Yeah, I can't agree with that. I do believe that relative meaning is an inescapable consequence of living. What separates the existentialist from the nihilist is whether or not they embrace it.
General Philosophy discussion
-
-
-
Actually, people do. Also there is no 'otherwise'. If you're willing to reject the existence of some absolute meaning then you're just making up the 'point'. In this case, life is meaningless. The argument is whether it's important to make up your own 'relative' meaning or not. Existentialism says that it is. Nihilism does not.
Nihilism also says nothing about "getting through a miserable movie" or any of the other amusingly colorful descriptions you've given.
You seem to be under the impression that Nihilism takes stances on quality of life or somesuch. An atheist humanist who would generally be considered an existentialist, would also be a nihilist by default.Nihilism is not a stance, nihilism makes no judgement. Nihilism isn't depressed. It isn't pessimistic. It looks at the world and says "nothing" and nothing else.
Someone who is talking about how much life is miserable is stepping out of mere nihilism. They are under another umbrella as well. And can make no more claim to nihilism then would an athiestic existentialist.
All your blue tones you keep adding to the discussion are unrelated to what you think you are arguing.
This is why I don't believe in Nihilists. We all taint our blank canvas whether we like to or not.
We aren't arguing nihilism here. I'm merely arguing against a depressed mindset. And it can't claim nihilism. We are both as affiliated with that conclusion as the other.
Or in other words, an absolute truth.
No, human nature. Nihilism doesn't deny science. Meaning and nature are divorced concepts.
This is a matter of psychology that human beings are creatures that strive. More often then not for survival based desires, but also more.
Do you really think pure nihilists exist? Do they escape desire?Funny how this sounds like Buddhism actually. Sea would be a good guy to ask about this.
-
Well, yeah, but it's not something that goes against existentialism. The only absolutes are relative. Pick up a rock. Tell yourself that rock doesn't exist. Even if it doesn't very well exist in an actual way, you are able to pick it up, feel it and confirm its existence relative to yourself. Meaning doesn't have to be something grand. Even if you find life and death the be equally meaningless, so long as you stick with one, you've attributed some meaning to it, even if that meaning is that you might as well stick with what you've got.
I too have sung Death's praise
But I'm not going to sing that song anymore
Yes, I've figured out what
Living is all about
It's life! life!
Life is the only thing worth living for -
@JERK:
Nihilism also says nothing about "getting through a miserable movie" or …
I agree that nihilism makes no such judgment. I only wished to illustrate that one can live life without some relative meaning. I didn't mean to associate negative experience with the philosophy. It really is too often lumped together with such feelings of unhappiness.
I'm not quite the dictionary definition nihilist but I'm more that than an existentialist. Personally, I consider myself to be quite happy. My depression is more of a pathogen that I pass to people than an actual mindset of my own.
Well, yeah, but it's not something that goes against existentialism. The only absolutes are relative. Pick up a rock. Tell yourself that rock doesn't exist. Even if it doesn't very well exist in an actual way, you are able to pick it up, feel it and confirm its existence relative to yourself.
I can doubt just about anything. See Descartes arguments about doubt. So, yes, I can doubt a rock exists and I can doubt your claim as well.
Meaning doesn't have to be something grand. Even if you find life and death the be equally meaningless, so long as you stick with one, you've attributed some meaning to it, even if that meaning is that you might as well stick with what you've got.
And if I pick whether to live or die with a coin toss? I made no choice. I had no intention. I just chose by chance.
-
I can doubt just about anything. See Descartes arguments about doubt. So, yes, I can doubt a rock exists and I can doubt your claim as well.
You can believe just about anything, too, if you want. That doesn't make it a good idea.
And if I pick whether to live or die with a coin toss? I made no choice. I had no intention. I just chose by chance.
Then you've attributed meaning to the very act of a coin toss or random chance in general.
-
There seems to be a lot of Meursault's on this thread. Cookies for whoever gets the literature refrence.
So can this be the Camus thread now?
-
You can believe just about anything, too, if you want. That doesn't make it a good idea.
I've been given no real reason to believe that relative meaning is necessary for you to live. I simply doubt it for the same reasons I doubt the existence of a god. If I saw evidence of it's existence I would acknowledge it.
