Take the test and find out which philosopher you are most in agreement with:knowsoda.com/philosophyI did 104 questions.
>>25623089Stupid test. Philosophy is not a timeless set of problems, nor, a fortiori, can philosophers be beholden to their 'answers' to these; discovery of the relevance of a problem is the same activity as solving it.
Michel de Montaigne
Apparently I am most similar to John Searle, great philosopher and greater sexual harasser. Frankly, all I really care about when it comes to philosophy is hedonic utilitarianism, all that matters is maximizing the universal sum experience of pleasure, everything else is just quibbling over details.
Searle was my #2. My #1 was the beaner you have as #4.
Am I retarded?Wouldn't you take both boxes, therefore making a profit of €1,001,000?
I got this fella
>>25623425It only puts a million in the opaque box if you say you will pick the opaque box only.
>>25623089I doubt that website even has my favorite philosopher
>>25623425>NEAR PERFECT predictormeans it predicts what will certainly happen>places 1 million in the closed box ONLY if it knows you will take only the closed boxIf you take both there WILL NOT be one million in the closed boxI'm sorry to inform, but you are retarded.
>>25623449But if it's already predicted I'll take the closed box or not then the money will either be in there or not, therefore nothing I do will change the result.>oh no bro it just uh magically injects the box with cash bro
japanese incels are so retarded lmao
>>25623089i got "hispanic"
actual retard here, didn't even understand half the questions (even with the explanations)I don't know who this is
>>256234252 boxers shouldn't be allowed to vote
>>25623570You are the avatar of /lit/. Be proud.
Never heard of him. I’ll have to read about “process philosophy” now I suppose, since I apparently believe in it.
>>25623434>>25623601My brother!
Kuhn had some good points but I don't think that he's the philosopher most similar to me. Maybe I'm just not that into philosophy of science. I really don't like C*mus at all. Zhuangzi is easily top 3.I don't agree with a lot of the questions though so that probably skewed the results.
>>25623601>>25623434Same lol. Dude must’ve been a chud.
well that was underwhelming
>>25623089>short quiz: Rawls>longest quiz: Buddha>didn't take the middle oneApparently my nemeses are Plotinus and Plantinga. I'm in minority percentages for tough decisions. I'm also more scientist and less philosopher.
b-but I'm not Hispanic...Also it seems that everyone's nemeses so far are all Greeks
>>25623658>Also it seems that everyone's nemeses so far are all Greeksthat's because pl*to is the great satan
is this based?
What's with all the Ratiovitalismbros?
Idk what any of this means
>>25623089If I'm not hegel I'm gonna sperg.
>>25623570It means you're a pro-EU globalist technocrat
I only know about this guy from Thomas Ligotti ragging on him in The Conspiracy Against the Human Race.
That was a lot of questions for it to tell me what I already knew, that I was a libertarian with objectivist leanings. I know nothing of this John Searle fellow though. On the one hand I might benefit from reading some of his stuff, but on the other I am not really a fan of reading modern philosophical writing as it tends to be extremely dull, convoluted, and take a overly long time to make any sort of point whatsoever. I just don't have the patience for it like I did in my collage days.
>>25623746That's all philosophical writing
>>25623089I got Phenomenology. I kind of expected that.
>>25623089This is what I get when I answer "not sure" for almost every question?
>>25623754Robert Nozick, the famed polarizing thinker.
who this nigga
>>25623089HegelI did only 50 questions, but tests like these are retarded. You can interpret questions in multiple ways, like not pulling the lever in the trolley problem.>>25623425>near-perfectWould you trust ai slop to fill your taxes?
>answering every question with strongly disagree results in ratiovitalism>answering every question with strongly agree gives the same resultWHAT THE
>>25623089I don't even know who this guy is but I'm going to start looking for his works and see what he's had to say.
>>25623754>>25623764>>25623766>>25623767Anyone willing to try to answer as randomly as possible and see if you get this guy?
>>25623650>PlantingaLmao, I just wrote a fucking research paper for a class defending his conception of belief in God as properly basic, now I want to know why it said he's your philosophical nemesis.
