Philosophical Health Check

Nae so bad at a 7%.

 

This test is definitely "rigged" in a sense. For example I agreed that having made a choice, it's possible that a different choice could have been made, but also agreed that destiny/fate is true.

You agreed that:
\t Having made a choice, it is always possible that one might have chosen otherwise
\t And also that:
\t The future is fixed, how one's life unfolds is a matter of destiny

This is an apparent contradiction, however I do not believe destiny rules every single aspect of life, but that there are key points that you will face regardless of what choices you make due to Karmic debt you have acquired in this and past lives. It's sort of like a video game for example, multiple people may go through a level differently, however it will still inevitably lead to the same next level. One person may be a health nut, while another smokes and drinks, and the former will get cancer due to Karmic debt while the latter does not have to pay such debt.

or

You agreed that:
\t Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste
\t And also that:
\t Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists

There isn't a contradiction here at all, according to my personal taste, I agree that he is one of the finest artists. It would be the same if I had disagreed he was one of the finest artists.You agreed that:
There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely an expression \t of the values of particular cultures
\t And also that:
\t Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil

again, from MY cultural morality, it is a testament of mans ability to do great evil. I do feel there are certain "universal" morals, it doesn't mean I have to believe that ALL morals are cultural. Also, morality evolves to higher and higher standards, take slavery for example, it was perfectly acceptable, but now that we have evolved in our views of equality, it is now "wrong".You agreed that:
\t There exists an all-powerful, loving and good God
\t And also that:
\t To allow an innocent child to suffer needlessly when one could easily prevent \t it is morally reprehensible

This question was worded in a way as if a PERSON was allowing a child to suffer "needlessly", however a loving parent allows their child to suffer being grounded for their moral and responsible growth, yet we do not doubt the parents love or goodness. Suffering is necessary for growth. We learn far more from suffering than we do pleasure/success. We cannot say that God allowing suffering is "needless" because we cannot see the grand scheme from our limited perspective.Example,if you knew reincarnation was real, and you knew a suffering child was the incarnation of Hitler, would you call this suffering "needless", or would you think Hitlers soul is being taught a lesson about torturing Jewish children? We would likely still feel compassion, but we wouldn't necessarily believe it's needlessif that is how soul's are supposed to learn and grow.

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


You COULD take a bus to the hospital if your in labor, or if your are in need of medical attention, however in these instances I would not condemn someone for driving in a car if you need to get somewhere in a hurry.I COULD take a bus where I live, except that the bus only comes by my house leaving 4x in the morning and coming back from those destinations 4x in the evening, the shortest time between going and coming being 5 hours, which would waste my time EXCESSIVELY, it's just not realistic.We need to make these things accessible as well as efficient, and then nobody will object to it. Nobody is going to wait around for 4 hours for something that would otherwise take 30 minutes if they have other things they need to accomplish.

It's just a bunch of word play.

 

33% yay

 

I managed to completely dodge this test's bullets. 0%

Tris:
You tried to resolve the first contradiction, but you say that destiny does not always rule. But you did say that it is always possible to have chosen otherwise, so therefore destiny must never rule. You still have a contradiction.

On the artistic judgment, you probably should answer as objectively as possible. If judgments of art are purely matters of taste, then as a fact, Michaelangelo is only considered by many one of history's greats (maybe even you), but as a fact he is only an artist.

(I answered that it's not merely a matter of taste, and that Michaelangelo is one of history's greatest artists. I consider there to be a method in art aimed at creating a tension in the viewer, so there must be a skill in understanding the creation of it.)

On the morality question, I almost made the same mistake. But after I thought about it, I realized that genocide is a testament to man's ability to harm others, which most of us consider evil but obviously not all of us.

The question about the child is valid, even if you're trying to cop-out by assigning your god some superior morality to your own. If you can justify by the things you said for a god, why can't you accept it for a person?

On the environment, you are making a real stretch to justify your contradiction. If someone is in desperate need of a hospital, I would say they "cannot" afford to take any but the swiftest transport. They can't take a cycle or train, so the situation is not covered in the question. If you're late for work and need the wage to survive, I would exempt that as well but on the condition that the lateness was not also caused by the person in question. The question itself may become obsolete should we discover transportation that does not also have harmful emissions.

 

27% here.

 

17%... I could write pages upon pages of some of those questions.

 

27%

Honestly thought i'd do better..

 

A hearty 57%

Because I'm just so conflicted

 

i got a 13%

but there is far more to the questions and answers than what they provide you.

interesting nonetheless

 

33% (The number of truth)

In Question 28 it should be "a" instead of "an."

 

Postal Blowfish, I figured out the test about halfway through, but I wasn't geared at answering it in a way that I'd "pass" it, but just honestly to see what it would say.


As far as destiny, there is never a choice in the matter of destiny, could you choose not to get cancer? Could you choose for a loved one not to die? The things that seriously impact us are usually not a result of our own choices. In certain instances it is possible one could have made a different choice, say, not going back to the house for something and hence avoiding the wreck that they would have passed the intersection before the car blew a red light. There is free-will, but not ABSOLUTE free-will for most. How many of you are totally uninfluenced by external things alone let alone destiny? For example nobody wants to be angry, and indeed you could never get angry again, but you allow people to provoke anger in you, it's not a strictly cause/effect thing. One day it may not bother you, another you flip your lid. One can completely free themselves from destiny and truly have free will, but thats another subject.

And as far as the artwork thing, is history not based on the opinion of the winners of war?

Historically people think of the holocaust as an atrocity, it is written as such in a history book, yet there are still people who thought Hitler was right in his goals despite what history says about it. If history had no opinion, it would not depict events as good or bad, but simply as is, and would just say "Michealangelo was an artist, who drew this and that" and whatever else he may have done in his life, and not anyones opinion of it.

 

bah their literal definitions- bah i say!

 

7%.

Got the contradiction from the environmental questions. Agreed to not unnecessarily harm the earth, but disagreed that we shouldn't drive cars over walking, biking, or taking a train.

I feel that question is flawed due to the variable of distance. It might be better to journey farther distances via train rather than a car, but shorter distances probably not so much.

Another thing is that we could have means of transportation right now that aren't harmful at all, but people are greedy.

 

they asked if michelangelo was one of histories finest artists, and i agreed, because thats my opinion, and they are telling me im inconsistent. Just because i also agreed judgments about art are purely matter of taste. Thats retarted..what else am i suppose to answer with, 'disagree'? But thats just another opinion...

 

If you say as a fact that art is purely a matter of taste, then as a fact you should also say that Michaelangelo is considered by many (not necessarily all) to be one of history's finest artists. To be consistent, you can't say it's a fact because there probably isn't universal agreement (believe it or not... but I suspect with 6 billion people on the planet just in the present timeframe, there must be at least someone who doesn't feel that way).

It could have been more clear, for sure. When they ask if you agree or disagree, they should clarify that you are agreeing or disagreeing with an "objective" fact or an opinion.

It's easier if you don't think art is purely a matter of taste.

 

13%

I still stand by my two "inconsistancies." I'm not going to write my opinion of them because I'm sure it will be wasted effort - casting pearls upon swine, however; I like the provocative style of this questionaire.