the PHC will only take about 5 minutes of your time. We're going to present you with 30 statements. All you've got to do is to indicate whether you agree or disagree with each statement. If you're not sure, then select the response that is closest to your opinion (and then take this into account at the analysis stage).Let's Start!: Philosophical Health Check
You should note that the PHC does not judge whether your responses are right or wrong. The important thing is simply to respond as honestly as possible. Each statement is carefully worded, so you need to pay at least a little bit of attention!
Monday, January 28, 2013
Philosophical Health Check
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My PHC says I have "very consistent set of beliefs."
ReplyDeletepic.twitter.com/yofx77F2
Congrats, I guess... I don't think the PHC takes into consideration what Mr. Emerson said about "a foolish consistency" being the "hobgoblin of little minds" etc. (But then again, he probably had an unhealthy PHC score.)
ReplyDeleteIf the premise on which such consistency is flawed, then the consistency itself is flawed. This exhibits the principle on which I found my counter-argument to the golden rule. If the premise for which I would desire to be treated is flawed, then the way in which I treat others would be flawed. (Yes, I know I'm way too involved, at least comparatively, in this blog. I get bored when the kids are at school and this tab just happens to stay open.)
ReplyDeleteI understand.
ReplyDeleteThanks, on behalf of all us caffeine addicts, for the delivery of French Roast, creamer & sugar this afternoon!
And, it was a pleasure to meet your daughter (class of what, 2030 or so?) - she said my office smelled nice. Must've been the coffee!
As I took the test and got a 33 (which is unimportant, but I say that as a disclaimer), a quote from one of my favorite books/poems comes to mind--
ReplyDelete"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes."
-Walt Whitman, Song of Myself.
Now that's being "philosophical": rationalizing results, making a virtue of necessity, accepting who you are. (I forget which philosopher said he accepted the universe, and which said "You'd better!")
ReplyDeleteBut I'd still suggest that one can and probably should attempt to contain relatively-more-consistent multitudes. A contradiction sometimes bespeaks a confusion.
Not all (prob'ly not most) of my colleagues are so willing to poetize their philosophy. But I like Whitman and Emerson, Emily Dickinson, Billy Collins...
Anyway, the PHC is just for fun, to give us something to think about. Hope you enjoyed doing it.
Certainly contradictions to lend themselves to a certain bit of complexity, however I am reminded of an analogy presented by an author I once read (I can't remember if it was Dennett or Dawkins.)
ReplyDeleteA case against consistency:
A moth's flight is guided by placing a light source (the moon naturally, a candle in this scenario) at a certain angle in one eye. Since the moon is such a great distance, it doesn't move a significant amount as the moth flies and can therefore serve as a guide to flying relatively straight. However, present a candle to a moth and the locality of the candle will cause that mechanism to make the moth fly in a spiraling fashion, and eventually into the flame causing the moth to burn.
A case against inconsistency:
If the moth put the moon at an arbitrary angle each time it moved, the moth may then have the illusion that it is using the moon as a guide, but the moth is in fact traveling on arbitrary factors which will lead it to arbitrary places. This certainly would lend the moth to a certain degree of complexity that would lend it to possibly discovering places of great value as well as negative value. However, if the moth is to benefit from any where it goes, it is not of the moth's own choosing, but of pure luck. And if the moth were to find itself in a place of value, its method to be able to return to that place would be so flawed that it would not be able to return to that place of value. The only choice then for the moth to retain this value would be to determine a method of consistency, or to never move and seek anything greater.
I intend this only as a critique of reasoning for and against consistency and inconsistency, nothing to say of the individual who chooses either.
Like moths to a flame, are philosophers drawn to a foolish consistency. (But note: not all consistency is foolish.)
ReplyDelete