NationStates Jolt Archive

This quiz (http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/check.htm) tests if your beliefs and moral standards fit together as a coherent philosophy or if you contradict yourself. I'm curious on what contradictions you encounter and how you deal with them.

Please don't read any further before taking the quiz. The discussion will contain spoilers that can make your score inaccurate.







My 2 most difficult contradictions:
I believe morals are relative but also that genocide is evil. The quiz questioned how I could condemn a nation that feels genocide is justified unless I consider my morals to be more correct then theirs. I really can't say my opinion is worth more then theirs but if I had an army I'd enforce my morals on them anyway and stop the genocide just because I want to and can. After throwing away the "holier then you" attitude it seems I've only replaced it with "might makes right" merged with belief in an all powerful God on top of the might ladder.

I believe there is an afterlife but also that the mind can be damaged by brain damage. If the mind needs the brain to function properly how can it live on when the brain ceases to function completely? This isn't an issue for Hindus who believe only the essence, not the brain's memories survives to the next reincarnation. But for me it is a flaw in my Christian faith I can't figure out how to solve.:confused:

My score: 33%
higher score = more contradictions

consistency is for those lacking imagination.

Of course I'm a hypocrite, I don't need a test to tell me that. If you don't think you are, you should probably stop being so vain. It's human.

The quiz doesn't work...

i don't need to take the quiz, i know i contradict myself all the time. it's a result of lacking a memory for what i've just said or done, and also the result of having strong convictions but a complete lack of motivation. sometimes it gets me into trouble sometimes it merely annoys.

Not Found

The requested URL /cgi-bin/check.cgi was not found on this server.
Apache/2.0.53 (Fedora) Server at www.philosophersmag.com Port 80

I'm not sure if this means I am or I'm not.

Here are my results:

The requested URL /cgi-bin/check.cgi was not found on this server.

I answered all the questions and then it didn't work when I tried to get it to tell me my results.:(

Maybe it's just this computer...I don't know.

I fixed the link now it works. I'm so sorry and embarrased for somehow messing up the link the first time around.

I think the test people misunderstand God.

EDIT: 20%. Good or bad?

I answered all the questions and then it didn't work when I tried to get it to tell me my results.:(

Maybe it's just this computer...I don't know.

no, you're not the only one. read this thread it bit more and you will see.

Just get married - your spouse is liable to keep a consistent tally.

Even better are the excuses you might concoct in order to "win" arguments.
:)

Woo, 13%!

I got 20%.

questions are too long... too many multy-syllable words...not enough attention span to read them... uhh what? 8ft surf reported on swellnet. sorry fella's back into the water...

by the way: you can easy rule a country without having to be intelligent, and with continually contradicting yourself - see Mr. Bush, the president of the USA- he does it all day everyday.. so what is the point?

Tension Quotient: 13%.

Questions 24 and 3: How much must I protect the environment?

57192 of the 116431 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
The environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends
But disagreed that:
People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead

As walking, cycling and taking the train are all less environmentally damaging than driving a car for the same journey, if you choose to drive when you could have used another mode of transport, you are guilty of unnecessarily damaging the environment.

The problem here is the word 'unnecessary'. Very few things are necessary, if by necessary it is meant essential to survival. But you might want to argue that much of your use of cars or aeroplanes is necessary, not for survival, but for a certain quality of life. The difficulty is that the consequence of this response is that it then becomes hard to be critical of others, for it seems that 'necessary' simply means what one judges to be important for oneself. A single plane journey may add more pollutants to the atmosphere than a year's use of a high-emission vehicle. Who is guilty of causing unnecessary environmental harm here?

33%. I had a few contradictions, but most of them were just semantics, like how the question was phrased.

The 3 points it claimed I contradicted myself upon were semantic, a primary flaw of this quiz. Had I been allowed to answer completely, there would have been no contradiction.

I got 33%.

questions are too long... too many multy-syllable words...not enough attention span to read them... uhh what? 8ft surf reported on swellnet. sorry fella's back into the water...

by the way: you can easy rule a country without having to be intelligent, and with continually contradicting yourself - see Mr. Bush, the president of the USA- he does it all day everyday.. so what is the point?

believe me, this is fairly simple compared to some other quizzes.

20% - 8% below the average....is that good or bad? :confused:

I got 13% but the test is flawed. It told me that the following two choices were contradictory.

You agreed that:
There are no objective moral standards; moral judgments are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures.
And also that:
Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil.

These are easily reconciled: although there are no objective moral standards, and everyone may have different yet equally valid opinions, I personally believe that genocide is evil.

You agreed that:
Judgments about works of art are purely matters of taste.
And also that:
Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists.

Well, no shit! Judgments about works of art are purely matters of taste, and, given my taste in art, I would state that Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists. Idiots.

Hmm, looking at my responses, its all bullshit hid in the wording. I dont like it.

i took the test and got 404 not found. my contradictions confounded them.

Based on an orginal idea by Marilyn Mason?

I got 13% but the test is flawed. It told me that the following two choices were contradictory.

You agreed that:
There are no objective moral standards; moral judgments are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures.
And also that:
Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil.

These are easily reconciled: although there are no objective moral standards, and everyone may have different yet equally valid opinions, I personally believe that genocide is evil.

You agreed that:
Judgments about works of art are purely matters of taste.
And also that:
Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists.

Well, no shit! Judgments about works of art are purely matters of taste, and, given my taste in art, I would state that Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists. Idiots.
OMG, FreedomAndGlory said something I agree with.

Do I contradict myself?
Very well, then I contradict myself.
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

I scored 20%. However, in all three of the "inconsistent" cases, the contradiction was based solely on the fact that there was no option between "agree" and "disagree," nor any way to clarify one's answer. For example, I believe that killing is wrong, but that killing Nazis to prevent them from murdering millions of civilians is better than simply letting them murder millions of civilians. This quiz finds my position inconsistent. I quite definitely don't.

I think the test people misunderstand God.Well, they're people, and people have a pretty consistent history of not only attributing a lot of their own problems to everyone else, they tend to concoct whatever fills in whatever blanks are left.

I got 33%.

