{"id":5492,"date":"2025-08-20T20:09:29","date_gmt":"2025-08-20T20:09:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/?p=5492"},"modified":"2025-08-21T12:01:47","modified_gmt":"2025-08-21T12:01:47","slug":"most-plausible-secular-philosophies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/2025\/08\/20\/most-plausible-secular-philosophies\/","title":{"rendered":"Most plausible secular philosophies"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>what secular philosophy&#8211; epistemology&#8211;ontology &#8212; axiology, methodology &#8212; seems most plausible&#8211;has verisimilitude<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\">ChatGPT said:<\/h6>\n\n\n\n<p>Great question\u2014you&#8217;re asking which secular philosophical systems (across <strong>epistemology, ontology, axiology, and methodology<\/strong>) seem to have the greatest <strong>verisimilitude<\/strong>\u2014i.e., seem <em>most likely to be true<\/em> or closely approximate truth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Here\u2019s a synthesized, plausible constellation across the categories that many contemporary philosophers and scientifically-minded thinkers find compelling:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>1. Epistemology: Fallibilist Empiricism + Bayesian Rationalism<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Why plausible:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Fallibilism acknowledges that all knowledge is provisional and subject to revision.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Empiricism grounds knowledge in sensory experience, with science as the most successful epistemic method.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Bayesian rationalism incorporates probability and uncertainty, offering a rigorous framework for updating beliefs.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Verisimilitude:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Reflects how actual human cognition works.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Underpins the success of the scientific method.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Accommodates both empirical data and rational inference.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>2. Ontology: Naturalistic Physicalism (with Structural Realism)<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Why plausible:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Naturalism holds that everything arises from natural properties and causes, excluding supernatural explanations.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Physicalism maintains that everything is physical or supervenes on the physical.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Structural realism (especially epistemic structural realism) acknowledges that we may only grasp the structure of reality, not its intrinsic nature.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Verisimilitude:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Matches scientific progress in physics, biology, neuroscience.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Avoids naive realism but maintains objectivity.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Explains the unity of the sciences and avoids dualism.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>3. Axiology: Secular Humanism + Moral Constructivism (or Moral Realism with Caution)<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Why plausible:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Secular humanism centers on human flourishing, dignity, and well-being without appealing to divine command.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Moral constructivism sees moral truths as constructed through rational, social processes\u2014aligned with Rawls, Korsgaard.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Alternatively, a modest moral realism posits that some moral truths (e.g., suffering is bad) might be objective or intersubjectively convergent.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Verisimilitude:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Matches widespread moral intuitions.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Adapts to pluralistic, democratic societies.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Compatible with psychology, evolutionary theory, and cooperation-based ethics.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>4. Methodology: Critical Rationalism + Pragmatism<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Why plausible:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Critical rationalism (Karl Popper): Emphasizes conjecture and refutation\u2014knowledge grows through criticism.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Pragmatism (Peirce, James, Dewey): Ties truth to practical consequences and inquiry.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>These approaches avoid dogmatism and focus on what works, what predicts, and what can be falsified.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Verisimilitude:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Grounds science and democratic discourse.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Adaptive to new data and changing contexts.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Integrates theory with real-world application.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> Summary of a Coherent Secular Framework with High Verisimilitude<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Domain<\/th><th>Most Plausible View<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Epistemology<\/strong><\/td><td>Fallibilist Empiricism + Bayesian Reasoning<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Ontology<\/strong><\/td><td>Naturalistic Physicalism + Structural Realism<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Axiology<\/strong><\/td><td>Secular Humanism + Moral Constructivism<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Methodology<\/strong><\/td><td>Critical Rationalism + Pragmatism<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p>Would you like me to map this onto specific philosophers or schools of thought? Or compare this framework to religious or non-naturalist alternatives?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\">You said:<\/h5>\n\n\n\n<p>philosophers and schools<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\">ChatGPT said:<\/h6>\n\n\n\n<p>Absolutely\u2014let\u2019s map each of the philosophical domains (epistemology, ontology, axiology, methodology) onto <strong>specific secular philosophers and schools<\/strong> that best exemplify the views with high <strong>verisimilitude<\/strong> (as discussed). I&#8217;ll include both classical and contemporary thinkers where helpful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> <strong>1. Epistemology<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>View<\/strong>: <em>Fallibilist Empiricism + Bayesian Rationalism<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> Philosophers:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Karl Popper<\/strong> \u2013 <em>Critical Rationalism<\/em>; emphasized falsifiability and fallibilism.