Are you a kant?

[Cptkernow]

poses questions supposed to determine which philosopher's beliefs most closely represent your ethical philosophy. In short, a pseudo-intellectual way to waste 10 minutes! (http://selectsmart.com/PHILOSOPHY/)

Warning some pop ups.

[Cptkernow]

My results.1. Kant (100%)
2. Spinoza (98%)
3. Aquinas (92%)
4. Aristotle (82%)
5. John Stuart Mill (82%)
6. Jeremy Bentham (81%)
7. Prescriptivism (74%)
8. Stoics (71%)
9. Ayn Rand (70%)
10. Epicureans (68%)
11. St. Augustine (65%)
12. Nietzsche (64%)
13. Jean-Paul Sartre (59%)
14. David Hume (51%)
15. Plato (50%)
16. Nel Noddings (45%)
17. Ockham (38%)
18. Cynics (34%)
19. Thomas Hobbes (25%)

Ayn Rand 70% NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[jokerswild]

My results returned Spinoza on top.
That's probably a fair appraisal.

Though for political satire, nobody tops Voltaire in my mind. I can't stand Ayn Rand. She strikes me as as a social Darwinist in which the ends justify the means.

[Cptkernow]

How does her name get on the list with actual philosphers.

She just a puesedo intellectual at best.

[Stu Pidasso]

The top of my list was Moe Sislak. Who is this guy and what does he believe anyways?

Stu

[Cptkernow]

He is famous for his philosophy of transcendent gayness. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

1.
Ayn Rand (100%)
2.
John Stuart Mill (73%)
3.
Thomas Hobbes (71%)
4.
Nietzsche (67%)
5.
Jean-Paul Sartre (64%)
6.
Cynics (61%)
7.
David Hume (61%)
8.
Kant (57%)
9.
Prescriptivism (57%)
10.
Epicureans (52%)
11.
Jeremy Bentham (48%)
12.
Stoics (47%) Click here for info
13.
Aristotle (46%) Click here for info
14.
Nel Noddings (43%)
15.
Aquinas (39%)
16.
Ockham (36%)
17.
Plato (36%)
18.
Spinoza (26%)
19.
St. Augustine (19%)

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I can't stand Ayn Rand. She strikes me as as a social Darwinist in which the ends justify the means.

A complete misunderstanding of Rand. One of the strongest tenets of Objectivism is that the ends never justify the means.

My answer on the ENDS/MEANS/INTENT question was MEANS, and as you can see from my other post, i scored 100% for Rand.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Ayn Rand 70% NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I suspect your answers indicated a strong proclivity towards reason.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Yeah. Heavan forbid we call anyone a philosopher who champions the individual and rejects religion.

[Cptkernow]

In Ayn's case

I dont care what they say its the way that they say it.

Her books are pop philosophy.

[Zeno]

1. Stoics (100%)
2. Nietzsche (88%)
3. Spinoza (78%)
4. Aristotle (71%)
5. David Hume (71%)
6. Ayn Rand (70%)
7. Kant (68%)
8. Epicureans (63%)
9. Aquinas (60%)
10. Jean-Paul Sartre (59%)
11. Cynics (47%)
12. Thomas Hobbes (41%)
13. St. Augustine (40%)
14. Jeremy Bentham (38%)
15. John Stuart Mill (33%)
16. Nel Noddings (26%)
17. Ockham (25%)
18. Plato (25%)
19. Prescriptivism (15%)


I guess I lived up to my 2+2 moniker.

-Zeno

Seems rather suspicious that so much can be deduced from the simple 20 questions asked. Fun test but I put little stock in the results.

[Utah]

1. Thomas Hobbes (100%) Click here for info
2. Nel Noddings (95%) Click here for info
3. Jean-Paul Sartre (75%) Click here for info
4. David Hume (62%) Click here for info
5. Nietzsche (62%) Click here for info
6. Stoics (59%) Click here for info
7. Cynics (48%) Click here for info
8. Aquinas (37%) Click here for info
9. Aristotle (37%) Click here for info
10. Jeremy Bentham (37%) Click here for info
11. Plato (37%) Click here for info
12. Ayn Rand (29%) Click here for info
13. Spinoza (25%) Click here for info
14. Epicureans (22%) Click here for info
15. Kant (19%) Click here for info
16. St. Augustine (16%) Click here for info
17. Prescriptivism (12%) Click here for info
18. John Stuart Mill (0%) Click here for info
19. Ockham (0%) Click here for info

[Ragnar]

I got Rand 100%. That shouldn't surprise anyone. I won't list the rest except that Mill and Kant both at 62% were interesting. I was a little lower in Aristotle and Aquinas than I suspected. I do think the test is a bit flawed, but very interesting. I'm glad our resident stoic scored high in that category.

