Results 1 to 35 of 35

Thread: The Sublime Philosophical Crap Test

  1. #1
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    ILI ~ 458 sx/sp
    Posts
    9,876
    Mentioned
    728 Post(s)
    Tagged
    40 Thread(s)

    Default The Sublime Philosophical Crap Test

    http://www.helloquizzy.com/tests/the...ical-crap-test

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

    You scored 78% Non-Reductionism, 44% Epistemological Absolutism, and 22% Moral Objectivism!




    You are an N-S-R: a metaphysical Non-Reductionist, an epistemological Skeptic, and a moral Relativist. If you are simply dying inside to figure out what all this mumbo-jumbo means, then simply continue reading.




    Metaphysics: Non-Reductionism
    (Idealism or Realism) In metaphysics, my test measures your tendency towards Reductionism or Non-Reductionism. As a Non-Reductionist, you recognize that reality is not necessarily simple or unified, and you thus tend to produce a robust ontology instead of carelessly shaving away hypothetical entities that reflect our philosophical experiences. My test recognizes two types of Non-Reductionists: Idealists and Realists.

    1. Idealists believe that reality is fundamentally unknowable. All we can ever know is the world of sense experience, thought, and other phenomena which are only distorted reflections of an ultimate (or noumenal) reality. Kant, one of the most significant philosophers in history, theorized that human beings perceive reality in such a way that they impose their own mental frameworks and categories upon reality, fully distorting it. Reality for Kant is unconceptualized and not subject to any of the categories our minds apply to it. Idealists are non-reductionists because they recognize that the distinction between phenomenal reality and ultimate reality cannot be so easily discarded or unified into a single reality. They are separate and distinct, and there is no reason to suppose the one mirrors the other. Major philosophical idealists include Kant and Fichte.

    If your views are different from the above, then you may be a Realist. 2.Realists deny the validity of sloppy metaphysical reductions, because they feel that there is no reason to suspect that reality reflects principles of parsimony or simplicity. Realism is the most common-sensical of the metaphysical views. It doesn't see reality as a unity or as reducible to matter or mind, nor does it see reality as divided into a phenomenal world of experience and an unknowable noumenal world of things-in-themselves. Realist metaphysics emphasizes that reality is for the most part composed of the things we observe and think. On the question of the existence of universals, for instance, a realist will assert that while universals do not physically exist, the relations they describe in particulars are as real as the particular things themselves, giving universals a type of reality. Thus, no reduction is made. On the mind-body problem, realists tend to believe that minds and bodies both exist, and the philosophical problems involved in reducing mind to matter or matter to mind are too great to warrant such a reduction. Finally, realists deny that reality is ultimately a Unity or Absolute, though they recognize that reality can be viewed as a Unity when we consider the real relations between the parts as constituting this unity--but it doesn't mean that the world isn't also made up of particular things. Aristotle and Popper are famous realists.
    *****




    Epistemology: Skepticism (Idealism or Subjectivism) In regards to epistemology, my test measures your tendency towards Absolutism or Skepticism. As an epistemological Skeptic, you believe that ultimate reality cannot be known in any objective way. The two categories of Skeptics that my test recognizes are Idealists and Subjectivists.

    1. Epistemological Idealists believe that knowledge of ultimate reality is impossible. All we can ever have knowledge about is the world of phenomenal human experience, but there is no reason to suspect that reality mirrors our perceptions and thoughts, according to Idealists. Idealists, then, tend to see truth not as a correspondence between propositions and reality--reality is, after all, fundamentally unknowable--but as a coherence between a whole system of propositions taken to be true. We cannot escape from language or our conceptualized world of phenomena, so we are unable to reference propositions to facts and must instead determine their truth by comparing them to other propositions we hold to be true. As a result of such an idealism, knowledge of any ultimate reality is taken to be impossible, hence the Skeptical tendency of idealism. All our pursuits of knowledge, science included, can only reflect a phenomenal reality that is of our own making. Famous idealists include Kant and Fichte.

    If the above did not sound skeptical or idealistic enough to reflect your own views, then you are most likely a Subjectivist. 2. Epistemological Subjectivists, like idealists, believe that all our knowledge is ultimately of our own making because it is filtered through our subjective perceptions. Unlike an idealist, though, a subjectivist doesn't believe in any universal categories of "truth" that apply to the phenomenal world, because each individual can create his own truth. Either that, or he will hold that society or custom creates its own forms of truth. A subjectivist will tend to regard scientific inquiry as a game of sorts--science does not reveal truths about reality, but only gives scientists pseudo-solutions to pseudo-problems of the scientific community's own devising. It is a type of puzzle-solving, but the puzzle isn't of reality. The definition of truth to a subjectivist may be one that recognizes a proposition's usefulness to an individual. William James is one such subjectivist, who believes that we can "will to believe" certain propositions so long as we would find them useful. The example he gives is being found in a situation where you must leap over a chasm in order to survive. The true belief, in such a situation, is that the leap will be successful--this truth is certainly more useful to us, and in believing the truth we become more willing to commit to the jump and make it successful. So, in essence, knowledge of reality is possible for a subjectivist because they never make reference to any objective reality existing outside of our own perceptions and beliefs--we can have knowledge of reality through having knowledge of ourselves, and that is all that we should ask for. Famous subjectivists include Kuhn, Feyarabend, and James. Another famed critic of Absolutism is Hume.