I got 31%:)

Tension Quotient = 33%



You agreed that:
There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures
And also that:
Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil

The tension between these two beliefs is that, on the one hand, you are saying that morality is just a matter of culture and convention, but on the other, you are prepared to condemn acts of genocide as 'evil'.

Well...yeah. I personlly believe that acts of genocide are "evil", but also that morality is entirely subjective, so others may disagree with me.

You agreed that:
There are no objective truths about matters of fact; 'truth' is always relative to particular cultures and individuals
And also that:
The holocaust is an historical reality, taking place more or less as the history books report

I know I agreed to them. And I stand by it. I believe it's historical reality, but some others may feel legitimate in disagreeing, however foolish I think the disagreement may be.

Apparently resolving this was a "real challenge"

You agreed that:
The environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends
But disagreed that:
People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead

Meh, I'm not going to tell anybody what to do, so I'm not going to tell them not to drive.

You disagreed that:
It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence
But agreed that:
Atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God

I think it's unreasonable to believe in the existence of something without even the possibility of evidence for existence, yes, but I'm not going to deny that they're faiths. That's pretty much the reason why they are faiths. I see no contradiction there.

In any case, I set atheism aside to a degree. It is the belief that something doesn't exist because there is no evidence for it, and no possibility for evidence for it. Theism is the belief that something exists despite the fact that there is no evidence for it, and no possibility for it. It's a fairly big difference to me.

You agreed that:
Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste
And also that:
Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists

So...because I agreed that art is a matter of taste it's a contradiction to have my own opinion on it? Nice.

Is no one else shocked by the fact that the quiz was made by Marilyn Manson?

Is no one else shocked by the fact that the quiz was made by Marilyn Manson?

Considering it was made by Marilyn Mason, I'd be surprised if anybody was.

Of course I do

I got 13%.

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 consciousness 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.



You disagreed that:
It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence
But agreed that:
Atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God

In disagreeing with the first statement, you are acting consistently with the general principle which states that in the absence of good grounds for believing something, it is not rational to believe it. For example, it is not possible to disprove the possibility that there are invisible pink fairies at this moment circling the planet Pluto, but we don’t countenance it as a real possibility because there is no evidence for their planetary activities. This is not to be thought of as a matter of faith, but of sound reasoning. But asserting that atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God contradicts this principle. It replaces the principle 'in the absence of good grounds for believing something, it is not rational to believe it' with the principle, 'in the absence of good grounds for believing something, it requires faith not to believe it'. For this reason, atheism is not a matter of faith in the same way as belief in God. In short, belief without evidence (a form of faith) is not the same as non-belief due to lack of evidence (rational refusal to assent).


This whole test seems really Borderline to me -- thinking only in black and white, neglecting the grey.


EDIT: After tweaking my internal bullshit meter for online tests, I cheated and got 0%.

I got a 27%. I personally think at least 2 of mine were due to semantics.

The PHC report below lists pairs of beliefs which are identified as being 'in tension'. What this means is either that: (1) There is a contradiction between the two beliefs or (2) Some sophisticated reasoning is required to enable both beliefs to be held consistently. In terms of action, this means in each case you should either (1) Give up one of the two beliefs or (2) Find some rationally coherent way of reconciling them.

I had 4 "tensions"

one was between whether art was subjective, and whether Michaelangelo was one of the greatest artists. My rationally coherent way to reconcile them is that while art is subjective, I subjectively believe that Michaelangelo is one of the greatest artists...My believing that doesn't require you to believe that.

Is there an all-good, all-powerful God?.

You agreed that:
There exists an all-powerful, loving and good God
And also that:
To allow an innocent child to suffer needlessly when one could easily prevent it is morally reprehensible

Attempts to explain this apparent contradiction are known as 'theodicies' and many have been produced. Most conclude that God allows suffering to help us grow spiritually and/or to allow the greater good of human freedom. Whether these theodicies are adequate is the subject of continuing debate. This one works for me.

What is the seat of the self?

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

rationally coherent way to reconcile...I've worked with people with severe brain damage. They very often have personality changes. However, it is my belief that after death, people go to Heaven...in which case, a person exists in a non-physical form. (I realize that those who are Athiest will not consider this a rationally coherent reconciliation.) Also, brain death or damage is different from bodily death. reading it again, to me, they are 2 different issues, and not a "tension" at all.

and finally:

Can we please ourselves?

You agreed that:
So long as they do not harm others, individuals should be free to pursue their own ends
But disagreed that:
The possession of drugs for personal use should be decriminalised

rational coherent reconciliation: There is no way to guarantee that an individual using drugs will not harm others. It also doesn't differentiate what drug they mean. I may or may not agree that Marijuana should be legal...but I sure as hell don't think that cocaine should be legal. So, lacking definition of what drug, I chose that drugs should be criminalized.

Interesting...I figured I would have more contradictions.

Score
Questions 1 and 27: Is morality relative?
If moral judgements really are 'merely the expression of the values of a particular culture', then how are the values which reject genocide and torture at all superior to those which do not? Answer--> They are not.


Questions 10 and 23: Is there an all-good, all-powerful God?
I do not presume to understand God or to hold him to my limited Moral standard. I hold my peers to my standard, that is all.

Questions 17-28: Are there any absolute truths?
How can one both assert the reality of the holocaust and deny that there is a single truth about it? Resolving this intellectual tension is a real challenge.
I wasnt there, I accept one "truth" about the holocuast. That it was. I do not suppose that to some it is equally "true" that it was not.
No matter how repugnant i find that thought.

Questions 22 and 15: What is the seat of the self?
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.
Ok, so it is. I am still perfectly comfortable with contradicting myself.

Questions 14 and 25: How do we judge art?
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.
I feel no need to respond as it clearly states thaere is no contradiction.

Tension Quotient = 27%

I want a better quiz than this one! There Isn't nearly enough questions to be accurate!

I got a 7% (the best score so far, I think), because I am soooooo goddamned perfect.
Yes.

The primary flaw in this test is that it doesn't consider how disagreements might create conflicts. Try it, if you disagree with everything you get a perfect (ie, 0%) score. So if you're a naturally quarralsome person (such as myself) whose first reaction is to disagree, you've got a much better shot at getting good marks.

