Join 3,441 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Very thought provoking
May 8, 2001 1:38 PM   Subscribe

Very thought provoking I would say, but you might want to think about the choices for a minute before you answer. It matches you as closely as it can with famous philosophers. Not perfect, but definitely an interesting site. Has anybody seen others like it?
posted by prototype_octavius (101 comments total)

 
Somebody needs have a philosophical discussion with these folks about popup ads. I've never seen so many on one site. It's like pulling the crank on a slot machine and having it come up three cockroaches. Jackpot, here they come!
posted by jfuller at 1:52 PM on May 8, 2001


Woo. I came up 100% Sartre first try..

Good old post-modernism, get to do whatever you want and still feel you're a goodguy..
posted by Leonard at 1:53 PM on May 8, 2001


Thought-provoking, but also pop-up hell. I matched 100% with Nietzsche. Figures. Reminds me of a test I took (I forget the site, but they have a lot of silly personality tests) to see if the computer could tell if I was a woman or a man. It was wrong :)
posted by starvingartist at 1:54 PM on May 8, 2001


I came up Rand 100%.

But yes, pop-up hell. One of the pop-ups appeared while I was halfway through the test!

Oh my god, one just appeared right now! I'm not even on the site anymore!
posted by Succa at 2:03 PM on May 8, 2001


starvingartist: the silly quiz site is theSpark.com.
posted by o2b at 2:11 PM on May 8, 2001


100% mill.

many of the pop-ups are hidden and won't come to the front until they're good and ready. ugh.
posted by smich at 2:11 PM on May 8, 2001


100 % Mill here too, closely followed by Bentham and Aquinas.

However, I am very Hobbesian with regard to pop-ups.
posted by Skot at 2:13 PM on May 8, 2001


Turns out I am Lockean. And am a good target for popup ads (still happening now!!!).

I always thought this site could be built into a good chassis for an introduction service -- you know, you log in, you take a few of the quizzes, and over time your username's responses are aggregated with others whose responses most closely match yours.

Yep. A total idea person, who sucks at executing. That's SO Lockean.
posted by luser at 2:17 PM on May 8, 2001


100% Epicureans, but at the end, it gives a brief description of what the philosophy is about. Mine said something to the effect that "passionate pleasures are bad, but mild pleasures are good." I completely disagree with that, and I took my time with the answers that I gave, too.

Maybe it was all those damn pop-ups that threw me off...
posted by lizardboy at 2:19 PM on May 8, 2001


Have you tried the religion selector? (Figured it was worth a repost. And there's only one pop-up. So far.)
posted by kathryn at 2:23 PM on May 8, 2001


Well, I got Sartre.
One hundred percent.

Think I'm going to go make a tuna casserole.
posted by mimi at 2:25 PM on May 8, 2001


I got Aquinas 100 percent. I want a recount due to all the pop up ads I got while trying to fill it out.
posted by melaninus at 2:27 PM on May 8, 2001


100% Aristotle.

wish i knew what that meant to OTHER people. :P
posted by jcterminal at 2:28 PM on May 8, 2001


Mimi, thanks for your link.

As the founder of the P.L.A.N.T. Food Society -- People [who] Like [to] Add Nothing [to] Their Food -- I loved the tuna casserole.

Only problem was, I didn't have time to cook it the whole way through.

But even half-baked, it wasn't bad.
posted by LeLiLo at 2:31 PM on May 8, 2001


Am I the only Nietszchean here? I was nearly a Stoic. Makes me feel all bleak... God is Dead.
posted by kokogiak at 2:36 PM on May 8, 2001


How come the don't ask questions like that on Match.com?!
posted by ParisParamus at 2:37 PM on May 8, 2001


Kant. Finally, objective proof I’m a crank. God may be dead, but He’s also irrelevant.

