# The Gaming Den

Welcome to the Gaming Den.

Skip to content

## Another philosophical quiz

Mundane & Pointless Stuff I Must Share: The Off Topic Forum

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

- Print view

39 posts

- Previous
- 1
- 2

cthulhu
  Duke
  Posts: 2162
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by cthulhu » Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:05 pm

I'm sure what the difference is between strong egoism and hedonism, and I don't understand existentialism at all.
If your objective is personal pleasure - which seems to be the hedonism angle, how is that different from seeking self advancement. Though I suppose if hedonism is an end state, strong ego, utilitarianism etc might methodologies. Not sure.
To me it seems kinda weird in that some of them are a behavioural framework - like kantianism and utalitarism, while others are end goals - divine command and hedonism.
Top

Count Arioch the 28th
  King
  Posts: 6172
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Count Arioch the 28th » Mon Jun 09, 2008 4:44 pm

Apathy 95%
Utilitarianism 90%
Existentialism 90%
Hedonism 80%
Nihilism 50%
Justice (Fairness) 45%
Strong Egoism 30%
Kantianism 30%
Divine Command 0%
Top

Calibron
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 617
  Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:38 am

###

- Quote

Post by Calibron » Mon Jun 09, 2008 6:54 pm

You've got to be kidding, Apathy 95%?
Top

Crissa
  King
  Posts: 6720
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Santa Cruz

###

- Quote

Post by Crissa » Mon Jun 09, 2008 8:23 pm

Hedonism is the ultimate good is what makes people happy, not you in specific. Which is why it scores so highly for me.
I feel Kant is a good method, but a poor end. 'If everyone tried to save this man, he wouldn't get saved' etc gets complex. But it works for many things. Same for Utilitarianism.
Good for good's sake I think feels hollow, we have physical bodies and moods and emotions which need to be tended to. I don't believe in souls, nor divine command, so it ends up expressed in happiness or hedonism.
Advancing the human race I believe makes people happy.
-Crissa
Top

Bigode
  Duke
  Posts: 2246
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Bigode » Mon Jun 09, 2008 8:59 pm

> Crissa wrote:I feel Kant is a good method, but a poor end. 'If everyone tried to save this man, he wouldn't get saved' etc gets complex. But it works for many things. Same for Utilitarianism.

Wholly agreed. I suppose the reason the former scored (a lot) higher for me's that utilitarianism doesn't actually say what is good, so each utilitarian decides based on what they happen to view as the greatest good.

> Hans Freyer, s.b.u.h. wrote:A manly, a bold tone prevails in history. He who has the grip has the booty.

> Huston Smith wrote:Life gives us no view of the whole. We see only snatches here and there, (...)

> brotherfrancis75 wrote:Perhaps you imagine that Ayn Rand is our friend? And the Mont Pelerin Society? No, those are but the more subtle versions of the Bolshevik Communist Revolution you imagine you reject. (...) FOX NEWS IS ALSO COMMUNIST!

> LDSChristian wrote:True. I do wonder which is worse: killing so many people like Hitler did or denying Christ 3 times like Peter did.

Top

Username17
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 29894
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Username17 » Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:41 am

> To me it seems kinda weird in that some of them are a behavioural framework - like kantianism and utalitarism, while others are end goals - divine command and hedonism.

Behavioral frameworks are goals.
-Username17
Top

JonSetanta
  King
  Posts: 5512
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: interbutts

###

- Quote

Post by JonSetanta » Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:51 am

> Caliborn wrote:You've got to be kidding, Apathy 95%?

Amazing.
Unfortunately he won't care about it either way, as by his personal moral code.

> The Adventurer's Almanac wrote: ↑
> Fri Oct 01, 2021 10:25 pm
> Nobody gives a flying fuck about Tordek and Regdar.