Of course this is a very hard thing to prove to someone. You can doubt basically anything. That's why you just have to have faith that such a thing is true. I'm perfectly okay if someone believes that relative purpose is important because they have faith in that fact. I only object to it being talked about as some sort of absolute.
Then you've attributed meaning to the very act of a coin toss or random chance in general.
But, is that really the meaning we are talking about? It is not a purpose to my life. It wouldn't give me something to live for.
-
I've been given no real reason to believe that relative meaning is necessary for you to live. I simply doubt it for the same reasons I doubt the existence of a god. If I saw evidence of it's existence I would acknowledge it.
Of course this is a very hard thing to prove to someone. You can doubt basically anything. That's why you just have to have faith that such a thing is true. I'm perfectly okay if someone believes that relative purpose is important because they have faith in that fact. I only object to it being talked about as some sort of absolute.
It's a useless doubt. It's keeping your head in the sand. It doesn't make the target of your disbelief disappear.
But, is that really the meaning we are talking about? It is not a purpose to my life. It wouldn't give me something to live for.
You've given yourself a direction. Live or die by random chance.
-
In fact the only way you could not be existential is if you were some hardcore determinist who believed the universe was guiding him down a set path. Which nobody is really, we as humans cannot fundamentally accept that we have no impact on our future outcome.
-
It's a useless doubt. It's keeping your head in the sand. It doesn't make the target of your disbelief disappear.
You've given yourself a direction. Live or die by random chance.
I'm open a good argument in favor of it. There just hasn't been one so far. Blind assertions are not enough to prove something…
My experience is that 'relative meaning' doesn't make sense. Certainly not as some absolute of human experience. The Existentialist arguments here just come across as wanting to have your cake and eat it too. If you come up with more reasonable arguments let me know.
-
Do you not know what the term "have your cake and eat it too" means? Because I'm stumped as to how it applies to what you're saying.
-
@JERK:
Do you not know what the term "have your cake and eat it too" means? Because I'm stumped as to how it applies to what you're saying.
Existentialism is way to reconcile the lack of absolute meaning with the belief that meaning/purpose is important. Thus you get 'relative meaning'. Everyone finds their own purpose.
Wagomu has been going on about how this existentialist search for meaning is an 'inescapable consequence of living' (i.e., an absolute truth).
Thus a paradox. You can assert there's no absolute meaning to life. You can assert the meaning of life is to find a purpose. You can't assert both. Seems like the phrase applies quite well.
[hide]
[/hide] -
e_e I don't get how I strive for pleasure
Because you are lack of it.
when my life seems to be nothing but the opposite.
–-----------
@SGRaaize:It still annoys me how I have Kantianism and Utilitarianism above Nihilism, what the hell
The Formulation Rule of Kantianism:
Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law.
Act so that you always treat others as an end, and never as a means to an end only.Do you disagree that much against this philosophy?
-
Existentialism is way to reconcile the lack of absolute meaning with the belief that meaning/purpose is important. Thus you get 'relative meaning'. Everyone finds their own purpose.
When and where did you hear this. Because it's simply untrue.
Importance doesn't entirely enter into it, if it even does. And absolutes like "everyone finds there's" is the same deal.
Wagomu has been going on about how this existentialist search for meaning is an 'inescapable consequence of living' (i.e., an absolute truth).
I already addressed this. He's speaking of desire.
Simple psychological hunger. -
I don't believe existentialism is saying that the meaning of life is to find meaning. It's more that you accept that there is no meaning and just make the best of what you've got. Set your own goals, give yourself a reason to live and follow that path.
Someone who finds absolute meaning in the universe still believes in relative meaning, but lives for the sake of fulfilling some role or destiny. The existentialist lives because he's decided that he wants to see how much he can accomplish, or to help others, or because he likes living or because dying is inconvenient.
-
I don't believe existentialism is saying that the meaning of life is to find meaning. It's more that you accept that there is no meaning and just make the best of what you've got. Set your own goals, give yourself a reason to live and follow that path.
Someone who finds absolute meaning in the universe still believes in relative meaning, but lives for the sake of fulfilling some role or destiny. The existentialist lives because he's decided that he wants to see how much he can accomplish, or to help others, or because he likes living or because dying is inconvenient.
Basically what I thought.
