open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked Philosophical Health Check - the personal belief Tension Quotient test
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.03.16 21:40:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Tegan Karus
I would add, that to insist on "true, flase" answers to most of those questions relegates the results to an entertaining diversion.

Or rather, puts the burden on checking on the accuracy and universality of the statements you agree with on you Wink
You can always leave a question unanswered if your opinion is basically "meh", or say "disagree" if it's not quite adequately worded Very Happy

Myxx
Atropos Group
Posted - 2011.03.16 21:46:00 - [32]
 


Quote:

Tension Quotient = 7%

Questions 14 and 25: How do we judge art?

80320 of the 176021 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


my opinion = tension?

wat?

Barakkus
Posted - 2011.03.16 21:46:00 - [33]
 

Edited by: Barakkus on 16/03/2011 21:48:24
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Igualmentedos
Originally by: Akita T
There's a huge bunch of text below each "tension pair"... some of you guys that complain about how unfair it is that they considered your choices as causing tension seem to have not even bothered reading that wall-o-text below, and stopped at what the tension was about.

Do you feel that this is a perfect representation of one's tension quotient? I personally feel that the questions are worded in such a way to create tension. Art is subjective, but I cannot have an opinion on a famous artist? That literally makes zero sense. The quiz is enjoyable, but I feel as though you would be making a huge mistake taking it seriously.

More like, catching you while you're making use of literal shorthand to liberally adjust a question's meaning to what you want it to mean as opposed to what it actually says.
Basically, in some cases, a bit of a trick question.
But then again, knowing how to properly express what you believe and to catch minor mistakes in a statement about your beliefs are quite important things to have a handle on, no ?

...

Take the art example, where answering "agree" to both is considered a tension:

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

Of course you can have an opinion on a famous artist, everybody can have an opinion.
However, the majority opinion does NOT make it a fact, it merely makes it the majority opinion.
So, for instance, if the first question would have said "Judgements about works of art are largely a matter of taste", or if the second question would have said "Michelangelo is considered one of history's finest artists" or maybe even "I consider Michelangelo to be one of history's finest artists", then there would have been no tension there.

Look at their take on the subject:

"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."

Pretty clear, wouldn't you say ?



The art question would be more appropriate if it were true/false instead of agree/disagree for the comparison. True/false means something different than agree/disagree, which implies opinion, in which case my opinion that he is one of history's great artists in no way in conflict with my view that the quality of art is subjective.

I have a friend that I would consider as good as Michelangelo, but that's my opinion as well...most of you would probably disagree.

Cpt Placeholder
Posted - 2011.03.16 21:48:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: Akita T
You can always leave a question unanswered if your opinion is basically "meh", or say "disagree" if it's not quite adequately worded Very Happy

They don't tell you that before the quiz.
Quote:
If not sure, select the response which is closest to your opinion.

Tegan Karus
Posted - 2011.03.16 21:52:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Cpt Placeholder
Originally by: Akita T
You can always leave a question unanswered if your opinion is basically "meh", or say "disagree" if it's not quite adequately worded Very Happy

They don't tell you that before the quiz.
Quote:
If not sure, select the response which is closest to your opinion.



This summed up my immediate reaction, but once again Akita T, I love the thread and ty.

Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
Posted - 2011.03.16 21:55:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: AlleyKat
Quote:
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


This is a contradiction, as by using drugs a person is contributing to crime by providing income to criminals and therefore is indirectly causing harm to others. False logic.


if they were decriminalized and you could purchase them from a legitimate source then they wouldn't indirectly cause harm to others.

Burnharder
Posted - 2011.03.16 22:10:00 - [37]
 

I think the problem here is that people's opinions are almost always nuanced and in such a way that agree/disagree or true/false cannot adequately describe a philosophical position. To be quite honest, I would think there's something wrong with anyone who managed to score 0% on this test!

Avaan Eclipse
Gallente
Posted - 2011.03.16 22:56:00 - [38]
 

Interesting test. I first got 33% and then I saw that I misread two questions and re-answered them. I got a bit confused over the WWII was just versus killing is evil at first since I read the WWII question as "WWII was just a war".