I came in at 20%.

Enough quizzes!!!!

I got a 7% tension score, but I think I should have gotten 0.

Questions 10 and 23: Is there an all-good, all-powerful God?
37617 of the 116468 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
There exists an all-powerful, loving and good God
And also that:
To allow an innocent child to suffer needlessly when one could easily prevent it is morally reprehensible

These two beliefs together generate what is known as 'The Problem of Evil'. The problem is simple: if God is all-powerful, loving and good, that means he can do what he wants and will do what is morally right. But surely this means that he would not allow an innocent child to suffer needlessly, as he could easily prevent it. Yet he does. Much infant suffering is the result of human action, but much is also due to natural causes, such as disease, flood or famine. In both cases, God could stop it, yet he does not.

Attempts to explain this apparent contradiction are known as 'theodicies' and many have been produced. Most conclude that God allows suffering to help us grow spiritually and/or to allow the greater good of human freedom. Whether these theodicies are adequate is the subject of continuing debate.

I can apply the principle of double-effect to this situation and resolve it. The first criteria, if the action in and of itself is wrong, is passed, since one may decide not to help a person in suffering for good reason (i.e. they need to learn on their own.) Second criteria, is the evil achieved by the good. The child does not fulfill their nature by way of suffering; they could fulfill their nature with or without suffering. So, the good is not attained by way of evil. Third, is the evil intended? No, God does not intentionally make the child suffer. Fourth, is there sufficient reason for having an imperfect world? I would say yes, because it fulfills our nature as rational beings, as opposed to automatons.

Enough quizzes!!!!
NO! We must have more quizzes, and more, and more! We must not stop until we have a grade, rank, and name for our every attribute, every thought, and every emotion, all delivered handily and quickly by complete strangers who will never even see our results.

My score was a 20%; the only real conflict I had is the one about objective truth and the Holocaust. Of course, if it's historical reality to me, that's what really matters. I couldn't care less if someone else doesn't believe what I do; I don't think there is such a thing as objective truth, but there are times when a consensus reality can provide something that creates a decent approximation of truth.

13%, I accidentally put that I was in the 0-9% though.

My problems were the following:

Questions 10 and 23: Is there an all-good, all-powerful God?

37617 of the 116471 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
There exists an all-powerful, loving and good God
And also that:
To allow an innocent child to suffer needlessly when one could easily prevent it is morally reprehensible

These two beliefs together generate what is known as 'The Problem of Evil'. The problem is simple: if God is all-powerful, loving and good, that means he can do what he wants and will do what is morally right. But surely this means that he would not allow an innocent child to suffer needlessly, as he could easily prevent it. Yet he does. Much infant suffering is the result of human action, but much is also due to natural causes, such as disease, flood or famine. In both cases, God could stop it, yet he does not.

Attempts to explain this apparent contradiction are known as 'theodicies' and many have been produced. Most conclude that God allows suffering to help us grow spiritually and/or to allow the greater good of human freedom. Whether these theodicies are adequate is the subject of continuing debate.
Which I do not see as being that as being a conflict because of the explanation below. Really, I would say that the real inconsistency is that I allow what I have already determined to be immoral continue. I suppose every single person fits into that category simply by putting down that it is morally reprehensible to let that happen, however, as it is true that almost nobody does all that they can do to help the situation.


Questions 22 and 15: What is the seat of the self?

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 consciousness 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.

I don't see that as a conflict as I never stated a belief that the soul and the self were precisely the same. Our soul can be tied to us and reflect who we are but it does not necessarily have to be our complete self.

The funny thing is that I could have gotten a 0% if I did this pre-conversion.

This quiz (http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/check.htm) tests if your beliefs and moral standards fit together as a coherent philosophy or if you contradict yourself. I'm curious on what contradictions you encounter and how you deal with them.

Please don't read any further before taking the quiz. The discussion will contain spoilers that can make your score inaccurate.




My 2 most difficult contradictions:
I believe morals are relative but also that genocide is evil. The quiz questioned how I could condemn a nation that feels genocide is justified unless I consider my morals to be more correct then theirs. I really can't say my opinion is worth more then theirs but if I had an army I'd enforce my morals on them anyway and stop the genocide just because I want to and can. After throwing away the "holier then you" attitude it seems I've only replaced it with "might makes right" merged with belief in an all powerful God on top of the might ladder.

I believe there is an afterlife but also that the mind can be damaged by brain damage. If the mind needs the brain to function properly how can it live on when the brain ceases to function completely? This isn't an issue for Hindus who believe only the essence, not the brain's memories survives to the next reincarnation. But for me it is a flaw in my Christian faith I can't figure out how to solve.:confused:

My score: 33%
higher score = more contradictions

This test needs strong and weak (dis)agreement. Attaching only two answers to a belief that one believes neither side to be true doesn't make sense.

EDIT: Same score, BTW. Pretty much the same contra's too.

I got a 7% (the best score so far, I think), because I am soooooo goddamned perfect.
Yes.

The primary flaw in this test is that it doesn't consider how disagreements might create conflicts. Try it, if you disagree with everything you get a perfect (ie, 0%) score. So if you're a naturally quarralsome person (such as myself) whose first reaction is to disagree, you've got a much better shot at getting good marks.
I also got 7%.

You agreed that:
It is always wrong to take another person's life
And also that:
The second world war was a just war

I got 13%

20%

You agreed that:
It is always wrong to take another person's life
And also that:
The second world war was a just war

Lesser of two evils. If going to war prevented something even worse from happening, it was a just war. Even so, war is still terrible. Even if you kill someone in self-defense, that doesn't make killing a good thing. It just makes it the less bad thing.

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

I regard the body as a sort of vehicle for the soul. The brain is the part that controls the rest of the body. A car isn't much good without a steering mechanism or pedals, is it? A bike isn't much use without a crankshaft and handlebars. Etc. Yeah, maybe a weird complicated belief. It makes sense to me, though.