-
@Sea:
Because you are lack of it.
…Makes perfect sense.
-_-; I have major brain farts these days.EDIT: OK, maybe I said that because all the times I had pleasure, it didn't last. ._. And I'm afraid to be truly happy for more than a day.
-
I don't believe existentialism is saying that the meaning of life is to find meaning. It's more that you accept that there is no meaning and just make the best of what you've got. Set your own goals, give yourself a reason to live and follow that path.
Someone who finds absolute meaning in the universe still believes in relative meaning, but lives for the sake of fulfilling some role or destiny. The existentialist lives because he's decided that he wants to see how much he can accomplish, or to help others, or because he likes living or because dying is inconvenient.
I think this is the correct interpretation as well. It's certainly more reasonable. Still, making the best of it is an act of faith. You choose to believe that you can create a purpose for yourself. That is what I meant in the previous page about faith. People don't necessarily have to have some meaning lives (absolute or relative). Any claim that they do in this context is a matter of belief (which is fine but not absolute).
-
Well I'd gladly talk philosophy with you guys , but the last time I opened a philosophy book was 9 years ago: I vaguely remember an all-knowing demon, a hallway with locked doors and someone choosing the only open one, and… that's it.
Damn I need to read more books, dammit!
-
Shouldnt You Be Supporting The Creation Of A Caliphate:>>>>>?????
-
Yeah! That's what people in "MY WORLD" do. don't need philosophy for that hein?
-
I think this is the correct interpretation as well. It's certainly more reasonable. Still, making the best of it is an act of faith. You choose to believe that you can create a purpose for yourself. That is what I meant in the previous page about faith. People don't necessarily have to have some meaning lives (absolute or relative). Any claim that they do in this context is a matter of belief (which is fine but not absolute).
Making the best of something by your own standards is not an act of faith at all. Unless you feel that you must prove your own thoughts and feelings to yourself.
My claim isn't that everyone needs a relative meaning, but that everyone living has one. Why eat or drink you if you don't find some meaning in life? You're making an effort to do something that you don't have to do. And yes, comfort is a reason to live.
-
BTW, the concept of Nirvana is very complicated. hard to comprehend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana#Nirvana_in_Buddhism
I think the English wiki lack pretty much. The Vietnamese wiki has some pali original words and translation. -
@QuizFarm:
You Scored as Utilitarianism
Your life is guided by the principles of Utilitarianism: You seek the greatest good for the greatest number.
“The said truth is that it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.” –Jeremy Bentham
“Whenever the general disposition of the people is such, that each individual regards those only of his interests which are selfish, and does not dwell on, or concern himself for, his share of the general interest, in such a state of things, good government is impossible.” --John Stuart Mill
More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page…
Utilitarianism - 85%
Divine Command - 80%
Existentialism - 80%
Hedonism - 60%
Justice (Fairness) - 60%
Strong Egoism - 60%
Kantianism - 60%
Apathy - 55%
Nihilism - 15%Not surprised at this at all…after four years of debate and an economics degree, it's only natural I'd start to see the world purely as a matter of cost/benefit analysis.
I'm to the left of where my religion stands, but I strongly believe in self-introspection and morality, as they're the only things that separates us from beasts. Religion itself as a convention, not necessarily what it focuses around, is needed to promote morality because humans alone will degenerate when they don't have a ruler to whip them into place.
-
You Scored as Justice (Fairness)
Your life is guided by the concept of Fair Justice: Everyone, yourself included, should be rewarded and punished according to the help or harm they cause.
"He who does not punish evil commands it to be done." –Leonardo da Vinci
“Though force can protect in emergency, only justice, fairness, consideration and cooperation can finally lead men to the dawn of eternal peace.” --Dwight D. EisenhowerJustice (Fairness)
90%
Divine Command
75%
Utilitarianism
70%
Hedonism
40%
Existentialism
30%
Strong Egoism
20%
Kantianism
15%
Apathy
10%
Nihilism
0%I am Justice.
This pleases me.
I'm also surprised that I seem to be the only person in this thread who got it. >_>;;
-
[hide]You Scored as Hedonism.
Your life is guided by the principles of Hedonism: You believe that pleasure is a great, or the greatest, good; and you try to enjoy life’s pleasures as much as you can. “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die!”
