LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksThis quiz at Which famous philosopher do you most agree with?
My results were this:
Kant (100%)
Augustine (93%)
Plato (93%)
Aristotle (78%)
Nietzsche (75%)
Aquinas (71%)
Hume (19%)
Sextus Empiricus (12%)
Protagoras (0%)
16Likes
May 17th, 2014, 09:20 PM
This quiz at Which famous philosopher do you most agree with?
My results were this:
Kant (100%)
Augustine (93%)
Plato (93%)
Aristotle (78%)
Nietzsche (75%)
Aquinas (71%)
Hume (19%)
Sextus Empiricus (12%)
Protagoras (0%)
The questionnaire's a bit odd. But I did it anyway.
Kant 100%
Aristotle 86%
Augustine 86%
Aquinas 72%
Hume 72%
... followed by those scoring less than 50%
Protagoras 43%
Sextus Empiricus 43%
Plato 12 %
... and left entirely out in the cold
Nietzsche 0%
I would say that I find it highly repulsive in the sense that it is drafted with such imprecision that I could not get past question six.Originally Posted by adelady
Last edited by scoobydoo1; May 17th, 2014 at 09:48 PM. Reason: correction
Nietzsche (100%)
Kant (84%)
Sextus Empiricus (76%)
Hume (75%)
Protagoras (60%)
Augustine (50%)
Aristotle (49%)
Aquinas (38%)
Plato (0%)
What I think about Kant is that the essence of his critique of pure reasoning is what is sometimes called a categorical imperative. This is a moral issue for him concerning humanity as a whole.
The good of the one is the good of the many and the good of the many is the good of the one. < That is how I see it and Kant, and all.
I was surprised at which philosophers were smart enough to agree with me.
100% Hume
79% Protagoras.
72% Aristotle.
72% Augustine.
72% Kant
72% Sextus Empiricus.
63% Aquinas.
35% Plato
0% Nietzsche.
100% Kant
81% Nietsche
43% Hume
31% Aristotle
16% Aquinas
4% Plato
2% Protagoras
2% Sextus Empiricus
0% Augustine
--
Predicted I'd be closest to Nietzsche
Surprised I'm so far from Augustine since I love many of his quotes--but it could be because he resonated with me when I was drifting from Christianity as a budding reasoning much younger man.
None of them - Terence McKenna.
Kant (100%)
Hume (73%)
Aristotle (65%)
Augustine (38%)
Protagoras (28%)
Aquinas (25%)
Nietzsche (19%)
Sextus Empiricus (19%)
Plato (0%)
Like most other responders, I found myself more in agreement with Kant than anyone else. Which I suppose says something about the sort of people who seek out and post on something calling itself "The Science Forum," but I have no real idea what.
Sadly, reading even wikipedia's article on Kant leaves me rather mystified. Is it just me or does anyone else out there feel philosophy is mostly egotistic arguments about definitions and logic designed to make those who study it feel smarter than those who don't, with no eye to any actual purpose?
I study philosophy and this is precisely what Kant felt traditional metaphysics did. So no wonder you find yourself agreeing with him.
I've felt like that many times, especially in college. But I really don't know enough about Philosophy so I could be very wrong.
I scored 100% on all of them so I think I did something wrong :P
Augustine!
That is a bit like being asked what your favourite music is and answering "chocolate cheesecake".
You must have been disappointed when the world didn't end in 2012. Or too high to notice it was 2012...
Edit: nm
Hume: 100
Nietzsche: 99
Kant: 84
Rest: sub70
Plato: 0 (lol!)
Last edited by Raziell; May 19th, 2014 at 06:44 AM.
Hume 100%, Protagoras 98%, Sextus Impericus 90%, Kant 87%, Augustine 69%, Aquinas 56%, Aristotle 56%, Plato 8%, Nietzsche 0%
I am very anti philosophy because
1: It is too hard for me.
2: One of my first acquaintances with the subject was Sophocles' repeated disclaimer that he was "one of those specious philosophers".