    *****





    Ethics: Relativism (Subjectivism or Emotivism) My test measures one's tendency towards moral Objectivism or moral Relativism in regards to ethics. As a moral Relativist, you tend to see moral choices as describing a subject's reaction to a moral object or situation, and not as a property of the moral object itself. You may also feel that moral words are meaningless because they do not address any empirical fact about the world. My test recognizes two types of moral relativists--Subjectivists and Emotivists.

    1. Subjectivists see individual or collective desires as defining a situation's or object's moral worth. Thus, the subject, not the object itself, determines the value. Subjectivists recognize that social rules, customs, and morality have been wide-ranging and quite varied throughout history among various cultures. As a result, Subjectivism doesn't attempt to issue hard and fast rules for judging the moral worth of things. Instead, it recognizes that what we consider "good" and "right" is not bound by any discernable rule. There is no one trait that makes an act good or right, because so many different kinds of things have been called good and right. In regards to the definition of "good" or "right", a Subjectivist will tend to define it as whatever a particular person or group of people desire. They do not define it merely as "happiness" or "pleasure", for instance, because sometimes we desire to do things that do not produce pleasure, and because we don't consider all pleasurable things good. Furthermore, Subjectivists recognize the validity of consequentialism in that sometimes we refer to consequences as good and bad--but they also recognize that our intentions behind an action, or the means to the end, can also determine an act's moral worth. Again, there is no one rule to determine these things. Hence the relativism of moral Subjectivism. The most well-known of the subjectivists is Nietzsche.

    If that didn't sound like your position, then you are probably the other variety of moral Relativist--the Emotivist. Emotivists are moral Relativists only in a very slanted sense, because they actually deny that words about morality have any meaning at all. An Emotivist would probably accept Hume's argument that it is impossible to derive an "ought" from an "is"--no factual state of affairs can logically entail any sort of moral action. Furthermore, a emotivist's emphasis on scientific (and hence empirical) verification and testing quickly leads to the conclusion that concepts such as "good" and "right" don't really describe any real qualities or relations. Science is never concerned with whether a particular state of affairs is moral or right or good--and an emotivist feels much the same way. Morality is thus neither objective or subjective for the emotivist--it is without any meaning at all, a sort of vague ontological fiction that is merely a symbol for our emotional responses to certain events. Famous emotivists include Ayer and other positivists associated with the Vienna Circle.
    *****
    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-R. Your exact philosophical opposite would be an R-A-O.

    About the Author
    Saint_gasoline is a crazed madman who spends all of his time writing OKCupid tests and ranting about philosophy and science. If you are interested in reading more of his insane ramblings, or seeing his deliciously trite webcomic, go to SaintGasoline.com.


    "When I ought to be thinking of heaven he will nail me to earth"

     







  2. #2
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    &*self
    Posts
    866
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    N-S-R
    You scored 100% Non-Reductionism, 44% Epistemological Absolutism, and 33% Moral Objectivism!
    And further...
    Non-Reductionism/Idealism
    Skepticism/Idealism
    Relativism/Emotivism
    Last edited by ouronis; 03-04-2016 at 07:04 PM.
    salmon

  3. #3
    lump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 6 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,593
    Mentioned
    631 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    N-A-R
    You scored 100% Non-Reductionism, 67% Epistemological Absolutism, and 33% Moral Objectivism!

    N-A-R

    You are an N-A-R: a metaphysical Non-Reductionist, an epistemological Absolutist, and a moral Relativist.

  4. #4
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    ILI ~ 458 sx/sp
    Posts
    9,876
    Mentioned
    728 Post(s)
    Tagged
    40 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ouronis View Post
    N-S-R
    You scored 100% Non-Reductionism, 44% Epistemological Absolutism, and 33% Moral Objectivism!
    And further...
    Non-Reductionism/Idealism
    Skepticism/Idealism
    Relativism/Emotivism
    I read them over a couple of times today and I relate most to...

    Non-Reductionism/Idealism
    Skepticism/Idealism
    Relativism/Subjectivists

    "When I ought to be thinking of heaven he will nail me to earth"

     







  5. #5
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,125
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    N-S-O

    You scored 100% Non-Reductionism, 22% Epistemological Absolutism, and 67% Moral Objectivism!


    Nonreductionalist - Realist / Epistemological - Idealist / Ethical Objectivist - Niether of the options presented.
    I would say that ethically you are still supposed to act as if you have unilateral responsibility; but simultaneously you have to be able to see the other as a fully autonomous, free, aware person.

    Medicalizing social problems has the additional benefit of rendering society not responsible for those social ills. If it’s a disease, it’s nobody’s fault. Yay empiricism.

  6. #6
    Darn Socks Director Abbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southwest USA
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    6,723
    Mentioned
    235 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It was frustrating that "God" could have been the answer to many of these questions, yet that was never an option.

    N-A-O
    You scored 67% Non-Reductionism, 78% Epistemological Absolutism, and 56% Moral Objectivism!

    ESTj
    1w2 sp/so 1-2-6
    Brilliand's Younger Sister
    Squishy's Older Sister

    Johari Nohari

    Quote Originally Posted by Ritella View Post
    Over here, we'll put up with (almost) all of your crap. You just have to use the secret phrase: "I don't value it. It's related to <insert random element here>, which is not in my quadra."
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Abbie is so boring and rigid it's awesome instead of boring and rigid. She seems so practical and down-to-the-ground.