Ragnar

[Ragnar]

Much of Rand's writing is directed at a popular audience. On the other hand Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology is pretty technical. She varied her writing depending on her audience.

Ragnar

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I was a little lower in Aristotle and Aquinas than I suspected.

I had the same result/reaction.

[Boris]

The fact that Kant placed so high was very surprising to me.

1. Jean-Paul Sartre (100%) Click here for info
2. Kant (87%) Click here for info
3. David Hume (85%) Click here for info
4. Stoics (84%) Click here for info
5. Nietzsche (80%) Click here for info
6. Thomas Hobbes (77%) Click here for info
7. Ayn Rand (75%) Click here for info
8. John Stuart Mill (75%) Click here for info
9. Cynics (73%) Click here for info
10. Epicureans (68%) Click here for info
11. Jeremy Bentham (62%) Click here for info
12. Aquinas (55%) Click here for info
13. Nel Noddings (53%) Click here for info
14. Aristotle (44%) Click here for info
15. Plato (43%) Click here for info
16. Spinoza (43%) Click here for info
17. Prescriptivism (42%) Click here for info
18. St. Augustine (26%) Click here for info
19. Ockham (15%) Click here for info

[David Steele]

I got the right answers, except for the disturbing Ayn Rand
component.


1. Kant (100%) Click here for info
2. Jean-Paul Sartre (84%) Click here for info
3. Ayn Rand (83%) Click here for info
4. John Stuart Mill (82%) Click here for info
5. Prescriptivism (70%) Click here for info
6. Jeremy Bentham (64%) Click here for info
7. Stoics (62%) Click here for info
8. Epicureans (50%) Click here for info
9. Aristotle (47%) Click here for info
10. Aquinas (47%) Click here for info
11. Spinoza (45%) Click here for info
12. David Hume (35%) Click here for info
13. Nietzsche (35%) Click here for info
14. St. Augustine (26%) Click here for info
15. Ockham (25%) Click here for info
16. Plato (24%) Click here for info
17. Nel Noddings (23%) Click here for info
18. Thomas Hobbes (20%) Click here for info
19. Cynics (14%) Click here for info

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

except for the disturbing Ayn Rand
component.

I find it very revealing that ostensibly intelligent people, after honestly answering philosophic questions, rebel when it is demonstrated that their own honest beliefs are at least somewhat akin to Rand's.

So let me ask you this. Since it is apparent that you have no desire to change your view of Rand, are you going to seriously re-evaluate your beliefs? Saying you need to do neither would be illogical.

[Cptkernow]

I am however allowed to consider the validity of the test itself.

IT MUST BE FLAWED /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Malarky]

Who is Spinoza and why am I %100 this person?

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]


She just a puesedo intellectual at best.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I bet she knew how to spell it /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[David Steele]

The tenets of Rand's philosophy are not entirely wrong, but the consequenses that are claimed to follow often end up being too extreme in my experience. Are we really supposed to let the handicapped die in poverty unless some charity happens to show up on time?

This kind of test probably only compared some basic concepts and it is not surprising that there is much overlap in positions.

D.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
I am however allowed to consider the validity of the test itself.

IT MUST BE FLAWED /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps, but thanks for posting it anyway.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The tenets of Rand's philosophy are not entirely wrong, but the consequenses that are claimed to follow often end up being too extreme in my experience.

That's a legitimate way to voice the opinion.

Are we really supposed to let the handicapped die in poverty unless some charity happens to show up on time?

This is the specious argument proponents of small government always hear. Let's just say I don't think the welfare state has done much to prevent the handicapped from dying in poverty, and I honestly believe there are more than two options.

[Cptkernow]

The problem is that since Kierkergard deystroyed the Objectivist Epistemology with his statement

"Existence is the seperation of thought and object"

Modern thought has moved on.

Objecvitism realy belongs in the muesuem of Western Philosophy along side Hegel.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Modern thought has moved on.

If by that you mean that to be "modern" in your thought you must believe that the needs of the individual are subserviant to the needs of the collective, then being "modern" is just another word for being a sheep.

[playerfl]

I'm an aquinous/kant hybrid.

[nothumb]

Watch what you say about Hegel bub. He may be historically bound in some ways (i.e. thinking that the Prussian state in 1820 was the manifestation of the highest possible level of human civilization) but his method is astonishingly powerful.