Hedonism 95% Existentialism 90%
Justice (Fairness) 85% Utilitarianism 70%
Kantianism 65%
Strong Egoism 60%
Divine Command 20%
Nihilism 10%
Apathy 0%
[/hide]
I'm super tired so no telling how accurate this is
anyways, I'm taking an IB Philosophy class this year and can't wait to see how it is. -
Here are my scores.
Hedonism90%
Kantianism80%
Existentialism80%
Utilitarianism65%
Justice (Fairness)55%
Apathy50%
Strong Egoism50%
Nihilism5%
Divine Command5%Well, not exactly what I was expecting, but I guess it is true that I do try to enjoy the pleasures in life.
-
@Sea:
This thread isn't about this test alone.
Well, I wonder about perfection and uniqueness. If you strive to become a better you, what will you be in the according your goal? A better you, or a best you, will it mean you lose you uniqueness? Is unique immature somehow? If all successfully reach perfect maturity, does that mean they become less unique?Kierkegaard, theistic existentialism, has something to say about someone trying to achieve individual authenticity.
He states that there are three stages of existence, the aesthetic, the ethical and the religious. Someone in the aesthetic stage keeps going from one interest to the next. They don't have to be physical interests, it could be someone living their life along different philosophies. A person in this mode of existence would think that "boredom is the root of all evil." or "I have interesting moments therefore I am." A person in this stage makes no commitments, he is afraid of them.
Enter the second stage of existence, the ethical. A person gets to this stage when he realizes that having lots of interests isn't enough. He or she wants something to be committed to. According to Kierkegaard, passion is important in this stage, it's not a fleeting passion mind you, it's something that is the core of the person, something they dedicate their life to. An example given in the text:
"He is a university man, husband and father, an uncommonly competent civil functionary even, a respectable father, very gentle to his wife and carefulness itself with respect to his children. And a Christian? Well, yes he is that too after a sort." (The Sickness unto Death in Fear and Trembling and The Sickness unto Death) trans. Walter Rowe 1968
The problem with this is that description could be anyone. Therein Kiekegaard states that someone who is morally inclined can't be a complete individual because they are comparing themselves to everyone else. And that an ethically inclined person would be someone who knows most about their own ethical shortcomings. This knowledge of ones own ethical inadequacy thus leads to despair. The only way to escape this problem is the next stage.
The religious stage of existence is when someone encounters the "Living God". I take the Living God to mean the God that is with us day to day on Earth. Someone in the religious sphere gives up the search for individuality in some respects because they become open to God's initiative in things they can't control. And they juxtapose themselves to God in the search for selfhood, because God is infinite, a person can achieve true authenticity. Compare this to the ethical stage where a person is comparing themselves to other finite persons, they will not be able to achieve authenticity that way. The person in the religious state of existence no longer judges themselves by the norms of their society, but through the infinite God. Again, by placing oneself in front of God, they can achieve true individuality.
These are not my own thoughts, they're notes from the textbook I was reading. Also, really on Hedonism the quiz site needs to be more specific. The problem is when most people think of Hedonism they think of excess, but it was a philosophical doctorine based in ethics. This is epicurean hedonism, which I think is the one the quiz focused on, another kind of hedonism gets applied to the earlier form of utilitarianism by Jeremy Bentham. In Epicurean Hedonism a person did what was necessary to live a good life, "good" being the same as pleasure. Someone of this vein would avoid overeating or drinking too much because they would lead to pain at a later time.
Personally, I'm still trying to understand myself so I can't give a full answer. Maybe 20 years from now, when One Piece ends, check back with me.
EDIT:
To be honest, I feel like I'm running away form the question. In truth I think Kierkegaard was right, but I haven't read the primary source material. And what I mean by "right" is that I think it's hitting something important, or rather, there is something truthful in what he says as I've seen and still see the aesthetic stage in my own life. I need to read more to answer this question. But looking in myself I can honestly say that one needs to believe in God in order to not fall into despair.
-
Interesting thread you have here Sea. Very typical of you to hold discussions such as this one. I approve.
