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

[Ben Kenobi]

Just because we cannot see the meaning, does not mean that there is no meaning at all. Consider a tapestry. If you stand really close to the tapestry, all you see is a big blur. When you stand farther outwards, you begin to see the artwork unavailable to you before.

Nothing has changed in the tapestry, merely our own perspective.

[lightblue]

1. Jeremy Bentham (100%)
2. John Stuart Mill (100%)
3. Epicureans (89%)
4. Jean-Paul Sartre (82%)
5. Kant (80%)
6. Spinoza (73%)
7. Nel Noddings (66%)
8. Thomas Hobbes (62%)
9. Aquinas (61%)
10. Cynics (60%)
11. Aristotle (56%)
12. Ayn Rand (55%)
13. Stoics (48%)
14. Nietzsche (48%)
15. David Hume (42%)
16. Prescriptivism (40%)
17. St. Augustine (33%)
18. Ockham (22%)
19. Plato (19%)


What are Epicureans?

The last of these tests I did Macchiavelli came out top Maybe something changed in me...

[Richelieu]

1. Kant (100%)
2. Spinoza (95%)
3. Stoics (91%)

[Hot Mustard]

My results above 50%:

Jean-Paul Sartre (100%)
Cynics (88%)
John Stuart Mill (77%)
Jeremy Bentham (73%)
Aquinas (70%)
Thomas Hobbes (70%)
Kant (59%)
Nel Noddings (57%)
David Hume (55%)
Stoics (55%)
Ayn Rand (54%)

That's the highest result I've seen for Cynics.

* dejon waves to obiwan18

Edit:
Just looked over the brief summaries of each of the above. Boy, my principles come from an ecletic bunch. (Not that I'm putting much stock in this test though.)

[pg]

# 1. Thomas Hobbes (100%)
# 2. Nietzsche (97%)
# 3. David Hume (95%)
# 4. Cynics (93%)
# 5. Epicureans (86%)
# 6. Aristotle (85%)
# 7. Ayn Rand (76%)
# 8. Nel Noddings (71%)
# 9. Jean-Paul Sartre (69%)
# 10. Stoics (62%)
# 11. Jeremy Bentham (60%)
# 12. John Stuart Mill (60%)
# 13. Plato (53%)
# 14. Aquinas (51%)
# 15. Spinoza (50%)
# 16. Kant (44%)
# 17. St. Augustine (43%)
# 18. Ockham (34%)
# 19. Prescriptivism (32%)

ok...

[Agathon]

Dejon - you are in trouble if you have the Cynics that high.

Diogenes used to masturbate in public and never washed; although the lovliest prostitute of the time would do it with him for free.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Just because we cannot see the meaning, does not mean that there is no meaning at all. Consider a tapestry. If you stand really close to the tapestry, all you see is a big blur. When you stand farther outwards, you begin to see the artwork unavailable to you before.

Nothing has changed in the tapestry, merely our own perspective.

But I said that they think that we can't know. This is consistent with what you've just said. What good is the meaning of life if we can't find out what it is?

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by Agathon
Dejon - you are in trouble if you have the Cynics that high.

Diogenes used to masturbate in public and never washed; although the lovliest prostitute of the time would do it with him for free.

(That was roughly my reaction to your post, in order.)

[Freeze]

Rand 100%
Kant/Mill 93%
Prescriptivism 81%

http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/james.html

http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/jgreatmen.html

[Shi Huangdi]

Metaphysics:

1.De Spinoza
2.St. Augustine
3.St. Thomas Aquinas

[Drogue]

[list=1][*]Sartre[*]Hobbes[*]Stoics[*]Hume[*]Nietzsche[*]Bentham[/list=1]

Hobbes and Stoics Therefore I believe that both

Reason cannot give rise to moral judgments

and

Reason alone must be used in deciding what is good and what is bad

No wonder I'm so messed up.

I think the test might be skewed slightly in favour of Sartre, seeing as how oftenhe comes up as #1, and I took it again, choosing the different choices on ones I was not sure on before, and he still came out on top. Besides, on some of his points as given by the site, I do not agree with him. However overall I think it's pretty accurate. Choosing it myself I would have put Kant, Nietzsche and Plato higher, but then that's probably due to what Agathon said, that

All this test does is show you how your conception of what morality is (the nature of the beast) stacks up against these guys. It doesn't commit you to any of their normative beliefs (say their views on the state).

[Agathon]

Hobbes and the Stoics have much to say on the nature of nature. Both also believe in a kind of philosophical despotism.

[Japher]

Just because we cannot see the meaning, does not mean that there is no meaning at all. Consider a tapestry. If you stand really close to the tapestry, all you see is a big blur. When you stand farther outwards, you begin to see the artwork unavailable to you before.

Nothing has changed in the tapestry, merely our own perspective.

True. However, if all you see is the close up blur of the rug how are you to respond to meaning of the whole, if you have no idea what it means? The answer is you can either a) make up what that meaning from your limited view point, or b) or assume that what you see is all that there is, and respond accordingly.

Why should I assume that I am looking at just a piece of a tapestry and not the whole cloth?

[Ben Kenobi]

This is consistent with what you've just said. What good is the meaning of life if we can't find out what it is?

Agathon:

You need a change in perspective in order to better understand these mysteries. Just another way to put Kierkegaard's point, that the change is most definitely possible and necessary.

However, if all you see is the close up blur of the rug how are you to respond to meaning of the whole, if you have no idea what it means?

Japher:

When we step back, the picture should come into focus and we should be able to better see the picture in front of us.

It should be obvious that you have a better grasp of the picture then before. As for understanding the content of the picture, that will come over time and by studying the picture.

The proper response is one of, "now I see things much better, I can continue to work on unravelling the meaning of the picture."

/waves to dejon.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by obiwan18

Agathon:

You need a change in perspective in order to better understand these mysteries. Just another way to put Kierkegaard's point, that the change is most definitely possible and necessary.

I most certainly do not. i understand Christianity perfectly. It is a watered down version of Platonism for everyone.