/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5034114]

http://selectsmart.com/PHILOSOPHY/

How do you score?

[Anonymous No.5034250]

Pls /lit/

[Anonymous No.5034312]

>>5034114
I was hoping I would get him.

[Anonymous No.5034380]

100% Sartre

[Anonymous No.5034382]

Looks like I'm the best.

[Anonymous No.5034402]

>>5034114
Weird, the last time I took this I got 100% Ayn Rand and 98% Nietzsche. I guess as an unabashed Papist this is only reasonable that it worked out like this.

[Anonymous No.5034413]

>>5034380
Sartre bro reporting in

[Anonymous No.5034416]

[Anonymous No.5034431]

>>5034413
>>5034380

My niggas

[Anonymous No.5034437]

100% Sartre, 85% Spinoza, 82% Hobbes

Where to start with Sartre?

[Anonymous No.5034440]

>>5034437

Nausea

[Anonymous No.5034449]

>>5034382

Aristotle-bro reporting in. Also got 100% on Kant, somehow.

[Anonymous No.5034469]

100% Hobbes, 98% Sartre, 89% Nietzsche

Any recommendations for Hobbes?

[Anonymous No.5034472]

Im surprised.

[Anonymous No.5034490]

>>5034114
50% Hobbes, 50% Locke????

[Anonymous No.5034497]

Did I do good?

[Anonymous No.5034498]

>>5034114

[Anonymous No.5034510]

Rate?

I'm really really curious - any input is appreciated.

[Anonymous No.5034513]

>>5034449

Yeah, some people's top 3 seem strange, especially when close percentage-wise like >>5034402 having Rand with Aquinas.

>>5034469

Leviathan

[Anonymous No.5034519]

>>5034498

>Rate?

Really bad. Get better views.

[Anonymous No.5034522]

NO

[Anonymous No.5034527]

>>5034522

[Anonymous No.5034532]

>>5034522

lol, those are REI's results

[Anonymous No.5034536]

I don't understand why Rand is so high up the results. Truth be told, I'm actually embarrassed by that.

[Anonymous No.5034539]

[Anonymous No.5034541]

1. Aristotle (100%)
2. Thomas Aquinas (85%)
3. Ayn Rand (76%)

lol wtf

[Anonymous No.5034545]

>>5034114


aquinoteles masterrace reporting in

[Anonymous No.5034546]

>>5034522
I mean, just be honest for one moment, you're kind of an asshole, right?

[Anonymous No.5034553]

>>5034546

I don't think so :(

[Anonymous No.5034555]

>>5034536
Well.. Rand was no that bad if you imagine that we live in a world where souls are real but afterlife isn't. In such a world it would make sense to just be a complete dickhead, basically. Obviously 'souls' don't exist, but if they did then she would be right.

[Anonymous No.5034557]

The reason Rand is high on the list in some cases is likely just do to that fact that the very nature of the test requires that all these philosopher's views are caricatured and then ranked in closeness to your answers (which are likely also caricatures of your own views if you're smart and have more nuanced views than options allow). I also suspect that Rand even being on the list means that this test is yet another product of some Randroid's delusions and trying to convince more people to read Rand by gaming the system.

[Anonymous No.5034566]

>>5034557
Rand is probably more influential to 21st century thought than most philosophers on the list. I realize she's not really part of philosophy, but there are a lot of people who agree with her.

[Anonymous No.5034584]

I've never read Sartre, only vaguely aware of who he is. I guess I should try him.

[Anonymous No.5034604]

>>5034566

By that logic, why don't we toss Oprah and Rush Limbaugh into the mix?

[Anonymous No.5034607]

Here's mine.

[Anonymous No.5034609]

>>5034490
Fight yourself IRL, report back.

[Anonymous No.5034610]

I knew it!

[Anonymous No.5034611]

>>5034604
Well Oprah subscribes to *every* 'guru', and Rush is a follower of Rand.

