Sublime Philosophical Crap Test

All discussions regarding politics, religion, philosophy, science, cake and related subjects should be posted here.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: Sublime Philosophical Crap Test

Postby Cassiel » Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:15 pm

Haha.

As you can see, when your philosophical position is narrowed down there are so many potential categories that an OKCupid test cannot account for them all. But, taken as very broad categories or philosophical styles, you are best characterized as an N-S-O. Your exact philosophical opposite would be an R-A-R.

The choices were too limited, though. I had to answer every single question from the position of "this option is the least wrong." None of them were right. Some of them were even self-contradictory.

It would have been better if instead of one-sided choices there was some recognition of stances like actor-network theory, philosophical hermeneutics, Kripkenstein's private language argument, Davidson's tripod, etc.
User avatar
Cassiel
 
Posts: 5082
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 2:12 pm

Re: Sublime Philosophical Crap Test

Postby GraveI » Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:17 pm

Cause it's made for idiots, not philosophy majors :P.
I said, YEAH BABY YEAH, I am the evil Midnight Bomber what bombs things at midnight!
User avatar
GraveI
 
Posts: 2176
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:40 am

Re: Sublime Philosophical Crap Test

Postby Myth » Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:59 am

Philosophy majors are hot. :3

What I don't understand is... if you're smart enough to truly understand what any of that -really- means, do you need an eTest to tell you about it?

I like Heraclitus myself!


I am posting because for the first time in months, I have nothing that needs doing today.
User avatar
Myth
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:44 am
Location: Pleasing 83% of the population 74% of the time.

Re: Sublime Philosophical Crap Test

Postby Dr.Mellifluous » Sun Nov 22, 2009 6:55 pm

NAO over here. It was a fun few minutes, but yeah, most of the options I went with "least wrong" except for the morality stuff.
a particle is a thing in itself. a wave is a disturbance in something else. waves themselves are probably not disturbed.
User avatar
Dr.Mellifluous
 
Posts: 2165
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:30 am
Location: Pornosophically Philotheologising

Re: Sublime Philosophical Crap Test

Postby Turkey_Slayer » Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:27 pm

NAR. I thought I was being called a narcissist for a second, but then I remembered what test I was taking.
Dr.Mellifluous wrote:most of the options I went with "least wrong" except for the morality stuff

Basically.
User avatar
Turkey_Slayer
 
Posts: 2322
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:40 am
Location: Ft Lauderdale

Re: Sublime Philosophical Crap Test

Postby RageAgainstVoid » Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:59 am

It told me I am RAV. It made that option just for me.
Wut ohne Ziel. Wut ohne Folgen.
User avatar
RageAgainstVoid
More like Rage Against Roids/Rrhoids
 
Posts: 4365
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:23 am
Location: Ravenna

Re: Sublime Philosophical Crap Test

Postby Qaenyin The Angelblade » Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:14 am

Your result for The Sublime Philosophical Crap Test ...
N-S-O

You scored 67% Non-Reductionism, 44% Epistemological Absolutism, and 56% Moral Objectivism!
You are an N-S-O: a metaphysical Non-Reductionist, an epistemological Skeptic, and a moral Objectivist.

As you can see, when your philosophical position is narrowed down there are so many potential categories that an OKCupid test cannot account for them all. But, taken as very broad categories or philosophical styles, you are best characterized as an N-S-O. Your exact philosophical opposite would be an R-A-R.
User avatar
Qaenyin The Angelblade
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:33 am
Location: Lost, but not forgotten

Re: Sublime Philosophical Crap Test

Postby Cassiel » Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:56 pm

First there was one. Then there were two. Soon there will be an army.
User avatar
Cassiel
 
Posts: 5082
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 2:12 pm

Re: Sublime Philosophical Crap Test

Postby Dr.Mellifluous » Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:13 pm

By land or by sea?
a particle is a thing in itself. a wave is a disturbance in something else. waves themselves are probably not disturbed.
User avatar
Dr.Mellifluous
 
Posts: 2165
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:30 am
Location: Pornosophically Philotheologising

Re: Sublime Philosophical Crap Test

Postby Cassiel » Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:22 pm

By airheads!
User avatar
Cassiel
 
Posts: 5082
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 2:12 pm

Re: Sublime Philosophical Crap Test

Postby Myth » Mon Nov 23, 2009 11:49 pm

<--- twirls her hair and snaps her chewing gum.
User avatar
Myth
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:44 am
Location: Pleasing 83% of the population 74% of the time.

