Which moral philosophy/philosopher are you closest to
http://www.selectsmart.com/philosophy/
Am I based?
>>74694904
I'm /Nietzsche/ so being "based" isn't really a thing
>>74694293
FYI Nietzsche was a large anti-nationalist but his ideas are good for incentivising nationalism
His aestheticism and aestheticism in general goes hugely against /pol/ in that /pol/ should (although it doesn't) value logic and empiricism more over 'what looks good' otherwise we're the same shit as SJWs
>>74694998
I'm almost Thomas Aquinas, you're a heretic or whatever.
>>74695097
I've always thought of /pol/ as SJWs that are on the other side of the war. Anyway the world is beautiful if you can see it
I got Jean-Paul Sartre, and I understand why, but I'm not happy about it.
Am I based?
>>74695908
Irish as fuck.
Too lazy to take it again last time I got 100% on Hobbes
>>74695336
Fair enough, I think the world is beautiful but I think what is more important is to make it more beautiful
Openly entertaining the idea that we're just the converse of SJWs isn't very well received here even though its a perfect diagnosis
>>74696035
I was surprised I got such a high on Hobbes
idk lads
>>74694293
The only possible answer
>>74694904
No, from what I can tell your moral philosophy is 'I do what I feel like'
Did I do good? Or is Spinoza a meme?
>>74696837
Spinoza is based
Aquinas
>>74696996
KEK
Aquinas and Bentham FTW!
All are subject to God's laws and the goal of God's laws is the greater good
r8 me
>>74695635
Sartre was cool. The most existential existentialist.
>>74696996
After a thorough 5 minutes of research on wikipedia I think I know why I got Spinoza.
I really want there to be free will, but I don't think it actually exists. And that makes me sad.
>>74697212
also glad I'm not very much like the edgy teen Nietzsche. But I was expecting more Plato even though John Stuart Mill is basically muh freedoms which is what I also believe in.
Who Epicurean here?
kek, that was surprising. I may be in agreement with Nietzsche on almost everything he's ever written about, but 100%? Jeez
>>74697229
I just didn't want to get 100% :(
>>74694293
Basically... LEAVE ME ALONE GODDAMIT.
Out of the way you fucking plebs
I don't really agree with his diagnosis but he does have some nice ideas. Not exactly my perfect match, but eh.
EZ PZ
That's okay...I guess ?
>>74698402
That is one weird combo
>>74698402
Saint Augustine is the master race my friend
>jean paul sartre
Who was this mother fucker?
>>74698589
A depressive chain smoker.
>>74698589
A commie
>>74694293
>>74694293
lma o
>Has Sartre
>No Kierkegaard
Shit list desu baka senpai
>>74698589
Retarded commie who denied biological realities (and used contradictory logic) to push his MUH FREE WILL meme.
The worst hack in the entire history of philosophy.
>>74698916
I must not be very smart then, and misunderstood the questions and/or answers.
Not upset about this.
Lel Objectivism is life
>>74699094
Naw the questionnaire was based on philosophical opinions not economic.
You got him because he was super pro free will not a communist.
Rand
>>74694293
Feels wierd man.
Even more so that st. Augustine is the patron of my local church
Anyone who didn't get Aristotle or Aquinas is a pleb.
if you have any anti-whites (existentialists, nihilists, jews, atheists) in your top 3-5 you should reconsider
>>74695908
how can you have 91% Bentham and only 65% Mill when the two have virtually identical philosophies
>>74699371
I've gotten the same. Unexpected.
>>74694293
>>74694293
I was expecting this.
>>74699371
Brudder
>>74697908
>>74698522
>>74698402
>>74699635
Brethren
>>74694293
My moral philosophy has shifted. I guess I need to read up on Aquinas now
>>74699755
How'd I do
>>74701859
>>74694293
I got John Stuart Mill. Not bad.
>>74700809
>>74699112
Few people get Kant.
>>74694904
>Aquinas
Tried so hard to prove god exists but couldn't quite do it
>>74694293
>%100% Thomas Aquinas %100%
Got Immanuel Kant. What does this mean?
>>74702911
Randroids hate you. Kant is literally satan in objectivism.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
We can make a prior judgments; the negation of such judgments would a logical absurdity because a priori knowledge is known without sensory data.
We combine a priori and a posteriori knowledge to
We have freedom
The objective facts about the human knowledge leads to Kant's morality
We must act out of a sense of duty in order to be moral
Moral action does not come out of following inclinations
Moral standards must be followed without qualification
We must always act so that the means of our actions could be a universal law
We must always treat people as ends not means
100% ayn rand
>>74696432
>http://www.selectsmart.com/philosophy/
based dos meus
on phone, but im 100% Epicureans apparently.
How'd I do?
>>74699599
almost identical
>>74694293
John Stuart Mill
Thoughts?
>>74703195
She was supposedly an "Atheist" though
>>74697480
It was bound to happen at some point
Should I be reading his work?
>>74702451
His isn't a particularly "feel good" philosophy.
I have no idea who Spinoza is, but 95% Aquinas eh?
>>74703597
You tried.
>>74704485
What is he about?
Not going to attempt a screenshot on mobile. My top three were Plato, Kant, and JS Mill. Sounds about right, Socrates is my main man.
IMO, a lot of the 'modern' philosophers simply redid 'The Republic', but with different assumptions about the things they could not prove. A different set of axioms, if you will. Just like non-Euclidean geometry required them to throw out the one thing they knew they could not prove. Postmodern philosophy seems to operate by starting off with the most ridiculous set of basics.
A lot of the best classics have a sort of synchronicity. Whether its Lau Tsu, or Plato, there's a kind of enlighteent that exists somewhere beyond the realm of just thought.....things that words fail even to describe
I'd like to see political compass results combined with these to see if there is a connection.
>>74703238
figured out how to screenshot.
This good?
>>74705665
MAXIMS
You can read him in laymen speak here
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/
>>74694293
Highlighting what should have been my true number 1
>>74694904
Yes
