Take a tension check. Me? 27% - I misread the question on euthanasia and so the test decided I was totally down on that shit.
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
I got 20% so I'm relatively consistent in my beliefs. Two of the three inconsistencies I was flagged for were relatively common - about 50% of the time, and the third one was a bit more unusual.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
I got swayed on There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures and only really read the second half. I was laughing because the tension gives you an example of a massacre and I was thinking there should be a question saying 'It is acceptable to read the questions very fast and make yourself feel bad about your contradiction later - agree/disagree'
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
I've got lots of "contradictions". 40% in fact. But maybe I haven't grasped this philosophy thing properly. For example:
quote: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
But the second statement is just expressing the values of my particular culture. Where's the contradiction in the two statements? If the choice was "True/False" instead of "Agree/Disagree" then it might be different. Exactly the same goes for:
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
and:
quote:You agreed that: Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste And also that: Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists
The second statements, especially the last one, actually back up the first statement, in my view. In the case of Michaelangelo, you'd be stuffed with either answer according to this quiz, meaning that agreeing that "Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste" is automatically the wrong answer.
I think. Therefore I'm confused.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: But maybe I haven't grasped this philosophy thing properly....
...If the choice was "True/False" instead of "Agree/Disagree" then it might be different...
...In the case of Michaelangelo, you'd be stuffed with either answer according to this quiz, meaning that agreeing that "Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste" is automatically the wrong answer...
Don't worry! Because:
quote:The PHC does not judge whether your responses are right or wrong
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
Tension Quotient = 27%
This bit sucks and I think the question is poorly worded:
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
These two beliefs are not strictly contradictory, but they do present an awkward mix of world-views.
If a dead body decomposes and a plant grows feeding on the body or an animal eats the body then a part of that body is responsible for the continued existence of the other and therefore continues to exist in a non-physical form (energy).
Nothing that dies ever leaves the planet (or even the universe) its one huge ball of recycling.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Also the result of the art tension reads as this:
quote: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.
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
13% tension. I'd like to think that's clear thoughtedness, but it's also bloody-minded atheism for you.
I'm apparently tense on the following contradiction:
quote:You agreed that: It is always wrong to take another person's life And also that: The second world war was a just war
I can see why that's contradictory and for some reason it didn't point out that I'd also come out in favour of euthanasia, perhaps because it's counting that as taking your own life. But then again there were a few holocaust-related questions in there which, to my mind bypass philosophical reasoning and jump straight to historical/political prejudice. So I'm not feeling too "conflicted".
quote: You agreed that: In certain circumstances, it might be desirable to discriminate positively in favour of a person as recompense for harms done to him/her in the past And disagreed that: It is not always right to judge individuals solely on their merits
I'll accept this one as positive discrimination is one of those subjects I could aruge with myself till the cows come home. I'd be inclined to say that being judged on your merit requires an equality of opportunity which does not always exist....
ps. Dang, of course art being a matter of taste is always the wrong answer. Or rather, I'm suspicious of "taste", because like "common sense" it's a culturally determined set of values masquerading as a neutral choice.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
13% - unlucky for some.
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
Looks like we have pretty similar tensions Dang, only I am 20% more relaxed then you! Zzzz...
Posted by sabian (Member # 6) on :
Tension Quotient = 7%
My only contridiction is that art is a matter of taste, but I think that Michelango was a great artist.
Mainly because he didn't shit on a pillow and call it art...
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darryn.R: If a dead body decomposes and a plant grows feeding on the body or an animal eats the body then a part of that body is responsible for the continued existence of the other and therefore continues to exist in a non-physical form (energy).
Nothing that dies ever leaves the planet (or even the universe) its one huge ball of recycling.
No. I think this is a misunderstanding/ miswording of the term "physical". Physicists set me right here, but I think even electricity is physical.
If a person's bodily form is broken right down to the smallest atom, that's still a physical form. Which doesn't make your holistic recycling belief any the less valid, but also doesn't make it agree with the statement.
Posted by Good Fairy (Member # 479) on :
Tension Quotient 0% !?!
I'm as fucked up as anyone here! What is going wrong?
Posted by Jessica Rabbit (Member # 776) on :
I had a tension quotient of 7%, after the question about the environment, with the double negative.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ: I'm suspicious of "taste", because like "common sense" it's a culturally determined set of values masquerading as a neutral choice.
How is taste culturally determined? Everyone I know has differing tastes, in art, music, literature, which sports they like watching, which TV programmes they enjoy etc etc. But we're all from the same culture and upbringing, near enough.
I can understand how common sense could be culturally influenced, as in being inbred into you by your upbringing and your fellow human beings. But taste is genuinely individual, unless you're 13-years-old and don't dare state any different taste in music or clothes to all the other 13-year-olds. I think people grow out of that stage fairly quickly though don't they? Hmmm, maybe not, I dunno.
Posted by squeegy (Member # 136) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ: I'm apparently tense on the following contradiction:
quote:You agreed that: It is always wrong to take another person's life And also that: The second world war was a just war
I can see why that's contradictory and for some reason it didn't point out that I'd also come out in favour of euthanasia, perhaps because it's counting that as taking your own life. But then again there were a few holocaust-related questions in there which, to my mind bypass philosophical reasoning and jump straight to historical/political prejudice. So I'm not feeling too "conflicted".