3: I also remember from around the late 60s that the whole subject was said to have descended into a cul de sac of definitions of what particular words "meant" (that may have been the Bertrand Russel school)
4: Bob Dylans' Crimson Flames lyrics ("Pounced with fire on flaming roads using ideas as my maps............")
5:I was constructively banned from philosophy forums for bad grammar (supposedly)
6: It is much too hard for me.
I did do the test ,though and was pleased that Nietzsche was bottom of my list although I have no idea what Hume's ideas were.
EDIT: actually I scored well for Nietzsche .Kant was second but I have no idea what any of the philosophers on the list really said (even Nietzsche although he is a password for pointlessness I think)
Last edited by geordief; May 20th, 2014 at 05:56 PM.
Mr. Peabody
Hume conclusively proved that all philosophy was B.S.
<never mind>
Last edited by Chucknorium; May 19th, 2014 at 11:04 AM.
Nietsczhe. I'm a nihilist since nothing really is inherent value.
You may like Buddhist philosophy which has the no-self theory. It proposes that things only exist as temporary compositions which in time will change and decompose, and maybe recompose as different things -I know that was overly simplistic, but there are whole books written on this.
Since I scored 100% Hume, I looked him up. I didn't know much about him, but I've often made very similar arguments to his, so I guess the test was pretty accurate in my case.
David Hume - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ethics[edit]
See also: Is–ought problem
Hume's views on human motivation and action formed the cornerstone of his ethical theory: he conceived moral or ethical sentiments to be intrinsically motivating, or the providers of reasons for action. Given that one cannot be motivated by reason alone, requiring the input of the passions, Hume argued that reason cannot be behind morality.
Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality, therefore, are not conclusions of our reason.[71]Hume's sentimentalism about morality was shared by his close friend Adam Smith,[72] and Hume and Smith were mutually influenced by the moral reflections of Francis Hutcheson.[73]
Hume's theory of ethics has been influential in modern day metaethical theory, helping to inspire various forms of emotivism,[74][75] error theory[76] and ethical expressivism and non-cognitivism[77] and Allan Gibbard.[78]
I think more about this part when I think of Hume.
David Hume - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I was hoping Aristotle would have come out higher, still. Also why no Confucius.....? That said it was still an interesting exercise
Kant (100%)
Augustine (58%)
Hume (58%)
Aquinas (43%)
Aristotle (43%)
Protagoras (15%)
Sextus Empiricus (15%)
Nietzsche (0%)
Plato (0%)
This one threw me too! I like these things that get me to think in ways I may not usually do... I really thought I would have scored "Eastern" but I actually like this result better.I was hoping Aristotle would have come out higher, still. Also why no Confucius.....? That said it was still an interesting exercise
Kant (100%)
Augustine (58%)
Hume (58%)
Aquinas (43%)
Aristotle (43%)
Protagoras (15%)
Sextus Empiricus (15%)
Nietzsche (0%)
Plato (0%)
Are you an eastern philosopher or a western philosopher? - Quiz | Get More Quizzes at Quizilla < quiz here
Non partial
You are very open minded. You can see both sides of the issue. This is a marvelous way to be and very few people are like this. Most people are one sided and expect you to be too. But don't be, because its good to see both sides of the matter.
At the risk of revealing too much about myself:
Kant (100%)
Aquinas (86%)
Aristotle (85%)
Plato (73%)
Augustine (70%)
Hume (54%)
Nietzsche (54%)
Protagoras (6%)
Sextus Empiricus (0%)
Came out as Non partial alsoThis one threw me too! I like these things that get me to think in ways I may not usually do... I really thought I would have scored "Eastern" but I actually like this result better.I was hoping Aristotle would have come out higher, still. Also why no Confucius.....? That said it was still an interesting exercise
Kant (100%)
Augustine (58%)
Hume (58%)
Aquinas (43%)
Aristotle (43%)
Protagoras (15%)
Sextus Empiricus (15%)
Nietzsche (0%)
Plato (0%)
Are you an eastern philosopher or a western philosopher? - Quiz | Get More Quizzes at Quizilla < quiz here
Non partial
You are very open minded. You can see both sides of the issue. This is a marvelous way to be and very few people are like this. Most people are one sided and expect you to be too. But don't be, because its good to see both sides of the matter.