This is a sign that I need to get around to reading Process and Reality. Interesting that the majority of posters ITT are getting either Whitehead or >>25623764
>>25623767He's my favorite philosopher, actually. Revolt Of The Masses is a classic.
>>25623581Like you have the power to stop us you limp wristed faggot.
>>25623425I'd take only the clear one
>>25623089So far I'm the only Phenomenologist here. What gives? I see a lot of Ratiovitalists though.
>>25623089There it goes. I never paid much attention to Hobbes., but maybe I should.
>>25623783uh oh tard rage
>>25623777>>25623640>>25623601He seems like a Heraclitus kind of guy.
Only 73%. Oh well, just happy one of these tests finally respects the "the question is badly framed/doesn't make sense" option.>>25623885We recently had a Whitehead (Process and Reality) thread up, see >>25610060
>>25623855Don't make me tap the sign
>>25623839Eww a physicalist.
>>25623899Keep seething
>>25623917About what exactly?
>>25623894Fellow Bentham hater!
i got Jurgen Jabermasi got a fucking Jew
>>25623957Another one!
>>25623089>testits a surveya bad one at that
I'm not familiar with this person.
>>25623981She is most well known for writing about the Holocaust and studying the mechanisms of bureaucracy in an authoritarian/totalitarian regime (Nazi Germany). Eichmann in Jerusalem and the banality of evil concept. She also had an affair with Heidegger
>>25623089Curious how the format and visuals of this are exactly the same as the political thread that's also up. Must be a massive coincidence.
very cool (idk who this is)
>>25623089i hate you retarded quiggers like you wouldn't believe. "Can X be Y?" "Would X work? (zero background)" NO YOU NIGGER FUCK OFF!!!
>>25623981the only interesting female philosopher. the human condition is a good read
>>25624001FIVE MORE ISMS AND WE WILL DEFINE PHILOSOPHY DIE
>>25623999never heard of this guyalso, trips.
Eh, I was hoping for someone cooler but whatever
Where does my philosopher (closest match( show up in the four temperaments model.
What's the definition of exists and everything? The idea of a number exists. I'm not sure if I have the correct words but the "discovery" of numbers would remain a possibility if there was a gap between anything that could perceive the concept. The concept exists outside of materialism but it also is entirely dependent on a brain to be discovered.
I always knew I philosophized like a Jewish woman
Pic rel is my secret fantasy. I always have wanted to hold a fuck. I was too lazy for taking that test at work, and I haven't had coffee in more than thirteen hours!!!
>>25624044lmao.
>>25623570Just focus on Nemisis Epicurus. That'll clear it up. Epicurus you should probably know.
>>25624044>>25624049?? time to try and read some Derek Parfit & George Berkeley
I can,'t post my gay ass little paintings
>>25624090>ParfitHope you like pedantry over bizarre thought experiments.
So, I received my 23andMe results (says I'm Jewish)
FUCK I got a girl>>25624045There might be something to this Jew woman then
>>25624181>objective meaninglol just lmao
>>25624144Based
not surprised
>>25623106its funny because the results more often than not are, although maybe skewed some how (just exercising some healthy skepticism), fairly accurate in illustrating somebodys inclinations
>>25623425This question really just gauges your belief in determinism regarding the predictor machine.
>>25623894>framing rejected on 84 questionsHoly giga...
Not a fan of my result
>answer "somewhere in between" for all questions>pressed 1 on all the multiple choice ones>still got this
>>25623961Lucky. I got Simone Wells
*tips*
Love how I could just reject the framing of questions.
Is it over for me /lit/?
>>25623089Literally who?
>>25623425If the boxes are already filled or not by the time you arrive to decide, you have no reason not to take both. Unless the 1,000,000 can magically disappear after you take them both, the money would already be there or not, so your decision in that moment has no effect on the state of the boxes. Unless I am misreading this question.
>>25624240This is my thought process as well
>>25624240Imagine if instead of going there to pick up the money yourself you had to program a robot to do it, and the ones putting the money in the box knew for a fact what you programmed the robot to do.