[Anonymous No.5034619]

So what's the deal? Do they put you closer to Rand if you say you value selfishness or individualism at all?

[Anonymous No.5034623]

>>5034619
you can only expect so much from one of these surveys

[Anonymous No.5034629]

>>5034619
>>5034623
Well.... I mean isn't Rand the only ''''philosopher'''' that believes in that?

[Anonymous No.5034631]

Spinoza-san understands me ( > * w * )>

[Anonymous No.5034642]

>>5034611

That doesn't answer the question. A person having influences doesn't negate the influence that that individual yields. Rand had influences, this doesn't negate the influence she yields. Oprah's influences don't negate her influence. Same for Rush (and he likely only claims to follow Rand since that the trendy thing for conservatives to say).

So, again, if our reasons for including someone on a list of philosophers is that they're influential and people agree with them, why not include Oprah and Rush among countless other weak minds?

[Anonymous No.5034644]

>>5034629
Are you a literal retard? Most philosophers would value those things to varying extents. Most people in general do.

[Anonymous No.5034645]

>>5034642

Influence doesn't negate influence, but does Oprah even have a philosophy to call her own?

[Anonymous No.5034647]

>>5034629
What do you think individualism means?

[Anonymous No.5034663]

Wait, you don't think you should place yourself above the collective, EVER? You don't think individualism has ANY place in society? That's just crazy. Nothing about that has to do with Randroid Libertarian shit. This is just being a normal person.

[Anonymous No.5034664]

>>5034644
>to varying extents
Most people value many things 'to varying extents'. We're talking about selfishness, not rational self-interest.

[Anonymous No.5034668]

100% Hobbes.

As someone who knows absolutely nothing about philosophy beyond names and popularized terms, what does this mean exactly? Give me a summary of Hobbes' philosophy, I want to know what's up.

[Anonymous No.5034671]

>>5034629
Wait, you don't think you should place yourself above the collective, EVER? You don't think individualism has ANY place in society? That's just crazy. Nothing about that has to do with Randroid Libertarian shit. This is just being a normal person.

[Anonymous No.5034673]

>>5034671

Third times the charm!

[Anonymous No.5034674]

pls rate

[Anonymous No.5034684]

>>5034673
Huh?

[Anonymous No.5034689]

need more cynicbros in here

[Anonymous No.5034691]

>>5034647
The person I was replying to equated it to selfishness. Do you disagree with that person?

[Anonymous No.5034693]

>>5034645

Having a catchy name for the ideas a person espouses isn't necessary for the espousal of views and, regardless, that wasn't one of your criteria in the first place. If Rand has a philosophy to call her own, it's only more philosophical to the extent that she actually wrote explicitly with intent of doing philosophy. Your criteria allows for a lot of morons to be on the list is my point. There are standards for what counts as philosophy. Certainly they're gray and open to disagreements but some things aren't very controversial and Rand not being an actual philosopher isn't controversial despite her having an obnoxious cult.

[Anonymous No.5034694]

>>5034684
He posted that three times. The exact same thing, three times. He just deleted the last two, I don't know what was going on with him.

(Thanks for letting me see that, 4chan X)

[Anonymous No.5034695]

>>5034629
Nietzsche advocated selfishness. For certain people anyway..

[Anonymous No.5034699]

>>5034671
See >>5034691

[Anonymous No.5034703]

>>5034674
>>5034607
my hittas

[Anonymous No.5034704]

>>5034695
certain people?

[Anonymous No.5034706]

>>5034668
S-Someone please

[Anonymous No.5034709]

>>5034694
I deleted the first time to correct a mistake I made, and I deleted it a second time because I forgot to link your post. Not really sure why you're acting like you have something over me because of that.

[Anonymous No.5034711]

how did i do

[Anonymous No.5034714]

>>5034709
The person you're replying to now isn't the person you were replying to then.

[Anonymous No.5034715]

>>5034706
well here's the summary from the page you just visited lol

>By human nature, all of man's voluntary actions are aimed at self-pleasure and self-preservation
>Altruism may be pleasurable for the giver
>Good = 'any object of desire'
>We must live under a social contract to have peace
>We need a sovereign to enforce the social contract

[Anonymous No.5034716]

>>5034709

Nobody is doing that, stop projecting.

[Anonymous No.5034717]

>>5034619
I think the reason I got a pretty high percentage with Rand is that I picked whatever option(s) having to do with morality being objective.

[Anonymous No.5034720]

>tfw got Sartre, but he was a hack

[Anonymous No.5034721]

>>5034706
hobbes is rad based. state of nature is, or the threat of, constant violence so people need to band together and agree to be friendly if they want to live comfortably in each others presence but you don't have complete guarantee this union will not be a trick or break down so you need a third party to enforce the rules of your cooperation which is the sovereign

[Anonymous No.5034725]

>>5034716
What are you talking about? You just did. You responded with, "The third time's the charm", and then you said, "Thanks for letting me see that, 4chan", like you had caught me in something. You're a weird guy.

[Anonymous No.5034727]

>>5034709
>I deleted it a second time because I forgot to link your post. Not really sure why you're acting like you have something over me because of that.
The person you're replying to now isn't the person you were replying to then.

[Anonymous No.5034728]

>>5034699

He didn't advocate selfishness so much as he just didn't prohibit it for certain people.

>>5034704

Higher types. There are people who won't fully realize their nascent potential if they take the ascetic values in morality seriously.

>>5034706

My guess is that no one here could give you a great summary as Hobbes' philosophy isn't sexy/trendy. Go to SEP, that will give you a better idea.

[Anonymous No.5034730]

>>5034720
iktf. it's just that his views are very typical of our times/liberalism

[Anonymous No.5034738]

>>5034725

Actually all I said was third times the charm. Anonymous isn't a username, dumbass.

[Anonymous No.5034740]

>>5034721
and then give up your rights as individuals to the sovereign and hope that the sovereign acts for the betterment of society :]]] and this, kids, is where theory deviates from praxis

[Anonymous No.5034743]

Who the fuck is this guy?

[Anonymous No.5034745]

>>5034728
Well... it's not really selfish to consume more today in order to provide more tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.5034747]

>>5034743

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurianism

[Anonymous No.5034751]

>>5034743
epicurus

[Anonymous No.5034754]

>>5034691
I wasn't equating individualism to selfishness. I just asked whether valuing either of those things to some extent might be why some people are getting results that are relatively close to Rand even though they despise her.

Individualism obviously doesn't imply selfishness, although I guess it depends how broadly you want to define selfishness. And yes, most people value individualism, and most philosophers placed a great deal of value on it. I don't know why you're associating it exclusively with Ayn Rand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism

[Anonymous No.5034755]

>>5034740
i'm a selfish egotistical bastard but if i could be sovereign of a land damn i'd do it right for the peoples love and appreciation
nothing is more fulfilling than other people liking you

[Anonymous No.5034758]

>>5034715
>>5034721
Okay, since this is exactly what I already believe, is it still worth reading, starting philosophy by jumping into something I can "relate to"? Or should I read something that directly opposes my views to get me thinking?

I have a feeling that if I do the latter I'm just going to be thinking "this person is an actual retard" and probably stop reading halfway through.

>>5034728
Thanks, this looks like a great resource.

[Anonymous No.5034764]

>>5034745

I never said it was but it certainly can be. Also, in a way, your point is pretty much Nietzsche's. Potential value is lost from the whole world when nascent geniuses are undermined.

[Anonymous No.5034766]

>>5034755
So you're more of a narcissist.

[Anonymous No.5034774]

>>5034754
>to some extent
To what extent? There's a huge difference between rational self-interest and selfishness.

[Anonymous No.5034778]

>>5034758
read hobbes to understand his position because you guys may not actually completely agree. then read criticism of hobbes to see how people have gone further than him
there's no point in reading people who disagree with you unless you completely understand your position anyhow so only after you get it see what the opposition is doing
that's only a general statement though because i don't know whether hobbes has been made obsolete by some other strain of thought or w/e

[Anonymous No.5034779]

>>5034727
>>5034738
If you're not the person who said that (which I kind of doubt), OK, fine, but if I respond to your post with "Huh?" and someone replies with an explanation and expresses pleasure that he saw my edits, it's pretty reasonable to think that's the same person, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.5034785]

>>5034312
Same.

[Anonymous No.5034786]

>>5034774
How are you defining rational self-interest?

[Anonymous No.5034790]

I got 100% John Stuart Mills. I'm happy with that.

[le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk No.5034792]

>>5034513
It's about ethical philosophy

[Anonymous No.5034796]

>>5034779
Actually, random anons agree with me on the regular. Sorry if you don't experience the same problem.

[Anonymous No.5034799]

>>5034790
I got this as well, with 92% sartre, and 18% stoics.

Which is odd, because I generally hate utilitarianism,and identify as a stoic.

[Anonymous No.5034803]

I'm happy with this

[Anonymous No.5034807]

>>5034114
I don't think this accurate. I'm more of a hedonist consequentialist in my day to day life. Meta-ethically I'm a non-cognitivist.

[Anonymous No.5034808]

>>5034766
ye lol

[Anonymous No.5034811]

>>5034779

>>5034694 here. I honestly had no idea what you were talking about, or even who you were replying to beforehand, I just saw the same three posts (or what I thought to be the same, I scanned them for any minor edits and thought I saw nothing, which was apparently wrong, but I'm pretty hammered right now, so eh)

Sorry if I sounded like I had "something over" you, I didn't mean to come across that way.

[Anonymous No.5034815]

>>5034796
>Actually, random anons agree with me on the regular. Sorry if you don't experience the same problem.

You're mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.5034817]

>>5034786
Rational self-interest is a term coined by Adam Smith, who described a condition where individuals acted in their own interests but ultimately benefited the collective.

[Anonymous No.5034821]

>>5034747
Damn, i read it and I don't agree with a lot of it. No sex? Happiness over knowledge? No emphasis on reason?

Fuck it imma do it again

[Anonymous No.5034824]

>>5034815
Why?

[Anonymous No.5034841]

>>5034817
I haven't read Adam Smith. Could you elaborate?

Are you saying that you only approve of people acting in their self-interest when it benefits the collective?

[Anonymous No.5034853]

>>5034841
I was just borrowing the term from Economics. The idea is that, in capitalism, people are looking out for themselves but it ultimately benefits everyone.

[Anonymous No.5034885]

>>5034536
Hey, brother

[Anonymous No.5034928]

>>5034853
I see. Well, my only point was that most people are fine with putting their own interest above those of others to some degree. For example, wealthy people or even just people who are relatively well-off don't need most of their money, but yet they still spend a lot of it traveling or going out to nice restaurants or indulging certain hobbies and things that interest them instead of using it to benefit people who are in desperate need of that money (they could literally be saving lives in may cases), and most people don't have a problem with this. There's a certain cut off point where the extravagance can be a bit much for some people, but for the most part, no one really seems to object to this, and there are a lot of things we do that could be put in this same category. That's all I was really getting at.

[Anonymous No.5034969]

>>5034114
love from /pol/ you degenerate faggots.

[Anonymous No.5034989]

Sarte/cynic here and pleb. I've taken the quiz twice now, with Sarte and Cynic both either being my top result or the second-to-top-result. The descriptions given seem to correlate to opposed philosophies. Can you /phil/anthropists help me out?

[Anonymous No.5035000]

>>5034928
>most people are fine with putting their own interest above those of others to some degree
>For example, wealthy people
> instead of using it to benefit people who are in desperate need
>they still spend a lot of it traveling or going out to nice restaurants
>(they could literally be saving lives in may cases)
>That's all I was really getting at.