Last edited by Ascended; February 15th, 2019 at 08:42 AM.
I haven't counted, but Kant seems to be in the lead.
Yes indeed, most of us seem to be coming out at 100% for Kant or at least pretty close to it. I'm wondering here if we are being drawn towards philosphers espousing a more logically or oriented kind of philosophy, given that this we are all members of a science forum. I guess demonstrating a penchant for the rational is only to be expected given that we seem to be so constantly bombarded with ideas that seem to be indeed so irrational.
I would suspect that there will be a quite definate pattern ermerging from the results, showing a strong bias, when more results are added and also probarbly some significant differences becoming visible between the religious and non religious members.
I find it interesting that we both got 100% on Hume but exact opposites on Nietsche Harold
LOL .. surprised me too ..
Protagoras 100%
Sextus Empiricus 100%
Aristotle 75%
Hume 75%
Kant 75% ..
No mention there of my most favorite, Pyrrho of Elis and his state of 'ataraxia' ..
Pyrrho - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(not to be confused with King Pyrrhos, "pyrrhic victory")
Augustine 100%
Aquinas 82%
(Others between 40 and 60%)
Nietzsche 0%
Yes, and Trivium was the same as me. I'm not very attracted to Nietzsche's nihilism, and don't really understand his concept of Übermensch.I find it interesting that we both got 100% on Hume but exact opposites on Nietsche Harold
It was mostly a strawman meant to represent a conglomeration of all the super people represented in various mythologies/religions.
I don't think so.
The idea of the Ubermensch appears in Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
I think it was to represent what we could become if we became more rational instead of so superstitious. A recurring theme through Nietsche is the idea that we are made weaker by religion instead of stronger.
The point of Nihilism isn't that life is empty and meaningless.
The point of Nihilism is that life is empty and meaningless. SO WHAT?
The only person responsible for giving your life meaning or purpose is you.
So if you want to live a full life you should do everything meaningfully in your life.
That is my view on nihilism aswell. A positive one.I don't think so.
The idea of the Ubermensch appears in Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
I think it was to represent what we could become if we became more rational instead of so superstitious. A recurring theme through Nietsche is the idea that we are made weaker by religion instead of stronger.
The point of Nihilism isn't that life is empty and meaningless.
The point of Nihilism is that life is empty and meaningless. SO WHAT?
The only person responsible for giving your life meaning or purpose is you.
So if you want to live a full life you should do everything meaningfully in your life.
Zero inherent meaning with life means absolute freedom.
Many people consider nihilism depressing, but those are mostly people that feel like they need a purpose. I think this "need" for a purpose is rooted in the egotistical desire to feel important, hence why so many people turn to religion to give themself the illusion of being important or being cared about from some deity.
It actually is kinda weird that we place value to things/people in this world. In a million years, or a few million years++, the earth and our entire species will be gone for good and forgotten forever. Therefore it is kinda solid evidence that anything we do is equally meaningless and without value. This because any decision or action made wont change the final result - the inevitable death of our species.
Hence - Nihilism equals "Have fun and enjoy life, in the end nothing matters anyway".
While I in part agree with this, I think along the lines of Buddha, who had he been included in the test, would have beat the snot out of Nietzsche, or any of the others mentioned in the test, in the ways I see things.That is my view on nihilism aswell. A positive one.I don't think so.
The idea of the Ubermensch appears in Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
I think it was to represent what we could become if we became more rational instead of so superstitious. A recurring theme through Nietsche is the idea that we are made weaker by religion instead of stronger.
The point of Nihilism isn't that life is empty and meaningless.
The point of Nihilism is that life is empty and meaningless. SO WHAT?
The only person responsible for giving your life meaning or purpose is you.
So if you want to live a full life you should do everything meaningfully in your life.