>>25624249Hm, now that is interesting. Seems I was thinking to narrowly. Thanks for the new perspective!
80% is pretty good
>>25624276
Well I didn’t expect but then I see why I got here.
>>25624210Is it the Edith stein part or the Rousseau one?
104 questions. I'm not a philosophy guy
Interesting how many people think the consciousness transfer thing would work
>>25624317oops sorry, here's the proper image
>>25624320I said it worked but reluctantly based on the phrasing. Rephrase it to a milder version of what it did say and I would disagree. I don't remember it exactly but I do remember thinking exactly that
>>25624329There's the transporter one and the computer brain one.
Dude...
>>25624352Get a job you bum!
>>25623434Me too, though Hegel is close second
My research advisor will be delighted to hear this.
>>25623690very based
wtf this test is actually so good
Based on the sketch test
How bad it is?
>>25624044Numbers don't exist. They are an abstraction of reality that lives in our minds.
>>25624419no, that would be words
>>25623089ooo ooo I wanna know my horroscope too!!!fuck yourself and your gay ass thread faggot
>>2562441620th century insectoid man
I don't really know what to make of my results. I got Heraclitus as the philosopher I'm closest to and ratiovitalism as the philosophy I agree the most with.>>25624352>taoist marxistsick multi-class build, anon
My brain is too smooth to understand philosophy.
>>25623089That's pretty stupid. You should make it decide based only on hypothetical situations like the trolley problem. I know they are included, but I am saying you should remove the direct questions and add more of solution based ones.4/10 Good idea, badly implemented - back to the AI drawing board you used.
what should I read
>>25624485Scruton's book on sex--Sexual Desire--is excellent.
>>25623981>>25624002This. She actually is worth reading. She’s “the banality of evil” lady.
>>25624002>>25624501Nah, get some standards
>You said “I don't know” to 71 questions. Very Sextus Empiricus of you.
>>25624236Read Revolt Of The Masses
>>25624671Not reading foidslop
>>25623425I just threw a coin whether I would pick both or one. Predict that, machine!It came up both.
Anyone heard of this guy?
>>25624779PLANTINGA
>>25624779Looks like that English doctor that killed all those old ladies
>>25624779
>>25624684>Spengler-tier philosophy is now foidslopGo back
>>25624209There's not really another option, imo, if you take the questions seriously.
>>25623089derridafags DIE
I got Husserl + MacIntyreWanted Heidegger + MacIntyre, I’ll take it.
so jose ortega is who the most generic /lit/ poster is like
>>25625108forgot picturei havent read much Confucius yet
>>25625111Damning indictment of /lit/ desu
>>25623089I got Scruton (PBUH)Not a bad result but I was hoping for this nigga
>Theism 100% Aw yiss
>ontologyWrong.
>>25625115I don't think its that bad. I think he's a great thinker. Hardly anyone reads him though.
>>25625942>this question is badly posed>this question is badly posed>this question is badly posedWhoever wrote these questions is a fucking moron. They have zero understanding of the material in question and the questions are irrelevant to the subject matter they present.
>>25625114Philosophical twin. Lets start a school of thought.
>>25625956>>25625942>oh this is "knowledge">you mean epistemology?>no here are some fucking retarded questions that have to do with "knowledge" rather than epistemologyWhat a fucking crock of absolute horseshit. I am fucking mad.
Absolutely retarded quiz.
>>25625984>You rejected the framing of 86 questions. Very Rudolf Carnap and Ludwig Wittgenstein of you.Yeah, these people are retards who do not have graduate degrees.
>>25625984Its reflection of your character though. You are what you eat and shit though.
>>25625989Far be it from me to demand ontological questions actually be related to ontology and "knowledge" questions to actually be in regards to epistemology and things related in terms of PRODUCING OR UNCOVERING KNOWLEDGE AND THE NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE rather than inane ramblings of some faggot communist trying to sneak in questions about planned economies and stealing money from rich people.
I got Husserl.I've never read Husserl.SHOULD I read Husserl?Very satisfied to get Plato too.