I can’t believe Rand is listed there in a totally unironic way.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 2:41 PM on May 8, 2001


Was about to write the same thing about Rand but just saw Capt.Crackpipe's message. Anybody here read her non-fiction, its pretty hilarious stuff

[note: I have a b.a. in Philosophy and might be prone to favoring more formal philosophic texts, which might make me a jerk/loser/socialist/part of the masses]
posted by buddha9090 at 2:50 PM on May 8, 2001


I didn't even take the test and those windows kept on coming. It's enough to drive a person to anarcho-syndicalism. Is Chomsky an option?
posted by liam at 2:51 PM on May 8, 2001


I'm jealous of all you Satres, although he was third on my list, behind Epicurus and Rand. I'm with you, lizardboy. The quote we take issue with is "Dynamic (passionate) pleasures are bad, passive (mild) pleasures are good". I happen to be a big fan of dynamic pleasures.

It's been a while since I took philosophy, so maybe that's my problem, but most of the responses seemed just a couple of shades off, if you know what i mean. And I wasn't really sure about the "priority" thing.
posted by jpoulos at 2:52 PM on May 8, 2001


ahem...i mean, of course, Sartre.
posted by jpoulos at 2:52 PM on May 8, 2001


%100 RAND. Artistotle %80. Nothing like the old and the new.
posted by stbalbach at 3:02 PM on May 8, 2001


100% Augustine, suckazzz!

Followed by Sartre and Rand. Sartre I like, Rand, I don't, mostly coz she's such a snot.

However, any site that tries to open invisible pop-up machines is not qualified to judge morality.
posted by sonofsamiam at 3:06 PM on May 8, 2001


100% Sartre, too...That's quite a lot for this small control group. Is it us or them?
posted by mapalm at 3:07 PM on May 8, 2001


Kant, me. Hah! Take that, world!

I'm convinced that Rand is responsible for all the pop-ups. Damn, there goes another one!
posted by dfowler at 3:07 PM on May 8, 2001


100% Sartre as well. Is it moral for them to subject us to the pop-ups?
posted by Stretch at 3:11 PM on May 8, 2001


100% Epicurean. Which seems strange to me. 81% Cynic, which doesn't. 68% Rand, which frightened me: there's something wrong there. I really would have thought Kant and Plato would have been much higher, but they were both near the bottom of my list. Perhaps there's a definition of terms problem at work; I did have trouble finding a reason not to pick "don't like these answers" several times ....

Oh, I threw selectsmart.com into my Restricted Sites list before visiting. I didn't get any pop-ups, nyah-nyah!
posted by dhartung at 3:13 PM on May 8, 2001


100% sartre here as well, which is kind of odd. an amazingly high response for such a small group ... unless this says something about the readership of MeFi, and the type of people who will take these tests.

hmmmmmmm.
posted by fuzzygeek at 3:14 PM on May 8, 2001


100% Aquinas... which rather surprised me, what with me being an atheist and all, but I suppose dear old St. Thomas did have a fairly clear view of morality. 99% Aristotle, again, not a problem at all, delighted, quite enjoyed most of the Ethics, couldn't be in better company.

On the other hand, in third place (I didn't look at the percentage and don't want to go through the test (and the ads) again) is Ayn Rand, and that is simply unacceptable.

(Also, Kant was down at sixtysomething percent--what's up with that? Here I spend all this time trying to act on maxims that I could affirm as universal moral laws, and all I get for all that effory is 60%? It's not fair!)
posted by moss at 3:14 PM on May 8, 2001


hey sukkas! don't be a icyhotstuntaz Rand hatah!

(seriously tho, what's the issue AGAINST her? i know almost nothing about her at all.)
posted by jcterminal at 3:18 PM on May 8, 2001


David Hume could outconsume Schopenhauer and Schlegel.

When a pitcher of beer is falling toward the floor, does it matter if it's half full or half empty?

posted by Twang at 3:31 PM on May 8, 2001


1. Aquinas (100%)
2. Aristotle (91%)
3. Spinoza (56%)
4. Augustine (55%)

20 years of Catholic schooling and they put you on the day shift!
posted by jhiggy at 3:35 PM on May 8, 2001


Sartre. I know that's wrong. he wasn't all that.

"Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant who was very rarely stable. Heideggar, Heideggar was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table. David Hume could out-consume Schoppenhauer and Hegel. And Whittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel. There's nothing Nieizsche couldn't teach 'ya 'bout the raising of the wrist. Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed. John Stewart Mill, of his own free will On half a pint of shanty was particularly ill. Plato they say could stick it away, Half a crate of whiskey every day. Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle, And Hobbes was fond of his dram. And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart. 'I drink, therefore I am.' Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. "

I felt this quite appropriate. I am not promoting the imbibing of alcohol to anybody. It's just a song people.
posted by wantwit at 3:45 PM on May 8, 2001


Lovely, a porno site without the porn. I haven't seen so many popups since the ice cream truck came around.
posted by Tubes at 3:45 PM on May 8, 2001


Sartre here, followed very closely by Rand and Aristotle.
posted by kindall at 3:51 PM on May 8, 2001


100% Sartre too. I just thought I'd share. This worries me in a moral kinda way.
posted by costas at 3:53 PM on May 8, 2001


I Kant - I just Kant.
posted by feelinglistless at 3:55 PM on May 8, 2001


i got sartre as well. are we all just extra-cool?
posted by pikachulolita at 4:04 PM on May 8, 2001


I got 100% Rand too, but then the page winked out of existence. I don't feel like taking the test again, so I will never know who came in second. I welcome all my new Randroid brethren!
posted by thirteen at 4:07 PM on May 8, 2001


Any other Mills around here?
posted by Doug at 4:15 PM on May 8, 2001


Sartre, Hume, Nietzsche; 100%, 91%, 82%.

Hmm. Seeing as I think philosophy pretty much ends with Hume, that'll do me.
posted by holgate at 4:18 PM on May 8, 2001


100% Epicurean, I thought that had to do with food.

I hope it does.
posted by perplexed at 4:21 PM on May 8, 2001


Sartre straight up with a Bentham chaser. And yes, pikachu....I do believe we are.
posted by Optamystic at 4:39 PM on May 8, 2001


Another Sartre here...sure are lots of us 'round these parts.
posted by CrayDrygu at 4:55 PM on May 8, 2001


100% Spinoza

I need to find out about him on google.
posted by lheiskell at 5:37 PM on May 8, 2001


I got Satre, unfortunately i know nothing of him or his philosophies.
posted by Zool at 5:37 PM on May 8, 2001


I guess I'm a match with whichever philosopher hated pop-up ads the most. Here is the evil script, BTW, which launches a window way off your screen so you can't see it. And then that window launches pop-up adds every so often. Nefarious marketers.
posted by ericost at 5:51 PM on May 8, 2001


Ummmm...whos martin boorman...and is a 98% on diogenes good?
posted by clavdivs at 5:54 PM on May 8, 2001


I got 100% Kant, 84% Mill and 78% Epicurious...
I consider myself a sort of Utilitarian, so I was quite pleased...I'm gonna have to do some reading on Kant, however.
posted by black8 at 6:25 PM on May 8, 2001


aquinas, aristotle, bentham -- 100, 94, 91

i like how they offer links to books on amazon.com by/about the philosophers.

{as long as we're airing our philosophies, i figure to make a quick intro: my name's carson, college student, been lurking without membership for a month or two. hi!}
posted by carsonb at 6:27 PM on May 8, 2001


100% nietzsche, baby! eat it up
posted by sugarfish at 6:30 PM on May 8, 2001


Half a pint of shandy and i'm particularly ill. greaaat. (Mill, 100%)

(i'm surpised it took two hours to get a monty python reference in)
posted by cheaily at 6:32 PM on May 8, 2001


huh. Appears Kant disagreed with utilitarianism and felt that utilitarian theories are driven by the merely contingent inclination in humans for pleasure and happiness, not by the universal moral law dictated by reason. To act in pursuit of happiness is arbitrary and subjective, and is no more moral than acting on the basis of greed, or selfishness. All three emanate from subjective, non-rational grounds. The danger of utilitarianism lies in its embracing of baser instincts, while rejecting the indispensable role of reason and freedom in our actions.