I scored Sartre 100%.

What surprised me was getting about the same results for Nietzsche as I did for John Stuart Mill.

Rand was in the 60's for me. I personally can't stand her but we coincide on matters of reason and the importance of moral/intellectual rigor. We diverge on the 'giving a flying poop about anyone but yourself' category.

NT

[craig r]

Objecvitism realy belongs in the muesuem of Western Philosophy along side Hegel.

The problem with putting Hegel in this "museum /images/graemlins/smile.gif" is that for any student of philosophy he is necessary to read. Understanding Hegel makes studying Marx much easier. And I can't think of too much 20th century philosophy that did not have to, at some point, "face" Marx. But, in order to do this one is really going to have to know where Marx is coming from. I could be wrong, but understanding the material dialectic was much easier after reading the "eternal optimist" that Hegel was.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Modern thought has moved on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. And to what end and in what direction, I am compelled to ask?


-Zeno

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

we coincide on matters of reason and the importance of moral/intellectual rigor.

Good

We diverge on the 'giving a flying poop about anyone but yourself' category.

You see, I see nothing in her writing that suggests we should not be free as individuals to help others. I might even suggest that someone who demands that the collective take care of him is the one that "doesn't give a flying poop about anyone but himself." She had a very harsh outlook on life, and as I've said before, I'm well aware that she'd look down her nose at playing poker for a living.

[andyfox]

.

[Utah]

Where are you test results??

[jdl22]

Your Results:


1. Jean-Paul Sartre (100%)
2. Stoics (97%)
3. Spinoza (91%)
4. Cynics (83%)
5. David Hume (81%)
6. Nietzsche (81%)
7. Aquinas (77%)
8. Thomas Hobbes (71%)
9. Nel Noddings (64%)
10. Ayn Rand (59%)
11. St. Augustine (57%)
12. Kant (56%) Click here for info
13. Jeremy Bentham (54%) Click here for info
14. John Stuart Mill (51%) Click here for info
15. Aristotle (45%) Click here for info
16. Epicureans (38%) Click here for info
17. Plato (37%) Click here for info
18. Ockham (20%) Click here for info
19. Prescriptivism (15%) Click here for info

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
You see, I see nothing in her writing that suggests we should not be free as individuals to help others.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't either. She just doesn't place any emphasis on actually doing it.

[ QUOTE ]
might even suggest that someone who demands that the collective take care of him is the one that "doesn't give a flying poop about anyone but himself."

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I certainly never demanded the 'collective' take care of me. I just think that there's no reason that more people - most people, in fact - can't be productive members of society and live comfortably in the process. I think it's enlightened self-interest - in the long term - for us to look for ways to make the world more stable and livable.

NT

[superleeds]

Sartre 100%

I was surprised at no Leibniz in the list, I mean he was a philosopher unlike Rand.

[jokerswild]

Having demolished classical metaphysics in the Critique of Pure Reason, he then attempts to rebuild metaphysics with his works on moral reasoning. Do you think he flipped out at destroying scholasticism? Or did he just bow to social pressure?

[Jimbobobb]

1. Nietzsche (100%) Click here for info

I find this disturbing for a few reasons
1. I consider myself somewhat religious
2. It means either the quiz is flawed or I didn't answer
the questions truly/my own beliefs are somehow different
/I'm not sure of my own beliefs.


hmmmm....introspection as a result of an online quiz posted in a poker forum.....way to ruin my thursday night :-P

[andyfox]

Couldn't answer any of the questions. Honestly. None of them made any sense to me.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly. None of them made any sense to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is philosophy. It's not suppose to make sense. There was the last choice for most questions which was sort of a 'none of the above'. Just use that one, you cynic. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

-Zeno

[arx]

1. Jeremy Bentham (100%) Click here for info
2. Epicureans (98%) Click here for info
3. John Stuart Mill (98%) Click here for info
4. Kant (97%) Click here for info
5. Aquinas (94%) Click here for info
6. Aristotle (94%) Click here for info
7. Stoics (78%) Click here for info
8. Ayn Rand (77%) Click here for info
9. Spinoza (75%) Click here for info
10. Nietzsche (75%) Click here for info
11. Prescriptivism (71%) Click here for info
12. Jean-Paul Sartre (68%) Click here for info
13. Ockham (67%) Click here for info
14. Cynics (63%) Click here for info
15. Plato (58%) Click here for info
16. David Hume (56%) Click here for info
17. St. Augustine (56%) Click here for info
18. Nel Noddings (46%) Click here for info
19. Thomas Hobbes (42%) Click here for info


I kind of suspected Epicurus would come up right there. Loved him since high school.

