Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Test: which moral philosophy is yours (even if you don't know it)

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 14
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 template Next
  • #166
    1. Aquinas (100%)
    Browse Aquinas related books. Click here for info

    2. Spinoza (72%)
    Browse Spinoza related books. Click here for info

    3. Ockham (67%)
    Browse Ockham related books. Click here for info

    4. St. Augustine (66%)
    Browse St. Augustine related books. Click here for info

    5. Cynics (65%)
    Browse Cynics related books. Click here for info

    6. Jeremy Bentham (64%)
    Browse Jeremy Bentham related books. Click here for info

    7. Aristotle (63%)
    Browse Aristotle related books. Click here for info

    8. John Stuart Mill (58%)
    Browse John Stuart Mill related books. Click here for info

    9. Epicureans (51%)
    Browse Epicureans related books. Click here for info

    10. Kant (44%)
    Browse Kant related books. Click here for info

    Comment

    • #167
       
      1
      .Jean-Paul Sartre   (100%) Browse Jean-Paul Sartre related books.  Click here for info

      2.
      Nel Noddings   (83%) Browse Nel Noddings related books.  Click here for info

      3.
      Aquinas   (70%) Browse Aquinas related books.  Click here for info

      4.
      Jeremy Bentham   (70%) Browse Jeremy Bentham related books.  Click here for info

      5.
      Spinoza   (70%) Browse Spinoza related books.  Click here for info

      6. 
      Prescriptivism   (69%) Browse Prescriptivism related books.  Click here for info

      7. 
      Kant   (67%) Browse Kant related books.  Click here for info

      8. 
      Aristotle   (63%) Browse Aristotle related books.  Click here for info

      9. 
      John Stuart Mill   (63%) Browse John Stuart Mill related books.  Click here for info

      10. 
      Nietzsche   (58%) Browse Nietzsche related books.  Click here for info

      11. 
      David Hume   (55%) Browse David Hume related books.  Click here for info

      12. 
      Thomas Hobbes   (55%) Browse Thomas Hobbes related books.  Click here for info

      13. 
      Epicureans   (53%) Browse Epicureans related books.  Click here for info

      14. 
      St. Augustine   (47%) Browse St. Augustine related books.  Click here for info

      15. 
      Stoics   (44%) Browse Stoics related books.  Click here for info

      16. 
      Plato   (40%) Browse Plato related books.  Click here for info

      17. 
      Ockham   (32%) Browse Ockham related books.  Click here for info

      18. 
      Ayn Rand   (27%) Browse Ayn Rand related books.  Click here for info

      19. 
      Cynics   (6%) Browse Cynics related books.  Click here for info
      A few of the questions seemed like crap to me...
      "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
      -Bokonon

      Comment

      • #168
        I note nobody answered my question - what exactly is existentialism?

        Comment

        • #169
          Its an evil communist philosophy.
          Any views I may express here are personal and certainly do not in any way reflect the views of my employer. Tis the rising of the moon..

          Look, I just don't anymore, okay?

          Comment

          • #170
            Metaphysics test (though some of them I just guessed ).

            1. Spinoza
            2. Merlea-Ponty
            3. Ayer
            4. Sartes
            5. Heidegger
            6. Plato
            “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
            - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

            Comment

            • #171
              it's been a year or more since the last time i took this, but it's always fun to take again. this time, the top three were

              Ayn Rand 100%
              Aristotle 84%
              Aquinas 78%

              which, i'd have to say, is pretty damn accurate to how i really believe.
              -connorkimbro
              "We're losing the war on AIDS. And drugs. And poverty. And terror. But we sure took it to those Nazis. Man, those were the days."

              -theonion.com

              Comment

              • #172
                Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
                I note nobody answered my question - what exactly is existentialism?
                A term usually refering to a philosophy that became popular just after the war with Sartre as most known figure. An earlier thinker is Kirkegaard. In short form it means that humans are forced to be free and creates themselves through their own decisions in a specific situation. There's a lot of inconsistencies between different thinkes though.

