Philosophy
Dec. 25th, 2002 09:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andrewduckerOf course, I now need to go away and review what all these people believed and then shriek in horror at who I just associated myself with.
1. Sartre (100%)
2. Bentham (91%)
3. Epicureans (78%)
4. Kant (78%)
5. Mill (67%)
6. Spinoza (63%)
7. Stoics (57%)
8. Hobbes (55%)
9. Aquinas (53%)
10. Aristotle (53%)
11. Noddings (52%)
12. Nietzsche (51%)
13. Hume (49%)
14. Prescriptivism (47%)
15. Rand (47%)
16. Plato (39%)
17. Augustine (31%)
18. Cynics (23%)
19. Ockham (19%)
Quiz here.
1. Sartre (100%)
2. Bentham (91%)
3. Epicureans (78%)
4. Kant (78%)
5. Mill (67%)
6. Spinoza (63%)
7. Stoics (57%)
8. Hobbes (55%)
9. Aquinas (53%)
10. Aristotle (53%)
11. Noddings (52%)
12. Nietzsche (51%)
13. Hume (49%)
14. Prescriptivism (47%)
15. Rand (47%)
16. Plato (39%)
17. Augustine (31%)
18. Cynics (23%)
19. Ockham (19%)
Quiz here.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-12-25 01:41 pm (UTC)Aquinas: religious nutball
Aristotle: Believes there is an absolute right and wrong. Is therefore wrong
Augustine: religious nutball
Ayn Rand: Again, believes in absolute morals. Very strange idea
Cynicism: They forget that to rebel against something is to define yourself by it
Simone de Beauvoir: Looks interesting, but not enough info.
Sartre: Thinks that consistency is the important bit and so forgets that rules are there to produce ends, not as an end. He's right about conflicts though.
Kant: Believes in a priori knowledge and universal application. Neither seem like useful concepts to me.
Nietzche: Believes in free will. I don't even know what that is any more.
Bentham: Thinks pleasure can be quantified, which means it must somehow be absolute. Another strange idea.
Epicurianism: I likes this one. Except that I sometimes like being passionate.
Nel Noddings: Sadly, I'm not a woman. The word "should" is used. Never liked that word.
Hobbes: I like his ideas. I'm not sure the 'sovereign' has to be literal though.
Hume: I agree with the first 3 statements and would like to believe the 4th.
Mill: Aah, the liberty obsessive.
Ockham: Religious nutball
Plato: Another idealist. And he believes in the soul too.
Spinoza: Well, I agree with determinism. Not enough there to agree more.
Stoicism: Was doing well until stating that reason can lead to moral bases.
Utilitarianism: If I had a detector capable and time enough to measure all the pleasure in the universe, then this might be useful. But I doubt it.
So, I appear to be with Hume. Time to get some reading done.
no subject
Date: 2002-12-25 04:21 pm (UTC)1. Stoics (100%)
2. Nietzsche (94%)
3. Hume (90%)
4. Sartre (83%)
5. Cynics (77%)
6. Kant (64%)
7. Spinoza (62%)
8. Rand (58%)
9. Hobbes (57%)
10. Augustine (55%)
11. Noddings (50%)
12. Aquinas (41%)
13. Ockham (38%)
14. Epicureans (36%)
15. Aristotle (34%)
16. Plato (31%)
17. Bentham (27%)
18. Mill (27%)
19. Prescriptivism (11%)
and said all of this . . .
Aquinas - Summed up in the phrase "Human nature is good because God made it good". Shrugs off true open-minded philosophy for spiritual purpose.
Aristotle - All nature is dependent on all nature; nothing is free from anything else, it is all part of one general average - and humans can find their own purpose through exampination of humanity (and this probably will extend to humanity finding its place by studying the rest of nature)
Augustine - People are inherently evil and must seek salvation. He defines happiness as oneness with god. Everything in between is just a battle of good vs. evil.
Ayn Rand - Own interests should be ultimate goal of our actions. Believes in free will, and yet, believes that moral standards are objective. Um?
Cynicism - All is worthless. Everything boils down to societic abandonment and self-salvation.
Simone de Beauvoir - Probably some sort of slave or lower class citizen at some point, her focus was freedom and anti-opression; with a belief in concrete morality, vs. abstract.
Jean-Paul Sartre - Focussed on consitency; approaching all like scenerios samely and wishing for all what one wishes for themself --pretty much all about being happy inside. If you always do the same thing, you don't have to wonder which was better . . . et al
Immanuel Kant - Morality is not so much defined by right or wrong as much as its origin; it should be out of a sense of duty. He more or less used philosophy to rationalize bandwagon mindsets.
Nietsche - Strength, and passion; in the sense of total self-reliance, independent of god or men with special adversion to society.
Bentham - "Nature placed humans under two states: pain and pleasure." -- I think that's about all that ran through his head and everything else was inherent.
Epicureanism - Whatever it takes to be passively pleased.
Noddings - Ladies lib with hippy undertones.
Hobbes - any object of desire can be defined as 'good', and I'm glad he mentioned it, one must 'live under a social contract to have peace'. He was wise enough to notice that man's voluntary actions are aimed at self-pleasure and self-preservation.
Hume - While reason will get you from point a to point be, only passion will determine/achieve a goal. Sympathy and passion make his world go round.
Mill - Not even much of a philosopher, just some guy who believed in liberty. Probably had money . . . lots.
Ockham - Faith is the way to go, philosophy is of the devil, He was a monk.
Plato - Put the intelligent in command, let everyone else labor
Prescriptivism - Morality, morality, morality
Spinoza - Determinism.
Stoicism - Can best be summed up in the eternal words of Epictetus "There are two things, those which are under your control and those which are not. You should not concern yourself with those that are not." At least his branch of Stoicism, which is the only one I've had much interest in.