[John Cole]

I think the order would have been inverted when I was 17. BTW, I answered "don't like the choices" to almost all questions.

1. Kant (100%) Click here for info
2. Prescriptivism (100%) Click here for info
3. John Stuart Mill (90%) Click here for info
4. Jeremy Bentham (59%) Click here for info
5. Ayn Rand (54%) Click here for info
6. Spinoza (48%) Click here for info
7. Aquinas (47%) Click here for info
8. Ockham (45%) Click here for info
9. Jean-Paul Sartre (44%) Click here for info
10. Stoics (41%) Click here for info
11. St. Augustine (40%) Click here for info
12. Nel Noddings (39%) Click here for info
13. Epicureans (33%) Click here for info
14. Aristotle (28%) Click here for info
15. David Hume (24%) Click here for info
16. Nietzsche (24%) Click here for info
17. Plato (24%) Click here for info
18. Thomas Hobbes (8%) Click here for info
19. Cynics (0%) Click here for info

[Ragnar]

Malarky writes [ QUOTE ]
Who is Spinoza and why am I %100 this person?

[/ QUOTE ]

Benedict (Baruch) Spinoza lived from 1632-1677. According to The Encyclopedia of Philosophy [ QUOTE ]
The obectivity and impersonality of his philosophical style betray a rare concern for truth and clarity, and for nothing else.

[/ QUOTE ]

The entry in the encyclopedia is over ten pages. Spinoza earned his living by grinding lenses and from philsophical discussion. He refused a chair in philosophy. Since this quiz was about ethics I will summarize his ethical theory briefly. Please keep in mind that while I have read much in philsophy I have never read Spinoza, having only read about him in anthologies.

[ QUOTE ]
According to Spinoza, the elements of the ordinary man's conventional moral code are a belief in free will, a use of praise and blame depending on this belief, and a use of such predicates as 'good' and 'evil' in the belief that they denote characteristics of that which they describe. In fact Spinoza thinks, men call good whatever gives them pleasure and evil whatever gives them pain. . .

[/ QUOTE ]

Spinoza rejects this in favor of an intellectual love of God in which [ QUOTE ]
Our ideas become a part of the infinite idea of God;

[/ QUOTE ]

In politics he believed in [ QUOTE ]
. . . a democracy in which the owners of property rule. . .

[/ QUOTE ]

All the quotations are from The Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I hope this gives you a bit of the flavor of Spinoza. He was a deep and complex thinker--far too deep to be summarized in a quiz such as this one.

Ragnar

[Utah]

most of mine were the last choice and the little quiz did a pretty good job of pegging me.

[MMMMMM]

1. Ayn Rand (100%)
2. Kant (95%)
3. Jean-Paul Sartre (87%)
4. Ockham (83%)
5. Epicureans (75%)
6. Prescriptivism (73%)
7. John Stuart Mill (72%)
8. Nietzsche (65%)
9. Aristotle (62%)
10. Spinoza (57%)
11. Stoics (55%)
12. Aquinas (54%)
13. St. Augustine (48%)
14. Jeremy Bentham (43%)
15. David Hume (38%)
16. Thomas Hobbes (21%)
17. Plato (19%)
18. Cynics (16%)
19. Nel Noddings (0%)

Interestingly, some time ago when we discussed Ayn Rand on this board, I came to the conclusion that I did not agree with all of Rand's philosophy (at least, according to the summaries of Objectivism which I had read). Yet the test shows me at 100% Rand. Objectivism,, from what summaries I read, struck me as a somewhat oversimplified in certain respects, and lacking somewhat in empathy for others (including animals).

I amswered the "Doesn't matter/Don't like the test question" to most of the questions.

I think it likely the test questions could have been better structured. In particular, I have come to dislike polls or tests which combine "Yes" or "No" answers with specific reasons for that answer. At least, if they offer such formats there should be included "Yes" or "No" choices with "for some other reason(s)" attached, so that one is not limited to agreeing with the poll-maker's reasons if one wishes to select "Yes" or "No".

[MMMMMM]

"We diverge on the 'giving a flying poop about anyone but yourself' category."

Nothumb,

I diverge from Rand on this as well.

However, I also have very low confidence in the ability of government to truly help the less fortunate, and zero confidence in the ability of government to do so in anything approaching a cost-effective manner. I am also very leery of giving government greater and greater powers. Hence, I favor private charity over government charity. This is where your views and mine most diverge, it would seem, based on our prior discussions.