You agreed that:
Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste
And also that:
Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists

By my standards he is. Someone else may disagree. Some call Mondrian or Pollack a great artist. I don't like their stuff all that much.

That quiz was retarded. It tricked me into saying stuff I didn't mean. Like, I thought it was saying that I thought Michelangelo was a pretty good sculptor, but what I was apparently actually saying was that art was totally objective. Screw that. And how does it know I don't think people should drive ELECTRIC cars? And believing the holocaust was a negative thing for humanity doesn't mean I can't believe morals are relative; morality could be like 96% subjective, with that last 4% covered by stuff like genocide. Jesus Christ.

That quiz was retarded. It tricked me into saying stuff I didn't mean. Like, I thought it was saying that I thought Michelangelo was a pretty good sculptor, but what I was apparently actually saying was that art was totally objective. Screw that. And how does it know I don't think people should drive ELECTRIC cars? And believing the holocaust was a negative thing for humanity doesn't mean I can't believe morals are relative; morality could be like 96% objective, with that last 4% covered by stuff like genocide. Jesus Christ.
My result was 13%, but I agree with you. The test is rather simplistic.

13% ... and that's all the time I'm wasting on this. I contradict myself all the time.

Woo, 13%!

13% ... and that's all the time I'm wasting on this. I contradict myself all the time.

Me too, 13%. This clearly says something about us Aussies (though what that is, I have no idea :p).

The quiz is meh.

I got 33%, but the "contradictions" seemed rather silly.

You agreed that:
There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures
And also that:
Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil

OK...so I guess it's a contradiction. It's also the most extreme example they could come up with, so I say pfft and move on.

You agreed that:
There exists an all-powerful, loving and good God
And also that:
To allow an innocent child to suffer needlessly when one could easily prevent it is morally reprehensible

This arose from the fact that I believe in a God, but I do not believe that he is all-powerful, all loving, or all good...it was either that or say there is no God, which would have probably skewed my results even more.

More black and white bullcrap...NEXT!

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

This is only a contradiction if one assumes that our non-physical form stems directly from the brain.

I'm not about to assume anything regarding our non-physical forms... :p

You agreed that:
Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste
And also that:
Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists

Art is a matter of taste, and I happen to find Michelangelo's work to be among the best in the world.

My opinion, however, is apparently a contradiction. :rolleyes:



...I'll give this quiz a 5/10.

33% ... It spat out five contradictions, all of which I disagree with (I saw most of them already mentioned here alongside some of the arguments I would make). Some of them, like:

Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste
vs.
Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists

are especially silly; maybe liking Michaelangelo is my own personal taste, ever thought of that, eh test?

At any rate, if I'm indeed a hypocrite, which I don't doubt I am, I certainly don't care.

OK...so I guess it's a contradiction. It's also the most extreme example they could come up with, so I say pfft and move on.

I got that one too. It's not a very intelligent example, I agree; it's easily resolved due to the fact that while it could be possible for a particular culture not to abhor genocide, yours certainly does, therefore you yourself consider genocide evil. Obviously, you hold your own code of ethics to be superior; otherwise you wouldn't use it.

Tension Quotient = 13%

Questions 24 and 3: How much must I protect the environment?
*You agreed that: The environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends
*But disagreed that: People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead.

Questions 22 and 15: What is the seat of the self?
*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

meh...

Tension Quotient = 27%

I got that one too. It's not a very intelligent example, I agree; it's easily resolved due to the fact that while it could be possible for a particular culture not to abhor genocide, yours certainly does, therefore you yourself consider genocide evil.
Cultures are not monolithic entities. People within them differ in opinions. Some within Western cultures do indeed believe the Holocaust was meritted. For the same reasons you'd disagree with these individuals and point out their error, you would with other cultures too (presumably, because you thought murder is always wrong). What this does not imply is going and imposing your moral system on others.

Art is a matter of taste, and I happen to find Michelangelo's work to be among the best in the world.

My opinion, however, is apparently a contradiction. :rolleyes:


I got the same thing.

Cultures are not monolithic entities. People within them differ in opinions. Some within Western cultures do indeed believe the Holocaust was meritted. For the same reasons you'd disagree with these individuals and point out their error, you would with other cultures too. What this does not imply is going and imposing your moral system on others.

Yes, well, same idea I suppose, I was just oversimplifying. I didn't mention imposing a moral system anywhere.

Yes, well, same idea I suppose, I was just oversimplifying.
The problem with moral relativism (or rather how it is perceived) is that most people conflate it with tolerance, and equate absolutism with intolerance. I think that might lead many people to favour it on the quiz.

Flawed test, I got 20% though. I guess I'm happy with that.

Contradictions: Govt. should check medicines to make sure that they are safe and I also think alternative medicine is valuable. However, alternative medicine IS in many cases checked out where I live, so here it's not a contradiction.

Car vs. train and enviroment... well, here the test is correct. I do contradict myself when I say I'd take the car and care for the enviroment at the same time...

And finally, I said that acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil and at the same time I said that there are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures. Not really contradicting myself here as the first answer *was* in reference to my culture.

Phew... now I'm off for a shower.

Tension Quotient = 20%

Big problem with this quiz: The questions and interpretations of the questions are based on semantic or cultural assumptions that are not made clear. Also, on an apparent inability to read their own quiz.

Questions 20 and 13: Is positive discrimination justified?

You agreed that:
In certain circumstances, it might be desirable to discriminate positively in favour of a person as recompense for harms done to him/her in the past
And disagreed that:
It is not always right to judge individuals solely on their merits

Positive discrimination means that factors other than the actual abilities of a person are taken into account when deciding how to treat them. This means that, under positive discrimination measures, people are not judged solely on their merits. So in order to support positive discrimination, you have to accept that it is sometimes right not to judge individuals on their merits. Alternatively, if you want to maintain that individuals must always be judged on their merits, you must give up your belief in positive discrimination. More sophisticated responses to this tension might include the idea that people should be judged, not according to their actual merits, but according to the merits they would have if everyone had been given the same opportunities. One problem with this is that it is very difficult to judge what these merits would have been.

