/lit/ - Literature

You’re a faggot

>>21376604
me smart but I have no idea what that means

>>21376604
irrepressible homosexual tendencies

>>21376604
means you think you are le smart but lazy

>>21376604
Yikes sweaty, why are there no PoC represented on this wheel?

>>21376604
As a smart person I have one thing to say: what?

>>21376604
maybe its like “I agree with __% of ehat this person says?”

>>21376604
It means you're very pretentious and think you know better than most people.

"I have very strong opinions on everything, even stuff that is supposed to be neutral or temperate"

https://www.idrlabs.com/philosopher-personality/test.php
Meh...

I took it, that was kinda fun, guys tell me what you think this means about me

Anon, I wonder what answers we chose that caused you to be higher in alignment to most of them than I was. I generally answered in such a way as to reflect my conviction that people should have a humble, earnest, practical view of their own shortcomings in sight of the transcendent goodness of Creation and their capacity to rise to communion with that goodness. I think that people are good and worthy and interesting beings, that our knowledge of the universe is deeply limited, and that we shouldn't be too quick to dismiss other people's insights and perspectives because they don't match our own. Also, the questions that asked about how unique or controversial I am, I tended to answer that I'm not that wild or upsetting of a person to be around, because socially I get along with most people and my main unconscious priority usually seems to be to make people comfortable and not upset them.

I took the test, my only issue is that there should have been more questions and that I was unclear what a certain thing meant. My real answers to most of these questions were, "define x". I can understand the Epicurus and Diogenes though. I still partake in many meaningless pleasures, as advent by my posting on this website, but I would say I partake in far less than most (or at least less potent pleasures). As to Diogenes, that's self evident. I often express my real opinions as hyperbole to others, and I care little what I speak about around others, or at least when I am not around those whom I respect.

>>21376796
I really enjoy taking tests like this as little opportunities to reassess my motives and the structure of my personality, which I'm not always aware of because it disappears as it is enacted in my daily life. I agree that the questions were really imprecise, very open-ended, and it was kind of unsatisfying to pigeonhole myself into any particular answer. My test results are >>21376716 but I'm not sure why I'd get that high in Plato, you have any thoughts on that after taking the test? I'm also not very familiar with Plato's philosophy to be honest.

Holy smokes

i don't understand why i'm given so much overlap with that piece of shit kant

I don’t know who any of these guys are.

>>21376604
I am not entirely heterosexual, it seems.

>>21376606
Fpbp

>>21376974
Cringe alignment

He's the only one that I haven't read lmao, how is he my biggest

>>21376604
Behold, plebs.

>>21376916
I got 90% Diogenes too

>>21376604
My sentiments exactly. Hume's Empiricism I've always found agreeable, but how the fuck am I 60% in agreement with lives-in-a-barrel-whacking-it-in-the-street man?
I also know absolutely nothing about Kant or Epicurus. Can anyone give me a QRD?

>>21376604
>55% Epicurean
>Only 40% Plato and 45% Aristotle.
Should I kill myself?

Cool

This was mine. Maybe if I didn’t choose the middle three so much I’d’ve got more interesting results, but I was trying to be authentic as far as possible.

>Diogenes 80%

>>21376604
it means you're a moralfag

>>21376604
You're the most insufferable variety of midwit, and this is saying something given that Stirner isn't even on the wheel.

bow down, chuddies

>>21376604
>tfw 100% Kant

>>21377301
Yes

Minimising Diogenes because holy shit he is a faggot

>>21376974
Best one by far
Nietzsche to Kant ratio is the basedness coefficient (btw)

Literally no idea how I got so much in Kant, I guess my impression of him was wrong.
For reference I am a supreme midwit

Interesting. Keep in mind, I am a fucking retard

Are my results terrible?

Also if anyone is interested there is a paragraph for the person you have as the highest and ive copied them all.

Aristotle: Aristotle was, above all, motivated by the desire to know, a quest he accomplished by gathering data on everything from animals and plants to political constitutions and theatre plays. With an engineer-like or scientist’s mind, Aristotle quickly saw the patterns in the data, grouping everything by commonalities, properties, and overall structure. Using unsentimental rationality, Aristotle also applied these principles to humans, classifying them by temperament, gender, race, and various other properties with a level-headed shrewdness that caused his observations to be read and celebrated throughout the ages. As for happiness, Aristotle believed that it is best attained by doing what comes naturally to us and doing it well; in other words, to fulfill one’s purpose and become a paragon of human excellence.