  7. #7
    ***el X Mercenary Nebuchadnezzar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Socionix sleeper cell
    TIM
    Te-ISTp
    Posts
    1,413
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    R-A-R

    You scored 22% Non-Reductionism, 56% Epistemological Absolutism, and 11% Moral Objectivism!

    You are an R-A-R: a metaphysical Reductionist, an epistemological Absolutist, and a moral Relativist.

    Metaphysics: Reductionism (Monism or Positivism)

    1. Monists do not cut away the metaphysical fat so much as they just put the meat into a grinder and synthesize the fat into the meat. They tend to condense particular things and ideas into a Unity or Absolute, in other words. If you believe that reality is ultimately a unity and that mind and matter both exist but are simply two different ways of looking at the same substance, then you are a neutral monist in the sense of Spinoza. If you believe that reality is ultimately an Absolute because a whole is more than just the sum of its parts, proven by the fact that we can never have knowledge of a particular thing unless we also grasp its relations to the ultimate Absolute or whole of reality with which it is bound up, and if you feel that this Absolute is characterized by Spirit or Mind, and not matter, then you share the same views as Hegel and even Plato to a degree. A monist--because he or she believes that reality is a Unity or Absolute--tends to synthesize all particulars into universals, deny the reality of matter (Hegel) or mind (Spinoza, sort of), and so on. These concepts are all cast into the meat grinder and come out as a unified whole. Famous monists include philosophers such as Hegel, Spinoza, and Parmenides.

    Epistemology: Absolutism (Rationalism or Pragmatism)

    2. Epistemological Pragmatists are fundamentally identified by their definition of truth. Truth is, on this view, merely a measure of a proposition's success in inquiry. This view is a strictly scientific notion of truth. A proposition can be called true if it leads to successful predictions or coheres best with the observed facts about the world. Thus, for the pragmatist, knowledge of reality is possible through scientific reasoning. A pragmatist emphasizes man's fallibility, and hence takes baby-steps towards knowledge through scientific methodology. Any truth claim for a pragmatist is open to revision and subject to change--if empirical observations lead us to call even logical rules into question (like quantum physics has done for the law of the excluded middle), then we can and should abandon even these supposed a priori and "absolutely certain" logical rules if they do not accord with our testing and refuting of our various propositions. As a consequence of this, a pragmatist doesn't feel that scientific knowledge is based upon unfounded assumptions that are taken to be true without any sort of justification--rather, they believe that the successes of scientific inquiry have proved that its assumptions are well-founded. For instance, the assumption of science that the future will be like the past is adequately shown by the amazing success of scientific theories in predicting future events--how else could this be possible unless the assumption were true? Pragmatism borrows elements from realism and yet attempts to account for the critiques made by skeptics and relativists. It is essentially a type of philosophical opportunism--it borrows the best stances from a large number of philosophical systems and attempts to discard the problems of these systems by combining them with others. Famous pragmatists of this type are Peirce and Dewey.

    Ethics: Relativism (Subjectivism or Emotivism)

    2. Emotivists are moral Relativists only in a very slanted sense, because they actually deny that words about morality have any meaning at all. An Emotivist would probably accept Hume's argument that it is impossible to derive an "ought" from an "is"--no factual state of affairs can logically entail any sort of moral action. Furthermore, a emotivist's emphasis on scientific (and hence empirical) verification and testing quickly leads to the conclusion that concepts such as "good" and "right" don't really describe any real qualities or relations. Science is never concerned with whether a particular state of affairs is moral or right or good--and an emotivist feels much the same way. Morality is thus neither objective or subjective for the emotivist--it is without any meaning at all, a sort of vague ontological fiction that is merely a symbol for our emotional responses to certain events. Famous emotivists include Ayer and other positivists associated with the Vienna Circle.

    "His feeling that this world is not his Fatherland, and that it does not represent his proper condition, so to speak—his feeling that, basically, he 'comes from afar'—will remain a fundamental element which will not give rise to mystical escapism and spiritual weakness, but rather will enable him to minimise, to relativise, to refer to higher concepts of measure and limit, all that can seem important and definitive to others, starting with death itself, and will confer on him calm force and breadth of vision." — Julius Evola

    SLI-Te | 5w6 sp/so
    Oldham Solitary

    Johari
    Nohari

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,230
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    R-S-O

    You scored 44% Non-Reductionism, 22% Epistemological Absolutism, and 89% Moral Objectivism!

    Metaphysics: Reductionism (Monism or Positivism) In metaphysics, my test measures your tendency towards Reductionism or Non-Reductionism. As a Reductionist, you like to cut away the metaphysical fat as opposed to multiplying concepts and entities like so many baby rabbits. The two broad categories of Reductionists that my test recognizes are Monists and Positivists.

    2. Positivists, unlike monists, do not synthesize two apparently competing views into one--instead, they do away with one of the views, that being the one that cannot be empirically verified. A positivist, then, cuts away the metaphysical fat as meaningless conjecture about nothing in particular. He relies primarily on a tool called Ockham's Razor to shave away these ideas. Ockham's Razor states that we should do away with any hypotheses that needlessly multiply explanatory entities. For instance, in regards to the dispute about the existence of universals, a positivist tends to adopt the position of nominalism--which is the belief that only particulars are real. A universal is only a linguistic construction we use to put particulars into groups--meaning we can reduce all universals to the sum of their parts, that being particulars. After all, we can never have empirical experience of "whiteness", only particular things that are white--nor have we ever observed the universal "mankind", though we can observe individual men. On the mind-body problem, a positivist will be likely to do away with the concept of "mind", reducing it to a material product of our brain functioning. This position is often referred to as the Identity-Theory, because it equates mental states to states of the brain. Clearly, a positivist tends towards a materialistic outlook. Positivism will also revile any idealist conception of reality, which maintains that the world of experience and perception is merely a phenomenal world, whereas the "real" world lies underneath experience and is fundamentally unknowable. A positivist will tend to do away with the idealist hypothesis as needless and unverifiable. Well-known positivists include Carnap, Ayer, and Wittgenstein.