Quote:
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


This is a pretty strange case the test is making; "historical reality" is in my world not the same as absolute truth. The explaining text "taking place more or less as the history books report" doesn't really add to its absolute truth status either. Just because it is a historical reality and I believe it took place more or less like the history books describe doesn't mean I believe in an absolute truth, it just means I believe that history has decent evidence to back it up.

Quote:
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


This contradiction is explained in the follow-up text. I do believe that drug (ab)use hurts people other than the user, especially with the healthcare system we have in this part of the world.

Quote:
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 also explained in the follow-up text, they're not strictly contradictory, it's just that I have a strange world-view. On the other hand, I haven't thought about this before, and it's interesting. I might have to revise my world-view a bit... Razz

Igualmentedos
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.16 22:59:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Akita T

More like, catching you while you're making use of literal shorthand to liberally adjust a question's meaning to what you want it to mean as opposed to what it actually says.
Basically, in some cases, a bit of a trick question.
But then again, knowing how to properly express what you believe and to catch minor mistakes in a statement about your beliefs are quite important things to have a handle on, no ?

...

Take the art example, where answering "agree" to both is considered a tension:

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

Of course you can have an opinion on a famous artist, everybody can have an opinion.
However, the majority opinion does NOT make it a fact, it merely makes it the majority opinion.
So, for instance, if the first question would have said "Judgements about works of art are largely a matter of taste", or if the second question would have said "Michelangelo is considered one of history's finest artists" or maybe even "I consider Michelangelo to be one of history's finest artists", then there would have been no tension there.

Look at their take on the subject:

"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."

Pretty clear, wouldn't you say ?



I would interpret the statement, "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." as a complete and total pile of crap. I DO think Michaelangelo's superiority is purely opinion BECAUSE I FEEL ART IS PURELY SUBJECTIVE. So, please stop throwing this test around as fact.

Also the statement, "Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists." Is entirely subjective, and I answered it as such BECAUSE IT IS AN OPINION.

Now, Please answer me this. How can my statement of, "Yes, art is purely subjective." Create tension with my opinion (HURRRR subjective) that Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists? I'm stating an opinion when I say he is one of history's finest artists. Which surprisingly would agree with my first response.

When I answer, "Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artist." I am giving my opinion in response to his status as an artist. How is the statement implying that I view it as completely and undeniably objective?

If I say "Philosophy is full of crap." Does that mean everyone must view it as fact and my statement is insinuating such?

* I'd like to point out that I scored a 7% tension on this junk and it was not in this area (mine was the subjective morality/Genocide group of questions). I'm mearly pointing out the incredible flaws with this quiz. Again, there really isn't anything terrible about it, but I would be saddened if someone took it seriously.

M'ktakh
Posted - 2011.03.16 23:43:00 - [40]
 

Edited by: M''ktakh on 17/03/2011 00:15:03
Edited by: M''ktakh on 17/03/2011 00:14:10
Edited by: M''ktakh on 17/03/2011 00:06:07
Edited by: M''ktakh on 16/03/2011 23:45:34
Ach, lets see:

a, reducing multipolar, complex questions to binary states
b, using this false reduction on things that go beyond the pure governing natural laws (you can think that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is false, that does not make it false), so that complex and non-rational questions are presented as if they were rational ones
and worst of all:
c, implicitly, or even explicitly implying that tension is wrong, when untangling this tension, or decoding why you have this tension are great ways of self-improvement

Test, I am disappoint.


My absolute favourite is the second question, almost Wicca-level in its ******edness considering that human interaction is very, very rarely a positive sum game. Sigh.

And why is saying that morals are not absolute (which, by the way, also means that it is possible to construct a moral wolrdview in which all possible answer combinations are 0% contradictory, meaning that agreeing, as I did, with the first question makes all the others moot), and then saying that in my opinion, the Tutis genocide was not needed, or evil, in the ******ed binary world of the quiz, contradictory?

It is blatantly obvious that the Hutu did not consider the genocide to be evil, they considered in to be a just settling of a lot of unsettled socres. I can stll say that in my cultural context, it was evil. Hell, evil and necessary are not exclusive to each other.

It is my firm belief that letting Africa genocide itself, and sort all ethnic tensions by the most ancient of means (aka killing the other sods) would be a viable solution, even if it is bloody, and "evil". This is not meant as a reacist remark, its just that Africa has currently the greatest ethnic tensions on the planet, and that genocides generally work.