Kant: A great scientist and a great philosopher, Kant aimed to fuse the writings of Newton with the philosophy of his day. For Kant, the human mind contains the faculties that appear to us to be woven into the physical universe (such as quantity, causality, totality existence, etc.). These faculties interact with reality as it exists in itself, creating a synthesis that appears to us as “objectively true” while being, in fact, only true according to the synthesis between the rational categories of the human mind and the raw “stuff” of reality which is unknowable to us in its unsynthesized form. Kant was also a notable thinker in the domain of ethics, where he developed the rules-based approach to ethics and summed up his teaching in the categorical imperative: An action can only be ethical if it can be followed as a general principle by all members of society, in all similar situations.

Epicurus: Epicurus advised his followers to live simple lives. For example, their food and drink consisted mainly of bread and water, with cheese as a rare indulgence. Having been much misunderstood by posterity, Epicurus actually counseled that intense pleasures were to be avoided because they were often followed by pain – either from overindulgence or from losing access to the pleasures again. Likewise, Epicurus held that stronger and more uncommon pleasures would, at the same time, make common and less potent pleasures less pleasant, thereby robbing the man who indulges in the rarefied pleasures of the opportunity to enjoy a simple, quiet life.
1/2

Nietzsche: Nietzsche was a German philosopher and a cultural critic. Regarding his biography, he expressed contempt and disgust for the behavior of most and mocked them incessantly. Nietzsche believed that all philosophy is autobiographical and that our so-called “principles” are really influenced by our self-interest and our physical and sensory experiences. Furthermore, he advised that we should not live an overly cautious, orderly life, risking nothing, since the outcomes that may result from taking chances may lead to personal growth. Additionally, Nietzsche argued that objective truth is impossible—there can only be perspectives and interpretations driven by a person's interests and experiences. For Nietzsche, it was important for each individual to find meaning in his or her own life and to live in accordance with that meaning.

Hume: Hume was skeptical of most beliefs – be they religious or derived from pure rationality without experimental data to back them up. Consequently, friction with the settled orthodoxies of his time was a constant theme in his life. Like the other empiricists that preceded him, Hume believed that the contents of the mind came only from experience. Hume is known for the is-ought divide, also called Hume’s Fork: The proposition that it is not possible to derive an “is” from an “ought” (e.g., we cannot go from the moral proposition that everyone ought to be equally smart to the factual proposition that everyone is equally smart). Hume also proposed tremendous challenges to concepts like causation and induction – challenges that some consider have never been solved to this day.

Diogenes: Diogenes chose to become homeless and settled in a big earthenware storage jar on the sidewalk. He stayed in his street-dwelling, where he shocked the Athenian citizenry through seemingly mad and crass behaviors, backed up by insults and occasional wise sayings. One could say that Diogenes was history’s first punk, a true provocateur who cared little for his own well-being or physical safety, mocking both the highborn Plato and the mighty conqueror and king Alexander in a remorseless display of how conceited they looked when viewed through the lens of his jarring, no-holds-barred philosophy and view of life. Diogenes furthermore disapproved of conventional religion and believed social customs are human inventions and that adhering to them leads to hypocrisy.

2/2

Plato: Plato proposed that the only true knowledge involves rational thought, which is ultimately sublimated into intuitive and mystical knowledge of the good. According to Plato, at the end of this journey lies an enlightenment experience, where the soul grasps the metaphysical source of the universe all at once, dispelling all ignorance and attaining immortal wisdom. Since the soul is immortal and has been born many times over before its present life, it has already seen many things, both in this world and in the worlds beyond this one. On the other hand, Plato posited that not everyone is capable of mounting this ladder of knowledge to mystical transcendence. They have appetites that make them more fit to be workers and slaves, while those who are dominated by honor and courage are more fit to be soldiers and police.

3/2

>Kant highest
>Epicurus 2nd
>Everyone else sub-50%

Guys, am I retarded?

I'm beginning to suspect a lot of users on this board select Strong Agree when asked if they stir up controversy for the sake of it

>>21377912
Whoa whoa whoa, you mean you want logical arguments based on evidence for certain positions instead of mystical feelings and sophistry? You definitely won't fit in on this board.

>95% diogenes
>90% plato
where are my hobo niggas at?

>>21377928
I bet you answered Double thumbs down when asked if you're a mean spirited faggot to others.

>>21377994
return to monke

Yeah makes sense if Wikipedia isn’t lying about the guy.

I need to read Hume.

Neat test

>>21376604
Is this like
>virtue ethics
>hedonism
>deontology
>irreverent asceticism
>contemplation of the good
>hypothetical imperative emotivist consistency
>radical individualist life with a unity of taste and no ressentiment
or is it something beyond their ethics/good life views?

Damn, I've only ever read the Republic.

rate don't hate

>>21378229
>anon answered agree to the chicken question

>>21376604
Holy shit OP you're a faggot.

Got 70% in both Nietzsche and Hume. How is it possible and what does it mean?

