![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 19 of 19. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by alexandra_k on October 2, 2005, at 5:01:54
Posted by alexandra_k on October 2, 2005, at 5:10:09
In reply to philosophical health check, posted by alexandra_k on October 2, 2005, at 5:01:54
Posted by rainbowbrite on October 2, 2005, at 10:08:21
In reply to Re: battleground god, posted by alexandra_k on October 2, 2005, at 5:10:09
hey!
Im very healthy, only one hit. which "suggests that your beliefs about God are well thought out and almost entirely internally consistent"
Posted by alexandra_k on October 2, 2005, at 10:13:06
In reply to Re: battleground god » alexandra_k, posted by rainbowbrite on October 2, 2005, at 10:08:21
well done
wanna play another???
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/taboo.htm
Posted by rainbowbrite on October 2, 2005, at 10:17:04
In reply to philosophical health check, posted by alexandra_k on October 2, 2005, at 5:01:54
Tension Quotient = 27%
This one gave me a tension headache lol
It sounds like this is still a low score even though I made a few contraditions :-O
Posted by alexandra_k on October 2, 2005, at 10:26:00
In reply to Re: philosophical health check » alexandra_k, posted by rainbowbrite on October 2, 2005, at 10:17:04
> It sounds like this is still a low score even though I made a few contraditions :-Oyep.
don't know anyone who has gotten through it without tension...
tension doesn't necessarily result in contradiction...
a bit of fast talking might get you out of it ;-)
Posted by rainbowbrite on October 2, 2005, at 10:39:31
In reply to :-) » rainbowbrite, posted by alexandra_k on October 2, 2005, at 10:13:06
hmm this one was difficult. But I got...
There was no inconsistency in the way that you responded to the questions in this activity. You indicated that an act can be wrong even if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. There is nothing contradictory then in a claim that the actions depicted in these scenarios are morally problematic.
But I took it twice and from my psychological approach I scored very differnet....There was no inconsistency in the way that you responded to the questions in this activity. You did not evaluate the actions depicted in these scenarios to be across the board wrong. And anyway you indicated that an action can be wrong even if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. So, in fact, had you thought that the acts described here were entirely wrong there would still be no inconsistency in your moral outlook.
Posted by rainbowbrite on October 2, 2005, at 10:40:44
In reply to Re: philosophical health check » rainbowbrite, posted by alexandra_k on October 2, 2005, at 10:26:00
how was your trip?
Posted by JenStar on October 2, 2005, at 14:11:25
In reply to philosophical health check, posted by alexandra_k on October 2, 2005, at 5:01:54
this is SO cool! I got a score of 29%. Some of my beliefs seem to be in tension with each other. I really enjoy thinking about things like this...
JenStar
Posted by Deneb on October 2, 2005, at 14:18:30
In reply to philosophical health check, posted by alexandra_k on October 2, 2005, at 5:01:54
Posted by alexandra_k on October 2, 2005, at 17:26:05
In reply to hee hee :-) » alexandra_k, posted by rainbowbrite on October 2, 2005, at 10:40:44
> how was your trip?
It was great :-)
Took about half an hour to fall in love with Melbourne...
Posted by spriggy on October 2, 2005, at 19:09:04
In reply to Re: hee hee :-) » rainbowbrite, posted by alexandra_k on October 2, 2005, at 17:26:05
Posted by Tamar on October 2, 2005, at 20:03:34
In reply to :-) » rainbowbrite, posted by alexandra_k on October 2, 2005, at 10:13:06
... that's me. I don't think people need to be punished for getting off with dead poultry. Maybe I'm odd...
Apparently I'm low tension, and I don't take hits from the God squad. I feel I'm just brimming with philosophical possibilities. Mind you, I could take the same tests tomorrow and come out totally differently...
Posted by alexandra_k on October 2, 2005, at 20:21:31
In reply to fully permissive... » alexandra_k, posted by Tamar on October 2, 2005, at 20:03:34
> ... that's me. I don't think people need to be punished for getting off with dead poultry. Maybe I'm odd...
I most certainly got the 'yukko' factor, but I don't think people need to be punished for getting off with dead poultry either...
I'm fully permissive too - provided that no harm results.
