User Controls
Get your philosophical health checked
-
2018-05-09 at 7:43 PM UTChttp://www.philosophyexperiments.com/health/Default.aspx
Philosophical Health Check
The PHC will only take about 5 minutes of your time. We're going to present you with 30 statements. All you've got to do is to indicate whether you agree or disagree with each statement. If you're not sure, then select the response that is closest to your opinion (and then take this into account at the analysis stage).
You should note that the PHC does not judge whether your responses are right or wrong. The important thing is simply to respond as honestly as possible. Each statement is carefully worded, so you need to pay at least a little bit of attention!
Post your results so we can compare the inconsistencies in our beliefs.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-05-09 at 7:45 PM UTCmy hobby is also taking online personality tests
-
2018-05-09 at 7:45 PM UTCI did pretty well. I'm about half as inconsistent as most people apparently.
Now, here's where I'm conflicted:
I think it's difficult to be a pacifist and also subscribe to the just war theory, but I believe there is a possibility of reconciliation that I haven't taken the time to outline yet. As for my environmental stance, I'm just being lazy.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-05-09 at 7:50 PM UTCi had 53% (8 tensions) but their explanations for the contradictions were cringey, especially since these beliefs have no value to me, so the tensions also have no valueThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-05-09 at 7:53 PM UTCI got 1 tension, the same environment thing you got, but some questions were worded too ambiguously
-
2018-05-09 at 7:56 PM UTC
Originally posted by Da Leg Itches i had 53% but their explanations for the contradictions were cringey, especially since these beliefs have no value to me, so the tensions also have no value
It's not meant to be administered by a clinician. It requires sincere input. If you can drop the pedantry for five minutes, I think you might appreciate what they're trying to achieve.
Originally posted by Daily I got 1 tension, the same environment thing you got, but some questions were worded too ambiguously
Yeah, they could be more specific on a few of the questions. I don't think every possible tension is perfect, but I agree with how they interpreted my score and I think it's still ultimately useful. -
2018-05-09 at 8:11 PM UTCThat was pretty interesting, Thanks Zanick
-
2018-05-09 at 8:17 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick It's not meant to be administered by a clinician. It requires sincere input. If you can drop the pedantry for five minutes, I think you might appreciate what they're trying to achieve.
Yeah, they could be more specific on a few of the questions. I don't think every possible tension is perfect, but I agree with how they interpreted my score and I think it's still ultimately useful.
rearrange my beliefs baby!!! -
2018-05-09 at 10:19 PM UTCI scored 27,27 a 4...on it. Too lazy to screen shot shit right now
-
2018-05-09 at 10:20 PM UTCIt told me I'm not allowed to think of atheism as a faith but I still do so there.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-05-09 at 10:25 PM UTCYou rebel. You do your thang, don't let ANYONE tell you otherwise, and shake that ass for us too
-
2018-05-09 at 10:27 PM UTCWell what the fuck tell me I have a philosophical TENSION fuck them THEY have a BIGGER TENSION fucking ASSHOLES!!!!
-
2018-05-09 at 10:33 PM UTC
-
2018-05-09 at 11:26 PM UTC
Statements 12 and 30: Is the future fixed?
16% of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.
You agreed that:
Having made a choice, it is always possible that one might have chosen otherwise
And also that:
The future is fixed, how one's life unfolds is a matter of destiny
Most people think that humans have free will. Yet many of the same people believe in fate, or destiny. But how can both beliefs be true? If 'what will be, will be' no matter what we do, then how can we have freedom? For example, imagine I am in a shop, deciding whether to buy one of two coats. If one believes in fate or destiny, then it must be true that it is inevitable which coat I buy. In which case, when I stand before them, choosing, it must be an illusion that I have a genuine choice, as fate has decreed that there is, in fact, only one choice I can make. I seem to be making my own mind up, but forces beyond my control have already determined which way I choose. This makes it untrue that 'having made a choice, it is always possible that one might have chosen otherwise'. So reconciling belief in destiny and free will is a tricky task.
Statements 22 and 15: What is the seat of the self?
33% of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.
You agreed that:
Severe brain-damage can rob a person of all consciousness and selfhood
And also that:
On bodily death, a person continues to exist in a non-physical form
These two beliefs are not strictly contradictory, but they do present an awkward mix of world-views. On the one hand, there is an acceptance that our consciousness and sense of self is in some way dependent on brain activity, and this is why brain damage can in a real sense damage 'the self'. Yet there is also the belief that the self is somehow independent of the body, that it can live on after the death of the brain. So it seems cnsciousness and selfhood both is and is not dependent on having a healthy brain. One could argue that the dependency of the self on brain only occurs before bodily death. The deeper problem is not that it is impossible to reconcile the two beliefs, but rather that they seem to presume wider, contradictory world-views: one where consciousness is caused by brains and one where it is caused by something non-physical.
Statements 14 and 25: How do we judge art?
31% of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.
You agreed that:
Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste
And also that:
Michaelangelo is indubitably one of history's finest artists
The tension here is the result of the fact that you don't believe the status of Michaelangelo is seriously in doubt. One can disagree about who is the best artist of all time, but surely Michaelangelo is on the short list. Yet if this is true, how can judgements about works of art be purely matters of taste? If someone unskilled were to claim that they were as good an artist as Michaelangelo, you would probably think that they were wrong, and not just because your tastes differ. You would probably think Michaelangelo's superiority to be not just a matter of personal opinion. The tension here is between a belief that works of art can be judged, in certain respects, by some reasonably objective standards and the belief that, nonetheless, the final arbiter of taste is something subjective. This is not a contradiction, but a tension nonetheless.
If you're interested in seeing what tensions you managed to avoid, you might want to have another go at the test, responding differently this time around.
1.
This one I fucked up on. Making me view the questions one at a time doesn't help. In a way do I believe both, life is a paradox beyond our understanding.
2.
"These two beliefs are not strictly contradictory, but they do present an awkward mix of world-views. On the one hand, there is an acceptance that our consciousness and sense of self is in some way dependent on brain activity, and this is why brain damage can in a real sense damage 'the self'. Yet there is also the belief that the self is somehow independent of the body, that it can live on after the death of the brain. So it seems cnsciousness and selfhood both is and is not dependent on having a healthy brain. "
By existing in some way after death I meant like through memories and videos and stuff so no it doesn't contradict.
3. This is also bullshit, I can't believe someone is the best artist and also believe art is subjective?
You know what else is subjective? This quiz. -
2018-05-09 at 11:46 PM UTC
You agreed that:
Michelangelo was one of the best artists - the finest skill.
Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste
And also that:
Michaelangelo is indubitably one of history's finest artists
It is not OK to pretend to like modern art or similar "shit-test" art (if you don't like it you must be too stupid to appreciate it) and as a result discredit Michelangelo.
Some people like Reggae, but they'll agree Beethoven is one of the finest composers. -
2018-05-09 at 11:49 PM UTCi need to go to the cultural enrichment center and get reprogrammed, so the airheads will support my way of thinking
-
2018-05-10 at 12:46 AM UTC
-
2018-05-11 at 12 AM UTC
Originally posted by Something Squirrel So whats wrong with that?
It's an analogy. It's that saying that "Michaelangelo is indubitably one of history's finest artists" is objectively true in the same way that saying that "Bob Marley is indubitably one of history's finest musicians" is true. You don't need to like Bob Marley to agree, but whether you like him, or reggae, or not, not agreeing makes you stupid.
