top of page

Tyron Goldschmidt

PUBLICATIONS     
BOOKS

Forthcoming. Ontological Arguments, Cambridge University Press

Ontological arguments should not persuade. Nothing special about ontological arguments: virtually no substantive argument in philosophy (beyond my own) works. Yet ontological arguments are wonderful. They get us entangled in so many other philosophical puzzles: from philosophy of religion to philosophy of language, from metaphysics to ethics, and beyond. More so than any other arguments do. 

Forthcoming. Hume’s Enquiry: Expanded and Explained, Routledge

With the indefatigable Scott Stapleford, who has the most expensive shoes. This book includes the entire classical text of the Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding in bold font, a running commentary blended seamlessly into the text in regular font and analytic summaries of each section. The commentary is like a professor on hand to guide the reader through every line of the daunting prose and every move in the intricate argumentation. The unique design helps today's students learn how to read and engage with one of modern philosophy's most important and exciting classics. We don't skip a single line of Hume here, and we match our writing style with his too. The research and effort are excruciating. If the readers only knew, they'd pay twice for this handy volume.

Forthcoming. Applied Ethics: An Impartial Introduction, Hackett Publishing

With the incredible and unbelievable Liz Jackson, who likes avocados more than you do. This book introduces topics in applied ethics, also known as contemporary moral problems, such as abortion, capital punishment, animal ethics, poverty, et al. Each section includes chapters pro and con, covering the best arguments on all sides, for a perfectly balanced introduction. With so many pedagogical features, your students will be so grateful and give you the best reviews ever, while we live high on our royalties.

2016. Berkeley’s Principles: Expanded and Explained, Routledge (link)

With the luminous Scott Stapleford, the best dressed philosopher of all time. This book includes the entire classical text of the Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge in bold font, a running commentary blended seamlessly into the text in regular font and analytic summaries of each section. The commentary is like a professor on hand to guide the reader through every line of the daunting prose and every move in the intricate argumentation. The unique design helps today's students learn how to read and engage with one of modern philosophy's most important and exciting classics. We don't skip a single line of Berkeley here, and we match our writing style with his too. Much harder to do than a standard secondary source. Much lovelier to read.

EDITED VOLUMES​

Forthcoming. Non-Being: New Essays on the Metaphysics of Non-Existence, with S. Bernstein, Oxford University Press

An edited volume of new essays on negative entities and non-beings. The essays will cover: non-being, non-existent objects, absences, omissions, holes, nonsense, and many other negative topics besides. Much ado about nothing. The contributors are too amazing to even mention. You'd faint.

2017. Idealism: New Essays in Metaphysics, Ed. Oxford University Press (link)

With Kenneth Pearce, who is a reincarnation of George Berkeley, but even handsomer. This volume sets the record straight on idealism. If you don't believe me, listen to the preeminent reviewer at NDPR: "The essays offered in this volume are, the editors tell us, intended to 'correct the unjustified neglect of idealism by presenting a variety of arguments for and against various versions of idealism' (p. ix). In this project, the contributors succeed marvelously. The material presented here is wide ranging, highly engaging, and likely to be of interest to philosophers and students working on any of a number of ongoing debates in metaphysics, philosophy of mind, epistemology, and philosophy of language, philosophy of religion, and philosophy of science."

 

2013. The Puzzle of Existence: Why Is There Something Rather than Nothing? Ed., Routledge (link)

This groundbreaking volume sets the record straight on the most fundamental question of all. Does science answer the question? Or does theology? Does everything need an explanation? Or can there be brute, inexplicable facts? Could there have been nothing whatsoever? Or is there any being that could not have failed to exist? Is the question meaningful after all? If you don't believe me, listen to the preeminent reviewer at EJPR: "There is much to like about the book. The writing is impressively clear. Meanwhile, the material is sophisticated, innovative, and rigorous. Seasoned philosophers and interested students alike will learn much. Readers will also appreciate the careful tone of the book: the authors, all of them, display the twin virtues of intellectual humility and clear-mindedness."   