                Comment

                • #173
                  Kropotkin:

                  though like I said Nietzsche probably laid the foundations of existentialism though he lived decades before Sartre.

                  Except I really don't understand how existentialism works with anything but a capitalist mind-set... if people have complete responsibility for themselves then how can existentialists be communist? Marxism depends upon the idea that the poor have no ability to rise economically while existentialist thinking would say that the poor are poor because they made themselves that way. Can anyone explain to me how existentialism doesn't contradict marxism?


                  thanks
                  "Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
                  "I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi

                  Comment

                  • #174
                    Originally posted by Albert Speer
                    Kropotkin:

                    though like I said Nietzsche probably laid the foundations of existentialism though he lived decades before Sartre.

                    Except I really don't understand how existentialism works with anything but a capitalist mind-set... if people have complete responsibility for themselves then how can existentialists be communist? Marxism depends upon the idea that the poor have no ability to rise economically while existentialist thinking would say that the poor are poor because they made themselves that way. Can anyone explain to me how existentialism doesn't contradict marxism?
                    The decision to take property rights seriously is one that an existentialist is free to take. The sort of responsibility they are talking about isn't moral responsibility since absolute freedom includes the freedom to be a murderer.
                    Only feebs vote.

                    Comment

                    • #175
                      Agathon -
                      The sort of responsibility they are talking about isn't moral responsibility since absolute freedom includes the freedom to be a murderer.
                      Freedom means the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action, does not being murdered constrain your choices or actions?

                      Comment

                      • #176
                        Originally posted by Berzerker
                        Agathon -

                        Freedom means the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action, does not being murdered constrain your choices or actions?
                        That's highly debatable and also has nothing to do with the way the existentialists are using the term, which is necessarily prior to any sort of moral commitment you make.

                        Here's their position.

                        "There is no God, or at least we cannot know that he exists. Moreover, the universe and human life seem to have no discernable purpose. There is no black and white in fact, the world is supremely indifferent to our wants and cares. The only thing that is certain is that my existence precedes my essence, in other words, the bare fact of my being is unconstrained by any norms of value: my life has only the purposes I create for it. I may choose to be a murderer or a saint, but there is no sign or fact in reality that counts for one being better than the other.

                        Of course I can choose to live with the essence society foists on me, but such an existence is in "bad faith" since the only reality is that I have absolute freedom to choose the values I want, and the choice is inescapable, due to the structure of consciousness. Consciousness is such that it cannot be reduced to ordinary "thing-ness" (like the being of an ordinary material object) which is essentially what I do when I am in bad faith - I abdicate my freedom and become a thing instead of a person.

                        The reason that consciousness cannot be reduced to thing-ness is that consciousness is intentional (it is directed at things) and the choice of what to direct it at is inescapably mine (even if I pretend it isn't). Thus my consciousness transcends my immediate object of awareness. When we direct our thought at ourselves this gives us the illusion of a transcendent soul.

                        This is roughly Sartre's position, although I am by no means a Sartre expert.
                        Only feebs vote.

                        Comment

                        • #177
                          How does this differ from Soren Kierkegaard's description of existentialism? I can see that with such a world, the only thing of value or meaning can often be your own accomplishments.
                          Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
                          "Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
                          2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!

                          Comment

                          • #178
                            Originally posted by obiwan18
                            How does this differ from Soren Kierkegaard's description of existentialism? I can see that with such a world, the only thing of value or meaning can often be your own accomplishments.
                            Kierkegaard's isn't systematic like the phenomenological existentialists (Sartre, Heidegger, Jaspers, etc.). His is a much more literary style of thinking. The phenomenologists attempt to demonstrate the truth of existentialism from metaphysics.
                            Only feebs vote.

                            Comment

                            • #179
                              How would they go about proving the first postulate you listed, concerning the nature of God?
                              Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
                              "Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
                              2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!

                              Comment

                              • #180
                                Well if God exists then the world probably has some sort of meaning. If everything you can work out shows the world is meaningless then that's a good reason.

                                Kierkegaard of course thinks that we should all make a leap of faith.
                                Only feebs vote.

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 template Next
                                Working...
                                X