Sublime Philosophical Crap

[nexion]

I found this test, and thoroughly enjoyed it. Indeed, a gem of a test, I think.

http://www.okcupid.com/tests/13372526327873131397/Sublime-Philosophical-Crap

N-S-R
​

You scored 56% Non-Reductionism, 33% Epistemological Absolutism, and 22% Moral Objectivism!​

You are an N-S-R: a metaphysical Non-Reductionist, an epistemological Skeptic, and a moral Relativist.

 

[EvilScientist Trainee]

For some reason, once I get inside OkCupid test's page, I'm stuck for at least 2 hours.

My results, anyway.

N-A-O

You scored 56% Non-Reductionism, 67% Epistemological Absolutism, and 89% Moral Objectivism!

You are an N-A-O: a metaphysical Non-Reductionist, an epistemological Absolutist, and a moral Objectivist.​

​

 

[Dimensional Transition]

The next button didn't work on the first page so I could only answer the first four questions...

 

[nexion]

The next button didn't work on the first page so I could only answer the first four questions...

Wow, really? What browser do you use?

 

[Words]

N-S-R
You scored 56% Non-Reductionism, 44% Epistemological Absolutism, and 44% Moral Objectivism!

I don't understand some of it so I don't know if all this is accurate. I also found one question limiting wherein I can only either accept reality in sense experience, or I don't accept unified reality at all.

 

[Dimensional Transition]

Wow, really? What browser do you use?

Safari. You can see it below my avatar :P

 

[nexion]

I can't help you with that then. I don't know, unless you have flash disabled/don't have flash.

 

[Dimensional Transition]

I make animations in Flash myself, so yeah, probably some code thing.

 

[typus]

N-S-R

You scored 100% Non-Reductionism, 33% Epistemological Absolutism, and 22% Moral Objectivism!

You are an N-S-R: a metaphysical Non-Reductionist, an epistemological Skeptic, and a moral Relativist.

i wonder if a multiple choice quiz about this topic actually tells you very much. plus, my ego doesn't like it when i'm labeled.

 

[Anthile]

Your result for The Sublime Philosophical Crap Test ...
R-S-O

You scored 44% Non-Reductionism, 44% Epistemological Absolutism, and 56% Moral Objectivism!
You are an R-S-O: a metaphysical Reductionist, an epistemological Skeptic, and a moral Objectivist.

I'm actually quite sure we had that test already but I can't find it. So, whatever.

 

[onthewindowstand]

Your result for The Sublime Philosophical Crap Test ...
N-A-O

You scored 56% Non-Reductionism, 67% Epistemological Absolutism, and 56% Moral Objectivism!

You are an N-A-O: a metaphysical Non-Reductionist, an epistemological Absolutist, and a moral Objectivist.

 

[Agent Intellect]

Your result for The Sublime Philosophical Crap Test ...
N-S-R

You scored 100% Non-Reductionism, 44% Epistemological Absolutism, and 11% Moral Objectivism!

 

[Puffy]

R-S-O

 

[Bird]

NAR.

 

[Anchorite]

N-A-R

You scored 78% Non-Reductionism, 67% Epistemological Absolutism, and 44% Moral Objectiveness!


Damn that guy likes to write.

 

[Fukyo]

N-A-R

You scored 67% Non-Reductionism, 67% Epistemological Absolutism, and 22% Moral Objectivism!​

• As a Non-Reductionist, you recognize that reality is not necessarily simple or unified, and you thus tend to produce a robust ontology instead of carelessly shaving away hypothetical entities that reflect our philosophical experiences.

Spoiler

Idealists believe that reality is fundamentally unknowable. All we can ever know is the world of sense experience, thought, and other phenomena which are only distorted reflections of an ultimate (or noumenal) reality. Kant, one of the most significant philosophers in history, theorized that human beings perceive reality in such a way that they impose their own mental frameworks and categories upon reality, fully distorting it. Reality for Kant is unconceptualized and not subject to any of the categories our minds apply to it. Idealists are non-reductionists because they recognize that the distinction between phenomenal reality and ultimate reality cannot be so easily discarded or unified into a single reality. They are separate and distinct, and there is no reason to suppose the one mirrors the other. Major philosophical idealists include Kant and Fichte.