So I'm schizo to boot!
posted by black8 at 6:37 PM on May 8, 2001


100 Aquinas, followed closely by Aristotle, the latter being fine with me. I thought it was way oversimplifying things for a Nietzche score on the last question, though -- or rather, I could tell that if I punched "powerful, strong and passionate" it was going to mark him higher. So I put none of the above and marked "high" and slammed on the hurry-this-thing-up button and then I felt very non-strong for allowing all these pop up ads to fly all over my computer. I was passionately upset about it.

Sartre was definitely not all that. Someone asked about Spinoza -- fun to read about, wildly interesting theories about God being in everything, including the letters and words in this post. His works are, however, nearly impossible to read without some sort of professional assistance, most likely that of statistician. Try finding an "about Spinoza" book somewhere.
posted by raysmj at 6:47 PM on May 8, 2001


100% Kant

but then, I'm also an INTJ, so that makes sense....
posted by briank at 6:58 PM on May 8, 2001


No surprise - 100% Rand for me. To all you Rand-haters, what's up with that? While there is much to...er...dislike about elements of her personal life, the philosophy she introduced and advocated is True. I doubt you could name any other rational, human-oriented philosophy that puts us on the pedestal we deserve to be on, while at the same time promoting human achievement, progress, and intellect. And there is nothing wrong with her non-fiction - it is, in fact, superior to her fiction, if only because it is not "dated," as some elements of her fiction have become over time (gasp! a woman executive!). Objectivism is, as Mr Spock would likely say, logical and fascinating. And let's not forget - "Atlas Shrugged" is credited second only to the bible as the most influential book in America. While that in itself may mean nothing, it may spur some to at least read it, or attempt to understand the reasons.
posted by davidmsc at 7:01 PM on May 8, 2001


Bentham (100%)

I guess that's about right. My actual favorite philosophers are Darwin, Bertrand Russell, Quine, Chomsky, Peter Singer, Darek Parfit, ... (off the top of my head)

>>I can’t believe Rand is listed there in a totally unironic way.

Me neither (sorry thirteen!)

>>Anybody here read her non-fiction, its pretty hilarious stuff

Yes, hilarious and totally unintelligible at the same time -- rather like Derida (who thankfully wasn't included)
posted by johnb at 7:16 PM on May 8, 2001


In order (down to 70%): Epicurean (100%), Hobbesian (98), Existentialist/Sartre (85), Cynic (84), Stoic (79), Benthamite (76), Millesque (75), Nietzschean (72), Objectivist (70).

Obviously I am too complicated for my own good.

(For the record, if we're correlating with personality types, I'm an INxP, where the x means 50-50 balance between T and F.)
posted by darukaru at 7:17 PM on May 8, 2001


Anyone ever notice that both Artistotle and Plato are now registered trademarks? I did. And the name Aristotle means internet campaign finance solutions! Socrates used to be a registered trademark, I believe, but is now having his name screwed around with. Aquinas provides recruiting solutions. If you are looking for quicker "solutions," though, you can always go with the Sophists.

Ha ha. Ha ha ha ha ha. Ha ha ha ha!! Ha. . . . Ha. . .(Lowers voice, looks annoyed), ha. Hooo, boy.
posted by raysmj at 7:32 PM on May 8, 2001


Hobbes.com: Life is nasty, brutish and short.
posted by raysmj at 7:33 PM on May 8, 2001


Kant very closely followed by Sartre. Sartre would have been higher if I'd increased the priority on "should you choose as if you were everyone" - cause that's almost certainly one of the major Sartre switches. That and atheism.
posted by mikel at 7:48 PM on May 8, 2001


i'm only disappointed they couldn't come up with a philosopher for responding "don't care" to every question.
posted by clockwork at 7:58 PM on May 8, 2001


For the anti-Rand side, start here.