Ah, sod this.

Igualmentedos
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.17 02:21:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: M'ktakh
Edited by: M''ktakh on 17/03/2011 00:15:03
Edited by: M''ktakh on 17/03/2011 00:14:10
Edited by: M''ktakh on 17/03/2011 00:06:07
Edited by: M''ktakh on 16/03/2011 23:45:34
Ach, lets see:

a, reducing multipolar, complex questions to binary states
b, using this false reduction on things that go beyond the pure governing natural laws (you can think that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is false, that does not make it false), so that complex and non-rational questions are presented as if they were rational ones
and worst of all:
c, implicitly, or even explicitly implying that tension is wrong, when untangling this tension, or decoding why you have this tension are great ways of self-improvement

Test, I am disappoint.


My absolute favourite is the second question, almost Wicca-level in its ******edness considering that human interaction is very, very rarely a positive sum game. Sigh.

And why is saying that morals are not absolute (which, by the way, also means that it is possible to construct a moral wolrdview in which all possible answer combinations are 0% contradictory, meaning that agreeing, as I did, with the first question makes all the others moot), and then saying that in my opinion, the Tutis genocide was not needed, or evil, in the ******ed binary world of the quiz, contradictory?

It is blatantly obvious that the Hutu did not consider the genocide to be evil, they considered in to be a just settling of a lot of unsettled socres. I can stll say that in my cultural context, it was evil. Hell, evil and necessary are not exclusive to each other.

It is my firm belief that letting Africa genocide itself, and sort all ethnic tensions by the most ancient of means (aka killing the other sods) would be a viable solution, even if it is bloody, and "evil". This is not meant as a reacist remark, its just that Africa has currently the greatest ethnic tensions on the planet, and that genocides generally work.

Ah, sod this.


^ Sums up the quiz in a much better way than I could.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.03.17 04:34:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: M'ktakh
Ach, lets see:
a, reducing multipolar, complex questions to binary states
b, using this false reduction on things that go beyond the pure governing natural laws (you can think that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is false, that does not make it false), so that complex and non-rational questions are presented as if they were rational ones
and worst of all:
c, implicitly, or even explicitly implying that tension is wrong, when untangling this tension, or decoding why you have this tension are great ways of self-improvement
Test, I am disappoint.

Well, it's an internet quiz afterall, not a doctorate thesis Wink
I am fully aware of many of the weak points of how the test was designed (some of which its authors even actually address), I just thought it's a well above average piece of free quick internet entertainment that might make you stop and think for a minute.
Sure, it could absolutely be HUGELY improved if they added more than just two options (stuff from "strongly disagree" that would be the equivalent of disagree now, then maybe also "mostly disagree", "disagree but only because of phrasing", "don't care", "generally agree but a bit confused about the phrasing" to "mostly agree" up to finally "strongly agree" which would be the equivalent of agree now)... but that would make it far more complex (from the standpoint of interpreting the results).

And you got it wrong on C. That's pretty much part of their point, that you need to take a closer look at your contradicting beliefs. However, being AWARE that such tension exists at all is a very much required first step in "untangling" it. I assume you don't believe NOT untangling it would be a good idea, or would you ?

Quote:
And why is saying that morals are not absolute (which, by the way, also means that it is possible to construct a moral wolrdview in which all possible answer combinations are 0% contradictory, meaning that agreeing, as I did, with the first question makes all the others moot), and then saying that in my opinion, the Tutis genocide was not needed, or evil, in the ******ed binary world of the quiz, contradictory?

POTENTIAL tension, not actual contradiction.
It doesn't need to be contradictory at all. It could as well be that "sophisticated reasoning is required to enable both beliefs to be held consistently". You know, some of the bolded stuff in the OP.

Also, it doesn't mean that you need to drop any of your beliefs... it could just as well mean that you need to take a hard look at what you believe and maybe ever so slightly adjust the internal terms in which you fine-tune the definition of the things you believe in.
Or maybe you already did, but hey, it's a 10-minute test, not a 5-day psycho-philosophical workshop, so you can't expect it to get it absolutely right.

...