    Epistemology: Skepticism (Idealism or Subjectivism) In regards to epistemology, my test measures your tendency towards Absolutism or Skepticism. As an epistemological Skeptic, you believe that ultimate reality cannot be known in any objective way. The two categories of Skeptics that my test recognizes are Idealists and Subjectivists.

    1. Epistemological Idealists believe that knowledge of ultimate reality is impossible. All we can ever have knowledge about is the world of phenomenal human experience, but there is no reason to suspect that reality mirrors our perceptions and thoughts, according to Idealists. Idealists, then, tend to see truth not as a correspondence between propositions and reality--reality is, after all, fundamentally unknowable--but as a coherence between a whole system of propositions taken to be true. We cannot escape from language or our conceptualized world of phenomena, so we are unable to reference propositions to facts and must instead determine their truth by comparing them to other propositions we hold to be true. As a result of such an idealism, knowledge of any ultimate reality is taken to be impossible, hence the Skeptical tendency of idealism. All our pursuits of knowledge, science included, can only reflect a phenomenal reality that is of our own making. Famous idealists include Kant and Fichte.

    Ethics: Objectivism (Deontology or Logical Positivism) In Ethics, my test measures your tendency towards moral Objectivism or moral Relativism. As a moral Objectivist, you are opposed to Subjectivist moral theories and believe that morality applies to people universally and actually describes objects and situations out in the world as opposed to just subjects themselves. The two types of moral Objectivists my test recognizes are Kantian Deontologists and Utilitarians.

    1. Kantian Deontologists believe that the one intrinsic good is a good will. As rational beings capable of making decisions, the moral worth of our decisions is ultimately derived from the intentions behind our actions, not their consequences. A moral being does the right thing not out of recognition of any consequences, but out of a sense of moral duty. For Kant, a good will is the ultimate good because to deny the will is to deny the one thing that makes us rational, moral beings. If an act will accord with or further our status as free, rational beings, and it is possible to will the universalization of such a moral principle without infringing upon our good wills, then an act is good. Kant's categorical imperative provides an objective standard to judge moral worth--it is not hypothetical in the sense of other imperatives, which hide a latent if-clause. For instance, "Eating razors is good" is good ONLY if you tack on an if-clause that says something like: "If you wish to destroy your gums." Thus, the categorical imperative is good, not just IF something is the case, but in ALL cases. It requires people to treat others as ends, and not means to ends, for to treat everyone as a means to an ends would be to deny them their ability to function as rational, free beings--which is what makes morality possible in the first place. The major proponent of this view in the history of philosophy is, quite obviously, Kant.
    Last edited by Jeremy8419; 03-05-2016 at 07:25 AM.

  9. #9
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    R-A-R

    You scored 78% Non-Reductionism, 78% Epistemological Absolutism, and 33% Moral Objectivism!

    Reductionism: reductionist monist (i changed this from the quiz results)

    because as much as i cast my doubts everywhere, in the center of them i probably believe reality is a unity, which is to say that my own subjective experiences and thoughts are very much linked to random happenings of particles at the other end of the universe - i just can't see how - but i think my spirituality lives in this). philosophically, it wouldn't be easy for me to claim this though and i don't really believe you can actually reduce reality, like tear it to pieces and expose the Truth or something. you probably can't get a neat working logical/mechanical system like a clock out of it - you can make a model of it that's like a clock, but it's your model then that's so neat and reducible to the sum of its parts, not reality (reality is not so mechanistic). and i don't think it's a problem of us not having the time or the brain power to understand a giant clock - it's that i don't think it's nearly as simple as that. maybe i see reality as more of a complex unfolding story?

    ok: so i'm saying it's a "unity" we can't understand. lol.

    i guess also i think that although we can't free ourselves of our subjectivity or our own conceptions that this doesn't mean we are locked within ourselves unable to ever understand anything else, even though i know we can't really understand something that is outside of our conceptions. but i believe our conceptions themselves can be worked with and reoriented and there may be more wiggle room here to see something beyond our own limitations - the wiggle room (that small space where this is possible) is maybe what i'm searching for.

    i was contemplating dogs and how they may interpret things in their own frameworks. for instance if you're talking in front of a dog it may be watching, screening for information that it can understand that is relevant to it. your behavior is largely strange to it i would guess - the dog doesn't understand the bizarre things you are doing when writing on a piece of paper or playing a board game, etc. there's an entire world you are in with this, that the dog can't understand - it's outside of the limitations of its mind (though it may know "human is doing that thing with the pen object again" and through its associations know that the best thing for it to do is wait). yet still we are able to meet the dog in understanding despite our very different frameworks and bridge gaps - find mutual understanding in the space we are similar. is the framework really so important here? is it possible that the limitations of mind don't matter as much as they appear to? i know that's a jump - i'm just trying to get to it.

