Philosophy Selector

With the usual caveats about the questions selected & answers provided, I give you The Ethical Philosophy Selector quiz. Answer a few questions, and the wonders of the Computer Age tell you what philosophies you match up with.

As for me, I think the quiz is a little wacked, though, as I'll comment on below the fold.

(via Gene Expression)


My results:

1. John Stuart Mill (100%) (my view: boo, pleasure-utilitarian = invalid concept/method)
2. Kant (97%) (mostly bonus, dunno why Kant's not 100% and Mill is)
3. Epicureans (83%) (WTF? Strange philosophy about active & passive pleasure? Denied.)
4. Aquinas (82%) (More good than bad. Thumbs up.)
5. Aristotle (73%) (What a great guy who was unfortunately so wrong on so many scientific concepts. However, he anticipated Austrianism in many ways., and is still better than Plato. Thumbs up.)
6. Universal Prescriptivism (71%) (WTF? This is almost diametrically opposed to what I believe. Seems like immature high school hypocrisy-phobia and adhering to sunk costs in the name of 'consistency'. Bollocks.)
7. Ayn Rand (70%) (Ayn's got problems, but far better than Epicureans or Prescriptivists. Oy vey.)
8. Jeremy Bentham (68%) (Screams in horror)
9. Ockham (62%) (Morality is only knowable by divine revelation? See ya.)
10. Jean-Paul Sartre (61%) (Screams in horror; see immature/foolish consistency of #6)
11. Spinoza (58%) (Determinism, I say thee nay.)
12. Nietzsche (36%) (Nietzsche is Dead. -God. (hehe) Glad its down near the bottom, not down with the "Want. Take. Have." mindset)
13. St. Augustine (34%) (Good theologist for his time (Roman Empire), in the face of the numerous heresies, but not the best philosopher. Still, why is he higher than Hume? Or, for that matter, Plato and the Stoics? (good band name, though))
14. Plato (34%) (Ein Ideal, Ein Volk, Ein Re- what, he's Greek?)
15. Stoics (29%) (The external world matters, yo.)
16. David Hume (20%) (Why he's down at 20% I have no idea. The quote on the "read more" page for him is pretty much spot on: "Reason can show us how to meet our ends, but only passions and sentiment can determine our ultimate goals." Damn straight.)
17. Nel Noddings (19%) (Who? and WTF?)
18. Cynics (15%) (They're just saying that to be popular.)
19. Thomas Hobbes (15%) (No Warre of All against All, Leviathan can bite me.)

So I call BS here. But it may be amusing to the rest of ya.

Share this

Seems like bunkum to me.

Seems like bunkum to me. Somehow I also scored 100% with Mill, then had 80% Epicurian and then 74% Ayn Rand.

I don't know how it can tell me that I'm 100% Mill when I specifically said that the ends of an action are no more important than the intent or the means. Isn't that an essential part of Mill's philosophy - that maximizing pleasure is the ultimate end, making the ends elevated above the intent or means? Just that question alone should have prevented me from being 100% Mill.

I'm completely lost as to why Epicurians are second. I hate those fools.

100% with Kant? Are they on

100% with Kant? Are they on crack? I specifically waffled on the "maxim of action" question because Kant is an overbearing jackass. Unfortunately I don't know enough about the rest of these guys to say much more than that, except to say h00rj for only matching 12% with Plato The Tyrant.

I'm glad someone else can

I'm glad someone else can admit to getting 100% Rand. Ugh. It feels so...freshman year...

There doesn't seem to be a category available for someone who thinks that "morality" is basically a byproduct of human evolution, but a pretty good idea nonetheless. Is that just too succinct to count as "philosophy"?

100% Rand. Ugh.

100% Rand. Ugh.

We're all objectivists and

We're all objectivists and we don't know it. ;)

Well now I know it is

Well now I know it is bunkum. I, who wanted 100% Rand (or Aristotle - his Nicomachean Ethics kicks ass) did not get it, yet all who did get 100% Rand did not want it. What's up with that?

"There doesn?t seem to be a category available for someone who thinks that ?morality? is basically a byproduct of human evolution, but a pretty good idea nonetheless. Is that just too succinct to count as ?philosophy??"

BH,
I don't think your view is too succinct for philosophy. It's seems to me to be a quasi-Nietzchean view. Nietzche believed, like you, that morality arose out of the evolution of human civilization (see his Geneology of Morals, a good read). However, where you differ is that Nietzche believed it was all meaningless - hence his nihilism and the dawning of the post-modern era.

Uh, I got 100% Rand. I may

Uh, I got 100% Rand. I may be ready for a Butlerian Jihad.

WHy smash all the thinking

WHy smash all the thinking machines, man? C'mon,you know what that leads to- piloting starships using nothing more than a slide rule and a shload of of LSD. Nobody wants that...

I got 100% Ayn Rand, too.

I got 100% Ayn Rand, too. But I knew I would, anyway. I thought my answers were all over the map, so I'm surprised.

Is a Butlerian jihad conducive to my rational self-interest? :)

Some of the answers weree

Some of the answers weree quite rubbish. I found myself saying none of the above twice.

J-- Thanks for the tip. I'm

J--

Thanks for the tip. I'm a pretty well-read person, but pure philosophy is just something for which I've never really had the patience. Maybe I should give ol' Freddy a second chance, though.