What nonsense. First of all "It is not always right to do something" does not imply that "It is always right not to do something." And the strong qualification of the support for positive discrimination does imply that in many cases it is not right to do that. So, where then is the contradiction? Both beliefs are conditional.

I also enjoy the way the authors presume to tell us what a "more sophisticated response" might be. Could these people kiss my ass, please?

Questions 22 and 15: What is the seat of the self?

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 consciousness 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.

See bolded part, thank you, next. Kiss my ass on your way out, arrogant philosopher scum. ;)

Questions 14 and 25: How do we judge art?

You agreed that:
Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste
And also that:
Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists

The tension here is the result of the fact that you probably 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.

OK, now they can just eat me.

A) Their issue is based on what they think that I probably think, and they call that a "fact." Are they frikkin' kidding us here?

B) And they acknowledge that there is no contradiction after all. (1) Art judgments are opinion; (2) in my opinion, Michelangelo was a damned good artist. Done. No contradiction. If there's tension, however, it might be in how annoyed I am with the authors of this quiz.

27%

Questions 1 and 27: Is morality relative?
52410 of the 116549 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures
And also that:
Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil

The tension between these two beliefs is that, on the one hand, you are saying that morality is just a matter of culture and convention, but on the other, you are prepared to condemn acts of genocide as 'evil'. But what does it mean to say 'genocide is evil'? To reconcile the tension, you could say that all you mean is that to say 'genocide is evil' is to express the values of your particular culture. It does not mean that genocide is evil for all cultures and for all times. However, are you really happy to say, for example, that the massacre of the Tutsi people in 1994 by the Hutu dominated Rwandan Army was evil from the point of view of your culture but not evil from the point of view of the Rwandan Army, and what is more, that there is no sense in which one moral judgement is superior to the other? If moral judgements really are 'merely the expression of the values of a particular culture', then how are the values which reject genocide and torture at all superior to those which do not?

----------------------------------------------

Questions 24 and 3: How much must I protect the environment?
57236 of the 116549 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
The environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends
But disagreed that:
People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead

As walking, cycling and taking the train are all less environmentally damaging than driving a car for the same journey, if you choose to drive when you could have used another mode of transport, you are guilty of unnecessarily damaging the environment.

The problem here is the word 'unnecessary'. Very few things are necessary, if by necessary it is meant essential to survival. But you might want to argue that much of your use of cars or aeroplanes is necessary, not for survival, but for a certain quality of life. The difficulty is that the consequence of this response is that it then becomes hard to be critical of others, for it seems that 'necessary' simply means what one judges to be important for oneself. A single plane journey may add more pollutants to the atmosphere than a year's use of a high-emission vehicle. Who is guilty of causing unnecessary environmental harm here?

------------------------------------------------------

Questions 14 and 25: How do we judge art?
54526 of the 116549 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 one of history's finest artists

The tension here is the result of the fact that you probably 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.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Questions 16 and 21: What should be legal?
48588 of the 116549 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
The government should not permit the sale of treatments which have not been tested for efficacy and safety
And also that:
Alternative and complementary medicine is as valuable as mainstream medicine

But most alternative and complementary medicines have not been tested in trials as rigorously as 'conventional' medicine. For example, the popular herbal anti-depressant, St John's Wort, has recently been found to cause complications when taken alongside any of five other common medicines. This has only come to light because of extensive testing. Yet the product is freely available without medical advice. The question that needs answering here is, why do you believe alternative medicines and treatments need not be as extensively tested as conventional ones? The fact that they use natural ingredients is not in itself good reason, as there are plenty of naturally occurring toxins. Even if one argues that their long history shows them to be safe, that is not the same as showing them to be effective. This is not to criticise alternative therapies, but to question the different standards which are used to judge them compared to mainstream medicines.

Aye agreed. the Test is flawed.

I got a 33%, but I can argue most of the contradictions it gave me.

I wont post them since most of them have been argued by you gyus already.

For instance, the Alternative drugs vs Verified Drugs. Things like that.

"Do you contradict yourself?"

No, never! Except sometimes...

Sorry, but I'm not clicking an unknown link, so I just guessed my normal percentage. :D

Very neat quiz!

I got 20%.
You agreed that:
The environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends
But disagreed that:
People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead

As walking, cycling and taking the train are all less environmentally damaging than driving a car for the same journey, if you choose to drive when you could have used another mode of transport, you are guilty of unnecessarily damaging the environment.

The problem here is the word 'unnecessary'...
Precisely. I decide what's necessary for me, no one else.

You agreed that:
In certain circumstances, it might be desirable to discriminate positively in favour of a person as recompense for harms done to him/her in the past
And disagreed that:
It is not always right to judge individuals solely on their merits

Positive discrimination means that factors other than the actual abilities of a person are taken into account when deciding how to treat them. This means that, under positive discrimination measures, people are not judged solely on their merits. So in order to support positive discrimination, you have to accept that it is sometimes right not to judge individuals on their merits.

Well, I figured because they were saying "harms done to him/her", I meant something that I did to that person, individually. And in that case, yes I think it is desirable that I make it up to that person. Depends on the specifics and the way you look at the question, I suppose.

You agreed that:
Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste
And also that:
Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists

The tension here is the result of the fact that you probably 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?
Oooookay. I thought it asked me about whether or not Michaelangelo is one of the finest artists, in which case I answered "well, I guess so". Again a matter of how you look at the question.

After reading the conversation here...
People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead

The quiz never heard of buses...? o_O

0%

Does this test measure how my personal beliefs contradict each other, or my ability to anticipate what the quiz makers consider "contradictions" so that I answer appropriately?

Tension Quotient = 13%

13%.

I've already accepted a reconciliation of determinism and free will that I think is fairly reasonable, so I'm not worrying about that one.

The Michelangelo problem is more difficult, though... especially because it is perfectly reasonable to say that "Michelangelo was a fine artist, but I don't like his works."

That test is bollocks. I selected that there are no universal truths, and it tells me that I contradict myself by saying that the Holocaust is historical fact.
So facts are the same as truth? In which case everything that is not fact, is a lie? In which case all human thought, philosophy, religion, beauty, music, art, etc are lies? Bollocks.