    Epistemological Absolutism: pragmatist

    Moral Relativism: subjectivist

    also, reality i believe is knowable, it's just not necessarily knowable to us. and we'll never find all the answers, not even close. however, if reality is a unity, you can find a lot of it inside yourself or go mad trying. i guess it's that we have to be somehow satisfied with the moments allotted to us. our lives are a glimpse, like trying to open your eye in the bright sun, light blinding through your lashes, stunning... it forces your eyes shut again and it's over.


    eta: ugh. i'm not sure again. maybe i am more of the non-reductionist realist...



    sorry for the rampant disorder. anyway, i probably believe reality is psychic, conscious, matter is somehow actually mind? the separations we perceive don't really exist but reflect our own cognitive limitations? the limitations of what we have learned and passed on through culture?
    Last edited by inumbra; 03-16-2016 at 04:10 AM.

  10. #10
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Your result for The Sublime Philosophical Crap Test ...
    N-S-O
    You scored 67% Non-Reductionism, 44% Epistemological Absolutism, and 78% Moral Objectivism!
    Hello Quizzy
    Share my results on FacebookTweet my results
    SHARE YOUR RESULTS


    Share Your Result With Friends

    RATE MY TEST!
    1 2 3 4 5
    click away
    Your result for The Sublime Philosophical Crap Test ...
    N-S-O
    You scored 67% Non-Reductionism, 44% Epistemological Absolutism, and 78% Moral Objectivism!



    You are an N-S-O: a metaphysical Non-Reductionist, an epistemological Skeptic, and a moral Objectivist. If you are simply dying inside to figure out what all this mumbo-jumbo means, then simply continue reading.


    Metaphysics: Non-Reductionism (Idealism or Realism) In metaphysics, my test measures your tendency towards Reductionism or Non-Reductionism. As a Non-Reductionist, you recognize that reality is not necessarily simple or unified, and you thus tend to produce a robust ontology instead of carelessly shaving away hypothetical entities that reflect our philosophical experiences. My test recognizes two types of Non-Reductionists: Idealists and Realists.

    1. Idealists believe that reality is fundamentally unknowable. All we can ever know is the world of sense experience, thought, and other phenomena which are only distorted reflections of an ultimate (or noumenal) reality. Kant, one of the most significant philosophers in history, theorized that human beings perceive reality in such a way that they impose their own mental frameworks and categories upon reality, fully distorting it. Reality for Kant is unconceptualized and not subject to any of the categories our minds apply to it. Idealists are non-reductionists because they recognize that the distinction between phenomenal reality and ultimate reality cannot be so easily discarded or unified into a single reality. They are separate and distinct, and there is no reason to suppose the one mirrors the other. Major philosophical idealists include Kant and Fichte.

    If your views are different from the above, then you may be a Realist. 2. Realists deny the validity of sloppy metaphysical reductions, because they feel that there is no reason to suspect that reality reflects principles of parsimony or simplicity. Realism is the most common-sensical of the metaphysical views. It doesn't see reality as a unity or as reducible to matter or mind, nor does it see reality as divided into a phenomenal world of experience and an unknowable noumenal world of things-in-themselves. Realist metaphysics emphasizes that reality is for the most part composed of the things we observe and think. On the question of the existence of universals, for instance, a realist will assert that while universals do not physically exist, the relations they describe in particulars are as real as the particular things themselves, giving universals a type of reality. Thus, no reduction is made. On the mind-body problem, realists tend to believe that minds and bodies both exist, and the philosophical problems involved in reducing mind to matter or matter to mind are too great to warrant such a reduction. Finally, realists deny that reality is ultimately a Unity or Absolute, though they recognize that reality can be viewed as a Unity when we consider the real relations between the parts as constituting this unity--but it doesn't mean that the world isn't also made up of particular things. Aristotle and Popper are famous realists.

    *****



    Epistemology: Skepticism (Idealism or Subjectivism) In regards to epistemology, my test measures your tendency towards Absolutism or Skepticism. As an epistemological Skeptic, you believe that ultimate reality cannot be known in any objective way. The two categories of Skeptics that my test recognizes are Idealists and Subjectivists.

    1. Epistemological Idealists believe that knowledge of ultimate reality is impossible. All we can ever have knowledge about is the world of phenomenal human experience, but there is no reason to suspect that reality mirrors our perceptions and thoughts, according to Idealists. Idealists, then, tend to see truth not as a correspondence between propositions and reality--reality is, after all, fundamentally unknowable--but as a coherence between a whole system of propositions taken to be true. We cannot escape from language or our conceptualized world of phenomena, so we are unable to reference propositions to facts and must instead determine their truth by comparing them to other propositions we hold to be true. As a result of such an idealism, knowledge of any ultimate reality is taken to be impossible, hence the Skeptical tendency of idealism. All our pursuits of knowledge, science included, can only reflect a phenomenal reality that is of our own making. Famous idealists include Kant and Fichte.

