You are an N-S-R: a metaphysical Non-Reductionist, an epistemological Skeptic, and a moral Relativist. If you are simply dying inside to figure out what all this mumbo-jumbo means, then simply continue reading.
Metaphysics: Non-Reductionism (Idealism or Realism)
In metaphysics, my test measures your tendency towards Reductionism or
Non-Reductionism. As a Non-Reductionist, you recognize that reality is
not necessarily simple or unified, and you thus tend to produce a
robust ontology instead of carelessly shaving away hypothetical
entities that reflect our philosophical experiences. My test recognizes
two types of Non-Reductionists: Idealists and Realists.
1. Idealists believe that reality is fundamentally
unknowable. All we can ever know is the world of sense experience,
thought, and other phenomena which are only distorted reflections of an
ultimate (or noumenal) reality. Kant, one of the most significant
philosophers in history, theorized that human beings perceive reality
in such a way that they impose their own mental frameworks and
categories upon reality, fully distorting it. Reality for Kant is
unconceptualized and not subject to any of the categories our minds
apply to it. Idealists are non-reductionists because they recognize
that the distinction between phenomenal reality and ultimate reality
cannot be so easily discarded or unified into a single reality. They
are separate and distinct, and there is no reason to suppose the one
mirrors the other. Major philosophical idealists include Kant and
Fichte.
If your views are different from the above, then you may be a Realist.
2. Realists
deny the validity of sloppy metaphysical reductions, because they feel
that there is no reason to suspect that reality reflects principles of
parsimony or simplicity. Realism is the most common-sensical of the
metaphysical views. It doesn't see reality as a unity or as reducible
to matter or mind, nor does it see reality as divided into a phenomenal
world of experience and an unknowable noumenal world of
things-in-themselves. Realist metaphysics emphasizes that reality is
for the most part composed of the things we observe and think. On the
question of the existence of universals, for instance, a realist will
assert that while universals do not physically exist, the relations
they describe in particulars are as real as the particular things
themselves, giving universals a type of reality. Thus, no reduction is
made. On the mind-body problem, realists tend to believe that minds and
bodies both exist, and the philosophical problems involved in reducing
mind to matter or matter to mind are too great to warrant such a
reduction. Finally, realists deny that reality is ultimately a Unity or
Absolute, though they recognize that reality can be viewed as a Unity
when we consider the real relations between the parts as constituting
this unity--but it doesn't mean that the world isn't also made up of
particular things. Aristotle and Popper are famous realists.
*****
Epistemology: Skepticism (Idealism or Subjectivism)
In regards to epistemology, my test measures your tendency towards
Absolutism or Skepticism. As an epistemological Skeptic, you believe
that ultimate reality cannot be known in any objective way. The two
categories of Skeptics that my test recognizes are Idealists and
Subjectivists.
1. Epistemological Idealists believe that knowledge of
ultimate reality is impossible. All we can ever have knowledge about is
the world of phenomenal human experience, but there is no reason to
suspect that reality mirrors our perceptions and thoughts, according to
Idealists. Idealists, then, tend to see truth not as a correspondence
between propositions and reality--reality is, after all, fundamentally
unknowable--but as a coherence between a whole system of propositions
taken to be true. We cannot escape from language or our conceptualized
world of phenomena, so we are unable to reference propositions to facts
and must instead determine their truth by comparing them to other
propositions we hold to be true. As a result of such an idealism,
knowledge of any ultimate reality is taken to be impossible, hence the
Skeptical tendency of idealism. All our pursuits of knowledge, science
included, can only reflect a phenomenal reality that is of our own
making. Famous idealists include Kant and Fichte.
If the above did not sound skeptical or idealistic enough to reflect your own views, then you are most likely a Subjectivist.
2. Epistemological Subjectivists,
like idealists, believe that all our knowledge is ultimately of our own
making because it is filtered through our subjective perceptions.