[crash]

I'm almost the anti-you: I had Spinoza 100%. Mill was my second, too, though. I read some Spinoza while in grad school, but I don't remember being particularly drawn to him.

[Cptkernow]

Ha Ha now I have caught you making massive assumptions.

I meant that thought has moved on from the fantasy that an existing subject can postulate objective philosophical "Truths."

Lets look at two users of objective epistimology

1. MARX
2. RAND

Hmm hang on, there both being "objective" yet come to very different conclusions. But how can that be, if you are objective you must come to same conclusions as any other guy being objective.

The reason they came to different conclusions is because they are existing subjects that in the final anaylsis are just giving opinions. (Very well argued opinions) Therefore any claim at objectivity is nonsence.

You might claim that Rand has been more succesfull at being objective, but ironicaly that would just be your opinion.

All of my favourite thnkers are existentialist, Kierkergard and Camus.

The last thing they want is the collective to be given precedent over the individual.

It is the last thing I want also. I just believe that my liberty is best protected by power being dispersed amongst as many agents as possible rather than concentrated in the hands of the wealthy, which is what I think would be the consequence of the libertarian manifesto.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I just believe that my liberty is best protected by power being dispersed amongst as many agents as possible rather than concentrated in the hands of the wealthy, which is what I think would be the consequence of the libertarian manifesto.

Understood. But I think liberty is best protected by a free and open market, over which government stands solely as an impartial arbiter of disputes. For example, wouldn't there be more freedom and diversity in the media if there were no FCC?

Also how do you justify the presecution of Microsoft in light of the obvious consolidation of power in the banking industry? (I suspect by 2050, there will be only one bank in the US if this keeps up)

I don't see government regulations as protecting anyone other than the big industries that grease the most palms.

[Cptkernow]

"For example, wouldn't there be more freedom and diversity in the media if there were no FCC?"

I see no reason that with out the FCC Murdoch et al wouldnt have even more controll over the media.

"Also how do you justify the presecution of Microsoft in light of the obvious consolidation of power in the banking industry? "

I would say the persecution of Microsoft is justified (especialy given the dominence and crapness of Windows) but hadnt you now give the banking industry some attention also.

"I don't see government regulations as protecting anyone other than the big industries that grease the most palms. "

Granted that can happen especialy in the Americian system with its pork barrel politics, but I think it is far fetched for me to say that government only protects the intrest of big business. Governments are made up of parties and parties need votes (As well as campaighn funds). If a governemnt is to exclusive in its favours it can soon find itself unelected.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I see no reason that with out the FCC Murdoch et al wouldnt have even more controll over the media.

But at least you would be free to enter the market and compete.

If a governemnt is to exclusive in its favours it can soon find itself unelected

It's not the elected people in government that have the real power. The elected faces change regularly. The unelected Mandarins are there forever.

[andyfox]

I did. Then I got to the third question and surmised I'd probably be answering them all that way, glanced at the rest and realized my surmise was correct and gave up.

I took one philosophy course at UCLA. I was eligible for two philosophy courses. I should have known what I was in for when I found out the two were Philosphy 6 and Philosophy 7. Any branch of knowlege that starts its introductory courses with numbers 6 and 7 has some problems.

Anyway, I opted for Philosophy 7. The "text" was a book written by Merleau-Ponty (if I remember the name correctly). The first ten pages "discussed" a beam of light shining on a wall. I gave up then too. Fortunately for me (although not for the Cambodians), Nixon invaded Cambodia and after Kent State the class was cancelled and everybody got a B.

Truth is indeed stranger than fiction.

[andyfox]

Merleau-Ponty's Primacy of Perception, published in 1945, explains his theory of perception:

"[Our experience of perception comes from our being present] at the moment when things, truths, and values are constituted for us; that perception is a nascent Logos; that it teaches us, outside of all dogmatism, the true conditions of objectivity itself; that is summons us to the tasks of knowledge and action. It is not a question of reducing human knowledge to sensation, but of assisting at the birth of this knowledge, to make it as sensible as the sensible, to recover the consciousness of rationality. This experience of rationality is lost when we take it for granted as self-evident, but is, on the contrary, rediscovered when it is made to appear against the background of non-human nature."

I'll leave it for others to elaborate.