Re: Sublime Philosophical Crap Test

Postby Gorbadoc » Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:29 am

Cassiel wrote:Some of them were even self-contradictory.
Okay, I'm glad someone else noticed.
It would have been better if instead of one-sided choices there was some recognition of stances like actor-network theory, philosophical hermeneutics, Kripkenstein's private language argument, Davidson's tripod, etc.
Yeah, but then the author would have to understand each stance well enough to draft an applied explanation of the stance from the perspective of someone who unknowingly held that stance.

Dr.Mellifluous wrote:NAO over here. It was a fun few minutes, but yeah, most of the options I went with "least wrong" except for the morality stuff.
Then it's a coincidence that you believe one of the listed treatments. I found the morality section to be every bit as bad as the others, if not worse.
"Oh, you have promise. But wait until you have more years fall upon you, and you will see what a shell your heart will become."
-Kreia
User avatar
Gorbadoc
 
Posts: 1669
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 12:40 pm
Location: Varies

Re: Sublime Philosophical Crap Test

Postby Cassiel » Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:44 am

The applied explanation is basically:

1. You believe that everything comes down to A.
2. You believe that everything comes down to B.
3. You believe that A and B are interfigured and mutually influential.

Like:

1. Truth is objective.
2. Truth is subjective.
3. Subject and object are inseparable. Truth is both. Welcome to the world of actants, bitch.
User avatar
Cassiel
 
Posts: 5082
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 2:12 pm

Re: Sublime Philosophical Crap Test

Postby bdnakathelakaflammab » Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:30 pm

I'm not the most well read on philosophy, being an engineer. I thought I had some rudimentary grasp of it, but I had never heard of actants before. I did some quick reading on them and it actually seized my interest. Cass, do you have any recommendation of a book to read on them?
bdnakathelakaflammab
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 11:12 pm

Re: Sublime Philosophical Crap Test

Postby Cassiel » Wed Nov 25, 2009 8:06 pm

Pandora's Hope is a good one. Just ignore anything Latour says about Heidegger, since he doesn't understand him at all.
User avatar
Cassiel
 
Posts: 5082
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 2:12 pm

Re: Sublime Philosophical Crap Test

Postby Jester » Thu Nov 26, 2009 8:30 am

N-S-O

You scored 89% Non-Reductionism, 44% Epistemological Absolutism, and 67% Moral Objectivism!

Heh, like Cassiel said this test is limited.
Jester
 
Posts: 742
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 11:47 pm
Location: Token Redneck

Re: Sublime Philosophical Crap Test

Postby Gorbadoc » Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:09 am

That's neither applied nor an explanation. For the amount of thinking I had to do to sort out what you were getting at, you could just as well have made each option take the form "Person X's theory of Y". I don't mind working out philosophical arguments, but this does leave us with something like Myth's objection; if you have to know the lines of thinking in advance or work them out with no help from the quiz text, then what role is the quiz playing in figuring out which stance you favor?

That aside, your sample question still suffers from the problem of forcing me to go with the least objectionable answer.

In this case, I choose option 2. There seems to be some objective state-of-affairs governing what I call true. Since the seeming is subjective, the statement 'Truth is subjective' comes closest to describing my position. There's a readily apparent way of meaning it that makes it true, at least.

Option 3 is out. Assuming I know what you're talking about (which, maybe I don't; my interpretation of your terse account involves an uncomfortable amount of guesswork), I'd say that I can't separate subject and object but that this is not a necessary property for all possible perceivers of truth. Of course, that's based on how I interpret your words; you might have meant them differently. If my natural interpretation of option 3 is correct, then it's a false statement, so I can't choose it as an explanation of my philosophy. If my natural interpretation of option 3 is incorrect, then option 3 fails to explain its point in a manner that I find sufficient, so I can't choose it as an explanation of my philosophy.

Option 1 has appeal, but I can't prove it even if it is so.
"Oh, you have promise. But wait until you have more years fall upon you, and you will see what a shell your heart will become."
-Kreia
User avatar
Gorbadoc
 
Posts: 1669
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 12:40 pm
Location: Varies


Return to The Bloody Stump

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron