What Philosophical School of Thought do you fall in?
What Philosophical School of Thought do you fall in?
[i]This brief quiz assesses your philosophical world view and determines to which of the eight schools of thought you are closest.
It has 11 or so questions, some of which I might answer differently than any of the given options.[/i]
Don't take it serious or anything, it's just one of those fun little things.
I might be classified differently on different days of the week.
List of philosophies (Wikipedia article)
[i]This brief quiz assesses your philosophical world view and determines to which of the eight schools of thought you are closest.
It has 11 or so questions, some of which I might answer differently than any of the given options.[/i]
Don't take it serious or anything, it's just one of those fun little things.
I might be classified differently on different days of the week.
List of philosophies (Wikipedia article)
Comments (37)
I'm all for eudemonia and flourishing. So I may primarily be a florist.
I approve of the locution chi va piano va sano. So, I may also be a pianist.
In other moods I simply feel like being a recidivist, a playlist or a quarterfinalist.
Believe it or not jorndoe, I am the same as you, Epicurean. I don't think I would ever get Humanism though, so I don't know how that works.
What is divinity? Sounds like they want a definition. Are they asking if I believe in God? But they ask that several questions later.
What happens after Death? I presume they mean 'to me', but again, my answer is not up there.
I scored epicureanism in the end, which spell-check doesn't like.
I picked "Other" in your poll. I don't belong to any school of thought, I think they're all mistaken. I don't understand how you guys adhere to any of them.
I would say most truth is found in Neoplatonism, Aristotelianism, Stoicism, Skepticism, Existentialism, Epicureanism. But I would not adhere to any of them.
I would not put much worth in Cynicism, Cyrenaicism, Hedonism, Empiricism, Humanism, Eclecticism, etc.
I put other. As I say in my profile, I describe myself in the following way:
Metaphysical voluntarist
Epistemological idealist
Ethical realist
Philosophical pessimist
Of these, I waver the most with respect to the first, as lately I've been attracted to classical theism and Platonism.
And I thought, well, most of them... :-d
Lol, solidarity.
Aerobic exercise benefits aside, isn't following oneself kind of chasing your own tail? :D jk!
Well, I tried to take the quiz and I didn't agree with any answer on any of the questions. Straight "none of the above" or "who cares" on all of them.
I know, same here! Ize just being silly and yankin your chainsaw. ;)
I knew that.
When I forced myself to pick answers, it said I am a skeptic.
What about Aristotelianism, what's your position on it and why?
I tend to have a postmodern worldview.
I wonder how Plato would feel about modernity / the Enlightenment.
The biggest problem with modernity / the Enlightenment is its belief in progress. I don't believe in progress.
I seems really unreasonable of me to say this, but I doubt very much that you have no belief in progress. Why so?
a) One has to do a tremendous amount of disassociating with the world one grew up in (the modern world) to really have no belief in progress. That much disassociation would make it difficult for you to operate in this world -- which it appears tp not be a problem for you.
b) I would guess that you expect certain benefits of progress, which you recognize as superior to what you could get in the past. For instance, you know that if you developed an infection in 1850, there was a fairly good chance you would die from it. Take your pick: tuberculosis or streptococci, or whatever you might get. In 1950, there were effective treatments for TB and strep infections. Why? Progress in medicine, bacteriology, micro mycology, and industrial production of antibiotics.
I don't see how you can deny the progression of events that has taken place since you were born. Even if you are only 18 years old, there has been a progression of speed in digital processing, digital memory, and communication since your post-modern nativity. You saw the photos from the Pluto Fly-By, didn't you? The latest pictures from Saturn and Jupiter? Fake news?
If by progress you mean "progress in the nature of human nature" well, sure -- there's not much evidence there of progress in the last 18 years (or however long either one of us has been on earth).
c) Your view of progress is itself the result of a progression and promotion of ideas. Post-Modernism didn't step out of a scallop shell like Aphrodite.
d) I don't know you, can only guess about this, and I don't mean it as an insult (and many of us do the same thing for practical reasons) but I suspect this is a position assumed for the time being.
How would Plato feel about modernity and the Enlightenment? Well, when you opened the door of the time machine and he stepped into 21st century Manhattan, he might very well have a stroke, and you would never find out. At the very least, he'd probably faint when you turned the lights on.
But this indeterminacy is apparently intolerable, so people divide themselves up into different groups, all with their special idols and "masters". It goes beyond the pragmatic use of terms for ease of communication and into a realm of competition, so it's no longer about what "reality" is like but more about who can outsmart everyone else. Belonging to a group of fellow idolizers makes you feel like you're a part of something bigger, a tradition, and that you have "superpowers" of sorts - you "see" the world "differently" than the "other" people.
So let's be clear here: "reality", the "way things are", is not identical to a person's name. The world is not "Aristotelian" or "Platonic", it's not "Deleuzian" or "Schopenhauerian", it's not "Hegelian" or "Kantian", it's none of these things. Aristotle might have been right about the four causes but that doesn't make the world "Aristotelian". Schopenhauer might have been right about the "Will" but it doesn't make the world "Schopenhauerian". Labeling reality like this seems to be an affront to reality itself. It means you believe that you, or your idol, is a master of reality, and that reality answers to this.
If someone comes along and tells me "your thought is very Aristotelian!" or "you sound like a Heideggerian!" I will tell them I have no need for these labels outside of basic communication. I don't need to be a "part" of any tradition, I don't want to be a part of any tradition, and it's a mistake to identify reality with these labels, so take your names and shove off. Stop trying to make reality something that has a determinate identity, as if someone has a monopoly on reality. How nauseating it would be if the way things are is intrinsically and timelessly linked to someone's name! It's absurd!
I identify with the darthbarracuda school of philosophy, I think - maybe.
I feel dirty.
No, NO, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Only on Tuesday - is today Tuesday?
Lol, I misspelled calve. I learned most of everything I know from audio lectures and audio books over the years while working eh, I'm not the greatest in print. Glad that I have the spell checker.
I wouldn't normally describe myself as an epicurean. But I'd not normally say that I belong to any school per se. My views are idiosyncratic in combination, and even my favorite philosophers I disagree with more often than I agree with them.
However, if I had to give a handful of folks that I'm most similar to, it would be the philosophers listed in my profile as my favorites: Russell, Quine, Hume, Socrates, Davidson, Searle, Reichenbach, Mach, Nozick, Ayer, Feyerabend, Achille Varzi, Foucault, Santayana
Maybe I should include Moore in that, too, as I'm similar to him in disposition in a couple ways, but I doubt include him because I more strongly disagree with some of the views he's best known for.
Faced the same trouble.
I got humanism as my result from the quiz, but I'm not quite sure of that. I suppose the poll asked for the test result instead of the answerer's own opinion?