• As an Absolutist, you believe that objective knowledge is possible given the right approach, and you deny the claims of skeptical philosophers who insist that we can never have knowledge of ultimate reality. (contradiction ftw?)

Spoiler

Rationalists believe that the use of reason ultimately provides the best route to truth. A rationalist usually defines truth as a correspondence between propositions and reality, taking the common-sense route. Also, rationalists tend to believe that knowledge of reality is made possible through certain foundational beliefs. This stance is known as foundationalism. A foundationalist believes that, because we cannot justify the truth of every statement in an infinite regress, we ultimately reach a foundation of knowledge. This foundation is composed of a priori truths, like mathematics and logic, as well as undoubtable truths like one's belief in his or her own existence. The belief that experiences and memories are veridical is also part of the foundation. Thus, for a rationalist knowledge of reality is made possible through our foundational beliefs, which we do not need to justify because we find them to be undoubtable and self-evident. In regards to science, a rationalist will tend to emphasize the foundational assumptions of scientific inquiry as prior to and more important than scientific inquiry itself. If science does lead to truth, it is only because it is based upon the assumption of certain rational principles such as "Every event is caused" and "The future will resemble the past". Philosophy has a wide representation of philosophical rationalists--Descartes, Spinoza, Liebniz, and many others.

• As a moral Relativist, you tend to see moral choices as describing a subject's reaction to a moral object or situation, and not as a property of the moral object itself. You may also feel that moral words are meaningless because they do not address any empirical fact about the world.

Spoiler

Subjectivists see individual or collective desires as defining a situation's or object's moral worth. Thus, the subject, not the object itself, determines the value. Subjectivists recognize that social rules, customs, and morality have been wide-ranging and quite varied throughout history among various cultures. As a result, Subjectivism doesn't attempt to issue hard and fast rules for judging the moral worth of things. Instead, it recognizes that what we consider "good" and "right" is not bound by any discernable rule. There is no one trait that makes an act good or right, because so many different kinds of things have been called good and right. In regards to the definition of "good" or "right", a Subjectivist will tend to define it as whatever a particular person or group of people desire. They do not define it merely as "happiness" or "pleasure", for instance, because sometimes we desire to do things that do not produce pleasure, and because we don't consider all pleasurable things good. Furthermore, Subjectivists recognize the validity of consequentialism in that sometimes we refer to consequences as good and bad--but they also recognize that our intentions behind an action, or the means to the end, can also determine an act's moral worth. Again, there is no one rule to determine these things. Hence the relativism of moral Subjectivism. The most well-known of the subjectivists is Nietzsche. (agree with in practice)


Emotivists are moral Relativists only in a very slanted sense, because they actually deny that words about morality have any meaning at all. An Emotivist would probably accept Hume's argument that it is impossible to derive an "ought" from an "is"--no factual state of affairs can logically entail any sort of moral action. Furthermore, a emotivist's emphasis on scientific (and hence empirical) verification and testing quickly leads to the conclusion that concepts such as "good" and "right" don't really describe any real qualities or relations. Science is never concerned with whether a particular state of affairs is moral or right or good--and an emotivist feels much the same way. Morality is thus neither objective or subjective for the emotivist--it is without any meaning at all, a sort of vague ontological fiction that is merely a symbol for our emotional responses to certain events. (agree with in theory)

 

[Auburn]

N-A-R
​

56% Non-Reductionism,
67% Epistemological Absolutism,
33% Moral Objectivism!

 

[walfin]

NAO

By the descriptions, probably

Realist
Pragmatist
neither deontologist nor strictly utilitarian nor quite in between either

 

[JimHawkins]

N-S-R

You scored 100% Non-Reductionism, 22% Epistemological Absolutism, and 22% Moral Objectivism!

You are an N-S-R: a metaphysical Non-Reductionist, an epistemological Skeptic, and a moral Relativist.

 

[Jesse]

R-S-R

You scored 33% Non-Reductionism, 33% Epistemological Absolutism, and 44% Moral Objectivism!