Of course I contradict myself, everything is relative.. When my position changes, so does my line of sight!

That test is bollocks. I selected that there are no universal truths, and it tells me that I contradict myself by saying that the Holocaust is historical fact.
So facts are the same as truth? In which case everything that is not fact, is a lie? In which case all human thought, philosophy, religion, beauty, music, art, etc are lies? Bollocks.

AMEN

Par Example:
You agreed that:
The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives
But disagreed that:
Governments should be allowed to increase taxes sharply to save lives in the developing world

This is because I believe the governments do not have to increase tax in order to solve this problem. There are other solutions which need to be explored including dropping debt, increasing communication, and investigating corporations which abuse developing countries.

I like this quiz.

Generally, if you really think about it, the places it finds tension actually have tension... even if they don't at first glance.

Precisely. I decide what's necessary for me, no one else.

"I won't kill anyone, unless it's necessary."

"When is it necessary?"

"Whenever I feel like it."

I think that pretty much reduces the moral stance to insignificance.

The quiz is nonsense. The questions are so broad, and on topics that are far more complicated than can be answered in 'yes/no' format, then it is inevitable that you will 'contradict' yourself.

For example, I said that 'killing another is always wrong' but that WWII was a 'just war'. To me, these are not contradictory; the first question asked if killing is wrong; it didn't ask whether it was ever unavoidable. Likewise, telling me it's contradictory to say we should be allowed to use our cars while also saying we shouldn't do things to unnecessarily harm the environment is an argument way, way bigger than that would have you think.

Par Example:
You agreed that:
The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives
But disagreed that:
Governments should be allowed to increase taxes sharply to save lives in the developing world

This is because I believe the governments do not have to increase tax in order to solve this problem. There are many other solutions, including dropping debt, reducuing waste, increasing communication, abolishing slavery (yes this still goes on).

The existance of other possible choices is irrevelant.

One agreed with the statement that "The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives." Increasing taxes is just one of those "financial consideration[s]" If financial considerations are considered to be irrevelant, then one cannot reject efforts to save lives because they involve increasing taxes. If one objects to the increasing of taxes, then "financial considerations" must not be irrevelant after all.

So, are "financial considerations" relevant or not?

Also, note that the quiz states that "Governments should be allowed...," not "Governments must..."

... then it is inevitable that you will 'contradict' yourself.


No it's not (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12709022&postcount=70)


For example, I said that 'killing another is always wrong' but that WWII was a 'just war'. To me, these are not contradictory;


Did you say "killing another is always wrong" or did you say "murdering another is always wrong?" That is, who is inserting the unintended/deceptive/hidden meaning, you or the quiz?

The quiz asks whether "killing another is always wrong."

Interesting quiz. I got 13%, which is I think is pretty decent.

Did you say "killing another is always wrong" or did you say "murdering another is always wrong?" That is, who is inserting the unintended/deceptive/hidden meaning, you or the quiz?

The quiz asks whether "killing another is always wrong."

Indeed, and that changes nothing about what I said. You are trying to be too clever.

Besides, to say that "it's your fault, not the quiz" that something stupid comes up is nonsense; if the quiz is so easily open to misinterpretation then it's even worse than I first said.

The existance of other possible choices is irrevelant.

One agreed with the statement that "The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives." Increasing taxes is just one of those "financial consideration[s]" If financial considerations are considered to be irrevelant, then one cannot reject efforts to save lives because they involve increasing taxes. If one objects to the increasing of taxes, then "financial considerations" must not be irrevelant after all.

So, are "financial considerations" relevant or not?

Also, note that the quiz states that "Governments should be allowed...," not "Governments must..."

Yes ok, perhaps I used a bad example.. but I was trying to point out that its all a game of words. The words used in this quiz can be misleading. If increasing taxes was *the only solution* to fix the problem then I would agree. However, life is never that simple. You may say something which sounds accurate, but the reality is always different and complex.

The quiz is nonsense. The questions are so broad, and on topics that are far more complicated than can be answered in 'yes/no' format, then it is inevitable that you will 'contradict' yourself.

IMHO Contradictions are a result of language. I don't contradict myself in reality, thats a physical impossibility. Everything that I do is my belief at that time.

You are trying to be too clever.


At most I'm trying to explain why I see no potential for misintrepretation.

Interesting quiz. I got 13%, which is I think is pretty decent.

Just curious, and im not trying to start a war here ;) Why do you think it's decent? Surely it just *is* :)

If increasing taxes was *the only solution*...


The quiz neither supposes nor requires any such thing. The first statement clearly says "any effort to save lives" and the second statement clearly says "Governments should be allowed..." not "Governments must..."

Increasing taxes is clearly posited as only one of many possible courses of action.

And as I have explained, the issue is the inconsistancy expressed in one's willingness to ignore any financial consideration (with the first statement) while at the same time preluding a specific kind of financial consideration (with the second). The issue is simply that one cannot allow any financial means only to turn around a forbid a financial means. "do whatever you want, so long as you don't do whatever you want." See?

What's interesting is how the fixation on a particular political ideology (the opposition to taxation) seems to be stepping in to resolve contradition in stated ideals by making it seem to not exist. Perhaps a demonstration of the general resolution of cognitive dissoance. I'll bet the quiz makers intended exactly that to happen, in fact.


You may say something which sounds accurate, but the reality is always different and complex.

Indeed. ;)

No tensions!

I am tension-free. Though I agree with Philosopy that the test is rather vague on some issues.

Just curious, and im not trying to start a war here ;) Why do you think it's decent? Surely it just *is* :)

Well, its just nice to know that my philosophical viewpoint is more coherent than the average. It demonstrates the wonderful rationality of my mind-thinkings *feels proud*:p

I purposely contradict myself in order to keep those watching me on their toes.

My psychologist called me a 'walking contradiction' once.

33% and I can justify every contradiction.

"I won't kill anyone, unless it's necessary."
I won't kill anyone full stop.

But besides that, who besides me can decide when driving is necessary? Especially in my case, in which driving is a lot more than just moving myself from A to B.