[Zeno]

To agument Ragnar's response on Spinoza-

Spinoza (1632-77) is the noblest and most lovable of the great philosophers. Intellectually, some others have surpassed him, but ethically he is supreme. As a natural consequence, he was considered, during his lifetime and for a century after his death, a man of appalling wickedness. He was a Jew, but the Jews excommunicated him. Christians abhorred him equally; although his whole philosophy is dominated by the idea of God, the orthodox accused him of atheism. Leibniz, who owed much to him, concealed his debt, and carefully abstained from saying a word in his praise; he even went so far as to lie about the extent of his personal acquaintance with the heretic Jew.

-Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy.


Perhaps a somewhat bias synopsis, but reasonably accurate.


As if by divine coincidence, I just received a handsome leather bound copy of Russell’s book, which I had ordered long ago, in the mail yesterday. My paperback copy is falling apart. There has been much divine intervention of late in dealing with some issues on this board. I may have to rethink my atheism.

I personally think that Russell’s book is an excellent introduction to Western thought. It is unparalleled in scope for a one-volume work on such a large subject matter. It shows a slant but this is something that can be cast at almost anyone else that tackled the same subject. Academics no doubt are critical and possibly some consider the book un-technical, etc. Which is all the more reason to read it. The style of writing is magnificent. The integration of a historical perspective and other influences on philosophy as a whole and on individual philosophers is very illuminating.

I suggest you read it. If nothing else, the book makes a good doorstop.

-Zeno

[Boris]

I have no idea if he flipped out bowed to social pressure but I do know that he took on a task that was beyond herculean. The obtuse nature of Kant's writings belies the fact that he didn't really know what to say.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll leave it for others to elaborate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only eminently wise of you, also very philosophic. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif (I would do the same).

Does Merleau-Ponty's book at least make a good doorstop?

-Zeno

[B Dids]

1. Jean-Paul Sartre (100%) Click here for info
2. Nel Noddings (97%) Click here for info
3. Nietzsche (94%) Click here for info
4. Stoics (93%) Click here for info
5. Epicureans (92%) Click here for info
6. David Hume (87%) Click here for info
7. Jeremy Bentham (83%) Click here for info
8. Kant (83%) Click here for info
9. Thomas Hobbes (80%) Click here for info
10. Spinoza (79%) Click here for info
11. Cynics (73%) Click here for info
12. John Stuart Mill (73%) Click here for info
13. Ayn Rand (71%) Click here for info
14. Aristotle (68%) Click here for info
15. Aquinas (62%) Click here for info
16. Prescriptivism (54%) Click here for info
17. St. Augustine (41%) Click here for info
18. Ockham (34%) Click here for info
19. Plato (29%) Click here for info

[Cptkernow]

"But at least you would be free to enter the market and compete"

I suggest that in reality only those in posesion of about 1 billion dollars minimum would and currently do have this freedom.

"It's not the elected people in government that have the real power. The elected faces change regularly. The unelected Mandarins are there forever. "

True there is a certian element of I am the new boss same as the old boss. This is a problem with government and I feel there is room for evolution in governmental systems to overcome this.

This is one platform on which I would realy like to see a candidate stand and then actualy do something.

[Usul]

Wow. I'm new to the forum, but I must say that the level of debate here is phenomenally high. It's humbling to find an internet poker forum that can, at times, be over my head. That said, I do have what I thought was a healthy interest in philosophy, so i'll jump in on this thread. With all our resident philosophical heavyweights I would like to pose some questions:

1) Nel Noddings; who is he? I did the survey twice, with different answers both times, trying my best to hack my way through ambiguous answers (it's though to have ambiguous "yes" or "no" answers, but they did it), and both times I scored a 100 for old Nel.

2)Those nilists in the Big Lobowski, aren't they contridicting themselves by calling themselves nilists and yet saying they "believe in nothing"? Dosn't being a nilist nessesitate beliving in nilism, which itself means a belief in nothing, which is a self evident contridiction? Good movie though.

3)What can you do with a BA in philosophy? I've been considering it.

Great link. Thanks for posting it.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

There was an article in Reason magazine a couple of years ago about pirate radio. I think you'd find it interesting. I'm on the way out the door right now or I'd google it myself and give you a link.

[Grivan]

[ QUOTE ]
I suggest that in reality only those in posesion of about 1 billion dollars minimum would and currently do have this freedom.


[/ QUOTE ]

And I would suggest that anyone with 1 billion dollars probably has it for a reason. Either through their own work or through the work of an ancestor. Also, any individual is free to strive for the same results.

[3rdEye]

What's wrong with Ayn Rand? She was a brilliant novelist, and a pretty good philosophical thinker to boot.