    If the above did not sound skeptical or idealistic enough to reflect your own views, then you are most likely a Subjectivist. 2. Epistemological Subjectivists, like idealists, believe that all our knowledge is ultimately of our own making because it is filtered through our subjective perceptions. Unlike an idealist, though, a subjectivist doesn't believe in any universal categories of "truth" that apply to the phenomenal world, because each individual can create his own truth. Either that, or he will hold that society or custom creates its own forms of truth. A subjectivist will tend to regard scientific inquiry as a game of sorts--science does not reveal truths about reality, but only gives scientists pseudo-solutions to pseudo-problems of the scientific community's own devising. It is a type of puzzle-solving, but the puzzle isn't of reality. The definition of truth to a subjectivist may be one that recognizes a proposition's usefulness to an individual. William James is one such subjectivist, who believes that we can "will to believe" certain propositions so long as we would find them useful. The example he gives is being found in a situation where you must leap over a chasm in order to survive. The true belief, in such a situation, is that the leap will be successful--this truth is certainly more useful to us, and in believing the truth we become more willing to commit to the jump and make it successful. So, in essence, knowledge of reality is possible for a subjectivist because they never make reference to any objective reality existing outside of our own perceptions and beliefs--we can have knowledge of reality through having knowledge of ourselves, and that is all that we should ask for. Famous subjectivists include Kuhn, Feyarabend, and James. Another famed critic of Absolutism is Hume.

    *****



    Ethics: Objectivism (Deontology or Logical Positivism) In Ethics, my test measures your tendency towards moral Objectivism or moral Relativism. As a moral Objectivist, you are opposed to Subjectivist moral theories and believe that morality applies to people universally and actually describes objects and situations out in the world as opposed to just subjects themselves. The two types of moral Objectivists my test recognizes are Kantian Deontologists and Utilitarians.

    1. Kantian Deontologists believe that the one intrinsic good is a good will. As rational beings capable of making decisions, the moral worth of our decisions is ultimately derived from the intentions behind our actions, not their consequences. A moral being does the right thing not out of recognition of any consequences, but out of a sense of moral duty. For Kant, a good will is the ultimate good because to deny the will is to deny the one thing that makes us rational, moral beings. If an act will accord with or further our status as free, rational beings, and it is possible to will the universalization of such a moral principle without infringing upon our good wills, then an act is good. Kant's categorical imperative provides an objective standard to judge moral worth--it is not hypothetical in the sense of other imperatives, which hide a latent if-clause. For instance, "Eating razors is good" is good ONLY if you tack on an if-clause that says something like: "If you wish to destroy your gums." Thus, the categorical imperative is good, not just IF something is the case, but in ALL cases. It requires people to treat others as ends, and not means to ends, for to treat everyone as a means to an ends would be to deny them their ability to function as rational, free beings--which is what makes morality possible in the first place. The major propnent of this view in the history of philosophy is, quite obviously, Kant.

    If that didn't sound like your position, then you are probably the other variety of moral Objectivist--the Utilitarian. 2. Utilitarians define "happiness" or "pleasure" as the sole intrinsic good, and the principle "The greatest pleasure for the greatest number" best reflects a Utilitarian view of ethics. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist moral theory, meaning the consequences of an action--not the intentions behind it--determine the act's moral worth. Even if you intended to do great evil with a certain act, if the act produces a net gain of pleasure and happiness for the greatest number, then it was indeed a good act because your intentions weren't realized. What matters in this scenario, obviously, is the consequences of the act. Utilitarianism, of course, can also be reduced to Hedonism. If you do not feel that the greatest happiness of the greatest number matters, but only pay heed to the greatest happiness of individuals, then you are more adequately classified as a Hedonist. But both Utilitarians and Hedonists define "pleasure" as an intrinsic good and determine the moral worth of an act through its consequences. The only difference is whether we measure the collective pleasure of a group or only an individual's pleasure. Prominent Utilitarians include Bentham and Mill.

    *****

    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.

    About the Author

    Saint_gasoline is a crazed madman who spends all of his time writing OKCupid tests and ranting about philosophy and science. If you are interested in reading more of his insane ramblings, or seeing his deliciously trite webcomic, go to SaintGasoline.com.

  11. #11
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Aylen our views on morality may distinguish us. Relationship to Fi valuing?
    @leckysupport do you find this test consistent with me?

  12. #12
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Sol I'm curious about your results on this

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,230
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Irrational/Rational, Thinking/Feeling, GammaDelta/AlphaBeta

    Congrats, @Maritsa. You're an Irrational, Feeling, Gamma or Delta.

  14. #14
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy8419 View Post
    Irrational/Rational, Thinking/Feeling, GammaDelta/AlphaBeta

    Congrats, @Maritsa. You're an Irrational, Feeling, Gamma or Delta.
    You're getting closer

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,230
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Non-Reductionalist: Pi Ego
    Reductionalist: Ji Ego
    Absolutism: Extrovert
    Skepticism: Introvert
    Moral Objectivity: Gamma or Delta
    Moral Subjectivity: Alpha or Beta

    Aha! So you're the SLI or ILI... I knew it. In your face!

    Plus, it totally aligns with me and Aylen's typing's, so you know it must be true.

  16. #16
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,219
    Mentioned
    67 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    N-A-O

    You scored 56% Non-Reductionism, 67% Epistemological Absolutism, and 56% Moral Objectivism!

    Metaphysics: Non-Reductionism (Idealism or Realism) In metaphysics, my test measures your tendency towards Reductionism or Non-Reductionism. As a Non-Reductionist, you recognize that reality is not necessarily simple or unified, and you thus tend to produce a robust ontology instead of carelessly shaving away hypothetical entities that reflect our philosophical experiences. My test recognizes two types of Non-Reductionists: Idealists and Realists.