Well... A lot of them believe that as long as they don't break the 10 commandments their 'soul' will 'go to heaven'. They don't understand that the people they hurt are not so different from themselves.

[le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk No.5035018]

>>5034989
The quiz is specifically about ethics, but the descriptions are fairly general. It's important to remember that something as simple as the basic theory of WHY people do what they do can be the same between two philosophers who conclude with radically different moralities

[Anonymous No.5035027]

>>5034114
I'm impressed with the survey - I only had one "Dislike all answer choices"

[Anonymous No.5035050]

I'm not well-read enough to know what this means.

[Anonymous No.5035071]

>>5035050
You're a utilitarian.

[Anonymous No.5035073]

100% Plato

Is that bad?

[Anonymous No.5035079]

>>5035071
Nice.

[Anonymous No.5035084]

>>5035000
So you're opposed to be people going to nice restaurants, traveling, or spending money on their hobbies? Again, bear in mind, I wasn't talking about hardcore extravagance. What I've said can be pretty much anyone in the middle class or higher. I'm sure you spend a lot of money on things that aren't essential to your survival or emotional well-being. There are definitely people out there in greater need of that money. Why not spend it on them?

When you do think it's okay to put your own needs before those of others? For example, is it also wrong for people to only date or have sex with people they consider attractive? That probably hurts some people. What's the cut off for you?

I thought my point was pretty uncontroversial. I hope you're not just being contrarian.

[Anonymous No.5035092]

>>5035079
No, it isn't.

[Anonymous No.5035099]

>>5035092
Yes, it is.
>No, it isn't.
Yes, it is.
>No, it isn't.
Yes, it is.
>No, it isn't.

[Anonymous No.5035125]

[Anonymous No.5035145]

>>5035084
I don't mean to judge people on a personal level.

Do you really think that the way we go about things is the right way? We subsidies babies for the poor, while still allowing homelessness? We outsource to nations which simply employ wage-slaves? We employ a political system which elects representatives for industries instead of individuals?

I realize that it's human nature to look out for your family and self, and you can't fight that, but to say that it's ideal is hogwash.

[Anonymous No.5035158]

So what does this mean?

[Anonymous No.5035210]

>>5035158
idk my bff jill?

[Anonymous No.5035226]

>>5035145
>We subsidies babies for the poor, while still allowing homelessness? We outsource to nations which simply employ wage-slaves? We employ a political system which elects representatives for industries instead of individuals?

I never advocated any of those things.

>I realize that it's human nature to look out for your family and self, and you can't fight that, but to say that it's ideal is hogwash.

I don't have any idea what you're suggesting as an alternative.

[Anonymous No.5035261]

what does it mean?

[Anonymous No.5035263]

>>5035226
The fact is that we need to advocate a system that is realistic while allowing for the greater common welfare. We need to understand that human beings have their own innate biological motivations and that by harnessing those motivations we can work to build a better world for us all.

[Anonymous No.5035274]

>>5035263
Which has what to do with anything I've said? I was never talking about economics. Jesus Christ...Just forget it.

[Anonymous No.5035296]

>>5035261
it means that you're a kant

[Anonymous No.5035399]

>not being this based

[Anonymous No.5035438]

>>5035210
Damn, that's an old one.

[Anonymous No.5035457]

>>5034114
Jean-Paul Sartre (100%)
Immanuel Kant (93%)
Jeremy Bentham (80%)
John Stuart Mill (78%)
Baruch (later known as Benedictus)
Stoics (63%)
Prescriptivism (58%)
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (55%)
Nel Noddings (55%)
David Hume (52%)
Thomas Aquinas (50%)
St. Augustine (49%)
Epicureans (36%)
William of Ockham (36%)
Ayn Rand (33%)
Cynics (31%)
Aristotle (27%)
Thomas Hobbes (27%)
Plato (26%)