I did the test and my own results were:
! Existentialism 65%
Utilitarianism 55% Hedonism 40% Justice (Fairness) 35%
Kantianism 30%
Apathy 15% Strong Egoism 10%
Nihilism 5%
Divine Command 0%Darn it feels dull to post like this and not to take part in the major conversation, but alas, I don't have time for that right now. Maybe a bit later.
-
huh…
! You Scored as ExistentialismYour life is guided by the concept of Existentialism: You choose the meaning and purpose of your life.
! “Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.”
“It is up to you to give [life] a meaning.”
–Jean-Paul Sartre
! “It is man's natural sickness to believe that he possesses the Truth.”
--Blaise Pascal
! More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page...
! Existentialism 95%
Utilitarianism 60%
Hedonism 50%
Strong Egoism 45%
Justice (Fairness) 40%
Kantianism 15%
Nihilism 10%
Apathy 0%
Divine Command 0%
I can't say I'm not surprised. -
! Hedonism 75% Strong Egoism 65%
Justice (Fairness) 55%
Apathy 55%
Existentialism 40%
Utilitarianism 25%
Kantianism 20%
Nihilism 10%
Divine Command 0%
Eh, sounds about right. -
Making the best of something by your own standards is not an act of faith at all. Unless you feel that you must prove your own thoughts and feelings to yourself.
My claim isn't that everyone needs a relative meaning, but that everyone living has one. Why eat or drink you if you don't find some meaning in life? You're making an effort to do something that you don't have to do. And yes, comfort is a reason to live.
And what I'm saying is that you can believe in this on faith but you can't claim it's absolutely true in this context. Asserting something is 'obviously true' is a claim about the absolute nature of the world.
Setting aside whether it's a contradiction to claim this, I don't find this to be true in my life. At least not in an interesting way. I have lived without really any purpose or intention for long stretches of my life. Nor was I searching for meaning. It's plausible that other people can live more extreme versions of this where meaning and purpose never enter into their actions or thoughts.
Finally, comfort is the opposite of real purpose. If all you do is follow the path of least resistance, this is apathy. You don't care enough to change direction. If you accept apathy as a purpose you're claim is pretty meaningless. It's like christians trying to squeeze their god through some gap in our understanding to make it compatible with modern science. It's sad. If you believe something that's fine, but don't go mutilating your belief in a futile attempt to prove that it absolutely has to be true.
-
[hide]
Existentialism 90%
Justice (Fairness) 60%
Hedonism 55% Strong Egoism 50%
Utilitarianism 45%
Kantianism 35% Apathy 30% Nihilism 0% Divine Command 0%[/hide]Based on what I know of existentialism, I feel this is accurate. I have to admit I struggle a lot with whether it's most important to accomplish my own goals or try to help other people though.
-
And what I'm saying is that you can believe in this on faith but you can't claim it's absolutely true in this context. Asserting something is 'obviously true' is a claim about the absolute nature of the world.
To not trust the existence of your own thoughts is a contradiction. Even if we lived in a predetermined universe and our thoughts were created by a third party, they are still our thoughts and we have them. We may not be able to control them, but we know they're there and follow them.
Setting aside whether it's a contradiction to claim this, I don't find this to be true in my life. At least not in an interesting way. I have lived without really any purpose or intention for long stretches of my life. Nor was I searching for meaning. It's plausible that other people can live more extreme versions of this where meaning and purpose never enter into their actions or thoughts.
I'm suggesting that it doesn't have to be interesting. I've spent periods of my life drifting, living for the sake of experiencing life. And the meaning itself doesn't have to occur to you, the existentialist embraces it, though, while the nihilist ignores it. So long as you've decided to continue living life, aware of the concept of purpose/meaning or not, you have a reason to live, that is to say that you've put some meaning in life relative to yourself.
Finally, comfort is the opposite of real purpose. If all you do is follow the path of least resistance, this is apathy. You don't care enough to change direction. If you accept apathy as a purpose you're claim is pretty meaningless. It's like christians trying to squeeze their god through some gap in our understanding to make it compatible with modern science. It's sad. If you believe something that's fine, but don't go mutilating your belief in a futile attempt to prove that it absolutely has to be true.
If you live life because ignoring it is uncomfortable, then, again, you've placed some meaning into life, even if it is that "my life is much easier to live than to lose as it is". If that same person finds comfort in death, eventually, then they still would have lived life for that purpose.