>>25624779I mean, look at this shit. "Reformed epistemology?" What, post-positivism? There is no such thing as "reformed epistemology" in any capacity in current year. Is it constructivism? Is it interpretativism? Critical theory? Critical race theory? Modernism? Post-modernism? No, it's some wikipedia nonsense from before the Enlightenment that does not exist in any capacity related whatsoever to what epistemology actually is besides apologetics. That's all it is.
>>25624279Which is another one I suspect the faggots who cooked this shit up have no idea what it means in current year.
>>25626001well to be fair Plantinga is more broadly a philosopher of religion, the apologetics is just the justification of his thought. he uses epistemology more or less as a way towards God than away from it. Most epistemologists are scientistic and use it like Hume did, like a surgeons scalpel to cut into the flesh of knowledge, to expose contradictions and remove a tumor. Plantinga does the opposite like one trying to fix a person's body after a car crash so the parts are working again.
>>25626018>epistemologistsThat doesn't exist. Epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge, but in current year is divided up betwixt the positivists and their apologists (the post-positivists) and the people who just pull shit out of thin air and say knowledge is whatever we claim it is (the narrativists, the constructivists, the critical theorists, the critical race theorists, etc). The problem I have with this quiz is that A) the questions are poorly phrased and the subject matter presented is wrong most of the time and B) they don't understand what the fucking terms mean. It's either LLM bullshit or a handful of BA holders jerking off thinking they're smarter than they are by misusing terms that the rank of humanity might not be intimately familiar with.
>>25626023well if you're so smart maybe you can tell the class you found a bridge between the two positions so you could put the debate to rest, if you are so inclined to do so.
>>25626035What two positions? There's one position and whatever the fuck these retards cooked up.
I STAND BY MY BELIEFSIDEALISMNOMINALISMHOLISMSOULFREE WILLEGALITARIANISMTHEISM
>>25623089half of these questions immediately make me go "depends on how you define it". kinda shit survey.
Don't know who this guy is, I've seen his face a few times though.
>>25626185Click on the green button that says Get Image doofer
>>25624240The question didn't say when it made the prediction or how, only that it was very good at it. If it's a machine that can scan your brain and know to a near certainty which selection you are going to make because of that it can wait to fill the box until after it has made that scan. And I'm this case it would, because it is nearly perfect at predicting. Any situation where you can take both boxes and come out ahead is also a situation where it did not predict well. But all we know about it is that it does predict well.Choosing "take both" requires either forgetting or ignoring the statement that it is a near perfect predictor. Your post in essence is just an argument that it cannot be a perfect predictor. But that's still not the question.
>>25623425Whatever decision I make will have been predicted. One box, two box; it doesn't matter. All I was ever able to do what I was going to do anyway, making a decision is a red herring here. It is not possible to meaningfully deliberate without the predictor's knowledgeSIMPLY ACT
>>25626210you assume there was ever a choice, like there's a way to "one-up" this omniscient predictor
>>25623089Rousseau
>>25623089I'm Mexican?
>>25626227I don't "assume" that. That is the information I am told. Literally the only thing we know about it is that it can predict well. If you're going to ignore or deny that then you're going to be answering a different question than what was actually asked.
>>25626232Maimomides lol
website looks vibecoded, i hate it
>>25626240Your mom looks vibecoded
>>25626232Ortega is from Spain
>>25626240ChatGPT make me a 12 axis philosophy rating website. Give it the look of the videogame Faster Than Light.
>>25626234IDK anything about him, whats his deal?
>>25626154Based result
>>25626037And that is?
>>25626233If I tell you there's a choice, that doesn't mean you actually have a choice
>>25626245From what I know Jewish monist, fervent defender of free will
>>25626254I'm a mexican jew?
>>25624424You first.
>>25623089>don't pull the lever>push the person
I'll take it
>>25626245He's like the Jewish version of Aquinas. Not by belief, but by influence and importance in explaining the religion to its adherents. His name gets said in Jewish cirlces the way Einstein's or Newton's does in others, it's synonymous with genius and insight. He's kind of the ultimate jew, so it's funny you didn't make mention of it because of how much this board seems to dislike Jews.Oh he was also Saladin's personal doctor.