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>W.V.O. Quine<\/strong> \u2013 Naturalized epistemology; knowledge is empirical and theory-laden.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Thomas Bayes \/ Richard Jeffrey<\/strong> \u2013 Foundations of Bayesian inference.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>David Hume<\/strong> \u2013 Empiricism and skepticism about induction.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Hilary Putnam<\/strong> \u2013 Internal realism; helped balance rationalism and empiricism.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> Schools:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Logical Empiricism<\/strong> (Carnap, Reichenbach)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Bayesian Epistemology<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Critical Rationalism<\/strong> (Popper)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Naturalized Epistemology<\/strong> (Quine, Churchland)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Core idea:<\/strong> Knowledge is provisional, theory-laden, probabilistic, and grounded in empirical input and reasoned inference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> <strong>2. Ontology<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>View<\/strong>: <em>Naturalistic Physicalism + Structural Realism<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> Philosophers:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Wilfrid Sellars<\/strong> \u2013 Bridged scientific realism and the manifest image.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>James Ladyman<\/strong> \u2013 Proponent of <em>Ontic Structural Realism<\/em>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Daniel Dennett<\/strong> \u2013 Consciousness and mind as emergent physical processes.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>David Papineau<\/strong> \u2013 Physicalist account of consciousness and causation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>B.F. Skinner \/ Paul Churchland<\/strong> \u2013 Reductionist \/ eliminativist physicalism.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> Schools:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Physicalism \/ Materialism<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Scientific Realism<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Structural Realism<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Naturalism<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Core idea:<\/strong> Reality is fundamentally physical, structured, and best understood through the lens of science. Our models may only grasp its relational structure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> <strong>3. Axiology (Value Theory, Ethics, Aesthetics)<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>View<\/strong>: <em>Secular Humanism + Moral Constructivism (or Cautious Realism)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> Philosophers:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>John Rawls<\/strong> \u2013 <em>Justice as fairness<\/em>, a constructivist in moral theory.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Christine Korsgaard<\/strong> \u2013 Kantian constructivist ethics.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Peter Singer<\/strong> \u2013 Utilitarianism based on reducing suffering (secular humanist).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Derek Parfit<\/strong> \u2013 Moral realism with an emphasis on reason and identity.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Martha Nussbaum<\/strong> \u2013 Capabilities approach to human flourishing.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> Schools:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Secular Humanism<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Moral Constructivism<\/strong> (Rawls, Korsgaard)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Utilitarianism<\/strong> (Mill, Singer)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Moral Realism<\/strong> (Parfit, Scanlon)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Evolutionary Ethics<\/strong> (Darwinian roots of moral behavior)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Core idea:<\/strong> Moral value is grounded in human needs, flourishing, and reasoned agreement\u2014not divine command or cosmic teleology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> <strong>4. Methodology<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>View<\/strong>: <em>Critical Rationalism + Pragmatism<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> Philosophers:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Karl Popper<\/strong> \u2013 Conjectures and refutations.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Charles Sanders Peirce<\/strong> \u2013 Scientific method and fallibilism.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>William James<\/strong> \u2013 Pragmatism and truth as what works in the long run.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>John Dewey<\/strong> \u2013 Inquiry, democracy, and experimentalism in knowledge.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Imre Lakatos<\/strong> \u2013 Research programs in science.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> Schools:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Pragmatism<\/strong> (Peirce, James, Dewey)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Critical Rationalism<\/strong> (Popper)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Methodological Naturalism<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Post-Positivism<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Core idea:<\/strong> The best method for approaching truth is through critical inquiry, practical testing, and openness to revision based on consequences and evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> Summary Table<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Domain<\/th><th>Philosophers<\/th><th>Schools<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Epistemology<\/strong><\/td><td>Popper, Quine, Hume, Putnam, Bayes<\/td><td>Critical Rationalism, Bayesianism, Naturalized Epistemology<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Ontology<\/strong><\/td><td>Dennett, Sellars, Ladyman, Papineau<\/td><td>Physicalism, Structural Realism, Naturalism<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Axiology<\/strong><\/td><td>Rawls, Singer, Korsgaard, Parfit, Nussbaum<\/td><td>Secular Humanism, Moral Constructivism, Utilitarianism<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Methodology<\/strong><\/td><td>Popper, Peirce, Dewey, James, Lakatos<\/td><td>Pragmatism, Critical Rationalism, Post-Positivism<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h5 class=\"wp-block-heading\">You said:<\/h5>\n\n\n\n<p>is reductive or emergentist materialism more plausible<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\">ChatGPT said:<\/h6>\n\n\n\n<p>Excellent question\u2014and a central one in contemporary philosophy of mind, metaphysics, and science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Let\u2019s break this down clearly:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> The Question:<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Which has more verisimilitude\u2014reductive materialism or emergentist materialism?