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

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

7% here too.

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

In retrospect, my agreement with the first one was kind of silly.

"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

As walking, cycling and taking the train are all less environmentally damaging than driving a car for the same journey, if you choose to drive when you could have used another mode of transport, you are guilty of unnecessarily damaging the environment."

Exactly the same. I don't have that many strong views on the environment, so I guess this is natural enough. I'd prefer environmental arguments to be economic, rather than moral, ones - what's the damage of a course of action weighed up against its benefits?

 

[zen5887]

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.

If everyone believes that genocide is a bad thing then clearly that would count as an "objective moral standard".

This is my beef with the quiz. All the answers are all or nothing, there is no room for buts.

Are buts a bad thing in Philosophy? I honestly don't know...

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

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.

I got that one as well, it leads me to think that this thing is trying too hard to be clever.

There isn't a culture on the planet that wouldn't agree with a huge majority that wiping out an entire race for your own ideals is wrong.

Hitler didn't believe he was committing genocide because to him the Jewish weren't "people". When you think of extermination, the term the Nazis use, you don't think of genocide, you think of pest control.

 

[Bobbovski]

Got 7%. I contradicted myself with the "everyone should be free to do what they want" and the "Drug possesion for personal use should be decriminalized". I was aware about this conflict when I filled in the answers though. And I'm trying to figure out how to motivate it.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

"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"

Well... You've kinda got me. But I would argue that practicality should come first to an extent.

"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.

 

[Bloodstain]

7%, one single contradiction:

Spoiler

Questions 17-28: Are there any absolute truths?

60071 of the 174800 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
There are no objective truths about matters of fact; 'truth' is always relative to particular cultures and individuals
And also that:
The holocaust is an historical reality, taking place more or less as the history books report

If truth is relative then nothing is straightforwardly 'true' or 'factual'. Everything is 'true for someone' or 'a fact for them'. What then, of the holocaust? Is it true that millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and other 'enemies' of the Third Reich were systematically executed by the Nazis? If you believe that there are no objective truths, you have to say that there is no straight answer to this question. For some people, the holocaust is a fact, for others, it is not. So what can you say to those who deny it is a fact? Are they not as entitled to their view as you are to yours? How can one both assert the reality of the holocaust and deny that there is a single truth about it? Resolving this intellectual tension is a real challenge.

Sounds reasonable. I'll abandon the latter belief and instead just say "I don't know and I can't know."

 

[Raven's Nest]

I've played around on this site for a bit and have come to realise that it expects ones beliefs to be rigid, not flexible. Now, I'm no Philosopher, but I am a big fan of flexibility in life. Can someone more comfortable in this subject explain this to me?

Essentially, the more rigid your belief structure is, the more logical you are being in our approach to ideas like morality and ethics which means you are more likely to make good judgements (or are better able to justify your actions)...

Lets say you agreed that in order to save 90 people out of a group of 100, you'd kill 10 of them based on the moral concept of "The needs of the many before the needs of the few."

If your reasoning was that it is worth killing 10% of a group of people because you are saving so many people, you would supposedly have no problems killing 1,000,000 to save 9,000,000 people or killing 1 in a group of 10 of your best friends to save their lives.

They might have been your best friends, but you if you agreed that sacrificing 10% is worth it but refused to kill them, then your conviction for making moral judgements based on "The needs of the many before the needs of the few." is in dispute. Therefore your logic sucks...

But like most humans, with their backs against the wall, they'll ignore logic in favour of finding a solution no matter how dire the situation. So flexibility in your life is both good and bad, but it's always best to understand your decision making process as it'll help you make better judgements. You dig?

 

[iamthe1]

As anyone who has actually studied philosophy will recognize, the following "questions" are totally fucking retarded:

"The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives."

"It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence."

"To allow an innocent child to suffer needlessly when one could easily prevent it is morally reprehensible."

I have an idea: let's completely bypass the notion of precision and coherence when asking questions and just let anyone say whatever the hell they want to! 'Cause THAT's philosophy!

Those aren't questions though, they are statements. They are statements designed to test the conviction of your beliefs when compared with similar statements you have either agreed or disagreed with. The content of the question was never particularly important, only the consistency of your beliefs.

How is this not a philosophical pursuit?

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.

 

[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.