As for Hobbes, a friend of mine notes that he should have said that life was "nasty, brutish but short." (And he was talking about man before government, not life in general as many seem to think. So there.)
posted by argybarg at 8:09 PM on May 8, 2001


100% Aristotle.
posted by dogwelder at 8:13 PM on May 8, 2001


100% Rand here, followed by Hobbes and Nietzche. Somehow I'm not surprised. I read Atlas Shrugged not that long ago, and thought it was terribly preachy and rather crudely written, but found myself oddly agreeing with much of her thesis.
posted by norm at 8:26 PM on May 8, 2001


i came out 100% stoic, with 89% nietchze and 67% spinoza...i'll have to brush up on my philosophy 101!
posted by centrs at 8:45 PM on May 8, 2001


and my spelling.
posted by centrs at 8:45 PM on May 8, 2001


1 - Nietzsche, 2 - Hume, 3 - Sartre, 4 - Hobbes, 5 - Rand. While disturbed by the idea of anyone taking Rand seriously as a philosopher (and I know there are those who do), I often find myself agreeing with her conclusions (and laughing at the argument that leads up to them.) Certainly not 84% of the time, though. Also, how Hobbes got anywhere near the top of my list baffles me. And where's Bakunin, huh?
posted by fable at 9:13 PM on May 8, 2001


Ayn Rand, founder of the Objectionable School.

(An interesting professional critique here. And a response to the reaction she provokes here.)

Oh, just read some David Hume. It's philosophy for adults.
posted by holgate at 9:15 PM on May 8, 2001


I took it again.

2. Aristotle (78%)
3. Stoics (75%)

Apparently stbalbach and I should be hanging out.
posted by thirteen at 10:43 PM on May 8, 2001


David, I know almost nothing about Aynie's personal life, so I can have no opinion on it. I do, however, know a little bit about her philosophy, and while there are broad generalities with which I might agree, the specific conclusions drawn seem, to me, quite insane: my favorite example is that the altruism of (say, and the example did) John McCain is antithetical to individualism and hence Americanism. Ayup.

Sorry if I don't fall into your little ad-hominem-baited bear trap.
posted by dhartung at 10:55 PM on May 8, 2001


Sartre. . .did I take the test or did the test take me? Only of course if I allow the test any meaning. The test means nothing. As far as I'm concerned the test doesn't exist. If I did take "it", it would seem it does exist and in fact, I found it enjoyable. I guess when it comes down to it, the test does exist, as far as day to day life is concerned. I mean everyone else here took it. Therefore, Sartre is who I match up with best. Twas reading too much Sartre in 1996 that I had to throw myself in the loony-bin and put myself on meds.

How many here take meds? (Alcohol will do too)
posted by crasspastor at 11:42 PM on May 8, 2001


Why you gotta knock Derrida all the time, John? You morally superior or something? (ha-ha).

Davidmsc:

Dude.

No.

I believed all the same shit about Mme. Rand right up until I read On the Road. Jack shook the naive right out of me. It might do you some good — I was just as deep in the blue-blood USAF hstyeric individualism as you.

Then again, maybe it was the summer floating between Cook Inslet and Bristol Bay. Regardless, I don’t buy her thinly-vieled socialist totalitarianism, or her long and poorly edited/written/conceived fiction.

Critiquing Rand’s shortcomings is like holding a balloon in the air. Anyone can do it.


