Philosophical Test

[msj]

Came across this Philosophical Test today and thought I would put it up for others: Oops, the test is here. This one was mistakenly included but is also fun: Take the Test

It asks 30 questions and is really looking at your philosophical "tension" - that is, your consistency or how you contradict yourself.

My score was 7% tension compared to an average of 20%. [Technically speaking it is 2/30 or 6.66% which doesn't surprise me as I'm pretty evil, bwahahahaha]

It tells you which statements (in my case 2) that you answered contradictory to.

For me it was statements 3 and 24 - I think it's fine for people to use a car instead of walking/cycling/train but then I agreed that people should not harm the environment unnecessarily.

Ooooohhh, the tension!

Anyway, it was fun and took only a few minutes.

Edited January 27, 2013 by msj

[Canuckistani]

I don't get it, I got questions about sex. Consentometer 70 vs average 60, Tension 0.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Canuckistani

[TimG]

I don't get it, I got questions about sex.

I got questions about alcohol and then sex. The test seems to check if you give contradictory answers to moral questions. It is not a test of good or evil but one of moral consistency. Edited January 27, 2013 by TimG

[Shakeyhands]

I did the test and it determined that I wanted to get drunk and have sex. What is wrong wIth me???

[msj]

Ha, I have fixed the link (I hope) but have left the other one up too.

[Guest Derek L]

Hmmm 27%.........I want to save the environment, but don’t mind driving my diesel one-ton pick-up a few blocks to purchase hippy medicine………….And people with brain damage are going to heaven even though I’m not religious……

[Bonam]

I got one tension, the same as msj. I don't see any real tension here. One should not harm the environment unduly, but driving an electric car harms the environment less than getting on one of those dirty city buses that spew forth never-ending plumes of dark smog. And while one "can" always walk/bike/bus, so that driving a car is never really "necessary", the environmental cost of even a "dirty" car is often greatly outweighed by the convenience cost of not driving one.

One question I didn't really think was sufficiently well specified: "was the second world war a just war?". From whose perspective? One might (and I would) argue that the allies response to German and Japanese imperialism and genocide was just. But certainly Germany's actions which instigated the war were not just. Which question is this one supposed to have had tension with if answered a certain way?

[bush_cheney2004]

I got one tension as well, probably because it was a simple matter to decode the questions algorithm and superficial dichotomies intended to yield philosophical conflict (tension). In short, you have to be willing to kill people without bias !

[Moonlight Graham]

Interesting idea for a test but i thought a lot of the tensions weren't fair.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't agree with the tensions:

You agreed that:

Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste

And also that:

Michaelangelo is indubitably one of history's finest artists

?

I guess I wasn`t clear on when they were asking my opinion, or for facts.

[cybercoma]

I don't agree with the tensions:

?

I guess I wasn`t clear on when they were asking my opinion, or for facts.

Indubitably is the issue. He can't indubitably be one of history's finest artists if judgments about works of art are purely matters of taste. Tastes are relative and personal, they cannot be indubitable. So the question isn't asking about him being a fine artist, but about the indubitable aspect of that claim.

This is why the test is highly flawed. People's understanding and interpretations of the questions are going to vary.

[GostHacked]

I did the test and it determined that I wanted to get drunk and have sex. What is wrong wIth me???

You sir .. might be human!!