Quiz time!
N-A-O
You scored 88% Non-Reductionism, 55% Epistemological Absolutism, and 55% Moral Objectivism! You are an N-A-O: a metaphysical Non-Reductionist, an epistemological Absolutist, and a moral Objectivist. If you are simply dying inside to figure out what all this mumbo-jumbo means, then simply continue reading.
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. My test recognizes
two types of Non-Reductionists: Idealists and Realists.
1. 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.
If your views are different from the above, then you may be a Realist.
2. 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. Karl Popper is a famous realist.
*****
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. The two types of Absolutists recognized by my test
are Rationalists and Pragmatists.
1. 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.
If that didn't sound like your own views, then you are most likely the other type of Absolutist: the Pragmatist.
2. Epistemological Pragmatists
are fundamentally identified by their definition of truth. Truth is, on
this view, merely a measure of a proposition's success in inquiry. This
view is a strictly scientific notion of truth. A proposition can be
called true if it leads to successful predictions or coheres best with
the observed facts about the world. Thus, for the pragmatist, knowledge
of reality is possible through scientific reasoning. A pragmatist
emphasizes man's fallibility, and hence takes baby-steps towards
knowledge through scientific methodology. Any truth claim for a
pragmatist is open to revision and subject to change--if empirical
observations lead us to call even logical rules into question (like
quantum physics has done for the law of the excluded middle), then we
can and should abandon even these supposed a priori and "absolutely
certain" logical rules if they do not accord with our testing and
refuting of our various propositions. As a consequence of this, a
pragmatist doesn't feel that scientific knowledge is based upon
unfounded assumptions that are taken to be true without any sort of
justification--rather, they believe that the successes of scientific
inquiry have proved that its assumptions are well-founded. For
instance, the assumption of science that the future will be like the
past is adequately shown by the amazing success of scientific theories
in predicting future events--how else could this be possible unless the
assumption were true? Pragmatism borrows elements from realism and yet
attempts to account for the critiques made by skeptics and relativists.
It is essentially a type of philosophical opportunism--it borrows the
best stances from a large number of philosophical systems and attempts
to discard the problems of these systems by combining them with others.
Famous pragmatists of this type are Peirce and Dewey.
*****
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. The two types of moral
Objectivists my test recognizes are Kantian Deontologists and
Utilitarians.
1. 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.
If that didn't sound like your position, then you are probably the other variety of moral Objectivist--the Utilitarian.
2. Utilitarians
define "happiness" or "pleasure" as the sole intrinsic good, and the
principle "The greatest pleasure for the greatest number" best reflects
a Utilitarian view of ethics. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist
moral theory, meaning the consequences of an action--not the intentions
behind it--determine the act's moral worth. Even if you intended to do
great evil with a certain act, if the act produces a net gain of
pleasure and happiness for the greatest number, then it was indeed a
good act because your intentions weren't realized. What matters in this
scenario, obviously, is the consequences of the act. Utilitarianism, of
course, can also be reduced to Hedonism. If you do not feel that the
greatest happiness of the greatest number matters, but only pay
heed to the greatest happiness of individuals, then you are more
adequately classified as a Hedonist. But both Utilitarians and
Hedonists define "pleasure" as an intrinsic good and determine the
moral worth of an act through its consequences. The only difference is
whether we measure the collective pleasure of a group or only an
individual's pleasure. Prominent Utilitarians include Bentham and Mill.
*****
As you can see, when your philosophical position is narrowed
down there are so many potential categories that an OKCupid test cannot
account for them all. But, taken as very broad categories or
philosophical styles, you are best characterized as an N-A-O. Your
exact philosophical opposite would be an R-S-R.
My test tracked 3 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:
You scored higher than 79% on Metaphysics
You scored higher than 41% on Epistemology
You scored higher than 58% on Ethics
Link: The Sublime Philosophical Crap Test written by saint_gasoline on OkCupid Free Online Dating, home of the 32-Type Dating Test
I'm a little surprised at how hard-edged I am according to this. Taking my pick of the options it gives me, it looks like I'm an Idealist (what the fuck?), Pragmatist (yay!) ... and I really can't take either of these ethical stances. I think I misunderstood the "good will" question. I'll chalk it up to sloppiness in reconciling a deontological disposition with a semi-utilitarian, kind of perspectivalist practice on top of deep nihilistic suspicions. Bah.
The other day Toxie asked me "Do you have a theory of justice?" I said, "I'm working on it." He meant the book by Rawls.
Back to the all-nighter. Gibbs sampling is pretty awesome. Bayesian inference and Dirichlet distributions are also pretty cool. Doing all of this now, at the last possible hours, is not so hot. Why is my work ethic so suckass?
EDIT: In other news, this is pretty funny------>
EDIT(11:27 am): Also, "Ja Sei Namorar" by Tribalistas is an amazing song. Find it and listen to it. I can't...stop...dancing....