Not really. Every piece of it is nonsense. It reads like somebody took philosophy 101, then got high and sat around with his fraternity late into the night "talking philosophy," then wrote an article mashing together every pseudo-philosophical idea he knew of.
But if you want an example: what the heck does corollary 1 have to do with ethics? Or with anything that has gone before? Why does your mind become less analytical just because it is trying to solve problems for people? Couldn't that make it more analytical? Isn't the writer being analytical in the very example of the chair? And, again, what on earth does this whole "Corollary" have to do with his discussion of ethics? Nothing! It's just an excuse for him to ramble on sounding deep.
Corollary 2 is even worse. It meanders through a standard fallacy about free will before trying to refute "body-body dualism." Huh? What the heck is that? It unhelpfully tells us that, "you’re more likely to be overweight (or happy) if you’re friends and family are." Um, well, OK. That seems pretty easy to believe. But it's relevant how, again?
The opening parts, on ethics, are just as bad. They consist in a bunch of unargued pronouncements. He says, "A modern ethical system must be based on principles rather than faith-based origin stories, open to critical analysis...." Well, his is sure open to critical analysis: it's completely unsupported and unargued. It's clear, in his discussion of "Principle 2," that he believes he is describing something innate ("We know we’re violating an obligation to treat others how we would want to be treated."), but he does nothing to try to describe the nature or origin of these duties -- which is the whole problem that he is supposed to be addressing.
Well, I could go on, but suffice to say, I thought it was terrible from start to finish, a position that has very little to do with my religious beliefs.
)
Wow
)
)
)
)