Are you hypocritical?

Take the test and find out! I thought this belonged in serious chat so we could discuss and debate our answers afterwards.
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/check.htm

I got 0% tension

Oh, and when you're done with that one: http://selectsmart.com/PHILOSOPHY/

1. Ayn Rand (100%) Click here for info
2. Aristotle (94%) Click here for info
3. Plato (85%) Click here for info

 

33%... But I don't think a test is good for such things, I mean, does the result really tell anything? We have different points of view, and that's how it works.

 

Tension Quotient = 47%


hmmm...

 

Tension Quotient = 7%

You agreed that:
The environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends
But disagreed that:
People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead

i just dont like walking

 

mine was 67..
is that bad?
hey we have our ablities to do anything......
ohh yea huh..... uhh ohh...

 

oh, and on that other one, my top 6 were..
1. Jean-Paul Sartre (100%)
2. Ayn Rand (94%)
3. Thomas Hobbes (81%)
4. Nietzsche (77%)
5. Jeremy Bentham (72%)
6. Cynics (72%)

i put the top six because 5 and 6 had the same percentages.

 

hehe i did the same thing...but one other Q so i got 13%

 

tension=27%

 

0% tension. Oh how I dislike hypocrites.

 

Everybody's a hypocrite at one point or another.

 

Well, it's not judging you on your views, morals, or values. It's just judging if any of those contradict another that you hold. I thought it was a very interesting test.

 

I just took the test. Most of them in which my values "contradicted" I could actually explain how I could hold both views at the same time.

Like this one. I know people who possess drugs for personal use can harm those around them by hurting themselves.

 

The questions were too hard for me to answer

 

Same, I don't know what they mean...

 

I got 40%, but I think that was because I didn't understand some of the questions.

And it's impossible to be truely a 0% hypocrite. Just read The Catcher in the Rye.

 

You agreed that:
The environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends
But disagreed that:
People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead

Pure selfishness here..."people" includes me and I don't want to ride a bike everywhere.


You agreed that:
So long as they do not harm others, individuals should be free to pursue their own ends
But disagreed that:
The possession of drugs for personal use should be decriminalised

I guess I am hypocritcal here. But I know this and it's the reason I try hard to stay out of drug arguments.


Total = 13%

Hmph. I think there's more tension then that.

I'll do the philosopher thing later.

 

I don't know. I think it is feasible that people can hold beliefs that don't contradict one another.

 

1. Aquinas (100%) Click here for info
2. John Stuart Mill (88%) Click here for info
3. Epicureans (84%) Click here for info
4. Jeremy Bentham (81%) Click here for info
5. Spinoza (81%) Click here for info
6. Aristotle (69%) Click here for info

 

I wouldn't exactly call this "hypocritical."

 

I got the same tension quotient too because of the same reason you gave. I just didn't understand some of the questions.