13%

There are no objective truths about matters of fact; 'truth' is always relative to particular cultures and individuals
And also that:
The holocaust is an historical reality, taking place more or less as the history books report

If truth is relative then nothing is straightforwardly 'true' or 'factual'. Everything is 'true for someone' or 'a fact for them'. What then, of the holocaust? Is it true that millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and other 'enemies' of the Third Reich were systematically executed by the Nazis? If you believe that there are no objective truths, you have to say that there is no straight answer to this question. For some people, the holocaust is a fact, for others, it is not. So what can you say to those who deny it is a fact? Are they not as entitled to their view as you are to yours? How can one both assert the reality of the holocaust and deny that there is a single truth about it? Resolving this intellectual tension is a real challenge.

Yes, I made a mistake there - there is no such thing as an objective historical reality, even with regards to the Holocaust. I can only offer my subjective opinion (made on the basis of evidence that I interpret) that it did happen and it involved the mass murder of 6 million people.

You agreed that:
Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste
And also that:
Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists

The tension here is the result of the fact that you probably 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

Is this a tension if I judge a piece of art purely by my personal opinion? I do not think so.

I got 40%.

Either I'm a hypocritical bastard, or I value exceptional circumstances and the "gray area" more than this quiz does.

68%

I always was bad at rationale and logic. Though at least half of these tensions are little more than semantics.

This quiz (http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/check.htm) tests if your beliefs and moral standards fit together as a coherent philosophy or if you contradict yourself. I'm curious on what contradictions you encounter and how you deal with them.

Please don't read any further before taking the quiz. The discussion will contain spoilers that can make your score inaccurate.







My 2 most difficult contradictions:
I believe morals are relative but also that genocide is evil. The quiz questioned how I could condemn a nation that feels genocide is justified unless I consider my morals to be more correct then theirs. I really can't say my opinion is worth more then theirs but if I had an army I'd enforce my morals on them anyway and stop the genocide just because I want to and can. After throwing away the "holier then you" attitude it seems I've only replaced it with "might makes right" merged with belief in an all powerful God on top of the might ladder.

I believe there is an afterlife but also that the mind can be damaged by brain damage. If the mind needs the brain to function properly how can it live on when the brain ceases to function completely? This isn't an issue for Hindus who believe only the essence, not the brain's memories survives to the next reincarnation. But for me it is a flaw in my Christian faith I can't figure out how to solve.:confused:

My score: 33%
higher score = more contradictions

It's not a contradiction. I believe the person dies upon the end of the function of the brain, as do doctors. As such, the "soul" isn't damaged and moves on. That they list it as a contradiction is due to a lack of understanding, not because of any inherent contradiction. They assume death doesn't occur until the body completely ceases to function, but such a belief is not supported by the medical community nor much of the world.

There are also other flaws in their contradictions. They use the word necessary and claim it must mean "required to survive", yet it is often used in other forms. There is no reason for us to assume that in the question. So when they ask if people should unnecessarily damage the environment I think of littering or driving across the street (I know people who do this), not driving to the store when you could just walk an hour each way.

They ask if God is all-powerful and then ask a moral question for people about children. I happen to believe that suffering in the world must occur, that it's something we requested and something that those who suffer agree to (it's complicated, but I'm happy to explain in another thread if anyone cares), yet part of the purpose of suffering is both to allow those who suffer to rise to that challenge and to allow each of us to rise to help those in need. That we suffer, each of us, is a requested condition of life, of free will, of the wonder of wisdom. To call that a contradiction is once again a lack of understanding or imagination.

:confused:

got 0%

but i always contradict myself!

0% tension.

It's not a contradiction. I believe the person dies upon the end of the function of the brain, as do doctors. As such, the "soul" isn't damaged and moves on. That they list it as a contradiction is due to a lack of understanding, not because of any inherent contradiction. They assume death doesn't occur until the body completely ceases to function, but such a belief is not supported by the medical community nor much of the world.
Ok, when the brain ceases to function the soul leaves and escapes damage.

But what about someone who suffers amnesia and brain damage in an accident and lives on for years as a mentally retarded person who remembers only parts of life before the accident. Will the soul continue to be a retarded person after death or will it somehow be restored to the normal person it was before the accident? If it is restored will the memories from before the accident that where lost in the amnesia be recreated as well? Will the retarded personality and all memories form after the accident be lost if the old normal personality is restored?

The idea that the mind resides in both the fragile brain and the immortal soul seems problematic.

Ok, when the brain ceases to function the soul leaves and escapes damage.

But what about someone who suffers amnesia and brain damage in an accident and lives on for years as a mentally retarded person who remembers only parts of life before the accident. Will the soul continue to be a retarded person after death or will it somehow be restored to the normal person it was before the accident? If it is restored will the memories from before the accident that where lost in the amnesia be recreated as well? Will the retarded personality and all memories form after the accident be lost if the old normal personality is restored?

The idea that the mind resides in both the fragile brain and the immortal soul seems problematic.

Only if you believe the limits of the person extend to the soul. I don't. I don't think that the mentally challenged remain so after death. I don't think your personality retains ADHD or bipolar or any number of functional disorders. I hold that not only do you remember things that were lost to damage, like Alzheimers, but also that all memories, ever one of them, is present post-death, including memories of your birth. Where that begins I can't be sure. I think its distinctly possible that we gain access to all knowledge upon death. The contradiction is not a necessary contradiction, yet they treat it as if it is.

I disagree with some of the test's assertions that some of these ideas are contradictions. The Michaelangelo thing, eg. The statement was "Michaelangelo was one of history's finest artists" and the said that contradicted my belief that beauty is subjective. How so? Of course someone might disagree with me on that. They didn't ask if I thought that everyone should think he was one of history's greatest artists. Poor wording on this and several other questions. This test is made of fail!

I disagree with some of the test's assertions that some of these ideas are contradictions. The Michaelangelo thing, eg. The statement was "Michaelangelo was one of history's finest artists" and the said that contradicted my belief that beauty is subjective. How so? Of course someone might disagree with me on that. They didn't ask if I thought that everyone should think he was one of history's greatest artists. Poor wording on this and several other questions. This test is made of fail!