As to the moral thingy... technically, if you DO consider morals to be relative as opposed to absolute (logically speaking, binary works fine here) then you can't describe anything as inherently or universally evil, because you admitted that morals are relative therefore in some other person's world view it might be quite morally acceptable or even good.
They DIDN'T really ask you whether it is your opinion that genocide is bad (relative morals), but rather if you believe that everybody should consider genocide as a bad thing (absolute morals).
In other words, that in one question you believe morals are relative, but then you turn around and consider them absolute. That IS a slight tension in your beliefs, one that requires you to justify the discrepancy to yourself by rationalizing that, well, something can be both absolute and relative, or rather, that in your eyes somewhat of a grey area does exist where you can both call something absolute and relative at the same time.

Vogue
Short Bus Pole Dancers
Posted - 2011.03.17 15:12:00 - [43]
 

Moral relativism is a good start for thinking outside of the box. With this more multiple frames of reference you can than apply a more encapsulating moral normative to the current moral climate. Problem is there is always a ball and chain to trying progressive moral normative's due to the intrinsic master and slave morality in any group environment. And master moralists rulers have their own ball and chain of their history and the contemporary dogma's they polish and feed the slave moralist masses to keep them content.

Nietzsche created the notion of the ubermenche - super human - a person who is bold emancipating individual trying to empower others with intense introspection. A problem with introspection on the human soul is that it has to be positively masochistic to yield results. Such honesty hurts. And Nietzsche's Zarathrustra the travelling moral sales man in reality would not do much business as the human wants its belly fed with material wealth and immediate security before his mind is fed with intellectual notions.
But abstract philosophical and political thought applied to the masses ends in entropic fascism. Democracy is slow and problematic but because of the grit on its wheels of moral compromise it keeps the master and slave moralities in equilibrium in the long term.

A problem with all contemporary philosophy is that it is emo and tars master morality, capitalism and the divide of labour with the same brush. And as a counter to this Adam Smith with his Wealth Of Nations is a far better universal emancipator that basically is about encapsulating groups into co-operative greater groups.

AlleyKat
Gallente
The Unwanted.
Posted - 2011.03.17 15:23:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Akita T
"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."

Pretty clear, wouldn't you say ?


I personally don't like his work, so I answered negatively to the latter and positive to the former. That said I am aware that he is considered to be one of the best historically and I think a lot of this is people not reading the question correctly, yielding a tension.

Also, I think there are instances where the survey assumes the person taking the test is knowledgeable about the subject contained within the question, which yields a false-positive, meaning the test needs an 'I don't know' option, just in case someone taking the test was from a jungle in the amazon basin, and had never seen a car, train or bicycle in their life, nor understands the existence of Pharmaceutical companies, or even, the Monetary system.

It's poorly conceived fun.

AK

PS: I understand I am using the same logic the test is to prove a point. I was being ironic.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.03.17 15:45:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: AlleyKat
the test needs an 'I don't know' option

Leaving it at "please select" has that effect Wink

CharmingButIrrational
Roswell Project Victimz
Posted - 2011.03.17 20:15:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Barakkus
The art question would be more appropriate if it were true/false instead of agree/disagree for the comparison. True/false means something different than agree/disagree, which implies opinion, in which case my opinion that he is one of history's great artists in no way in conflict with my view that the quality of art is subjective.

I have a friend that I would consider as good as Michelangelo, but that's my opinion as well...most of you would probably disagree.


See this is how I tried to go about it, if I'd actually put in more of my opinion I'd of rated a lot higher. But I don't really need a test to tell me about the contradictions, that's part of the fun of philosphy; arguing the toss about contradictions.

It was a very interesting experience being forced into an agree / disagree senario about grey topics. I'm also enjoying seeing other peoples reaction to that senario.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.03.17 21:03:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: CharmingButIrrational
It was a very interesting experience being forced into an agree / disagree senario about grey topics. I'm also enjoying seeing other peoples reaction to that senario.

It's been quite enlightening, actually.
Me, I was only ever so slightly miffed for a few seconds, but it passed quickly.
It's funny to see how some cling to the "it's still not fair" line even after having it explained. Smile

Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
Posted - 2011.03.19 00:25:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: CharmingButIrrational
It was a very interesting experience being forced into an agree / disagree senario about grey topics. I'm also enjoying seeing other peoples reaction to that senario.