[Anonymous No.5035459]

>>5034114
tfw superior ubermensch


1. Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (100%) Info & Notes
2. Jean-Paul Sartre (85%) Info & Notes
3. David Hume (84%) Info & Notes
4. Thomas Hobbes (80%) Info & Notes
5. Stoics (65%) Info & Notes
6. Epicureans (62%) Info & Notes
7. Cynics (55%) Info & Notes
8. Ayn Rand (55%) Info & Notes
9. Immanuel Kant (51%) Info & Notes
10. Baruch (later known as Benedictus) Spinoza (48%) Info & Notes
11. Nel Noddings (41%) Info & Notes
12. Prescriptivism (41%) Info & Notes
13. John Stuart Mill (40%) Info & Notes
14. Jeremy Bentham (31%) Info & Notes
15. Aristotle (28%) Info & Notes
16. William of Ockham (27%) Info & Notes
17. St. Augustine (21%) Info & Notes
18. Thomas Aquinas (17%) Info & Notes
19. Plato (17%) Info & Notes

[Anonymous No.5035536]

Spinoza (100%)
Aquinas (92%)
Stoics (72%)
Epicureans (69%)
Jean-Paul Sartre (69%)
John Stuart Mill (60%)
Aristotle (57%)
Prescriptivism (57%)
William of Ockham (50%)
Kant (49%)

so.... rationalism meets proto-socialism meets aristotle fandom?

[Anonymous No.5035544]

[Anonymous No.5035569]

[Anonymous No.5035601]

Ya Ali.

[Anonymous No.5035609]

how did i do?

[Anonymous No.5035879]

Wassup ?

[Anonymous No.5036106]

100% Epicureans

[Anonymous No.5036141]

Someone care to explain what this means? Seems a little bit contradictive to me.

[Anonymous No.5036147]

>>5036144
oh wow I'm a massive plebe.

[Anonymous No.5036150]

[Anonymous No.5036586]

How did I do?

[Anonymous No.5036619]

>>5034706
Absolute monarchy where everyone has given you their rights so you can rule the country with fear, because the natural state is even worse.

[Anonymous No.5036631]

1. St. Augustine (100%)
2. Thomas Aquinas (83%)
3. John Stuart Mill (79%)
4. Immanuel Kant (77%)

>>5036586
You need a bit more individualist. Seems like you value the good of all way too much.


Also test needs Hegel and Kierkegaard.

[noko No.5036724]

1. Immanuel Kant (100%)
2. Prescriptivism (94%)
3. John Stuart Mill (84%) Info & Notes
4. Jeremy Bentham (82%)
5. Ayn Rand (80%)

Sounds about right.

[Anonymous No.5036726]

1. Ayn Rand (100%)
2. Jean-Paul Sartre (93%)
3. David Hume (86%)
4. Baruch (later known as Benedictus) Spinoza (83%)
5. Aristotle (80%)
6. Immanuel Kant (79%)
7. Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (76%)
8. Thomas Aquinas (71%)
9. Plato (67%)
10. Stoics (67%)

Wilread Atlas shrugged soon i guess..

>Captha : was shrugged

[Anonymous No.5036752]

[Anonymous No.5036773]

>>5034114
Why do these shit threads get 144 replies?

sage

[Anonymous No.5036785]

100% Plato
98% Aristotle

I have no idea what to make of this.

[Anonymous No.5036885]

1. Nietzsche (100%)
2. Hobbes (97%)
3. Hume (96%)
4. Sartre (90%)

[Anonymous No.5037145]

1. Thomas Aquinas (100%)
2. John Stuart Mill (100%)

[Anonymous No.5037238]

Any suggestions on where to start with Hume?

[Anonymous No.5037248]

Should I read this John guy?

[Anonymous No.5037256]

>>5037145
>>5037248
I am almost you.
Or are you almost me?

[Anonymous No.5037447]

huh..

[Anonymous No.5037452]

>>5036785
kill yourself