Absolutely. It asks my opinion on a number of things and then on certain questions suggests that because I hold that opinion I consider it an absolute. Another example is where it asks if there are absolute truths and then asks my opinion of the Holocaust.

Absolutely. It asks my opinion on a number of things and then on certain questions suggests that because I hold that opinion I consider it an absolute. Another example is where it asks if there are absolute truths and then asks my opinion of the Holocaust.

While ignoring the fact that the Holocaust is well documented.

13%.

29% due to semantics. The binary agree/disagree is too limited.

The problem with a quiz like that is that the statements are too absolute to allow for real viewpoints.

I got 33%, but none of the tensions are actually contradictions.

The problem with a quiz like that is that the statements are too absolute to allow for real viewpoints.

I got 33%, but none of the tensions are actually contradictions.

I got a 20% but in addition to the ones I've already pointed out where not contradictions for me, I noticed several others that are not contradictions by nature. This quiz makes a lot of assumptions about what your answers would necessarily mean. They are provably wrong assumptions.

Tension Quotient = 0% unsurprisingly.

You agreed that:
Individuals have sole rights over their own bodies
And also that:
Voluntary euthanasia should remain illegal

Voluntary euthanasia is euthanasia with the person’s direct consent (from wiki)
How is this a contradiction about having rights over your own body?


You agreed that:
Judgments about works of art are purely matters of taste
And also that:
Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists


Michaelangelo being a great artist is my taste.
Wheres the contradiction?

I never contradict myself. Evar.

How is this a contradiction about having rights over your own body?

If individuals have "sole rights" over their bodies, how can you oppose their voluntary choice to be euthanized?

The test does not refer to "contradiction." It refers to "tension."

None of the statements really contradict one another. But some of them definitely require some work to reconcile.

If individuals have "sole rights" over their bodies, how can you oppose their voluntary choice to be euthanized?

i didn't oppose their decision. I agreed with that statement about euthanasia.

i didn't oppose their decision. I agreed with that statement about euthanasia.

"...should remain illegal."

20%...there are a couple of questions where the differentiation was of a nature that I would argue make good philosophical sense.

"...should remain illegal."

oh crap.... I need to read things slower. I didn't know i was agreeing to that

13%

I got 27% but the test is crap anyway. The questions sucked and 'agree/disagree' really weren't sufficient in most cases.

I think the test people misunderstand God.

I think everyone misunderstands God and muddies the waters even more the moment they attempt to make a definitive statement about God.

I think everyone misunderstands God and muddies the waters even more the moment they attempt to make a definitive statement about God.

How can you get muddier than a concept with no definition?

How can you get muddier than a concept with no definition?

By adding water?

How can you get muddier than a concept with no definition?


how could you define something if you have no way of knowing about it? only by making shit up and that means to muddy it.

Shitty.

You agreed that:
There are no objective truths about matters of fact; 'truth' is always relative to particular cultures and individuals
And also that:
The holocaust is an historical reality, taking place more or less as the history books report

That there is no such thing as absolute truth does not preclude me from proclaiming what I believe to be true and showing the inconsistencies in another's thoughts.

It is incredibly easy for me to point out the many factors that cause people to deny the holocaust that are completely arbitrary to the "truth" of the matter.

You agreed that:
In certain circumstances, it might be desirable to discriminate positively in favour of a person as recompense for harms done to him/her in the past
And disagreed that:
It is not always right to judge individuals solely on their merits

Positive discrimination is a method of rectifying a situation where it is impossible for a person to display his true merit because of systematic undermining thereof.

You disagreed that:
It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence
But agreed that:
Atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God

I knew this was coming when I saw the second question. Atheism is not a faith just like any other because it is the lack of belief in a God, however, the clause makes it seem like it is asking about strong atheism in pointing to proof of God.

As for the first statement, I would also say that it is quite unreasonable to make any statement on the existence of a thing that cannot possibly be observed.

To take on their pink fairy example, I can list any number of scenarios where I can observe a pink fairy. I, however, do not believe that a scenario exists that will allow me to observe God. If observation is impossible, then non-belief is as absurd as belief, because the question itself is meaningless.

You agreed that:
Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste
And also that:
Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists

This is a non-contradiction for so many reasons. Most obviously, saying that art is a matter of taste and that Michaelangelo is to my taste is nowhere near contradictory.

Furthermore, even if art is subjective, why should it not be that artists can be judged by their ability to appeal to a variety of individuals. It relates to the other questions, but consensus is about the only thing we have that can grant an iota of truth to an idea.

What nonsense. First of all "It is not always right to do something" does not imply that "It is always right not to do something." And the strong qualification of the support for positive discrimination does imply that in many cases it is not right to do that. So, where then is the contradiction? Both beliefs are conditional.


You disagreed with "It is not always right to judge individuals solely on their merits", so you are forced to agree that its is "always right to judge individuals solely on their merits". If you agree that people should be judged based upon qualities other than merit, you have contradicted yourself.

how could you define something if you have no way of knowing about it? only by making shit up and that means to muddy it.

I think you need to understand that without a definition, "God", or any other word is completely meaningless. It's like having a discussion about "xasfduypiopasfkjb".

I'll agree that God is shit that someone made up though.

I think you need to understand that without a definition, "God", or any other word is completely meaningless. It's like having a discussion about "xasfduypiopasfkjb".

I'll agree that God is shit that someone made up though.


I never said God was made up.

Why do I need to unstand that without a definition, the word "God" is meaningless? Perhaps you need to wrap you head around the idea that there can be something you would never be able to understand and therefore beyond the scope of a definition.

I personally don't hold a concept of God beyond "unexplainable" and perhaps for purposes of this thread "the biggest contradiction of all". I don't believe in God because someone told me too. Quite the contrary, I was a strict atheist and thought that religion and God were rather stupid, until I had a personal experience which left me unable to deny the existence of what I only call 'God' out of convenience. I Still feel that way about religion for the most part though.

So I don't look down on atheists for not believing in God. It's quite a logical conclusion to come to, but in light of my own experience I am unable to hold that opinion anymore. Although I think it's more logical to be agnostic.