It's been quite enlightening, actually.
Me, I was only ever so slightly miffed for a few seconds, but it passed quickly.
It's funny to see how some cling to the "it's still not fair" line even after having it explained. Smile


I still don't like the "Michelangelo is considered one of history's finest artists" vs "I consider Michelangelo to be one of history's finest artists" in common usage both are statements of opinion, it is an overly nit picky use of language. hell just to nitpick myself the first is a statement of fact about a majority opinion.

Scorpyn
Caldari
Infinitus Odium
Posted - 2011.03.19 00:57:00 - [49]
 

Edited by: Scorpyn on 19/03/2011 01:19:50
Originally by: Akita T
It's funny to see how some cling to the "it's still not fair" line even after having it explained. Smile

That's because the explanations don't make sense.

They take 2 somewhat related issues and ask questions about them from different viewpoints. What's true from one viewpoint may not be true for the other modified version of the issue while looking at it from a different viewpoint.

I know some ppl who can keep an argument going for a very long time simply because they keep trying to get the other person to see things from their perspective instead of trying to understand what the other person means and seeing things from their perspective, because they consider their perspective to be more important.

"This car is grey." "No, it's metallic." "No, it's grey." <- For example stuff like that about a car that's both grey and metallic.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.03.19 01:34:00 - [50]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 19/03/2011 01:38:08
Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton
I still don't like the "Michelangelo is considered one of history's finest artists" vs "I consider Michelangelo to be one of history's finest artists" in common usage both are statements of opinion, it is an overly nit picky use of language. hell just to nitpick myself the first is a statement of fact about a majority opinion.

Except that the original statement was "25. Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists". No personal opinion, no majority opinion, but fact.

Originally by: Scorpyn
"This car is grey." "No, it's metallic." "No, it's grey." <- For example stuff like that about a car that's both grey and metallic.

More like "I think this sedan is ugly" vs "This is not a sedan, it's a truck". But that's not very accurate either.

Hmm... more like "I believe this work of art to be beautiful" vs "I know for a fact that this work of art is beautiful" as one set of options for one question, compared with "beauty lies entirely in the eye of the beholder" vs "beauty has some objective component" as a second set of options in the linked question.
If you say that you know for a fact the work of art is beautiful while also saying that beauty is entirely subjective, then you have a bit of a tension in your beliefs, wouldn't you say so ?
And that was pretty much the whole point.

Scorpyn
Caldari
Infinitus Odium
Posted - 2011.03.19 01:59:00 - [51]
 

Edited by: Scorpyn on 19/03/2011 02:00:12
Originally by: Akita T
Hmm... more like "I believe this work of art to be beautiful" vs "I know for a fact that this work of art is beautiful" as one set of options for one question, compared with "beauty lies entirely in the eye of the beholder" vs "beauty has some objective component" as a second set of options in the linked question.
If you say that you know for a fact the work of art is beautiful while also saying that beauty is entirely subjective, then you have a bit of a tension in your beliefs, wouldn't you say so ?
And that was pretty much the whole point.

Art being purely subjective doesn't mean that art can't be beautiful.

What you'd probably mean is to ask for something that everybody would consider to be beautiful, in which case art wouldn't be purely subjective.

There is a big difference between "do you agree that this is beautiful" and "is it possible to not consider this to be beautiful".

Slade Trillgon
Endless Possibilities Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.19 02:17:00 - [52]
 

I say this test is creating some tension I agree that a good portion of the question are a little ridiculous.

Tension Quotient = 13% Tension Quotient

"Questions 1 and 27: Is morality relative?

78642 of the 176907 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"


"Questions 17-28: Are there any absolute truths?

60798 of the 176907 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

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"


Slade


Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.03.19 02:43:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: Scorpyn
Originally by: Akita T
Hmm... more like "I believe this work of art to be beautiful" vs "I know for a fact that this work of art is beautiful" as one set of options for one question, compared with "beauty lies entirely in the eye of the beholder" vs "beauty has some objective component" as a second set of options in the linked question.
If you say that you know for a fact the work of art is beautiful while also saying that beauty is entirely subjective, then you have a bit of a tension in your beliefs, wouldn't you say so ?
And that was pretty much the whole point.