Yes

>>21376621
I see two greeks and two italians.

Surprised Nietzsche was so low

Shitty test.

>>21376604
>take test
>assume it'll be about philosophy
>half the questions are "are you an obnoxious cunt?"
amazing. everytime I give it a chance, philosophy proves itself to be bullshit all over again.

Never read nietzsche before. Where do I start?

>>21378685
3 main books:
Human all to Human
Thus spoke Zarathustra
Beyond Good and Evil

If you're only going to read one of them, read the last one.

>>21376604
Each number is associated with a philosopher.

Do a reverse image search. There's clearly more context missing here.

>You appear to have two or more equally prominent matches. It is possible that you are an equal fit for all of those matches. On the other hand, it is also possible that you simply answered the questions in such a way that you ended up with tied results even though, in reality, you do have a definite match. Whether you really are an equal fit for all of these characters or you just happened to get an equal score on all of them, we are unable to say; we are therefore also unable to give you a more personalized description. But you can consult the chart above to see which of the characters you matched the closest.

>>21378685
beyong good and evil
genealogy of morality
human all too human

>>21378685
Definitely start with BGAE (pronounced "be gay")

>>21376604
>tfw you’re based
Epicurus is for Reddit basedboys seethe and cope

>>21376604
>random faggots
>random percentages
>omg he's literally 80% me
This is what Kierkegaard feared would become of psychology. Just meaningless numbers bullshit.

>>21379188
Kant’s gay too btw

>>21379188
>>21379195
Respect

test is too simple. that one about MBTI and the philosophy circle is better

Humegenes

>>21376621
nietzsche was polish

>>21379214
>a bunch of dead white guys
This personality quiz is racist, I am disappointed in you, /lit/

>>21376604
>Diogenes: 90%
>Epicurus: 80%
>Nietzsche: 75%
>Plato: 0%
By the way, I haven't read any of them.

The absolute state of /lit/ posters, I need to stop wasting my time here.

>>21376704
>>21376716
>>21376796
>>21376916
>>21376949
>>21376956
>>21376974
>>21377075
>>21377105
>>21377136
>>21377271
>>21377301
>>21377508
>>21377542
>>21377603
>>21377665
>>21377680
>>21377695
>>21377703
>>21377719
>>21377732
>>21377814
>>21377912
>>21377918
>>21377963
>>21377975
>>21377994
>>21378083
>>21378118
>>21378195
>>21378229
>>21378237
>>21378457
>>21378517
>>21378518
>>21378546
>>21378580
>>21378630
>>21378685
>>21379010
>>21379129
>>21379188
>>21379209
>>21379214
>>21379250
>>21379339
>>21379371

>>21379432
>takes the time to reply to that many posts

>>21379371
This one is based

>I make use of long chains of logical arguments in my thinking so as to root out any contradictions or uncertainties.
>Strongly Disagree

One chud to rule them all

>>21379850
logos deniers rise up

>>21379432
>Oh, no people are having f-fun

What now?

>>21379432
I really do think it's interesting to see the span of different types of thought held by other users of a discussion board I interact with daily.
I'm legitimately looking at every post and imagining what the person behind it might be like. Keep them coming, boys.

>be a NEET with zero life experience that uses pure rationality without experimental data to get through conversations
>my traits are closest to those of Hume, an empiricist
Truly amazing work here, but i guess that's to be expected from a mere 35 questions.

is it over?

What a strange overlap with Diogenes and Kant.

Weirdly, Hume is the only one I haven't heard of. Also rather disappointing as I'm about to delve into Artistotle and Plato in a few weeks.

Yeah, I'm with my nigga Plato for life!

I'm pathetic

>>21379371

>>21376604
you're a gay hedonist who likes to masturbate in public and you believe your perception of the world and reality is nothing more than your sense organs producing an image in your mind.

Fuck KneeChee fags

>>21376604
>tried to get 100% Nietzsche
>got 100% Hume and 90% Nietzsche
FUCKING GAY

>>21376621
>no less than four brown meditteranean rapist monkeys
>a germ*id
>a slav toiletscrubber
>a fat anglo with a predilection for pedophilia
>NOOO WHY AREN'T THERE ANY SUBHUMANS IN IT NNOOOO
Come on now.

>>21378685
Holy based..

Aristotle
>Beautiful language is not as important as people make it out to be. People should say what they mean as briefly and plainly as possible.
>I am more interested in things that can be measured than some pie-in-the-sky type of thinking.
>Most people are unable to think for themselves.
>Most people need to be led and controlled.
>The best insight is gained by approaching a subject in a practical and orderly manner, indexing it, and mapping out what is currently known about it.

