Get your philosophical health check

[Iain]

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/check.htm

The idea isn't to determine whether you are "philosophically healthy" based on your actual beliefs, but rather it pairs questions to see how consistent you are. At the end you receive a Tension Quotient.

Posted here for your amusement, probably not to be taken seriously. The test identified a tension between my answers to 5+29 and 24+3, giving me an overall tension quotient of 13% when the average player gets 28%. You only get to agree or disagree (making some questions rather silly), and I am conflicted about those particular issues.

[The Annoyed Man]

I got merely 7%. Guess that's good .

[41magsnub]

I disagree with the contradictions they seem to call you on in the questions:  The Art ones and the alternative medicine/Gov testing.

Whether I think Michelangelo is one of the great artists is irrelevant to whether I think judgment in art is a matter of taste.  I think he is a great artist to my taste, yet still believe judgement of art are a matter of taste versus an absolute.  Where is the tension in that?

And, just because I think a good function of a government is to test medical products to make sure they are safe and do what is advertised does not mean I am against alternative medicine which I think should be held to the same standards.   No contradiction there.

[RevDisk]

I disagreed with a lot of "tension".   This is due to my disagreement with their basic premise is that situations are binary.  Black or White, no grey can exist. 

[Perd Hapley]

The following is indicative of the site's sophistication.  And not in a good way. 

You agreed that:
There exists an all-powerful, loving and good God
And also that:
To allow an innocent child to suffer needlessly when one could easily prevent it is morally reprehensible

These two beliefs together generate what is known as 'The Problem of Evil'. The problem is simple: if God is all-powerful, loving and good, that means he can do what he wants and will do what is morally right. But surely this means that he would not allow an innocent child to suffer needlessly, as he could easily prevent it. Yet he does. Much infant suffering is the result of human action, but much is also due to natural causes, such as disease, flood or famine. In both cases, God could stop it, yet he does not.

Attempts to explain this apparent contradiction are known as 'theodicies' and many have been produced. Most conclude that God allows suffering to help us grow spiritually and/or to allow the greater good of human freedom. Whether these theodicies are adequate is the subject of continuing debate.

   They failed to ask me whether there is such a creature as an innocent child. 

On the other hand, I flip-flopped on my answer to the second question.  Don't we sometimes allow children to suffer small unpleasantries in order to let them learn by experience?  Strictly speaking, I don't agree with the statement as written.  I only agreed with it, to see what would happen. 

[Iain]

Like I said, not to be taken seriously. It wouldn't be half as much fun if we couldn't complain about it.

I'm now tempted to post up the original quiz linked to in a blog I read. This one was linked to in the comments.

Eh, have fun, or not - http://goodpersontest.com/

[Dntsycnt]

Yep, even if you're good, you're evil.

 

The tension thing was pretty nifty. 

[Racehorse]

The test really was just about creating a lot of false dichotomies. For example this one:

Questions 10 and 23: Is there an all-good, all-powerful God?

42813 of the 132394 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
There exists an all-powerful, loving and good God
And also that:
To allow an innocent child to suffer needlessly when one could easily prevent it is morally reprehensible

This goes under the assumption that any suffering by an innocent child is needless. I don't believe God lets anyone suffer needlessly. However, he does let people suffer. Sometimes, the reasons are apparent, but often they're not. That doesn't mean my beliefs are in tension. It just means they're more nuanced that a yes/no quiz can allow for.

[RoadKingLarry]

I got a 27% on the philosophy test and I'll have to take a 0 on the Good person test since I'm an atheist.

[Perd Hapley]

Yep, even if you're good, you're evil. 

As long as we're discussing internal consistency, the Biblical position is that no human being is good, at least not without divine assistance. 

[FTA84]

This test is crap.  As one knows (Godel) there is no system of system of logic in which (a) every statement can be proved to be true or false (called complete) and (b) there are no contradictions.

The fact that they ask you to agree or disagree (meaning they ask you to determine if these statements are true or false) and then punish for contradictions really makes no sense.  Of course, no one knows how to axiomatize philosophy (yet) but assuming that you can agree and disagree to any set of questions assumes that one can axiomatize it (in a way that makes it complete).  Once it is axiomatized and complete it must have inherent contradictions.

This is the mathematical statement which is the analog of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

[Hawkmoon]

Pretty brain-dead test. For example, my first "conflict":

Questions 1 and 27: Is morality relative?