Unlike an idealist, though, a subjectivist doesn't believe in any
universal categories of "truth" that apply to the phenomenal world,
because each individual can create his own truth. Either that, or he
will hold that society or custom creates its own forms of truth. A
subjectivist will tend to regard scientific inquiry as a game of
sorts--science does not reveal truths about reality, but only gives
scientists pseudo-solutions to pseudo-problems of the scientific
community's own devising. It is a type of puzzle-solving, but the
puzzle isn't of reality. The definition of truth to a subjectivist may
be one that recognizes a proposition's usefulness to an individual.
William James is one such subjectivist, who believes that we can "will
to believe" certain propositions so long as we would find them useful.
The example he gives is being found in a situation where you must leap
over a chasm in order to survive. The true belief, in such a situation,
is that the leap will be successful--this truth is certainly more
useful to us, and in believing the truth we become more willing to
commit to the jump and make it successful. So, in essence, knowledge of
reality is possible for a subjectivist because they never make
reference to any objective reality existing outside of our own
perceptions and beliefs--we can have knowledge of reality through
having knowledge of ourselves, and that is all that we should ask for.
Famous subjectivists include Kuhn, Feyarabend, and James. Another famed
critic of Absolutism is Hume.
*****
Ethics: Relativism (Subjectivism or Emotivism)
My test measures one's tendency towards moral Objectivism or moral
Relativism in regards to ethics. As a moral Relativist, you tend to see
moral choices as describing a subject's reaction to a moral object or
situation, and not as a property of the moral object itself. You may
also feel that moral words are meaningless because they do not address
any empirical fact about the world. My test recognizes two types of
moral relativists--Subjectivists and Emotivists.
1. Subjectivists see individual or collective desires as
defining a situation's or object's moral worth. Thus, the subject, not
the object itself, determines the value. Subjectivists recognize that
social rules, customs, and morality have been wide-ranging and quite
varied throughout history among various cultures. As a result,
Subjectivism doesn't attempt to issue hard and fast rules for judging
the moral worth of things. Instead, it recognizes that what we consider
"good" and "right" is not bound by any discernable rule. There is no one
trait that makes an act good or right, because so many different kinds
of things have been called good and right. In regards to the definition
of "good" or "right", a Subjectivist will tend to define it as whatever
a particular person or group of people desire. They do not define it
merely as "happiness" or "pleasure", for instance, because sometimes we
desire to do things that do not produce pleasure, and because we don't
consider all pleasurable things good. Furthermore, Subjectivists
recognize the validity of consequentialism in that sometimes we refer
to consequences as good and bad--but they also recognize that our
intentions behind an action, or the means to the end, can also
determine an act's moral worth. Again, there is no one rule to
determine these things. Hence the relativism of moral Subjectivism. The
most well-known of the subjectivists is Nietzsche.
If that didn't sound like your position, then you are probably the other variety of moral Relativist--the Emotivist.
Emotivists are moral Relativists only in a very slanted sense,
because they actually deny that words about morality have any meaning
at all. An Emotivist would probably accept Hume's argument that it is
impossible to derive an "ought" from an "is"--no factual state of
affairs can logically entail any sort of moral action.
Furthermore, a emotivist's emphasis on scientific (and hence empirical)
verification and testing quickly leads to the conclusion that concepts
such as "good" and "right" don't really describe any real qualities or
relations. Science is never concerned with whether a particular state
of affairs is moral or right or good--and an emotivist feels much the
same way. Morality is thus neither objective or subjective for the
emotivist--it is without any meaning at all, a sort of vague
ontological fiction that is merely a symbol for our emotional responses
to certain events. Famous emotivists include Ayer and other positivists
associated with the Vienna Circle.
*****
As you can see, when your philosophical position is narrowed down
there are so many potential categories that an OKCupid test cannot
account for them all. But, taken as very broad categories or
philosophical styles, you are best characterized as an N-S-R. Your
exact philosophical opposite would be an R-A-O.
|
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