Under contract. The Empiricists: Locke, Berkeley and Hume, Routledge

With Scott Stapleford, author of the most stylish essay in the history of philosophy and in the history of philosophy, 'The Worst Argument in the World--Defended'. This will combine the parts of the Berkeley and Hume books above, along with a Locke book Scott will write on his lonesome.

EDITED SERIES

Under contract. Little Debates about Big Questions, Routledge

 

About 20 short volumes here. Two authors in each. Each author presents their side. Then they reply to each other a couple times. Fun for more advanced readers, but accessible and representative for undergraduate courses, and with some pedagogical features too. The contributors are too amazing to even mention. You'd faint.

JOURNAL ARTICLES​

Forthcoming, 'Ontological Soufflé', Ratio (link)

Possibilities are so much easier to swallow. So transform those left-over cosmological arguments into scrumptious new ontological arguments. 

Forthcoming. ‘Divine Contractions’, Religious Studies (link)

With the holy rabbi, Sam Lebens. My name first this time. The first part of the paper presents three little arguments from theism to idealism. The second part employs these arguments to make sense of a puzzling doctrine of Jewish mysticism: the doctrine of divine contraction (heb. tzimtzum).

2017. ‘The Promise of a New Past’, Philosophers’ Imprint, 17, 18, 1-25 (link)

With the revealer of secrets, Sam Lebens. In light of Jewish tradition and the metaphysics of time, we argue that God can and will change the past. The argument makes for a new answer to the problem of evil, and a new theory of atonement. This paper will change your life. Share it widely so that it can change the lives of others too.

2017. ‘An Advertisement of a New Paper’, Journal of Analytic Theology, 5, 1: 629-36

With the righteous and pious Sam Lebens. The most delightful philosopher of all time, Hud Hudson, puts forward a hypertime theory in order to show the compatibility of contemporary science and biblical literalism. We use the theory to answer the problem of evil in a new way. The problem of evil has now been finally and decisively answered. This paper is a précis of a part of 'The Promise of a New Past'.

2017. ‘Shifting the Focus While Conserving Commitments in Research Ethics’, Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 42 (2): 103-13

I don't remember what exactly this paper was about. It says something about the other papers in this issue. Not very important. But I deserve to have more about ethics on my list, since I know so much about it.

2016. ‘Existence Puzzles and Probabilistic Explanations’, Journal of the American Philosophical Association 2, 3, 469-82

Why is there something rather than nothing? Robert Nozick and Peter van Inwagen have proposed a probabilistic answer: there are more ways there could have been something than ways there could have been nothing; each has an equal intrinsic probability of obtaining; and so there being something is intrinsically more probable. Yours truly presents a few original objections to this line of thinking, focusing especially on the kinds of probability it invokes. And also sketches a more promising probabilistic answer, one that makes relevant relevant scientific and theological considerations that are usually quickly dismissed in this context.

2016. ‘The Meaning of Meaning’, European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 8, 2: 19-26

Thaddeus Metz is the best thinker on the meaning of life, and on much else besides. In this paper, I submit his theory to penetrating and devastating critique. His reply: 'I appreciate the transparency, sincerity and intellectual integrity evinced by Goldschmidt’s discussion. With respect to several matters on which I pronounce having an intuition, he reports that he has none.' Right on! But then the bomb: 'Goldschmidt is too new to enquiry into life’s meaning to count as an expert. He might need to reflect more on the matter to develop the ability to form judgments of particular cases.' Read my paper then at your own risk.

2016. ‘A Demonstration of the Causal Power of Absences’, Dialectica 70, 1: 85

This is one of the most widely read publications in the history of philosophy. Every reader remembers every word by heart too.

2015. ‘Commanding Belief’, Ratio 28, 2: 163-74

This prize-winning essay was the subject of a symposium at the Association for the Philosophy of Judaism, with comments by Max Baker-Hytch and Christian Miller. It shows three things: first, that we cannot comply with a command from God to believe in God; second, that God cannot command us to believe in God; and, third, that the divine command theory is false. The third conclusion follows from the second, and the second follows from the first. The essay focuses on an argument from the medieval Jewish philosopher, Hasdai Crescas. It also draws from, and is something of a sequel to, an argument from Campbell Brown and Yujin Nagasawa published previously in the same journal.

2014. ‘Jewish Responses to the Problem of Evil’, Philosophy Compass 9, 12: 894-905

 

Outlines answers to the problem of evil (the problem of making sense of how a good God can permit evil) from Jewish perspectives. The essay uses traditional Jewish sources to illustrate theodicies (explanations of why God allows evil) familiar in other religious traditions, and introduces a few less familiar Jewish theodicies besides. Other responses to the problem of evil (skeptical theism and antitheodicy) are also considered. Jewish responses are not usually framed in contemporary philosophical categories, and mine is an attempt at categorization. The traditional Jewish sources might show some promise of contributing to contemporary philosophical debate. For something different, see my more recent 'Promise of a New Past' above.

2013. ‘Judaism, Reincarnation and Theodicy’, Faith & Philosophy 30, 4: 393-417 (link)

With the saintly and patient Beth Seacord. This essay was the subject of a symposium at Association for the Philosophy of Judaism, with comments by Anastasia Scrutton and Bill Wood. The doctrine of reincarnation is usually associated with Buddhism, Hinduism and other Eastern religions. But it has also been developed in Druzism and Judaism. The doctrine has been used by these traditions to explain the existence of evil within a moral order. Traversing the boundaries between East and West, we explore how Jewish mysticism has employed the doctrine to help answer the problem of evil. We explore the doctrine particularly as we respond to objections against employing it in a theodicy. We show how it supplements traditional punishment, free will and soul-building theodicies, and helps these theodicies avoid various objections. Again: traversing the boundaries between East and West. Reincarnation. If philosophers were really interested in diversity, they'd reprint this essay often. 

2012. ‘Metaphysical Nihilism and Necessary Being’, Philosophia 40: 799-820

The published version has a typo in the title. So I won't share it. Who ever thought to proofread a title anyhow? Addresses the most fundamental question in metaphysics, Why is there something rather than nothing? The question is framed as a question about concrete entities, Why does a possible world containing concrete entities obtain rather than one containing no concrete entities? Traditional answers are in terms of there necessarily being some concrete entities, and include the possibility of a necessary being. But such answers are threatened by metaphysical nihilism, the thesis that there being nothing concrete is possible, and the subtraction argument for this thesis, an argument that is the subject of considerable recent debate. I summarize and extend the debate about the argument, and answer the threat it poses, turning the tables on it to show how the subtraction argument supports a cosmological argument for a necessary being.

2011. ‘The New Cosmological Argument’, Philosophia 29: 267-88

 

Everyone should write at least one essay on cosmological arguments, for or against. I don't remember much about this essay. But I was proud of one or two ideas in it.

BOOK​ CHAPTERS

Forthcoming. ‘A Proof of Exodus: Judah HaLevy and Jonathan Edwards Walk into a Bar’, in Jewish Thought in the Age of Analytic Philosophy, S. Lebens, D. Rabinowitz, and A. Segal (Eds.), Oxford University Press (link)

Proves that the miracles of the Exodus happened. You, dear skeptics, will think the proof the dumbest thing you’ve ever seen. You, dear believers, will too. At first. You’ll think I’m telling the skeptic to believe in miracles just because everyone else believes they happened. Or just because the Bible says they happened. Either way, pretty dumb. Did I miss the class on argumentum ad populum or petitio principii? I wouldn’t put such moves past me. I promise it’s not what I’m up to here. Along the way I introduce some medieval and early modern thinkers to each other: Saadya Gaon, Yehuda HaLevy, Jonathan Edwards and Charles Leslie.

2018. ‘The Argument from Numbers’, in Two Dozen Arguments, T. Dougherty & J. Walls (Eds), Oxford University Press, 59-75 (link)

In a volume on Plantinga's 'two dozen' arguments for the existence of God. My somewhat skeptical chapter considers Plantinga’s argument from numbers for the existence of God. Plantinga sees divine psychologism as having advantages over both human psychologism and Platonism. The chapter begins with Plantinga’s description of the argument, including the relation of numbers to any divine attribute. It then argues that human psychologism can be ruled out completely. However, what rules it out might rule out divine psychologism too. It also argues that the main problem with Platonism might also be a problem with divine psychologism. However, it will, at the least, be less of a problem. In any case, there are alternative, possibly viable views about the nature of numbers that have not been touched by Plantinga’s argument. In addition, the chapter touches on the argument from properties, and its relation to the argument from numbers.

2017. ‘Introduction’, in Idealism: New Essays in Metaphysics, Oxford University Press

With Kenneth Pearce, the greatest Ussher Professor in the last 6000 years (at most).

2017. ‘The Necessity of Idealism’, in Idealism: New Essays in Metaphysics, Oxford University Press

With our holy genius and the true saint, Aaron Segal. This chapter formulates a version of idealism and argues for it. Idealism is necessarily true if true at all, and this matters a lot to the debate about the nature of world and mind. The contemporary debate in philosophy of mind has been dominated by physicalism and dualism, with idealism almost totally neglected. This chapter helps rectify this situation.

2017. ‘The Afterlife in Judaism’, Palgrave Handbook on the Afterlife, Y. Nagasawa & B. Matheson (Eds), Palgrave (link)

With the treasured lamp, Aaron Segal. My name first this time. Belief in some form of afterlife has been counted as a fundamental principle of Jewish faith, and for orthodox Jews it still is. The traditional Jewish view about the afterlife is elaborate. It has a labyrinthine landscape and a complex chronology, including no less than: reincarnation, purgatory, annihilation, a world of departed souls, the bodily resurrection of the dead, and the World to Come. Our paper first addresses some of the skepticism in contemporary Jewish thought about the afterlife. We then outline the central features of the traditional Jewish view, along with some disagreements within the tradition. We then turn to a philosophical puzzle about the significance of the afterlife and close with a related discussion of its purpose.

2013. ‘Understanding the Question’, in The Puzzle of Existence, T. Goldschmidt Ed, Routledge, 1-21

 

An introduction to the question and various questions in the neighborhood of why there is something rather than nothing. A couple new ideas. Outlines the rest of the volume too.

ENCYCLOPEDIA ENTRIES

Forthcoming. ‘Necessary Being’, Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Religion, S. Goetz and C. Taliaferro (Eds), Wiley-Blackwell

Does what an encyclopedia entry does.

REVIEWS

Forthcoming. ‘Light of the Lord (Or Hashem)’, by Hasdai Crescas, trans. Roslyn Weiss, Religious Studies

Forthcoming. ‘God, Existence, and Fictional Objects: The Case for Meinongian Theism’, by John-Mark L Miravalle, International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion

2018. ‘This Was from God: A Contemporary Theology of Torah and History’ by Jerome Yehuda Gellman, Journal of Analytic Theology, 6: 727-33

2018. ‘Arguing About Gods’ by Graham Oppy, Heythrop Journal, 59, 3: 624-5

2018. ‘The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology’ by W.L. Craig and J.P. Moreland, Eds. Heythrop Journal, 59, 3: 627-8.

2018. ‘Omissions’ by R. Clarke, Journal of Moral Philosophy, 15: 197-115

2017. ‘Skeptical Theism: New Essays’ by T. Dougherty and J. McBrayer, Eds. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 9, 2: 231-4

2014. ‘Theism and Ultimate Explanation’ by T. O’Connor, Heythrop Journal, 55, 1: 142-3

2014. ‘The End of Philosophy of Religion’ by N. Trakakis, Heythrop Journal, 55, 4: 753-4

2012. ‘The Rainbow of Experience, Critical Trust, and God’ by K.M. Kwan, Faith & Philosophy, 29, 4: 472-8

2011. ‘Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing’ by B. Rundle, Heythrop Journal, 42, 2: 307-8

Berkeley.jpg
book3.jpg
book2.jpg
Screen Shot 2019-03-17 at 1.07.36 PM.png
art1.jpg
art 2.jpg
pic paper.png
picpic2.png
picpic5.png
picpic4.png
pic paper 2.png
picpic.png
rev1.png
picpic3.png
picpic6.png
bottom of page