Diogenes
>Animals are better “people” than most people.
>If people challenge or confront me, I confront them right back with little fear of the consequences.
>I mock people who think they are all that so as to deflate their egos.
>I shock people with crass actions and words.
>People fuss too much over their banal everyday problems.

Epicurus
>A life marked by the absence of pain is better than a life marked by the presence of pleasure.
>My view of life is often misunderstood.
>Sexual attraction tends to lead people into bad situations.
>Simple pleasures are the best.
>The wise human being avoids the allure of power and fame.

Hume
>I ask questions that others consider crazy.
>I have a flair for controversy.
>I mock people’s religious beliefs.
>I stir up controversy simply for the sake of arguments.
>There is much about the world that we can never know with certainty.

Kant
>I am a creature of habit.
>I make use of long chains of logical arguments in my thinking so as to root out any contradictions or uncertainties.
>Our minds can never comprehend reality exactly as it is.
>The mind is basically like a machine.
>There is always a clear right and wrong course of action in every moral dilemma.

Nietzsche
>Being preoccupied with whether one is a good person or not is a sign that one is a lesser being.
>Generally speaking, only the highest specimens of humanity interest me.
>I shock people by saying outrageous and offensive things.
>People think I am much harsher and more hard-headed than I really am.
>People who profess to be gravely concerned with so-called “objective truth” are really just professing their weakness.

Plato
>A profound text cannot be truly good if it is not beautifully written.
>Beauty in this world is proof that there is a transcendent higher world.
>Our base desires as human beings are coarse and vulgar.
>So-called “evil” people are really just ignorant and in need of knowledge of the good.
>The highest truths about this world are not rational or analytical but can be grasped only through a sort of mystical intuition.

All start at 50%
Strong agree/disagree adds/subtracts 10%
Weak agree/disagree adds/subtracts 5%

I got Plato. I have similar placements to him in astrology so it makes sense.

I have become Absoute Spirit.

I am Kant reborn.

really don't like most of the wording on this one

>>21382218
tell us of your ways, oh enlightened one

tell us how to inspect the elements as they truly are

>>21382656
You got what I got: low rankings in everyone else, and slightly higher in Plato and Epicurus, and for the same reasons I guess. I almost never find the wording on these quizzes adequate enough to warrant any other answer than 'neither-agree-nor-disagree'.

>The best insight is gained by approaching a subject in a practical and orderly manner, indexing it, and mapping out what is currently known about it.
I wouldn't call orderly indexing "insight" so wtf.

>Most people need to be led and controlled.
I would say that most people "are" led and controlled, not "need". After all, led by a whom or a what?

>The mind is basically like a machine.
Like a machine now? Because a machine now isn't what a machine was 200 years ago. After all, most things in the universe are "basically" like machines at some level.

>>21379194
>90% Kierkegaard

Yeah bros, I think I will make it

When you're building a spawn farmer in minecraft that uses an elevator its actually pointless to line the water shaft with ice because ice doesnt help push along mobs, it only pushes along items.

also, dont throw away the bones. you can turn the bone meal into bone blocks and build a cool skeleton statue out of them

>>21376604
seems like i really like aristotle, i guess i should start reading him?

>>21376604
I don't see how your scores are so high. Most of those questions are so inconsequential I think I left half of them in the middle, and didn't get any score over 70%.

Pee pee poo poo meme memes and you yous

>>21376604
You're pragmatic

>>21376604
can somebody break this down for me... also spent 2 months homeless so I am literally diogenes

>>21376974
>95% Nietzsche
>95% Hume
holy based

Here are my answers and justifications. The post is too long for 4chan. Hopefully more people post some justifications for some answers to make the thread more interesting!!
https://pastebin.com/raw/nnrUFbGb

Huh

>>21376704
I got 95% Hume. That test is shit.

>>21384130
Retook the test, changed some answers in which I was previousle hesitant. Definitively, this test is shit.

This is what waffling on all the questions looks like.

>>21381999
Aristotle
>People should say what they mean as briefly and plainly as possible
The Organon invalidates this statement. There is nothing brief there. One could argue that Aristotle seeks precision, but not brevity.
>I am more interested in things that can be measured than some pie-in-the-sky type of thinking.
The virtuous mean (Nicomachean Ethics) is not measurable, nor for that matter is a priori reasoning (Prior Analytics)

Hume
>I mock people’s religious beliefs.
Where does he do this?

Nietzsche
>Being preoccupied with whether one is a good person or not is a sign that one is a lesser being.
Doesn't writing "Beyond Good and Evil" and "Genealogy of Morals" qualify as said preoccupation?

Such a pity there's no Schopenhauer or any stoics at this test

You are all cucks. I am sorry, but it is the undeniable truth. Also, I am not really sorry.