Art being purely subjective doesn't mean that art can't be beautiful.
What you'd probably mean is to ask for something that everybody would consider to be beautiful, in which case art wouldn't be purely subjective.
There is a big difference between "do you agree that this is beautiful" and "is it possible to not consider this to be beautiful".

Art being purely subjective does mean that art can't be universally beautiful.
If you agree that "X _is_ beautiful" (which is what the test question looked like) as opposed to "X is generally considered to be beautiful" or "I consider X to be beautiful" (neither of which was what the text actually asked), then you can't claim that beauty is totally and utterly subjective, it HAS to have an objective, universal element to it which you can call "beautiful" regardless of who might be looking at it.
The fact that in common language people say "X is beautiful" but they almost always mean one of the other two is another matter altogether - if you did mean one of the other two, then the "tension" you need to be aware of is between what you actually believe and what you manage to express when you claim to believe something.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.03.19 02:51:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: Slade Trillgon
I say this test is creating some tension I agree that a good portion of the question are a little ridiculous.

From a "common sense, colloquial language" perspective, maybe.
From a philosophical standpoint and in mathematically//logically accurate statements, not so much.

Quote:
"Questions 1 and 27: Is morality relative?
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"

If there is no objective moral standard, then "evil" is relative as opposed to absolute, therefore genocide can't possibly be a testament for the ability to "do great evil", because you can't objectively say that genocide is evil, because evil is a moral value, and moral values are relative.

Quote:
"Questions 17-28: Are there any absolute truths?
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"

If something that actually, physically happened can't be considered the truth // reality // actual history, because you consider "truth" to be relative depending on individual or culture or whatnot, then you can't claim that ANY past event (no matter what that event might be, even the one in the second part) is factually and universally a true historical reality, since, hey, any past event is relative - it could be the truth for you, but it may be a bold-faced lie to me (or so you claim in your response to the first part).

Wink

Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
Posted - 2011.03.19 04:37:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 19/03/2011 01:38:08
Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton
I still don't like the "Michelangelo is considered one of history's finest artists" vs "I consider Michelangelo to be one of history's finest artists" in common usage both are statements of opinion, it is an overly nit picky use of language. hell just to nitpick myself the first is a statement of fact about a majority opinion.

Except that the original statement was "25. Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists". No personal opinion, no majority opinion, but fact.


still an opinion.

Lady Skank
Ban Evasion inc
Posted - 2011.03.19 04:45:00 - [56]
 

I don't get it tbh but I scored 27%, It asked if WWII was a just war (which I think was because the ****s and the Japanese where committing genocide and had to be stopped) and it rambled about the holocaust and objective truths because it really did happen because there where thousands of eye witness reports from soldiers and victims and loads of physical evidence like the facilities and captured Intel and data.

Total pile of bull****.

Dorian Tormak
M0N0LITH
Posted - 2011.03.19 06:04:00 - [57]
 

I got 13% :)

My answers weren't contradictory though. How do I know what he meant by "Does a person continue to exist in a non-physical form after bodily death?"

It could mean a "spirit" with the same mind and way of thinking as the original person, or it could mean the flow of electricity/energy that leaves your body (but doesn't die). The latter is what I was thinking of, but the stupid computer needs to get good.

Scorpyn
Caldari
Infinitus Odium
Posted - 2011.03.19 12:07:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Akita T
The fact that in common language people say "X is beautiful" but they almost always mean one of the other two is another matter altogether - if you did mean one of the other two, then the "tension" you need to be aware of is between what you actually believe and what you manage to express when you claim to believe something.

You honestly think it makes sense to create a test where you have to redefine how the language is used?

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.03.19 12:17:00 - [59]
 

Originally by: Scorpyn
You honestly think it makes sense to create a test where you have to redefine how the language is used?

You mean, one that uses language the way it's supposed to be used as opposed to how people ended up using it ? Razz

Scorpyn
Caldari
Infinitus Odium
Posted - 2011.03.19 12:23:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Scorpyn
You honestly think it makes sense to create a test where you have to redefine how the language is used?

You mean, one that uses language the way it's supposed to be used as opposed to how people ended up using it ? Razz

So you do consider it to be viable to redefine the usage of the language.

Well, that only works as long as you don't expect the results to be accurate.


Pages: 1 [2] 3

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only