Carson,

Love your show.

xxoo.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 1:14 AM on May 9, 2001


100% Spinoza. Also Aristotle, Aquinas, Bentham, Sartre and Nietzsche (67%).

lheiskell, you're the only other Spinoza 100, so I guess we're the only scientific pantheists here. I haven't read Spinoza (a 17th century "Portuguese-Dutch crypto-Jew" who was ex-communicated) yet, but I vibe with him generally. This seems like a good place to start.

One thing I can say I relate to is reconciling science and spirituality. I'm all for seeking the underlying science of spirituality through consciousness expansion (of which there are ahem many methods) followed by the integration of that knowledge into mundane life.

Nice post prototype_octavius (?).
posted by aflakete at 1:43 AM on May 9, 2001


Spinoza 100%.

Also got a large amount (90%+ I think, I closed down as soon as the popups cropped up) of Bentham.

Ah, Mr Bentham, fankyous fore startering that magninimonious institushun wear I finnished my educashun....

Oh yeah, with regards Ms Rand, you guys are kidding, right?
posted by davehat at 1:51 AM on May 9, 2001


I got Mills 100%, followed by Sartre at 93 and Kant at 91. Mills is good, Sartre a small surprise.
Well, to sum up the selections up to now, May 9 11:00 GMT (only those that indicated 100% clearly and not counting second places) Metafilterites up to now are:
Sartre: 13
Rand: 6
Kant: 6
Mills:5
Epicurus: 5
Nietzsche:4
Aquinas:4
Spinoza: 3
Aristotle:2
Locke, Augustine, Bentham and Stoic:1
posted by talos at 3:10 AM on May 9, 2001


Sartre++
posted by willem at 3:57 AM on May 9, 2001


Well, I came in as 100% Epicurean, but I can't really say that I agree with that call--Dynamic pleasures are more important than passive ones, to me.

Number 2wo was Sartre, with a 97%. I'm feeling a wave of Nausea (actually, this one didn't surprise me at all).

Mill came in next at 87%. I'm not THAT Utilitarian.
posted by one.louder.ash! at 4:36 AM on May 9, 2001


Throw another Sartre-shaped log on the fire.
posted by vbfg at 5:36 AM on May 9, 2001


Kant 100%, Mills 99%.

Oh, just read some David Hume. It's philosophy for adults.

Now Holgate, there's no need for philosophical trash talk. Next thing you know, everyone will be debating their moral perspective passionately instead of rationally and the whole world will go to hell.

Not that the existence or threat of damnation should dictate our actions while living, mind you.
posted by cardboard at 5:46 AM on May 9, 2001


People don't like Rand since her philosophy is mechanical and doesn't appeal to human emotions very much. That's why I like it; I'm not an emotional guy. Although I'm surprised I came up 100% Rand, since I don't necessarily agree with everything she writes...
posted by Succa at 6:08 AM on May 9, 2001


Woo-hoo! Go Nietzscheans!
posted by starvingartist at 6:59 AM on May 9, 2001


Well, for the record. 100% Bentham, 96% Aquinas. But I don't think I was less than 60% on any of those philosophers, so I question the validity. And there were a lot of times when I had to choose the answer that was least inaccurate.

Anyway, I've never heard of this Bentham character, and the thumbnail they gave of his philosophical principles didn't make any sense to me.

Actually, did anyone NOT get someone 100%? My sense is that they took the person you agreed with most and set that as 100% and curved all the other philosophers from that level.
posted by anapestic at 7:01 AM on May 9, 2001


On the other hand, the religion selector gave me 100 on neo-pagan and 94 on Unitarian Universalist, which corresponds pretty exactly to what I believe and where I worship. But I knew that already.
posted by anapestic at 7:10 AM on May 9, 2001


100% Kant, 91% Mill, 76% Bentham, who I hadn't heard of. Rand's eighth, so to hell with my namesake.
posted by dagnyscott at 7:26 AM on May 9, 2001


Bentham's quite a character, especially at UCL's annual Law Society dinner.