Top

Calibron
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 617
  Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:38 am

###

- Quote

Post by Calibron » Tue Jun 10, 2008 11:38 am

Heh, would've gotten 100%, but didn't care enough to go that extra mile?
Top

Count Arioch the 28th
  King
  Posts: 6172
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Count Arioch the 28th » Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:44 pm

Philosophy won't put food on my table, put a roof over my head, or get me laid. More often than not, philosophy is a tool that others use to make me look stupid. Seeing as how it doesn't benefit me, and is a tool others use to mock me, why should I care?
Top

Koumei
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 13799
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: South Ausfailia

###

- Quote

Post by Koumei » Tue Jun 10, 2008 3:51 pm

I can understand what you mean by that.
"I live my life the way I live it. I don't write it down as a series of guidelines, I don't give it a name, and I don't pretend it's either unique or a universal rule. It's just how I live."
Although I'm not sure how one can use philosophy to make another look stupid.
Top

cthulhu
  Duke
  Posts: 2162
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by cthulhu » Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:37 am

> FrankTrollman wrote:

> > To me it seems kinda weird in that some of them are a behavioural framework - like kantianism and utalitarism, while others are end goals - divine command and hedonism.

> Behavioral frameworks are goals.
> -Username17

I guess I'm not expressing myself well. It seems to me that kant/utilitarianism are conceptually similar and in one basket, and hedonism is a different sort of concept and in a different basket.
Like utilitarianism doesn't provide in of itself a metric for success (most good for the most people, whats good?) but hedonism does provide a success metric but doesn't really say anything about getting there.
If you see what I'm saying anyway.
Top

JonSetanta
  King
  Posts: 5512
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: interbutts

###

- Quote

Post by JonSetanta » Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:34 am

> Caliborn wrote:Heh, would've gotten 100%, but didn't care enough to go that extra mile?

O gods that was witty...

> The Adventurer's Almanac wrote: ↑
> Fri Oct 01, 2021 10:25 pm
> Nobody gives a flying fuck about Tordek and Regdar.

Top

Username17
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 29894
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Username17 » Wed Jun 11, 2008 12:48 pm

> cthulhu wrote:

> > FrankTrollman wrote: Behavioral frameworks are goals.
> > -Username17

> I guess I'm not expressing myself well. It seems to me that kant/utilitarianism are conceptually similar and in one basket, and hedonism is a different sort of concept and in a different basket.
> Like utilitarianism doesn't provide in of itself a metric for success (most good for the most people, whats good?) but hedonism does provide a success metric but doesn't really say anything about getting there.
> If you see what I'm saying anyway.

The key is that all philosophies come down to two questions:

- What is important?
- What's worth arguing about?

There are lots of philosophies that seriously spend long periods yelling at each other over whether or not one has free will and what you should do about that fact one way or the other. Personally I just throw the pragmatic maxim at the problem and it goes away. But some people, some entire schools of thought, really care.
So to a Utilitarian the assumption is that on should act in a manner which brings the most good to most people. And what is worth discussing is how one actually goes about doing that. It seems trivially easy to show that killing yourself and giving your things away produces less positive benefit in the long run than does living some sort of reasonably normal life and volunteering aid to others from time to time - but substantially starker or milder choices are much harder to evaluate. To a follower of divine command, the question is essentially meaningless; the proper question one should ask is merely what your gods want from you (a question which is frankly even harder to answer).
But in either case the philosophy brings something to the table: an assumption for how one would judge the merits of a proposition. Actually judging any proposition is always going to require a court case: because real propositions in the real world aren't simple.
-Username17
Top

Judging__Eagle
  Prince
  Posts: 4671
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Lake Ontario is in my backyard; Canada

###

- Quote

Post by Judging__Eagle » Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Existentialism 100%
Utilitarianism 90%
Kantianism 70%
Justice (Fairness) 60%
Strong Egoism 35%
Hedonism 30%
Nihilism 30%
Apathy 20%
Divine Command 15%
The Gaming Den; where Mathematics are rigorously applied to Mythology.
While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
Top
Post Reply

- Print view

Display:
Sort by:
Direction:

39 posts

- Previous
- 1
- 2

Return to “MPSIMS”

Jump to

- Main
- ↳ About the Gaming Den
- ↳ In My Humble Opinion...
- ↳ I Gave the Mouse a Cookie...
- ↳ In The Trenches
- ↳ It's My Own Invention...
- ↳ MPSIMS