology (not universal)

The Debate Continues:

Empirical question: Are six commitments natural human cognition or cultural products?

Philosophical question: Even if folk psychology, does that make them true? (Naturalistic fallacy)

Sterling's point: Necessary for Stoic practice (separate from whether folk or cultural)

The fascinating implication: If the six commitments ARE folk psychology, then modern philosophy rejected human nature itself (not just ancient philosophy). This would explain why modernity feels "denaturalizing" - it literally works against natural human cognition.

Stoic News

Thursday, January 22, 2026