[Cptkernow]

1. "And I would suggest that anyone with 1 billion dollars probably has it for a reason"

Yes, of course. Even if they got it by winning the lottery thay would still have a billion dollars for a reason (The reason is that you bought a ticket) I cant imagine someone having a billion dollars without some reason, or more specifiacly cause. So Your point is?


"Also, any individual is free to strive for the same results."

Yes. Oh look, My Name is Duke of Ect Ect daddy sent me to a 20,000£ a term school where I made friends with the other sons of the rich and powerfull. What is the probability of me achieving wealth, power and social influence.

More than me, I am the third son born into a single family living in a sink estate in Glasgow. I am free to strive to become a billionare but that freedom is almost entirely hypothetical.

Access to power wealth and social infulence is often (but not allways) an accident of birth. I would want the probability of achieving success to be entirely dictated by merit and ability.

That is why I love poker. I find poker to be the one activity where results are free of any sociatel bias and results are gained entirely through ones own ability and effort.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I am the third son born into a single family living in a sink estate in Glasgow. I am free to strive to become a billionare but that freedom is almost entirely hypothetical.

I don't know what a "sink estate" is in Glasgow (I know what that is /images/graemlins/tongue.gif), but it sounds like someone growing up dirt-poor in a no-running-water shack in the Ozarks growing up to be a billionaire. Oh, wait. That's been done. His name's H. Ross Perot. You see, here in the U.S., it's not hypothetical.

[HDPM]

[ QUOTE ]

I dont care what they say its the way that they say it.



[/ QUOTE ]


I think I see why you kant appreciate objectivism. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Cptkernow]

As I said Kurn, the son of the Earl of etc etcs probability of becoming a billionare is higher thus not discounting the possibility, due to a 100 years of social progress, of rural shack guy beoming a billionare.

Its a thing of ratios.

I think because I live in a society that was ruled by aristocrarcy for 1000's of years, one is still able to see the power that social rank can bestow.

In Britain at least the government has had a strong part in reducing the vestigial power of the aristocracy.

However if you were to examine a top 100 of rich brits you would still find that a dis proportionate ratio have titles.

Indeed I cant remember his name but I believe the richest brit is some earl or duke whos family own massive amounts of real estate in the very centre of london.

Trust me I am in no way a fan of paying tax to the aristos, and one of my present pet pevees is that the Duke of Cornwall's (Prince Charles) personal wealth was biult when Cornwall was a major industrial force in the last century primarily due to its tin mining.

The duke got a cut of all the tin coming out of the ground. It made him a fortune.

Even today he still owns all the beaches in Cornwall between mean high and low tide.

If you were making a film of some kind and wanted to film on the beach you would have to pay the Duchy Estate £200 an hour. A tax that is not applicable on any other beach in Britain.

Indeed he the estate even collects fees from major telecomunications companys who cables land on cornish beaches.

USA still has social rank but its influence is more covert than in the UK, where having a title and a certain accent are a bit of a give away.

Feck the duke
Kernow iys Vicken. (Cornwall for ever)

[Cptkernow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I dont care what they say its the way that they say it.



[/ QUOTE ]


I think I see why you kant appreciate objectivism. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


I kant see why you cant read the rest of the thread were I elucidate on the above statement.

[HDPM]

I poked around the rest of the thread some before posting what I did. I have been away and skipped some posts, so maybe missed something. I will say substantively that I think your statement here about style and your post quoting kierkegaard (sp? in a hurry) show your position clearly. I disagree with it, but I think I understand what you are saying.

[MMMMMM]

"Indeed I cant remember his name but I believe the richest brit is some earl or duke whos family own massive amounts of real estate in the very centre of london."

Richer than the Queen of England???

Well here's a Brit who I'll bet is richer than them all:

http://www.forbes.com/maserati/billionaires2004/LIRCRTT.html?passListId=10&passYear=2004&passListT ype=Person&uniqueId=CRTT&datatype=Person

Self-made, too....imagine that;-)

[HDPM]

Of course royalty is a ridiculous concept. An utterly immoral and irrational idea. The fact that your country keeps those fools around even if just for show is somewhat disturbing. That said, the greatest enemies of royalty and class status are objectivist political principles and capitalism. The reason class status isn't as important in America is that we kicked the crap out of your king and instituted a relatively free system. The thing is, most of the abuses you can gripe about come about because of governemtnal interference. Kings got their wealth by stealing it at the point of whatever weapon was in vogue. Where businesses or people enjoy improper influence, it is where they get help from a government that uses force on others to confer the privilege. That is the problem.