Zero inherent meaning with life means absolute freedom.
Many people consider nihilism depressing, but those are mostly people that feel like they need a purpose. I think this "need" for a purpose is rooted in the egotistical desire to feel important, hence why so many people turn to religion to give themself the illusion of being important or being cared about from some deity.
It actually is kinda weird that we place value to things/people in this world. In a million years, or a few million years++, the earth and our entire species will be gone for good and forgotten forever. Therefore it is kinda solid evidence that anything we do is equally meaningless and without value. This because any decision or action made wont change the final result - the inevitable death of our species.
Hence - Nihilism equals "Have fun and enjoy life, in the end nothing matters anyway".
" I don't say that all asceticism is to be pursued, nor do I say that all asceticism is not to be pursued. I don't say that all observances should be observed, nor do I day that all observances should not be observed. I don't say that all exertions are to be pursued, nor do I say that all exertions are not to be pursued. I don't say that all forfeiture should be forfeited, nor do I say that all forfeiture should not be forfeited. I don't say that all release is to be used for release, nor do I say that all release is not to be used for release."If, when an asceticism is pursued, unskillful qualities grow and skillful qualities wane, then I tell you that that sort of asceticism is not to be pursued. But if, when an asceticism is pursued, unskillful qualities wane and skillful qualities grow, then I tell you that that sort of asceticism is to be pursued.
"If, when an observance is observed, unskillful qualities grow and skillful qualities wane, then I tell you that that sort of observance is not to be observed. But if, when an observance is observed, unskillful qualities wane and skillful qualities grow, then I tell you that that sort of observance is to be observed.
"If, when an exertion is pursued... a forfeiture is forfeited...
"If, when a release is used for release, unskillful qualities grow and skillful qualities wane, then I tell you that that sort of release is not to be used for release. But if, when a release is used for release, unskillful qualities wane and skillful qualities grow, then I tell you that that sort of release is to be used for release."
In my own words (I believe Buddha would approve) - if the ways you are thinking are not beneficial for your peace and comfort and happiness, and meant to bring the same to all, it may be well to rethink things a bit. If they are for the benefit and freedom and happiness and well meaning to and for all, it may be well to follow these ways of seeing and feeling.
He also was on about
This is the way to make things happier and better for all no matter if there is
1. Only this life and nothing after
2. A future life ongoing
3. A new birth after death of some sort
I am not realy sure I like calling Nietsche a nihilist though and prefer to use existentialist nihilist or even just existentialist because he was a lot more positive in his outlook than most people think nihilism is.
I think all philosophers classified as 'nihilists' would be better called existentialists, as most of their thought has actually been a reaction to such a disturbing position.
[QUOTE=Trivium;570238
I think all philosophers classified as 'nihilists' would be better called existentialists, as most of their thought has actually been a reaction to such a disturbing position.[/QUOTE]
Even Kant qualifies to some degree because in his critique of higher reason he rejects the idea that we can have direct knowlege of reality and just have to accept what we can observe with our limited senses. In effect he was rejecting otherwordliness and deciding to pay attention to what is presented to us in this world.
This in itself is absurdist and sets the stage for the existentialists.
Aristotle (100%)
Augustine (91%)
Kant (88%)
Hume (79%)
Aquinas (67%)
Sextus Empiricus (34%)
Protagoras (31%)
Nietzsche (25%)
Plato (0%)
Looks like we split into two gangs: one wants to poke Plato in the eye, another wants to drag Nietzsche by his beard.
Nietzsche (100%)
Kant (84%)
Sextus Empiricus (76%)
Hume (75%)
Protagoras (60%)
Augustine (50%)
Aristotle (49%)
Aquinas (38%)
Plato (0%)
Han Shan 寒山.Which philosopher do you most agree with
Do you mean Han Shan the poet or Han Shan the monk?
It was Nietzsche for me (100%), which didn't surprise me. The rest didn't even come close.
However, I think eastern philosophers are more practical. Patanjali, Iyengar (who died yesterday, aged 95), Tarthang Tulku.