You are a metaphysical Reductionist, an epistemological Skeptic, and a moral Relativist. I think it's telling me I need to believe in stuff more.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

N-A-R

N - Realist over Idealist.

A - Pragmatist over rationalist but this one's a tough call.

R - Subjectivist over Emotivist.

 

[mke2686]

N-S-R
You scored 100% Non-Reductionism, 33% Epistemological Absolutism, and 44% Moral Objectivism!

 

[EyeSeeCold]

N-S-R

89% Non-Reductionism
22% Epistemological Absolutism
22% Moral Objectivism

 

[Madoness]

Your result for The Sublime Philosophical Crap Test ...
N-A-R

You scored 56% Non-Reductionism, 78% Epistemological Absolutism, and 22% Moral Objectivism!

You are an N-A-R: a metaphysical Non-Reductionist, an epistemological Absolutist, and a moral Relativist.

 

[hablahdoo]

N-S-R
89% Non-Reductionism
44% Epistemological Absolutism
22% Moral Objectivism

Arrrgh frustrating stupid philosophical crap. Stupid philosophy with its stupid bloated abstraction *grumble*

 

[themirror]

N-S-O

Metaphysical Non-Reductionist (Idealist)
Epistemological Skeptic (Idealist)
Moral Objectivist (Deontologist)

67% Non-Reductionism
33% Epistemological Absolutism
67% Moral Objectivism

 

[Niclmaki]

N-S-R

You scored 56% Non-Reductionism, 33% Epistemological Absolutism, and 22% Moral Objectivism!

 

[addictedartist]

You are an R-S-R: a metaphysical Reductionist, an epistemological Skeptic, and a moral Relativist

 

[Reluctantly]

N-S-X

N: Realist
S: Idealist
from reading the last page.

 

[Cherry Cola]

It was too short and sometimes none of the answers made sense! >: (

Oh well I got R-A-O

You scored 44% Non-Reductionism, 78% Epistemological Absolutism, and 78% Moral Objectivism!

 

[Missfortune]

Your result for The Sublime Philosophical Crap Test ...
R-S-O

You scored 44% Non-Reductionism, 44% Epistemological Absolutism, and 89% Moral Objectivism!


but im pretty sure i understood absolutely nothing the test-maker was writing about

 

[RaBind]

R-A-R

You scored 22% Non-Reductionism, 78% Epistemological Absolutism, and 44% Moral Objectivism!

A lot of N-?-Rs it seems.

 

[TBerg]

N-S-O

You scored 67% Non-Reductionism, 33% Epistemological Absolutism, and 56% Moral Objectivism!



You are an N-S-O: a metaphysical Non-Reductionist, an epistemological Skeptic, and a moral Objectivist. If you are simply dying inside to figure out what all this mumbo-jumbo means, then simply continue reading.

 

[TBerg]

BTW, someone should have a try at psychoanalyzing this crazy shit, right here. ^^^^^^^^

 

[The Grey Man]

I have a problem with this test. It's trying to force me to choose just one answer when, often, two or more are true.

For instance, words like "reality" and "truth" can actually each refer to several things. The test should reflect this by allowing more answers than questions.

 

[Brontosaurie]

i have a problem too. it didn't give any results, just a blank.

 

[OrLevitate]

i have a problem too. it didn't give any results, just a blank.

Same, it might be more corny humor by the test creator. Most of my answers were along the lines of "nope, can't know."

editorius: This link works http://helloquizzy.okcupid.com/tests/the-sublime-philosophical-crap-test

N-S-R
You scored 100% Non-Reductionism, 44% Epistemological Absolutism, and 44% Moral Objectivism!

Metaphysics (reductionist -- non-reductionist)

Epistemology (Skeptic -- absolutist)

Ethics (moral objectivist -- moral relativist)

(Vertical line = Average)

I'm an epistemological and ethical conformist. and a metaphysical deviant.

 

[Mithrandir]

N-A-O

You scored 67% Non-Reductionism, 89% Epistemological Absolutism, and 78% Moral Objectivism!