[Cptkernow]

[ QUOTE ]
"Indeed I cant remember his name but I believe the richest brit is some earl or duke whos family own massive amounts of real estate in the very centre of london."

Richer than the Queen of England???

Well here's a Brit who I'll bet is richer than them all:

http://www.forbes.com/maserati/billionaires2004/LIRCRTT.html?passListId=10&passYear=2004&passListT ype=Person&uniqueId=CRTT&datatype=Person

Self-made, too....imagine that;-)

[/ QUOTE ]

As I have said you dont have to be Earl of whatever to become a billionare it just helps alot, ergo it makes becoming a billionare more probable.

The aristo I am refering to is much richer than the Queen and JK rowling. He is a multi billionare in pounds sterling.

He owns the most expensive retail estate in Britain the rental of which is worth millions each month.

Its been in the "family" for generations.

Imagine if one person owned about 5 square miles of the centre of New York.

[Cptkernow]

Lets look at users of objective epistimology

1. HEGEL
2. MARX
3. RAND

Hmm hang on, there both being "objective" yet come to very different conclusions. But how can that be, if you are objective you must come to same conclusions as any other guy being objective.

The reason they came to different conclusions is because they are existing subjects that in the final anaylsis are just giving subjective opinions. (Very well argued opinions) Therefore any claim at objectivity is nonsence.

You might claim that Rand has been more succesfull at being objective, but ironicaly that would just be your opinion.


This spells out my position more clearly. That said this is not my position but the position taken by modern philosophy on the subject of objectivism which is seen as little more than a modernist fantasy.

[jwvdcw]

Your Results:


1. Aquinas (100%) Click here for info
2. St. Augustine (88%) Click here for info
3. Spinoza (87%) Click here for info
4. Aristotle (64%) Click here for info
5. Ockham (55%) Click here for info
6. Jeremy Bentham (52%) Click here for info
7. Stoics (51%) Click here for info
8. Cynics (50%) Click here for info
9. John Stuart Mill (49%) Click here for info
10. Epicureans (46%) Click here for info
11. Nietzsche (45%) Click here for info
12. Kant (41%) Click here for info
13. Plato (38%) Click here for info
14. Ayn Rand (34%) Click here for info
15. David Hume (34%) Click here for info
16. Jean-Paul Sartre (29%) Click here for info
17. Nel Noddings (29%) Click here for info
18. Prescriptivism (27%) Click here for info
19. Thomas Hobbes (21%) Click here for info


I'm a Christian so this doesn't surprise me at all.

[FeliciaLee]

I think you were the only person who had something even close to my results:

1. St. Augustine (100%) Click here for info
2. Aquinas (86%) Click here for info
3. Ockham (84%) Click here for info
4. Kant (73%) Click here for info
5. John Stuart Mill (66%) Click here for info
6. Plato (63%) Click here for info
7. Spinoza (63%) Click here for info
8. Prescriptivism (62%) Click here for info
9. Jeremy Bentham (55%) Click here for info
10. Aristotle (53%) Click here for info
11. Epicureans (50%) Click here for info
12. Jean-Paul Sartre (47%) Click here for info
13. Ayn Rand (46%) Click here for info
14. David Hume (42%) Click here for info
15. Nietzsche (33%) Click here for info
16. Stoics (33%) Click here for info
17. Cynics (27%) Click here for info
18. Thomas Hobbes (22%) Click here for info
19. Nel Noddings (21%) Click here for info

Felicia /images/graemlins/smile.gif
www.felicialee.net (http://www.felicialee.net)

[DOMIT]

Close to me too:

Your Results:


1. St. Augustine (100%) Click here for info
2. Aquinas (84%) Click here for info
3. Spinoza (73%) Click here for info
4. Kant (67%) Click here for info
5. Ockham (63%) Click here for info
6. Aristotle (58%) Click here for info
7. Plato (56%) Click here for info
8. Ayn Rand (51%) Click here for info
9. Jeremy Bentham (51%) Click here for info
10. David Hume (50%) Click here for info
11. John Stuart Mill (50%) Click here for info
12. Prescriptivism (48%) Click here for info
13. Jean-Paul Sartre (43%) Click here for info
14. Nietzsche (43%) Click here for info
15. Stoics (43%) Click here for info
16. Cynics (33%) Click here for info
17. Epicureans (33%) Click here for info
18. Nel Noddings (32%) Click here for info
19. Thomas Hobbes (19%) Click here for info