The bottom line is that if you are living, then you have a reason to live, no matter how grand or insignificant it may be. And if you have a reason to live, then you have given your life meaning.
-
You Scored as UtilitarianismYour life is guided by the principles of Utilitarianism: You seek the greatest good for the greatest number. “The said truth is that it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.” –Jeremy Bentham <“Whenever the general disposition of the people is such, that each individual regards those only of his interests which are selfish, and does not dwell on, or concern himself for, his share of the general interest, in such a state of things, good government is impossible.” --John Stuart Mill
Utilitarianism 60%
Justice (Fairness) 60%
Existentialism 50%
Hedonism 45%
Kantianism 40%
Strong Egoism 30%
Divine Command 30%
Apathy 20%
Nihilism 20% -
You Scored as Justice (Fairness)
Your life is guided by the concept of Fair Justice: Everyone, yourself included, should be rewarded and punished according to the help or harm they cause. "He who does not punish evil commands it to be done." –Leonardo da Vinci “Though force can protect in emergency, only justice, fairness, consideration and cooperation can finally lead men to the dawn of eternal peace.” --Dwight D. Eisenhower More info at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arocoun Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page…
Justice (Fairness)55%
Divine Command
50%
Utilitarianism
50%
Apathy
50%
Hedonism
50%
Existentialism
45%
Nihilism
35%
Strong Egoism
30%
Kantianism
15%
As expected, I half-ass just about everything. Moreover, I do not totally agree with the prevailing view of Justice.
-
I like this test: http://www.selectsmart.com/PHILOSOPHY/
1. Spinoza (100%) 2. Kant (98%) 3. John Stuart Mill (92%)
4. Jean-Paul Sartre
5. Epicureans (77%)
6. Prescriptivism (76%)
7. Aquinas (70%)
8. Aristotle (63%)
9. Jeremy Bentham (62%)
10. Nietzsche (62%)
11. Ayn Rand (61%)
12. Ockham (52%)
13. Stoics (52%)
14. Plato (49%)
15. Nel Noddings (48%)
16. St. Augustine (40%) 17. David Hume (39%) 18. Thomas Hobbes (38%)
19. Cynics (13%) The other one said 90% existantialism. Wich sounds about right, but doesn't cover the whole picture. -
1. Nietzsche (100%) Books, etc. Information link
2. Jean-Paul Sartre (76%) Books, etc. Information link
3. Thomas Hobbes (76%) Books, etc. Information link
4. David Hume (72%) Books, etc. Information link
5. Epicureans (66%) Books, etc. Information link
6. Ayn Rand (61%) Books, etc. Information link
7. Stoics (56%) Books, etc. Information link
8. Nel Noddings (54%) Books, etc. Information link
9. Kant (53%) Books, etc. Information link
10. John Stuart Mill (52%) Books, etc. Information link
11. Cynics (46%) Books, etc. Information link
12. Prescriptivism (45%) Books, etc. Information link
13. Aristotle (38%) Books, etc. Information link
14. Jeremy Bentham (36%) Books, etc. Information link
15. Spinoza (36%) Books, etc. Information link
16. Aquinas (30%) Books, etc. Information link
17. Plato (26%) Books, etc. Information link
18. Ockham (24%) Books, etc. Information link
19. St. Augustine (12%) Books, etc. Information linkThis a pretty bad test. Look at the first thing they have to say about Nietzsche, which I scored 100% agreement on:
Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm (1844-1900)
We have free willlolllllllll
-
You Scored as Hedonism
Your life is guided by the principles of Hedonism. You believe that pleasure is a great, or the greatest, good; and you try to enjoy life’s pleasures as much as you can. "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die!”Hedonism
100%
Justice (Fairness)
100%
Strong Egoism
100%
Kantianism
75%
Utilitarianism
75%
Existentialism
50%
Nihilism
25%
Apathy
0%
Divine Command
0%lol
-
You Scored as Hedonism
Your life is guided by the principles of Hedonism. You believe that pleasure is a great, or the greatest, good; and you try to enjoy life’s pleasures as much as you can. "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die!”Hedonism
100%
Justice (Fairness)
100%
Strong Egoism
100%
Kantianism
75%
Utilitarianism
75%
Existentialism
50%
Nihilism
25%
Apathy
0%
Divine Command
0%lol
You seem to be pretty much an extremist.