Metaphysics: Non-Reductionism (Idealism or Realism) In metaphysics, my test measures your tendency towards Reductionism or Non-Reductionism. As a Non-Reductionist, you recognize that reality is not necessarily simple or unified, and you thus tend to produce a robust ontology instead of carelessly shaving away hypothetical entities that reflect our philosophical experiences.

Spoiler

Realists deny the validity of sloppy metaphysical reductions, because they feel that there is no reason to suspect that reality reflects principles of parsimony or simplicity. Realism is the most common-sensical of the metaphysical views. It doesn't see reality as a unity or as reducible to matter or mind, nor does it see reality as divided into a phenomenal world of experience and an unknowable noumenal world of things-in-themselves. Realist metaphysics emphasizes that reality is for the most part composed of the things we observe and think. On the question of the existence of universals, for instance, a realist will assert that while universals do not physically exist, the relations they describe in particulars are as real as the particular things themselves, giving universals a type of reality. Thus, no reduction is made. On the mind-body problem, realists tend to believe that minds and bodies both exist, and the philosophical problems involved in reducing mind to matter or matter to mind are too great to warrant such a reduction. Finally, realists deny that reality is ultimately a Unity or Absolute, though they recognize that reality can be viewed as a Unity when we consider the real relations between the parts as constituting this unity--but it doesn't mean that the world isn't also made up of particular things. Aristotle and Popper are famous realists.

Epistemology: Absolutism (Rationalism or Pragmatism) My test measures one's tendency towards Absolutism or Skepticism in regards to epistemology. As an Absolutist, you believe that objective knowledge is possible given the right approach, and you deny the claims of skeptical philosophers who insist that we can never have knowledge of ultimate reality.

Spoiler

Rationalists believe that the use of reason ultimately provides the best route to truth. A rationalist usually defines truth as a correspondence between propositions and reality, taking the common-sense route. Also, rationalists tend to believe that knowledge of reality is made possible through certain foundational beliefs. This stance is known as foundationalism. A foundationalist believes that, because we cannot justify the truth of every statement in an infinite regress, we ultimately reach a foundation of knowledge. This foundation is composed of a priori truths, like mathematics and logic, as well as undoubtable truths like one's belief in his or her own existence. The belief that experiences and memories are veridical is also part of the foundation. Thus, for a rationalist knowledge of reality is made possible through our foundational beliefs, which we do not need to justify because we find them to be undoubtable and self-evident. In regards to science, a rationalist will tend to emphasize the foundational assumptions of scientific inquiry as prior to and more important than scientific inquiry itself. If science does lead to truth, it is only because it is based upon the assumption of certain rational principles such as "Every event is caused" and "The future will resemble the past". Philosophy has a wide representation of philosophical rationalists--Descartes, Spinoza, Liebniz, and many others.

Ethics: Objectivism (Deontology or Logical Positivism) In Ethics, my test measures your tendency towards moral Objectivism or moral Relativism. As a moral Objectivist, you are opposed to Subjectivist moral theories and believe that morality applies to people universally and actually describes objects and situations out in the world as opposed to just subjects themselves.

Spoiler

Kantian Deontologists believe that the one intrinsic good is a good will. As rational beings capable of making decisions, the moral worth of our decisions is ultimately derived from the intentions behind our actions, not their consequences. A moral being does the right thing not out of recognition of any consequences, but out of a sense of moral duty. For Kant, a good will is the ultimate good because to deny the will is to deny the one thing that makes us rational, moral beings. If an act will accord with or further our status as free, rational beings, and it is possible to will the universalization of such a moral principle without infringing upon our good wills, then an act is good. Kant's categorical imperative provides an objective standard to judge moral worth--it is not hypothetical in the sense of other imperatives, which hide a latent if-clause. For instance, "Eating razors is good" is good ONLY if you tack on an if-clause that says something like: "If you wish to destroy your gums." Thus, the categorical imperative is good, not just IF something is the case, but in ALL cases. It requires people to treat others as ends, and not means to ends, for to treat everyone as a means to an ends would be to deny them their ability to function as rational, free beings--which is what makes morality possible in the first place. The major propnent of this view in the history of philosophy is, quite obviously, Kant.