Last edited by ox; August 21st, 2014 at 09:35 AM.
The hermit poet...
Are there favorite poems by this "Cold Mountain Poet" that you prefer? Chan Buddhism and Zen and Taoism are very related it seems.
My favorite philosophies are more Eastern - especially Buddhist, but my favorite Poet remains the Sufi Rumi.
Not really, I like all of them. Chinese language and culture are another one of my hobbies, so I have actually translated some of these poems from classical Chinese - as a bit of a challenge
In any case, my main interest is in the message these poems convey, which really resonates with me. Others may disagree, this is just a personal preference and opinion.
Markus, have you ever read any of the translations by Thomas Cleary? Here is a free one online - if this works properly, it will download as a pdf file. http://static.socialgo.com/cache/246...ldenFlower.pdfNot really, I like all of them. Chinese language and culture are another one of my hobbies, so I have actually translated some of these poems from classical Chinese - as a bit of a challenge
In any case, my main interest is in the message these poems convey, which really resonates with me. Others may disagree, this is just a personal preference and opinion.
Thanks, I will have a look at that
Ah, Markus - I will look more into this. Your translations have to be very challenging to your mind to do, and even if one can do this - very willing to spend a lot of time figuring out minute details. Translation even if you know the languages is difficult, but here you are dealing with very different languages with different root sources and characters. Not only that, but now you are translating poetry which must stay true to original versing and at least somewhat trying to retain a rhyming scheme (if rhyming schemes are used).
Not only that, but this is transcendental type of thinking on top of it all. Congrats on a mind that can even understand enough to even try this.
In poetry like this (I just found one poem so far but can get the gist of what is being spoken) there is a lot that is beyond ordinary intellect.
Poem I found was :
Children I implore you, get out of the burning house now.
Three carts await outside to save you from a homeless life.
Relax in the village square before the sky, everything's empty.
No direction is better or worse, East just as good as West.
Those who know the meaning of this are free to go where they want.
Based I am sure on the first parable of the Lotus Sutra about the father, the children and the three chariots.
The Parable of the Three Carts and the Burning House | SGI Quarterly
Related - are you familiar with the 10 oxherding pictures found in an ancient cave in China? I wrote a poem about them myself if I can find it - but I only had 8 steps which fits more neatly to me into the Noble 8-fold path of Buddhism.
Last edited by Mayflow; August 22nd, 2014 at 04:38 PM.
Markus is amazing!!!
Mayflow is interesting!
I'm not even trying to retain that
Yes, and that is exactly what fascinates me. To most here on TSF I am probably the physics and formula nerd, who endlessly quotes equations; that is my way to understand the external world. However, there is an entirely different level to reality too, and that is what is being revealed when you look inside, and ultimately come to understand that there is no difference between the two. I pursue both paths, but normally only speak about the former on this forum; but that does not mean that that is all there is to me. Far from it.there is a lot that is beyond ordinary intellect.
YupRelated - are you familiar with the 10 oxherding pictures found in an ancient cave in China?
That is weird Markus. That is exactly the thing that I paraphrased my own poem from - it really moved me! It took me a while to find my poem as my home computer has some problems with microsoft office. I seem to have written only six verses on it! I'll post it on the topic you mentioned as well - and btw, thank you, Babe!
I. Searching for the Ox
Alone in the wilderness, lost in the jungle,
the child is searching, searching!
The swelling waters, the far-away mountains,
and the unending path;
Exhausted and in despair, knowimg not
where to go,
Only hearing the evening cicadas singing in
the maple-woods.
Where does the dear child go from here?
She follows her heart, to freedom's shore, right?
II. the trees, scattered
are the traces of the lost; Seeing the Traces
By the stream and under
The sweet-scented grasses are growing
thick -- did she find the way?
However remote over the hills and far
away the beast may wander,
it's nose reaches the heavens and none
can conceal it.
