Poll: Think you think straight? Think again...

[Trogdor1138]

It was extremely flawed, I got the contradiction with the Michelangelo and Art questions. History has essentially dictated how great an artist he was, but at the same time I think art is very subjective. You can't just black and white everything, that takes the whole point away from everything, especially art.

I think I got about 14% or something, I closed the window.

 

[Raven's Nest]

"You agreed that:
It is always wrong to take another person's life
And also that:
The second world war was a just war"

I see that there's a conflict there, but I still stand by both statements. Whilst it was wrong to kill someone, it was still the lesser of two evils, and so I think WW2 as about as 'just' as war is ever likely to get.

The fact that you are in a state of conflict doesn't suggest a flaw in your thinking. It represents an obstacle which clearly requires a greater level of philosophical analysis.

So you can pick both and argue to the death about why they conflict and the need for them to conflict.

By the way the question didn't ask if WW2 was a 'just' war. It asks if you agree that it was just a war. As in it was a war like any other, just as cold, callous and indiscriminate as the last.

 

[C.S.Strowbridge]

7% the first time, but only because I misread one of the questions.

"It is not always right to judge individuals solely on their merits"

I actually agree with that, because the situation a person is in matters. If someone overcame great adversity, they it is more impressive. Likewise, donating $1000 if you are middle class is impressive, but a bit of a joke if you are a billionaire.

 

[Raven's Nest]

Thanks for noticing the quotations marks around the word "questions." (Oh, I did it again!) The content of the "statements" is of SUPREME importance! If I'm forced to say if I "agree" or "disagree" with each "statement," then I had better understand what the "statement" is "asking" me. Oh, that pesky gray area (created by the fact that the questions are vague and stoopud)!

These is not a philosophical pursuit because its akin to me showing someone a rubix cube, with a belief of theirs written on each square, and I say: "Solve it! Otherwise I will fucking spank you! And if you get a blue square adjacent with a red square, then I will call you a retard while I do it!"

It's like the worst self-help book you've ever seen. It contributes nothing, and IT IS NOT PHILOSOPHY. Unless you think that Deleuze is the shit, then say whatever the hell you want, 'cause it won't mean anything.

"Yeah... Well... that's just your opinion man."

No I'm saying do you dispute that the process of discovering the conflict of ideas people have is not inherently philosophical?

Because I'd disagree. And you just come across like an elitist, why should your opinion be taken as fact?

 

[8bitlove2a03]

I don't understand why they claim that me saying atheism is a form a faith (which viewing it as a social institution, it is) and then saying that it's unreasonable to think something even though you don't even have the possibility of evidence is a conflict.

 

[TobiasMP]

It's a bit contrived, to be honest. It called me out on this-

You disagreed that:
It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence
But agreed that:
Atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God

I never said that Atheism was any more reasonable than other kinds of faith, I just said that it was one.

Subjectivity does not a good philosophical test make.

I agree!

 

[Raven's Nest]

What stupid test.

"You agreed that:
There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures
And also that:
Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil

The tension between these two beliefs is that, on the one hand, you are saying that morality is just a matter of culture and convention, but on the other, you are prepared to condemn acts of genocide as 'evil'."

And the culture I live in says genocide is evil.

What the fuck were they thinking when they made this? Idiots.

Not all cultures view particular acts of genocide as morally wrong... Such as the cultures that commit them...

Did you even read the explanation given?

 

[Raven's Nest]

I don't understand why they claim that me saying atheism is a form a faith (which viewing it as a social institution, it is) and then saying that it's unreasonable to think something even though you don't even have the possibility of evidence is a conflict.

Social institution? What? Find me a church of Atheism (that proportionately represents all atheistic ideas)...

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

13%

Though the two questions it said my mindscape conflicted with me were:

You agreed that:
The environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends
But disagreed that:
People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead

&

Severe brain-damage can rob a person of all consciousness and selfhood
And also that:
On bodily death, a person continues to exist in a non-physical form

......

......

......

For starters, 1: this test believes that there can be no green energy source for personal transport.

And 2: that a major concussion can't result in loss of conciousness? I had a motorcycle accident ... drilled a hole in my head to relieve pressure. I can tell you now I lost conciousness o.o

In other words ... what the fuck?

 

[Annoying Turd]

0%

There! I am straight! To think I was bi...

OT the quiz asks loaded questions.

 

[Double A]

Not bad, I have a tension of 7%, which as I understand it is pretty consistent. Though the one they caught me out on was kind of bullshit because it asked was Michaelangelo one of history's greatest artists, which is a matter of opinion, but they said that because I said yes it contradicted what I said earlier about Art always being subjective.