It seems a silly point for them to make. I also had the same result but felt my answer was fair. I am against the killing of any human being on principle but I'd like to think if Robert Mugabe decided tomorrow to kill all white zimbabweans that something would be done. If that involved the death of some of those responsible then so be it. This may be conflicting to them but Im just fine thanks.
quote:You agreed that: The government should not permit the sale of treatments which have not been tested for efficacy and safety And also that: Alternative and complementary medicine is as valuable as mainstream medicine
But I also said voluntary euthenasia is okay and that taking any old drug you want is okay. Sure, I'd like to know that whatever a chemist boils up in a lab has been tested. But if someone wants to use herbal remedies that have been used for a very long time, who am I to say no?
I think the test is a bit tense.
Oh, Tension Quotient = 27%
Posted by saltrock (Member # 622) on :
33% for me. But I know that I have very confused views on a variety of subjects and am constantly contradicting myself.
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65:
quote:Originally posted by OJ: I'm suspicious of "taste", because like "common sense" it's a culturally determined set of values masquerading as a neutral choice.
How is taste culturally determined? Everyone I know has differing tastes, in art, music, literature, which sports they like watching, which TV programmes they enjoy etc etc. But we're all from the same culture and upbringing, near enough.
Because the aesthetic concept of taste doesn't exist outside of its relationship to cultural values.
People can have preferences despite having the same cultural background - I prefer watching tennis to football, but as soon as I start to argue why one is better, or why it is worthy of greater appreciation it's a whole different ball game (With apologies for the shit pun. See it as bad taste in action, lowering my kudos in the eyes of the forum to illustrate a point. Ahem.)
In any case, in our (Western, non-Communist) society there are a whole load of cultural values jostling for prominence - so I don't think it's surprising that people's tastes differ markedly.
But I do think taste and preference get mixed up a lot. In fact, thinking back to the paintings thread, I think I nominated a Daguerre image both because I happen to like it and because it had cultural significance.
If you think of judgements we make about taste in the context of "taste and decency" (well I do), you can see a big difference in what is acceptable and tasteful in the eyes of different societies. Footage of beheadings on the TV news in 2005 - No. Public hangings in the 19th century - all well and good.
This is all just my not particularly well-argued view - there's a good summary of the different philosophies of taste in both the aesthetic and sociological contexts on Wikipedia
I'm being boring now so I might just have to slink off and re-read The Ideologoy of the Aesthetic and my entire Romantic shelf and keep my witterings to myself....
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ:
quote:Originally posted by dang65: Everyone I know has differing tastes, in art, music, literature, which sports they like watching, which TV programmes they enjoy etc etc.
But I do think taste and preference get mixed up a lot...
It's a bit hard to avoid mixing them up isn't it? If one piece of music is to your taste then you're very likely to prefer it to another piece of music which isn't to your taste. I don't see that they are exclusive in that sense. Preference would come where, say, you had a blue shirt and a white shirt and you liked both colours very much, but one was more comfortable so you preferred it. You can state a preference between two things which aren't at all to your taste - I don't like either Primal Scream or The Smiths, but out of the two I guess I prefer Primal Scream. For example.
Posted by mimolette (Member # 478) on :
I found that most of the "tension" I ended up with actually wasn't tension at all. Many of the statements were open to interpretation, I thought, especially the genocide/evil duo. Surely all the "tension" showed was that I believe evil to be based on subjective morals. What's wrong with that?
Also "The government should not permit the sale of treatments which have not been tested for efficacy and safety And also that: Alternative and complementary medicine is as valuable as mainstream medicine" is just a bit stupid. Where did it say that alternative and complementary medicine had not been tested? Dumb, very dumb.
[ 06.09.2005, 10:03: Message edited by: mimolette ]
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
quote:Originally posted by dang65: It's a bit hard to avoid mixing them up isn't it? If one piece of music is to your taste then you're very likely to prefer it to another piece of music which isn't to your taste.
Conversationally yes, conceptually no. But that was what I was alluding to in the first place IYSWIM.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ: IYSWIM.
I can't believe the worlds faster typer has used an abbreviation.
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay:
quote:Originally posted by OJ: IYSWIM.
I can't believe the worlds faster typer has used an abbreviation.
I only worked out what it meant last week and wanted to show off my new-found way with acronyms.
Oh and it's "typist". I'm sorry, I'm a pedant so I had to tell you.
Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
I got 7 percent, but only because I am bigoted.
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
27%.
The figure is meaningless, as I have such varied views on these varied subjects. Loved the 'Holocaust' question though.
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
I got 33%, which is probably because I've never been known to think an argument through to its logical conclusion (not before shooting my mouth off, anyway), but it does say that in order to hold some of these apparently contradictory opinions you have to have very sophisticated and subtle reasoning. So I'm going with that.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Or rather, I'm suspicious of "taste", because like "common sense" it's a culturally determined set of values masquerading as a neutral choice.