Comments | bluestocking79: Not all that surprising

bluestocking79

Not all that surprising

Sep 05, 2009 10:10

The top three three, in particular, are not surprising at all. Nor is it surprising to find Kant and Plato all the way down at the bottom. *g* But it was amusing!

Which philosopher are you?
Your Result: Sartre/Camus (late existentialists)

The world is absurd. No facts govern it. We live well once we truly accept the world's absurdity. YOU give ( Read more... )

memes, quizzes

Comments 12

lady_rhian September 5 2009, 14:17:23 UTC

*waves*

Just took this. I was the W.O. person, but I so do not agree with the representative quote! So am not posting. :-) But these are fun...

We talked about Sartre this week re: objective/subjective narrators. Topic of my senior sem: Critical History & Theory of the Novel. Joy.

How is your class treating you? *hugs!*

bluestocking79 September 5 2009, 15:07:43 UTC

Hee! Out of curiosity, what was the representative quote for Quine? I actually find many of his ideas to be greatly intriguing (esp. the Indeterminacy of Translation hypothesis), but analytic philosophy is not everybody's cup of tea. (Massive understatement, I know.) Have you read any Wittgenstein? (Don't, don't, DON'T read it now. Later, when you aren't being pulled in ten directions and have some intellectual space to breathe. *g ( ... )

asperias September 5 2009, 14:37:14 UTC

i have the same result:-)

bluestocking79 September 5 2009, 16:01:26 UTC

Great minds... ;-)

asperias September 5 2009, 17:17:30 UTC

what do the results really tell about us (or about the author of the test :))) ) ?

bluestocking79 September 5 2009, 18:12:31 UTC

Hmm... well, the results tell me that the author of the test doesn't spell-check his/her work. ;-)

But in my case, I think they also say that I'm a skeptic who refuses to believe in Absolute Moral Truths--or, in other words, that I'm antifoundationalist in approach. Which is, in fact, absolutely correct. *g*

droxy September 5 2009, 17:59:31 UTC

So if you beleive gravity (an absolute fact) is absurd will you float? ROTFLMAO---

Philosophy is so utterly whacked out....

bluestocking79 September 5 2009, 19:07:26 UTC

~grins~

Hah! No, not at all. Believing that the experience of life is essentially absurd isn't the same thing as not believing in natural laws. It just means that I make a distinction between that which science can know and prove and that which gives meaning to life. Essentially, an anifoundationlist doesn't believe that science is worthless; she or he just believes that Absolute Metaphysical Truth doesn't exist, and science can't change that. Science gives us truths about the physical word. It doesn't give us Truths about the meaning of life.

Heh. I know a lot of people dislike philosophy... but you do know that I was a political philosophy major?

droxy September 5 2009, 19:22:54 UTC

political philosophy major--

so you know all about money, greed, power, and influence peddling...=)

Seriously, I don't give much thought to philosphy. Most of it makes my head ache and I can't figure how apply it to my life or for matters of survival. Also it is hard to read. I think it is difficult to "prove" philosphy.

"Science gives us truths about the physical word. It doesn't give us Truths about the meaning of life." True, since science cant prove issues of faith or other non measurable intangilbles. If youc an't prove it or meansure it, anyone can argue just about anything and no one is right.

bluestocking79 September 5 2009, 22:44:59 UTC

so you know all about money, greed, power, and influence peddling...

Well, YEAH, but that's because I worked in Congress, not because of my major. *g* Political philosophy bears about as much relationship to politics as they're practiced as classical physics does to the way the average engineer works. I love political theory passionately, but real-life politics burned me out within two years.

Philosophy is passion for me, because it's just the way I'm wired, but I'd be the first to admit that it isn't the most obviously practical subject. And yes, you're right that it isn't provable in the usual concrete sense; it's more like an ongoing debate over the history of humanity. The quality of the argument matters, but physical evidence isn't ever going to appear and validate one philosopher's point of view.

True, since science cant prove issues of faith or other non measurable intangilbles. If you can't prove it or measure it, anyone can argue just about anything and no one is right.See, this is exactly what Nietzsche is saying, ( ... )

Thread 6