Same here. Is it not my opinion that Michelangelo is one of history's finest artists?

 

[Ajna]

I got 7%.

Only conflict, apparently, was this:

Spoiler

I can kind of understand, but I don't think I know anyone nor know of anyone who believes genocide isn't a bad thing.

The question wasn't 'Is genocide bad?", it was: Do "Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil"?

And my answer would have to be "no". Evil is a moral term, and morals are relative.

OT:

Tension Quotient = 7%
You agreed that:
Having made a choice, it is always possible that one might have chosen otherwise
And also that:
The future is fixed, how one's life unfolds is a matter of destiny

Most people think that humans have free will. Yet many of the same people believe in fate, or destiny. But how can both beliefs be true? If 'what will be, will be' no matter what we do, then how can we have freedom? For example, imagine I am in a shop, deciding whether to buy one of two coats. If one believes in fate or destiny, then it must be true that it is inevitable which coat I buy. In which case, when I stand before them, choosing, it must be an illusion that I have a genuine choice, as fate has decreed that there is, in fact, only one choice I can make. I seem to be making my own mind up, but forces beyond my control have already determined which way I choose. This makes it untrue that 'having made a choice, it is always possible that one might have chosen otherwise'. So reconciling belief in destiny and free will is a tricky task.

I'll admit to that. I suppose that, in hindsight, I shouldn't have agreed to the first. Because it's untrue. Not sure what I was thinking at the time. I've made the same arguement that the paragraph itself makes, when telling people free will doesn't exist.

 

[Flatfrog]

The one that causes the most grief is the Michaelangelo question...

Are judgements of art purely a subjective matter?

vs

Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists

The key word is purely, If you believe that judgement of art is purely subjective you are not leaving room for any objectivity. If you state that "Michaelangelo's work is one of history's finest artists" you are also suggesting that someone else's negative opinion doesn't count.

Without reading any of the other replies (life is *way* too short), I'm just going to butt in on this one.

My opinion is that yes, art is subjective, and *therefore* yes, he's a great artist, as this is a majority opinion. Subjective doesn't mean arbitrary. Personally, I'm not that bothered by his art, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a great artist.

To put it another way, the real problem here isn't the definition of 'art' but of 'great'. To me, 'great' in this context means 'widely appreciated'.

 

[Jamboxdotcom]

interesting test, but i'd like it better if they had more options for degrees/shades-of-grey. i dislike me some absolutes. my score was low to medium, if anyone cares. i'd argue that allowing for degrees would put me near 0.

 

[feather240]

47%

Well, I'm insane.

 

[Ajna]

Severe brain-damage can rob a person of all consciousness and selfhood
And also that:
On bodily death, a person continues to exist in a non-physical form

And 2: that a major concussion can't result in loss of conciousness? I had a motorcycle accident ... drilled a hole in my head to relieve pressure. I can tell you now I lost conciousness o.o

In other words ... what the fuck?

It said 'all consciousness and selfhood'. That you are able to type right now shows that you didn't lose all consciousness and selfhood.

 

[Ulquiorra4sama]

Mine's low: 20%

But i don't see why they had to point out as a contradiction that i think art is a matter of personal taste, and then went on to say i think Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists. I mean, that's my personal opinion -.-

But yeah... i adress some of these questions almost on a daily basis so my mind's made up on most of them and as such i like to think that my moral believes don't collide much.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

By the way the question didn't ask if WW2 was a 'just' war. It asks if you agree that it was just a war. As in it was a war like any other, just as cold, callous and indiscriminate as the last.

I think my interpretation of it is right, because if that's true then it's been poorly worded; I copy&pasted that directly from the site.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Severe brain-damage can rob a person of all consciousness and selfhood
And also that:
On bodily death, a person continues to exist in a non-physical form

And 2: that a major concussion can't result in loss of conciousness? I had a motorcycle accident ... drilled a hole in my head to relieve pressure. I can tell you now I lost conciousness o.o

In other words ... what the fuck?

It said 'all consciousness and selfhood'. That you are able to type right now shows that you didn't lose all consciousness and selfhood.

But I did lose all conciousness. I was in a hospital bed for 15 days without a fucking clue where I was because of injury and medication. 'Selfhood'? ... all major injuries tinge upon us the bitter taste of death and the limitations of the flesh.

You can say your 'selfhood' is damaged when you get a pinprick and you lose blood because you are forever changed by the ackowledgement that you can be injured ... and these reminders colour our entire acceptance of existence.

Anyways, test seemed loaded to me.