III. Seeing the Ox
On a yonder branch perches a nightengale
cheerfully singing;
The sun is warm, and a soothing breeze
blows on
On the bank the willows
are green;
The ox is there all by himself, nowhere
is he to hide himself;
The splendid head decorated with stately
horns like a duplicatous Unicorn
\-- what painter can
reproduce him?
IV. Catching the Ox
With all the energy the child can muster
she has at last taken hold of the ox:
But how wild his will, how
ungovernable his power!
At times he struts up a plateau,
When Lo! he is lost again in a
misty unpenetrable mountain-pass.
This ox is hard to herd or follow.
V. Herding the Ox
Now the child may seek to
herd the Ox, but if she uses the whip and tether
she will only succeed to separate herself with
from him with that whip and tether,
and cause the animal to wander away again
and she will fall again into a world of defilements;
BUT!, When the ox is properly tended to,
with appropriate attention and love
he will grow pure and docile;
Without a chain, nothing binding, he will
by himself be her leader and her guide
and her follower
Nothing could be stronger
than this boundless binding
Nothing could surpass its
wondrousness
Nothing else could
touch her heart like this
VI. Coming Home on the Ox's Back
Riding on the Ox's back, they leisurely
wend their way home;
Enveloped in the evening mist, how
tunefully the beautiful flute notes vanish away
into the utter stillness of vanquished time
Singing a ditty, beating time,
her dear heart filled with joy
indescribably!
That she is now one of those who know,
need it be told?
I was trying to fix my poem a little - will post it on the Ten Bulls topic -
Last edited by Mayflow; August 23rd, 2014 at 05:25 PM.
Nietzsche (100%)
Hume (70%)
Kant (70%)
Sextus Empiricus (70%)
Protagoras (60%)
Aristotle (30%)
Augustine (30%)
Aquinas (10%)
Plato (0%)
Your predicted #1 result: Hume
Well I predicted Hume so I wasn't too far out.
But I am surprised Kant came up so high as I generally disagree with almost everything he wrote (that I have read).
As for Nietzsche , well he had some interesting ideas but wasn't really able to put them into a cohesive philosophy.
Certainly a fun quiz, though I am doubtful about how accurate it is or quite what criteria it uses for matching up the answers with the philosophers.
Kant: 100
Hume : 63
Augustine: 60
Aquinas: 40
Nietzsche: 35
Aristotle: 26
Protagoras: 20
Sextus Empiricus: 16
Plato: 0
I find this both odd and to be expected. Odd because: It's not in alphabetical order. I don't correlate strongly with my fellow syphillopod Nietzsche. My philosophy wasn't at all Lebowskian. And that, despite careful calculations, the numbers don't add up to %100, so philosophers must be dyslexic. Not odd because: Sex doesn't agree with me. I hate everything about Plato, including his hair.
I have a hard time no liking Plato :The soul through all her being is immortal, for that which is ever in motion is immortal; but that which moves another and is moved by another, in ceasing to move ceases also to live. Only the self-moving, never leaving self, never ceases to move, and is the fountain and beginning of motion to all that moves besides. Now, the beginning is unbegotten, for that which is begotten has a beginning; but the beginning is begotten of nothing, for if it were begotten of something, then the begotten would not come from a beginning. But if unbegotten, it must also be indestructible; for if beginning were destroyed, there could be no beginning out of anything, nor anything out of a beginning; and all things must have a beginning. And therefore the self-moving is the beginning of motion; and this can neither be destroyed nor begotten, else the whole heavens and all creation would collapse and stand still, and never again have motion or birth. But if the self-moving is proved to be immortal, he who affirms that self-motion is the very idea and essence of the soul will not be put to confusion. For the body which is moved from without is soulless; but that which is moved from within has a soul, for such is the nature of the soul. But if this be true, must not the soul be the self-moving, and therefore of necessity unbegotten and immortal? Enough of the soul's immortality.
Of the nature of the soul, though her true form be ever a theme of large and more than mortal discourse, let me speak briefly, and in a figure. And let the figure be composite-a pair of winged horses and a charioteer. Now the winged horses and the charioteers of the gods are all of them noble and of noble descent, but those of other races are mixed; the human charioteer drives his in a pair; and one of them is noble and of noble breed, and the other is ignoble and of ignoble breed; and the driving of them of necessity gives a great deal of trouble to him. I will endeavour to explain to you in what way the mortal differs from the immortal creature. The soul in her totality has the care of inanimate being everywhere, and traverses the whole heaven in divers forms appearing--when perfect and fully winged she soars upward, and orders the whole world; whereas the imperfect soul, losing her wings and drooping in her flight at last settles on the solid ground-there, finding a home, she receives an earthly frame which appears to be self-moved, but is really moved by her power; and this composition of soul and body is called a living and mortal creature. For immortal no such union can be reasonably believed to be; although fancy, not having seen nor surely known the nature of God, may imagine an immortal creature having both a body and also a soul which are united throughout all time. Let that, however, be as God wills, and be spoken of acceptably to him. And now let us ask the reason why the soul loses her wings!
The wing is the corporeal element which is most akin to the divine, and which by nature tends to soar aloft and carry that which gravitates downwards into the upper region, which is the habitation of the gods. The divine is beauty, wisdom, goodness, and the like; and by these the wing of the soul is nourished, and grows apace; but when fed upon evil and foulness and the opposite of good, wastes and falls away. Zeus, the mighty lord, holding the reins of a winged chariot, leads the way in heaven, ordering all and taking care of all; and there follows him the array of gods and demigods, marshalled in eleven bands; Hestia alone abides at home in the house of heaven; of the rest they who are reckoned among the princely twelve march in their appointed order. They see many blessed sights in the inner heaven, and there are many ways to and fro, along which the blessed gods are passing, every one doing his own work; he may follow who will and can, for jealousy has no place in the celestial choir. But when they go to banquet and festival, then they move up the steep to the top of the vault of heaven. The chariots of the gods in even poise, obeying the rein, glide rapidly; but the others labour, for the vicious steed goes heavily, weighing down the charioteer to the earth when his steed has not been thoroughly trained:-and this is the hour of agony and extremest conflict for the soul. For the immortals, when they are at the end of their course, go forth and stand upon the outside of heaven, and the revolution of the spheres carries them round, and they behold the things beyond. But of the heaven which is above the heavens, what earthly poet ever did or ever will sing worthily? It is such as I will describe; for I must dare to speak the truth, when truth is my theme. There abides the very being with which true knowledge is concerned; the colourless, formless, intangible essence, visible only to mind, the pilot of the soul. The divine intelligence, being nurtured upon mind and pure knowledge, and the intelligence of every soul which is capable of receiving the food proper to it, rejoices at beholding reality, and once more gazing upon truth, is replenished and made glad, until the revolution of the worlds brings her round again to the same place. In the revolution she beholds justice, and temperance, and knowledge absolute, not in the form of generation or of relation, which men call existence, but knowledge absolute in existence absolute; and beholding the other true existences in like manner, and feasting upon them, she passes down into the interior of the heavens and returns home; and there the charioteer putting up his horses at the stall, gives them ambrosia to eat and nectar to drink.
Granted Plato on this particular forum would likely be called a troll and inane and a crank, but the boy could write quite well in my particular estimation.
Aristotle (100%)
Plato (87%)
Aquinas (80%)
Kant (80%)
Augustine (66%)
Hume (49%)
Protagoras (40%)
Nietzsche (28%)Sextus Empiricus (0%)
Very cool quiz.
I Kant believe who came out top for me.
Amusingly it's not pronounced like that, it's similiar to a word beginning with c. I remember an incident in Kaliningrad which was formerly Königsberg where Kant was born where someone was apparently shot when discussing Kantian philosophy, I can't help but wonder if they just misheard one another...
I took the test, then lost the results, and took it again. This is what I got:
Augustine: 100% (I know I got 100% here the first time too)
Aquinas: 84%
Aristotle: 67%
Hume: 67%
Plato: 67%
Kant: 50%
| « Science of design | Box of Nothing » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