-
EXTREEEEEEEME HEDONISM.
fat teen with bad skin shredding a wailing solo
-
With that last test:
1. Jean-Paul Sartre (100%)
2. Kant (89%)
3. John Stuart Mill (84%)
4. Ayn Rand (83%)
5. Nietzsche (75%)
6. David Hume (71%)
7. Thomas Hobbes (70%)
8. Epicureans (68%)
9. Jeremy Bentham (63%)
10. Cynics (61%)
11. Stoics (57%)
12. Nel Noddings (48%)
13. Aquinas (46%)
14. Prescriptivism (45%)
15. Spinoza (42%)
16. Aristotle (35%)
17. Ockham (29%)
18. Plato (28%)
19. St. Augustine (28%)I thought this quiz was pretty terrible (though I do agree with Sartre on many things). The questions and answers really assume that morality and virtue matter.
-
! Existentialism
90%
Hedonism
75%
Kantianism
55%
Utilitarianism
35%
Justice (Fairness)
30%
Apathy
20%
Strong Egoism
15%
Nihilism
0%
Divine Command
0%Justice is too subjective to pursue.
-
100% Hedonism
90% Strong Egoism
85% Justice (Fairness)
85% Existentialism
50% Apathy
45% Nihilism
45% Kantianism
25% Utilitarianism
0% Divine CommandI already knew all of this about myself. Though I tend to consider myself more of an egoist than a hedonist, because I care more about my own pleasure than getting other people to strive for their own pleasure (though I still do the latter).
-
Existentialism 90% Utilitarianism 85% Hedonism 80% Justice (Fairness) 70% Divine Command 55%
Kantianism 45% Apathy 35%
Strong Egoism 25% Nihilism 20%I could've guessed this, though I thought Hedonism would have been lower. Nothing wrong with that.
-
You Scored as Divine CommandYour life is directed by Divine Command: Your god and religion give you meaning and direction. “Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations.” –King James Version of the Bible “Even as a tree has a single trunk but many branches and leaves, there is one religion--human religion--but any number of faiths.” --Mahatma Gandhi
100% Hedonism
100% Divine Command
90% Utilitarianism
75% Justice (Fairness)
65% Apathy
65% Existentialism
55% StrongEgoism
45% Nihilism
40% Kantianismi got divine hedonism. God rules all, but i like to go crazy too :)
-
@ Coby Bryant- Out of curiosity, what kind of god do you believe in ?
-
Yeah, yeah.
! You Scored as Divine CommandYour life is directed by Divine Command: Your god and religion give you meaning and direction. “Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations.”
! –King James Version of the Bible “Even as a tree has a single trunk but many branches and leaves, there is one religion--human religion--but any number of faiths.”
--Mahatma Gandhi
! Divine Command 85% Existentialism 80%
Hedonism 50%
Justice (Fairness) 50%
Utilitarianism 40%
Kantianism 25%
Apathy 20%
Nihilism 5%
Strong Egoism 0%
! I consider myself Christian, but I think I am a lot more of an open-minded thinker about a lot of things. I'm not the kind of person that just listens to what popular theologists and leaders say and accepts it, especially when it comes to modern moral/ethical/political issues (religion and politics shouldn't mix in most cases). Trying to live both rationally and faithfully is a sometimes odd paradoxical road to walk.Edit: The other quiz:
! 1. Aquinas (100%) Information link
2. St. Augustine (98%) Information link 3. Ockham (92%) B Information link
4. Spinoza (70%) Information link
5. Aristotle (63%) Information link
6. Jean-Paul Sartre (50%) Information link
7. Kant (48%) Information link
8. Plato (44%) Information link
9. Nietzsche (41%) Information link
10. Ayn Rand (38%) Information link
11. Stoics (38%) Information link
12. Jeremy Bentham (33%) Information link
13. Epicureans (32%) Information link
14. John Stuart Mill (30%) Information link
15. Cynics (26%) Information link
16. David Hume (25%)Information link
17. Prescriptivism (22%) Information link
18. Nel Noddings (20%) Information link 19. Thomas Hobbes (0%)] Information link -
You´re all missing Allan Kardec.