    2.Realists deny the validity of sloppy metaphysical reductions, because they feel that there is no reason to suspect that reality reflects principles of parsimony or simplicity. Realism is the most common-sensical of the metaphysical views. It doesn't see reality as a unity or as reducible to matter or mind, nor does it see reality as divided into a phenomenal world of experience and an unknowable noumenal world of things-in-themselves. Realist metaphysics emphasizes that reality is for the most part composed of the things we observe and think. On the question of the existence of universals, for instance, a realist will assert that while universals do not physically exist, the relations they describe in particulars are as real as the particular things themselves, giving universals a type of reality. Thus, no reduction is made. On the mind-body problem, realists tend to believe that minds and bodies both exist, and the philosophical problems involved in reducing mind to matter or matter to mind are too great to warrant such a reduction. Finally, realists deny that reality is ultimately a Unity or Absolute, though they recognize that reality can be viewed as a Unity when we consider the real relations between the parts as constituting this unity--but it doesn't mean that the world isn't also made up of particular things. Aristotle and Popper are famous realists.

    Epistemology: Absolutism (Rationalism or Pragmatism) My test measures one's tendency towards Absolutism or Skepticism in regards to epistemology. As an Absolutist, you believe that objective knowledge is possible given the right approach, and you deny the claims of skeptical philosophers who insist that we can never have knowledge of ultimate reality. The two types of Absolutists recognized by my test are Rationalists and Pragmatists.

    1. Rationalists believe that the use of reason ultimately provides the best route to truth. A rationalist usually defines truth as a correspondence between propositions and reality, taking the common-sense route. Also, rationalists tend to believe that knowledge of reality is made possible through certain foundational beliefs. This stance is known as foundationalism. A foundationalist believes that, because we cannot justify the truth of every statement in an infinite regress, we ultimately reach a foundation of knowledge. This foundation is composed of a priori truths, like mathematics and logic, as well as undoubtable truths like one's belief in his or her own existence. The belief that experiences and memories are veridical is also part of the foundation. Thus, for a rationalist knowledge of reality is made possible through our foundational beliefs, which we do not need to justify because we find them to be undoubtable and self-evident. In regards to science, a rationalist will tend to emphasize the foundational assumptions of scientific inquiry as prior to and more important than scientific inquiry itself. If science does lead to truth, it is only because it is based upon the assumption of certain rational principles such as "Every event is caused" and "The future will resemble the past". Philosophy has a wide representation of philosophical rationalists--Descartes, Spinoza, Liebniz, and many others.

    Ethics: Objectivism (Deontology or Logical Positivism) In Ethics, my test measures your tendency towards moral Objectivism or moral Relativism. As a moral Objectivist, you are opposed to Subjectivist moral theories and believe that morality applies to people universally and actually describes objects and situations out in the world as opposed to just subjects themselves. The two types of moral Objectivists my test recognizes are Kantian Deontologists and Utilitarians.

    2. Utilitarians define "happiness" or "pleasure" as the sole intrinsic good, and the principle "The greatest pleasure for the greatest number" best reflects a Utilitarian view of ethics. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist moral theory, meaning the consequences of an action--not the intentions behind it--determine the act's moral worth. Even if you intended to do great evil with a certain act, if the act produces a net gain of pleasure and happiness for the greatest number, then it was indeed a good act because your intentions weren't realized. What matters in this scenario, obviously, is the consequences of the act. Utilitarianism, of course, can also be reduced to Hedonism. If you do not feel that the greatest happiness of the greatest number matters, but only pay heed to the greatest happiness of individuals, then you are more adequately classified as a Hedonist. But both Utilitarians and Hedonists define "pleasure" as an intrinsic good and determine the moral worth of an act through its consequences. The only difference is whether we measure the collective pleasure of a group or only an individual's pleasure. Prominent Utilitarians include Bentham and Mill.





  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,230
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    According to my totally factual and well-researched methods, Muddy, this places you as either LIE or LSE. Huzzah!

  18. #18
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    shall we type the thinkers themselves?

    METAPHYSICS

    non-reductionism

    • idealism - kant, fichte
    • realism - aristotle, popper

    reductionism
    • monism - hegel, spinoza, parmenides
    • positivism - carnap, ayer, wittgenstein


    EPISTEMOLOGY

    skepticism

    • idealism - kant, fichte
    • subjectivism - kuhn, feyarabend, james, hume(?)

    absolutism
    • rationalism - descartes, spinoza, liebniz
    • pragmatism - peirce, dewey


    ETHICS

    relativism

    • subjectivism - nietzsche
    • emotivism - ayer

    objectivism
    • deontology - kant
    • logical positivism (utilitarianism) - bentham, mill



  19. #19
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inumbra View Post
    shall we type the thinkers themselves?

    METAPHYSICS

    non-reductionism

    • idealism - kant, fichte
    • realism - aristotle, popper

    reductionism
    • monism - hegel, spinoza, parmenides
    • positivism - carnap, ayer, wittgenstein


    EPISTEMOLOGY

    skepticism

    • idealism - kant, fichte
    • subjectivism - kuhn, feyarabend, james, hume(?)

    absolutism
    • rationalism - descartes, spinoza, liebniz
    • pragmatism - peirce, dewey


    ETHICS

    relativism

    • subjectivism - nietzsche
    • emotivism - ayer

    objectivism
    • deontology - kant
    • logical positivism (utilitarianism) - bentham, mill


    Very nice

  20. #20
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inumbra View Post
    shall we type the thinkers themselves?

    METAPHYSICS

    non-reductionism

    • idealism - kant, fichte
    • realism - aristotle, popper

    reductionism
    • monism - hegel, spinoza, parmenides
    • positivism - carnap, ayer, wittgenstein


    EPISTEMOLOGY

    skepticism

    • idealism - kant, fichte
    • subjectivism - kuhn, feyarabend, james, hume(?)

    absolutism
    • rationalism - descartes, spinoza, liebniz
    • pragmatism - peirce, dewey


    ETHICS

    relativism

    • subjectivism - nietzsche
    • emotivism - ayer

    objectivism
    • deontology - kant
    • logical positivism (utilitarianism) - bentham, mill


    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy8419 View Post
    Non-Reductionalist: Pi Ego
    Reductionalist: Ji Ego
    Absolutism: Extrovert
    Skepticism: Introvert
    Moral Objectivity: Gamma or Delta
    Moral Subjectivity: Alpha or Beta

    Aha! So you're the SLI or ILI... I knew it. In your face!

    Plus, it totally aligns with me and Aylen's typing's, so you know it must be true.
    Non reduction are idealistic and closer to NF

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,230
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa View Post
    Non reduction are idealistic and closer to NF
    Except that EII is a reductionist.

  22. #22
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    &*self
    Posts
    866
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    The metaphysics thing seems to be more of an ne/ni divide. Epistemology's subcategories(i.e. subjectivism) have a divide of rational/irrational but the entire category is scattershot. Ethics is irrational vs rational and a Ni Ne Ti Te subcategory divide.

    This is all respective of order.
    salmon

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,230
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, messing with Mari aside...

    Reductionism is Declaring. Non-reductionism is Asking.
    Skepticism and Absolutism sound like basic Introversion or Extroversion.
    Objectivism is Objectivism in Socionics. Subjectivism is Subjectivism in Socionics.

    This is going through the Reinin for correlations.

    Not concerned with the sub-categories enough to look further.

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    ESI 684
    Posts
    661
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Oh god, what a shitty test. I'll try to finish it(because I'm no loser), but...even the first question is giving me headaches.

    WHAT THE FUCK is philosophy good for? You can't do diddly dick with it!

    I HATE philosophy(what a pointless bunch of mental wanking)...

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    ESI 684
    Posts
    661
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I am RAR(not to be confused with winRAR ) - 33% non reductionist / 56% absolutism / 44% moral objectivism

    Particularly, the subtypes POSITIVIST, RATIONALIST and SUBJECTIVIST. I'll comment more later.

    edit: wtf ESE...?
    Last edited by nondescript; 03-16-2016 at 05:45 PM.

  26. #26
    Contra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    TIM
    ILI-Ni
    Posts
    1,405
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    N-A-O

    You scored 78% Non-Reductionism, 78% Epistemological Absolutism, and 100% Moral Objectivism!

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    ESI 684
    Posts
    661
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Jeremy8419:
    (and the rest)

    Do you think that RAR leads towards SLE or towards ESE? When I compare the dichos + reinins...I get both lol.

  28. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,230
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nondescript View Post
    @Jeremy8419:
    (and the rest)

    Do you think that RAR leads towards SLE or towards ESE? When I compare the dichos + reinins...I get both lol.
    I'd lean to ESE for you.

  29. #29
    darya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    TIM
    EIE-Ni 3w4 sx
    Posts
    2,785
    Mentioned
    245 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jesus, some questions are the perfect evidence how obnoxious philosophy really is.

    our result for The Sublime Philosophical Crap Test ...
    N-A-O

    You scored 78% Non-Reductionism, 67% Epistemological Absolutism, and 89% Moral Objectivism!

    ,

  30. #30
    star stuff April's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    chatbox
    TIM
    NG human sorcerer
    Posts
    917
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    You scored 89% Non-Reductionism, 56% Epistemological Absolutism, and 44% Moral Objectivism! (I really disliked the wording on some options, but overall, a fun test!)

    I mostly place myself as...
    Non-reductionism: Realist
    Absolutism: Pragmatist
    Relativism: Subjectivist

  31. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,230
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darya View Post
    Jesus, some questions are the perfect evidence how obnoxious philosophy really is.

    our result for The Sublime Philosophical Crap Test ...
    N-A-O

    You scored 78% Non-Reductionism, 67% Epistemological Absolutism, and 89% Moral Objectivism!

    ,
    Obnoxious? I prefer the phrase "who gives a shit?" /ocrams razors stuff

  32. #32
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    ILI ~ 458 sx/sp
    Posts
    9,876
    Mentioned
    728 Post(s)
    Tagged
    40 Thread(s)

    Default

    Bumping this since it was recently correlated, again, with reinin dichotomies.

    "When I ought to be thinking of heaven he will nail me to earth"

     







  33. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,230
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Link broke.

    A negative of the test as a socionics metric is that it uses the terms subjective and objective, so some just choose the one they like the sound of. In example, LII's are notorious for thinking their junk is "real," and will choose objective due to their subjective belief of being objective.

  34. #34
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    ILI ~ 458 sx/sp
    Posts
    9,876
    Mentioned
    728 Post(s)
    Tagged
    40 Thread(s)

    Default

    Aww, I will see if I can find a working link when I get back. It was up for years so that kinda sucks it's gone.

    "When I ought to be thinking of heaven he will nail me to earth"

     







  35. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,230
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen View Post
    Aww, I will see if I can find a working link when I get back. It was up for years so that kinda sucks it's gone.
    Looks like okcupid absorbed helloquizzy? May be something you need an okcupid account for now.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •