THE MYSTERIANISM OF OWEN FLANAGAN'S NORMATIVE MIND SCIENCE
Zygon December 3, 2025 DOI: 10.1111/zygo.12381 (opens in new tab) via DOAJ
Summary
AI-generated from the abstractThis article argues that Owen Flanagan's neurophysicalism, despite his critique of the new mysterians, itself entails a form of mysterianism and fails to ground human mentality within physicalism. Flanagan attempts to reconcile spirituality with a physicalist ontology by deriving an account of the good life from science. The critique shows that Flanagan does not establish consistency between ethical normativity and physicalism, so another form of mysterianism emerges within this normative mind science.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Keywords | Eudaimonia Consciousness Mysterianism Owen flanagan Neurophysicalism |
| Key finding | Argues that Owen Flanagan's neurophysicalism fails to appropriately ground human mentality and ethical normativity within physicalism, thereby generating a form of mysterianism. |
Abstract
This article critically analyzes Owen Flanagan's physicalism and attempt at deriving ethical normativity from current neuroscience. It is argued that neurophysicalism, despite Flanagan's harsh critique of “the new mysterians,” entails a form of mysterianism and that it fails to appropriately ground human mentality within physicalism. Flanagan seeks to bring spirituality and a physicalist ontology together by showing how it is possible to derive an account of the good life from science. This attempt is critiqued and it is shown that Flanagan fails to establish the consistency between ethical normativity and physicalism. Hence, another form of mysterianism seems to emerge within this normative mind science.