Utilitarianism - Think only about the masses. I'd've named it futilitarianism, but . . . that's me.
I'm not sure how I feel about this.
Date: 2002-12-25 04:15 pm (UTC)2. Spinoza (96%) Click here for info
3. Aquinas (89%) Click here for info
4. Mill (89%) Click here for info
5. Epicureans (84%) Click here for info
6. Nietzsche (76%) Click here for info
7. Rand (70%) Click here for info
8. Stoics (69%) Click here for info
9. Bentham (64%) Click here for info
10. Sartre (54%) Click here for info
11. Hume (54%) Click here for info
12. Augustine (50%) Click here for info
13. Kant (48%) Click here for info
14. Prescriptivism (48%) Click here for info
15. Hobbes (46%) Click here for info
16. Plato (46%) Click here for info
17. Cynics (42%) Click here for info
18. Ockham (32%) Click here for info
19. Noddings (24%) Click here for info
Re: I'm not sure how I feel about this.
Date: 2002-12-25 04:28 pm (UTC)Re: I'm not sure how I feel about this.
Date: 2002-12-25 04:31 pm (UTC)*grin*
And I suppose despite my utterly hedonistic tendancies, it's fairly accurate. Though I'm not about absolutes really. I tend to stay away from messy things like universalisms.
Re: I'm not sure how I feel about this.
Date: 2002-12-25 04:33 pm (UTC)And your hedonistic sensibilities seem to be in favour of at least a little restraint. Well, maybe. Never can tell with these quizzes.
I hope your Christmas is going well.
Re: I'm not sure how I feel about this.
Date: 2002-12-25 04:41 pm (UTC)Or something like that.
My Christmas is progressing very quietly and ordinary day-ish. My grandfather called to find out if I was coming up, I told him no, and he told me Mom and them had a present for me. So I guess I'll head up over the weekend or something. My step-brother Peter sounded disappointed that I was there when I called, so that's something. Mom is the only one who didn't want me.
I actually am glad I spent it by myself though. I got to kind of chill out and not stress and just take it easy. Too often the holidays are for other people. Not this year!
Re: I'm not sure how I feel about this.
Date: 2002-12-25 04:46 pm (UTC)Aah, bliss.
Re: I'm not sure how I feel about this.
Date: 2002-12-25 04:51 pm (UTC)Actually, when I bother to count, things used to be that crazed at my grandparents' house, but over the years the families have slowly drifted into individual family gather celebrations.
It was well after noon before I socially interacted with anyone. And I was then rude to a waitress. Oh well.
It just feels like a regular day. I don't like that for some reason. I want it to be festive.
Re: I'm not sure how I feel about this.
Date: 2002-12-25 04:58 pm (UTC)Up until we lost one grandparent, one of the brothers doesn't make it every year, one cousin was on call (doctor), one's working in Cumbria (300 miles north) and one's working in a ski resort in Switzerland. So we were low. Of course, the youngest brother just started his new family, so we were two kidlets up :->
I suspect that when we lose my grandmother (hopefully a long time, but realism says next few years) things will drift apart more.
no subject
Date: 2002-12-25 05:29 pm (UTC)1. Spinoza (100%) Click here for info
2. Aquinas (98%) Click here for info
3. Bentham (81%) Click here for info
4. Kant (81%) Click here for info
5. Mill (78%) Click here for info
6. Sartre (76%) Click here for info
7. Nietzsche (75%) Click here for info
8. Aristotle (73%) Click here for info
9. Hume (71%) Click here for info
10. Epicureans (68%) Click here for info
11. Stoics (67%) Click here for info
12. Hobbes (60%) Click here for info
13. Ockham (60%) Click here for info
14. Augustine (57%) Click here for info
15. Noddings (54%) Click here for info
16. Prescriptivism (54%) Click here for info
17. Cynics (48%) Click here for info
18. Plato (37%) Click here for info
19. Rand (32%) Click here for info
Well I have know idea who any of them are but hey...It's interesting!
Squeeks xx
no subject
Date: 2002-12-26 11:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-12-26 02:35 pm (UTC)The list above is from a quiz that rates how compatible you are with various philosophers, most of whom talked a load of quite obvious bollocks and nearly all of whom I knew nothing about.
These complete wastes of time are what the internet is all about.
Re:
Date: 2002-12-26 02:54 pm (UTC)hurrah for living in edinburgh.
Sartre
Date: 2002-12-26 03:32 pm (UTC)Re: Sartre
Date: 2002-12-26 03:36 pm (UTC)Oh mystery person, would you recommend it and if so can you lend me some (if you're in the country).
Re: Sartre
Date: 2002-12-28 03:36 am (UTC)Re: Sartre
Date: 2002-12-28 04:40 am (UTC)Out of interest - do i know you?
Re: Sartre
Date: 2002-12-28 05:07 am (UTC)NB I have found my copy of Being and Nothingness - Hurrah - now I remember what bad faith is
Re: Sartre
Date: 2002-12-28 07:10 am (UTC)You're unlikely to be a friend of Mike's (as he hardly ever posts and, AFAIK, hasn't told anyone at his work that he has a journal) and I'm temporarily at a loss to think of anyone else that's liable to point people at my journal.
Hmm, insufficient evidence for any kind of conclusion, I shall have to wait and see.
Re: Sartre
Date: 2002-12-28 09:56 am (UTC)Garthmyl
Re: Sartre
Date: 2002-12-28 10:59 am (UTC)When you're avoided assumptions, it's amazing how much you don't know.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-02 05:02 am (UTC)I'm also off to check out what they said (as I have never studied philosophy, I have an excuse)