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> Reductive Materialism:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>All mental or higher-level phenomena are <em>fully reducible<\/em> to physical processes\u2014ultimately describable in the language of physics.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Minds reduce to brains.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Biology reduces to chemistry.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Chemistry reduces to physics.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Championed by:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Early physicalists (J.J.C. Smart, U.T. Place)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Daniel Dennett (in a qualified way)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Paul Churchland (eliminativist spin)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> Emergentist Materialism:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>While everything is physical, <strong>higher-level properties<\/strong> (like consciousness, life, social behavior) <strong>emerge<\/strong> from\u2014but are not reducible to\u2014lower-level processes.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The whole is more than the sum of its parts.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Still fully naturalist and physicalist, but allows for <strong>novel causal powers<\/strong> at higher levels.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Championed by:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Jaegwon Kim (early, then became skeptical)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>David Chalmers (naturalistic dual-aspect views)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Roger Sperry (non-reductive physicalism)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Terrence Deacon, William Wimsatt (complex systems theorists)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> Comparative Analysis<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Criterion<\/th><th>Reductive Materialism<\/th><th>Emergentist Materialism<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Scientific Parsimony<\/strong><\/td><td>\u2705 Very parsimonious; one ontology<\/td><td>\u26a0\ufe0f Less parsimonious; posits new properties<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Scientific Practice<\/strong><\/td><td>\u26a0\ufe0f Idealized; not how science usually works<\/td><td>\u2705 Matches explanatory hierarchies (physics \u2192 bio \u2192 psych)<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Explains Consciousness<\/strong><\/td><td>\u274c Faces the \u201chard problem\u201d head-on<\/td><td>\u2705 Allows for higher-order properties like qualia<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Causal Closure<\/strong><\/td><td>\u2705 Fits with a closed physical system<\/td><td>\u26a0\ufe0f Must explain how emergent properties have causal efficacy<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Philosophical Support<\/strong><\/td><td>Strong among physicalists, but fading<\/td><td>Growing support from complexity theorists, philosophers of mind<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> So, <strong>which is more plausible today?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> <strong>Emergentist Materialism appears more plausible (has greater verisimilitude) IF:<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>You take consciousness, intentionality, and normativity seriously.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>You want to align with actual scientific methodology (biology, neuroscience, sociology use irreducible vocabularies).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>You believe reductionism oversimplifies the richness of complex systems.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> <strong>Reductive Materialism still seems plausible IF:<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>You think the \u201chard problem\u201d is a confusion or will dissolve with better neuroscience.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>You favor elegance and parsimony over explanatory pluralism.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>You accept eliminativism about mental concepts (e.g., beliefs, desires are folk relics).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> Scientific Alignment:<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Modern sciences\u2014from systems biology to neuroscience to complex systems theory\u2014<strong>increasingly favor non-reductive or emergentist models<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Consciousness is seen as a global, integrated phenomenon (Tononi\u2019s IIT, Global Workspace Theory).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Biology resists full reduction to physics (epigenetics, regulatory networks).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>AI systems show emergent behavior not explicitly programmed.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"> Final Verdict:<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p><strong>Emergentist Materialism<\/strong> better fits the current state of scientific understanding and philosophical reflection on mind, complexity, and causation\u2014<strong>though it raises difficult metaphysical questions<\/strong> about how emergence works without reintroducing dualism.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p>So it wins on <strong>verisimilitude<\/strong>, despite being less parsimonious.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>what secular philosophy&#8211; epistemology&#8211;ontology &#8212; axiology, methodology &#8212; seems most plausible&#8211;has verisimilitude ChatGPT said: Great question\u2014you&#8217;re asking which secular philosophical systems (across epistemology, ontology, axiology, and methodology) seem to have the greatest verisimilitude\u2014i.e., seem most likely to be true or closely approximate truth. Here\u2019s a synthesized, plausible constellation across the categories that many contemporary philosophers &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/2025\/08\/20\/most-plausible-secular-philosophies\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Most plausible secular philosophies&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[60,61],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5492","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ai-assist","category-philosophy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5492","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5492"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5492\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5493,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5492\/revisions\/5493"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5492"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5492"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5492"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}