59083 of the 132446 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

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'. But what does it mean to say 'genocide is evil'? To reconcile the tension, you could say that all you mean is that to say 'genocide is evil' is to express the values of your particular culture. It does not mean that genocide is evil for all cultures and for all times. However, are you really happy to say, for example, that the massacre of the Tutsi people in 1994 by the Hutu dominated Rwandan Army was evil from the point of view of your culture but not evil from the point of view of the Rwandan Army, and what is more, that there is no sense in which one moral judgement is superior to the other? If moral judgements really are 'merely the expression of the values of a particular culture', then how are the values which reject genocide and torture at all superior to those which do not?

I don't see any tension in this whatsoever. My beliefs, my ethical and moral standards, are what they are and they are a product of my up-bringing. That doesn't mean they are not beliefs. I can believe that genocide is evil while at the same time recognizing that someone else may not believe it is evil.

Where's the conflict?

[vaskidmark]

Tension Quotient Score Tension Quotient = 7% 

The average player of this activity to date has a Tension Quotient of 28%.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions 17-28: Are there any absolute truths?
45269 of the 132453 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.


Why are so many of us stuck in tension between issues of morality and absolutism?  Personally, I feel absolutely certain that there are no absolute moral standards, but am willing to agree that a society (any society) cannot function without a moral base.

It's been a long time since I read The Screwtape Letters but I'm pretty sure that's where I began to figure this stuff out.

** added because I "took" the Good Person Test -

Sorry, but I'm not going to be hormswoggled into buying somebody else's religious beliefs just because they chose some answwers to some questions.  There are a bunch of other religious beliefs that I could have been hornswoggled into buying if that "test" had been written by somebody that believed in Bhuddah, Vishnu, Odin, holly trees, or some other form of diety besides Jesus, or by somebody who denies the existence of any diety. (OK, bad grammatical construction, but I'm trying to be all-inclusive without having to name everybody that folks do or do not believe in.  Sue me!)

In case anybody gives a fig, I'm dot going to die, because if I die I have to eventually go to either Heaven or Hell.  I can't qualify for Heaven by any standards.  I am not wanted in Hell because those in charge fear I will upset "the way we have always done things" there just as I do here.  As for those that espouse reincarnation - please consider what I was before this go-round if this is what I got reincarnated as so I could have another shot at reaching Perfection.

I'm a Good Person today because I can't be bothered exerting the effort to be bad today./  Tomorrow, on the other hand, is rife with possibilities.

stay safe.

skidmark

[wmenorr67]

I must be really screwed up because I scored at 47%.

[yesitsloaded]

27%

Money for saving a life is okay, the government stealing my money to save someone else's isn't, it is stealing.

The gay question.  "So there is a problem in trying to derive matters of moral value directly from matters of pure fact." Not if your moral values are in fact facts.

The atheist question. "In short, belief without evidence (a form of faith) is not the same as non-belief due to lack of evidence (rational refusal to assent)." There is plenty of evidence, refusing to accept it is a form of logical fail.

Art. I stated my opinion of Michelangelo, which is purely a matter of taste. I find him one of the best.

I can explain every "wrong" answer without destroying my beliefs or having a lack of logic.

[MicroBalrog]

7%.

Only one answer supposedly 'contradictory'.

[LadySmith]

I must be really screwed up because I scored at 47%.

I just copied your answer sheet because I scored 47% as well.
However, I know for a fact that I'm not screwed up. The voices in my head tell me so.

[xavier fremboe]

7%.  I guess if they asked if Jackson Pollack was a great artist, I'd be tension-free.   

[Dope]

I got 27%, which was just about average. In reviewing the results, I'd say only 1 of their explanations is good, the others are hardly "tensions" by any standard.

Eh, have fun, or not - http://goodpersontest.com/

I was hoping this was something akin to the OP's link but it was just some typical religious douchebaggery.

Dope

[MrRezister]

Money for saving a life is okay, the government stealing my money to save someone else's isn't, it is stealing.


Art. I stated my opinion of Michelangelo, which is purely a matter of taste. I find him one of the best.

Those are two of the questions that the test claims to have "got" me on as well.  The money thing seems to assume that it is the job of my government to stop the killing of someone in another country.  I would tend to disagree with that.

And for the art thing, why would they judge that my opinion is in conflict with the fact that I think the quality of art is a matter of opinion....?

I may well be very conflicted, and I'm fine with that.  It's my personal belief that Those who Can, Do.  Those who Can't, Philosophize.

[Brad Johnson]

53%

The first half were, for the most part, questions of "absolutes" that could easily be rendered moot given the circumstance or context.  The second half was purely subjective and could easily be influenced by environment, upbringing, culture, etc..  Comparing the two in a context-neutral environment is, at best, a humorous attempt at "being all psychological and stuff".

Brad