In fact... I'm not 100% sure on this but I think it is morally acceptable to do acts which harm oneself so long as they do not harm others. Though we can haggle over the harm to others who care about the person... I guess I think I'm morally okay in insisting on smoking cigarettes so long as I take it away from other people and don't inflict it on them.
> I feel I'm just brimming with philosophical possibilities.:-)
> Mind you, I could take the same tests tomorrow and come out totally differently...
Yeah.
Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the universe over the scratching of my finger...
One could have a perfectly coherant / consistent set of beliefs...
Another could have a perfectly coherant / consistent set of beliefs...
Yet those two come into conflict.
Actually...
I do believe I have heard someone attempt to give a proof against the possibility of that...
But it did strike me as something of a verbal trick rather than something of substance...
But that might be my stupidity...Whatever.
Interesting to consider...
That a great deal of academic philosophy...
Lies in constructing elaborate stories...
To show how beliefs which are 'in tension'
Don't result in contradiction.Another line of attack is to maintain that contradictions aren't fatal... But maybe thats both true and false ;-)
Posted by Tamar on October 2, 2005, at 21:17:48
In reply to Re: fully permissive... » Tamar, posted by alexandra_k on October 2, 2005, at 20:21:31
> In fact... I'm not 100% sure on this but I think it is morally acceptable to do acts which harm oneself so long as they do not harm others. Though we can haggle over the harm to others who care about the person... I guess I think I'm morally okay in insisting on smoking cigarettes so long as I take it away from other people and don't inflict it on them.Yeah, I tend to agree. I quit smoking yesterday (so far so good) and I'm terrified of turning into one of those born-again non-smokers who hate all nicotine. It's an interesting question whether it's morally OK to harm yourself. I remember a court case involving some gay S/M that prompted discussion of these issues...
> Interesting to consider...
> That a great deal of academic philosophy...
> Lies in constructing elaborate stories...
> To show how beliefs which are 'in tension'
> Don't result in contradiction.Yeah. I've been reading theology for some time and it seems like just that kind of philosophical exercise. (Aquinas apparently believed that masturbation was worse than sexual assault because at least sexual assault can lead to conception, so it's natural. I'm oversimplifying but I don't think I'm doing Aquinas a grave injustice...)
And sometimes the people who believed the 'wrong' thing died for their philosophical (theological) stance.
> Another line of attack is to maintain that contradictions aren't fatal... But maybe thats both true and false ;-)
:) Maybe we should put philosophers in charge of things!
Posted by alexandra_k on October 2, 2005, at 21:22:08
In reply to Re: fully permissive... » alexandra_k, posted by Tamar on October 2, 2005, at 21:17:48
> :) Maybe we should put philosophers in charge of things!LOL!!! I think it was Plato who said something about how the ideal leader was the philosopher-king. The notion being that any leader should have a good understanding of philosophy.
Trouble with academic philosophy...
Is that (best I can figure) it is rare to find truely moral people over there too. Lots of ethicists seem more interested in justifying their own actions and pulling verbal tricks to assist them in their enterprise...
Somewhat disillusioning...
And that is what is so amazing about those few rare exceptions...
Posted by alexandra_k on October 3, 2005, at 0:42:42
In reply to Re: fully permissive... » Tamar, posted by alexandra_k on October 2, 2005, at 21:22:08
do it yourself deity:
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/whatisgod.htm
morality play:
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/morality_play.htm
shakespeare vs. britney
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/britney1.htm
and my personal favourite
staying alive:
Posted by caraher on October 3, 2005, at 10:53:59
In reply to philosophical health check, posted by alexandra_k on October 2, 2005, at 5:01:54
Hmmm... I got a zero. I'm not used to zero being a "good" score ;)
Posted by Damos on October 3, 2005, at 17:20:16
In reply to philosophical health check, posted by alexandra_k on October 2, 2005, at 5:01:54
Okay so my tension quotient is 47% (this comes as no surprise to me).
As for fighting out with God I took 1 direct hit and bit a bullet.
On the Taboo one Moralising Q 0.67, Interference Q 0.75 and Universalising Q 0.25.
Haven't had a chance to get to the others yet. Bloody work always getting in the way of important stuff :-)
Thanks Alex enjoyed doing these muchly.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.