>>25626293There was a JEWISH GOLDEN AGE IN SPAIN?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age_of_Jewish_culture_in_Spain
>>25626295I had an old conservative Jew tell me in Brooklyn one time that "Jews are like manure. Spread them thin across the earth -- very productive. Put them all together in one place -- they just fester and stink." Probably he was quoting something I should have recognized but whatever.
I have not asked myself enough questions. I barely know my answer's.
Did any madman try the 240 questions version
>>25627848I did the normal one but then didn't save the picture so I redid the long oneThere are some fun questions in the long one that don't show up in the normal one and I used The Question is Poorly Phrased more often once I realized it uses that to dial in its profile rather than as a option to throw out that question, but the results were identical ignoring a few percentage points here and there.
>>25627848I did and got this: >>25625104
>>256234251000 eypo is useless so i don't take any box, instead i make my own wealth by not being eurotrash
>>25623449>>NEAR PERFECT predictor>means it predicts what will certainly happenNo, that is literally not what "certainly" means.You should work on understanding the definition of English words before you start wrangling with western philosophy.
Stopped taking your poor test here.Sorry, but I'm (apparently) the only human being alive to have solved the trolley problem, and it's neither of these answers. I cannot in good conscience proceed with a test that is below my level of philosophy.
The fuck, I'm an analytic? Do I need to kill myself now?
:o)
>>25629333Pseud
>>25629345I simply told the truth.
seems like a lot of people got this guy
>>25629102Analytical Thomism is very based, anon. Do not despair; read Anthony Kenny, the most convincing current agnostic.
Stupid test anyway.
>>25629474Hilarious
>>25624779It has been written.
>>25623435i don't get
>>25624044>>25624049>>25625956yeah there are dozens of questions I had to say 'badly posed' to, because without defining exactly what is meant by the concepts of its objects they're incomplete and impossible to answer
I can already tell you which philosopher I am most in agreement with.myself, of course
spend like 30 min on this just to get called a weeb
>>25624738going further afield than the prompt in the crappy quiz, the Nozick version explicitly disallows this>>25623425here, have a long-ass paper:https://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.0159most might be well-served to skip to the conclusion
Literally who?
>>25630883>https://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.0159analyticslop
>>25623435>opaque
>when the other ratiovitalists aren't 100% Platonists(I have no idea what ratiovitalism is)
I also got Bentham as my nemesis and see a lot of Bentham-nemeses ITT. Is he an anti-/lit/ philosopher or is the test just skewed to make people hate him?
>>25630952I wonder why it gives you this chud instead of Galen Strawson
>>25630961I think the test is a bit fucky
>>25630143Could be worse, at least it didn't call you a jeet like it did me.
>>25631048Full image.
>>25623089This test sucks, I got 100% Nominalism as a Christian Neo-Platonist. Stupid. I think it is because I am not a Mathematical/Logical/Linguistic Realist? Ideas exist, but mediums of communication are just symbolic expressions of the underlying reality, and the ideas can be arbitrarily applied, since ideas and experience are not inseparably linked to each other.I also believe everything is "objectively beautiful", but that we use beauty to conflate ontological goodness and a sort of goodness in relation to teleology, but it seems to think I believe in some sort of weird aesthetic realism?
>>25630983I don't know but it appears that Strawson was his PhD advisor
>>25623089
228 questions
>>25632156forgot pic
>>25630898Kuhn is very important. read him.
>>25630898Most influential philosopher of science of the 20th century. If you've ever used the term "paradigm shift" you were quoting him without knowing it.
Data mining thread.
>>25626276Roger Scrotum
>>25632445Never heard that one before
>>25632377How in the hell would a 4chan's philosophical views be of any use to federal agencies?
>>25624181>FUCK I got a girlI got a fucking jeet.
>>25632626>I got a fucking jeet.Specifically this guy.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amartya_Sen