(Yes, that's really him, embalmed and encased in the foyer.)
posted by holgate at 7:36 AM on May 9, 2001


Looks like 100% Augustine for me with 96% Aquinas... after that everybody else pretty much drops off the face of the earth. I'm pleased.
posted by prototype_octavius at 8:09 AM on May 9, 2001


OH!!! Glad you guys enjoyed (I think) the test. Those pop up ads were quite unexpected. Weeks ago when I took the test I didn't get any of them, so it must be an annoying new addition to the site.
posted by prototype_octavius at 8:11 AM on May 9, 2001


100% Kant, 90% Sartre and then the popups crashed my browser. (The philosopher I'm actually most interested in is Husserl, and I'd say (Kant + (.9*Sartre))/2 captures that pretty well.)
posted by rodii at 8:27 AM on May 9, 2001


Prototype_octavius, sonofsamiam and I should start the Augustine club, I guess. I was 100% Augustine, 94% Aquinas. I'm not surprised - good test, despite the pop-ups.
posted by Dreama at 8:40 AM on May 9, 2001


Make that 3 for "Who the Hell is" Bentham.

He invented the panopticon? What did he go and do that for?
posted by sudama at 9:44 AM on May 9, 2001


Updated tally:

Sartre: 15
Kant: 9
Rand: 6
Epicurus: 6
Mills:5
Nietzsche:4
Aquinas:4
Spinoza: 3
Augustine 3
Bentham 3
Aristotle:2
Locke and Stoic:1

Matt, how about a "view by philosophical inclination" functionality?
posted by talos at 10:23 AM on May 9, 2001


I'm apparently 100% Epicurus, 97% someone else and 90% Rand.
posted by cCranium at 11:01 AM on May 9, 2001


100% Cynic
96% Rand
89% Diogenes

One of these things is not like the other. One of these things just isn't the same. Can you guess which thing is not like the other? Come on now and play my game. Come on and play my game.

My own guess is that Rand has quite a few texts in print and it just makes good economic sense to hook up a surprising number of 100% matches to her brand of gibberish in order to sell books. The Amazon.com links were not lost on this observer. Nor were the ridiculous number of pop-ups. Also, may I point out the heavy Western-centric slant of the test results? What about Lao-tsu? He's a better match than Rand for my list. . .

Anyway, thanks for the link. As a philosophy grad this was an interesting diversion.
posted by BoyWithFez at 11:12 AM on May 9, 2001


I took it again and got 100 percent Sartre. I don't even know if I agree with that. I got 85 percent Nietzsche again and he was in second place again. I tend to think more along the lines of Nietzsche so I'm happy with that.
posted by melaninus at 12:32 PM on May 9, 2001


Anybody else watch that Kevin Sorbo Andromeda show? (Why yes, I am embarrassed. Why do you ask?)
I think it is a bum rap that they put the destruction of mankind squarely on the shoulders of Nietzsche. The behavior of all the Nietzscheian's on the show seem out of line with what they are intended to portray. I guess that is the idea, but still.
posted by thirteen at 2:12 PM on May 9, 2001


I love that show! Well, actually, I just love that Andromeda.
posted by rodii at 4:15 PM on May 9, 2001


Rodii, are you talking about the ship or Lexa Doig?
posted by Aaaugh! at 6:44 PM on May 9, 2001


Mill 100 here... Not really sure what that will mean. :)
posted by swank6 at 8:38 PM on May 9, 2001


I thought I was the only one who liked Andromeda. This must be what it sounds like when doves cry.
posted by thirteen at 9:50 PM on May 9, 2001


Also, may I point out the heavy Western-centric slant of the test results? What about Lao-tsu?

I did notice that, too... especially since I kept thinking back in my mind to the paper I wrote about human nature in my Philosophy 101 class, which was based on our discussion of human nature from a number of Chinese philosophers (my professor came from China).
posted by dagnyscott at 10:33 AM on May 10, 2001


« Older An exchange between James Fallows and Barbara Ehre...  |  BBC to North America and Austr... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments