Philosophical Health Check

Philosophical Health Check

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).

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!

Take the test here:

http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/health/Default.aspx

I had four tensions in my test, which is about average. It certainly brought some things to light for me.

so this is to evaluate some of your views that might be contradictory?

I have two.

47%!!!

I had 7 tensions, but I can reconcile each one ad nauseam :laugh:

What is a worry is that there was only 30 questions and my tensions involved 14 of them :side:

Interesting.

My tensions were about art being a case of personal taste, and saying that Michelangelo is undoubtedly one of the great artists.
but in my opinion the statement is true, so I don't really see it as being conflicting.


My other one was about the environment not being damaged unnecessarily, but not being willing to force people to not drive cars. Tricky. Id like to protect the environment, but who am I to take away freedom of choice...

I didn't have any tensions! :ohmy:

:dry:

:lol: Yay me?

I got 2 also ...

Then I felt a little better in reading the results. These were N°s 5 and 29 - I said that yes, financial considerations were irrelevant but then no, governments should not raise taxes sharply. This was based on the reasoning that there are some obscenely wealthy people from whom much of that 'life saving' finance could be appropriated -- not necessarily average-income tax-payers. 'Financial considerations' are not systematically 'taxation'. Neither is it only in developing nations where lives need to be saved.

Should a needed, yet exorbitantly expensive medical procedure with nearly certain success and with a high probability of restoring someone to a healthy life be withheld just because only the wealthier class can afford it ?

It may be a tension, but it is a tense question. If anyone would be making a real decision herewith involving real lives, I would certainly hope that they would have some tension ! (yes -- I know that the tension here isn't the same -- just making a pun ...) Thus, I stand resolutely by my judgement on this.

According to the test, 28% of people have this tension ...

The second tension was between N°s 16 and 21, about the permissibility of un- or under- tested medical treatments whilst approving of the value of alternative and complementary medicine. It says 39% show this tension as well ...

We cannot allow any and all products to be put out into the goods and services market as health treatments ; some - much even - testing is required (no one is still old enough to remember radium-laced health tonics of the early 20th ; certainly no one who actually drank them !). On the other hand, governments fall under lobbies - not the smallest nor least influential of which is the pharmaceutical lobby. If a product or treatment is proven over and over to be effective in clinical testing, with all of the risk factors within acceptable tolerances, it should not be kept off the market during an interminable 'further testing required' period during which the pharmaceutical industry continues to profit from their already marketed products ...

There is also reason to believe that many traditional medicine (labelled 'alternative' and 'complementary') actually do help, if only psychosomatically. If something turns out to be an unhealthy combination - then stop it.

I'll stand by my judgement on this one too.

Got two tensions. (13%)

The Philosophical Health Test has identified the following tension(s) in your beliefs:


Statements 1 and 27: Is morality relative?

48% of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures
And also that:
Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil

The tension between these two beliefs is that, on the one hand, you are saying that morality is just a matter of culture and convention, but on the other, you are prepared to condemn acts of genocide as 'evil'. But what does it mean to say 'genocide is evil'? To reconcile the tension, you could say that all you mean is that to say 'genocide is evil' is to express the values of your particular culture. It does not mean that genocide is evil for all cultures and for all times. However, are you really happy to say, for example, that the massacre of the Tutsi people in 1994 by the Hutu dominated Rwandan Army was evil from the point of view of your culture but not evil from the point of view of the Rwandan Army, and what is more, that there is no sense in which one moral judgement is superior to the other? If moral judgements really are 'merely the expression of the values of a particular culture', then how are the values which reject genocide and torture at all superior to those which don ot?

yeah, I actually see no tension there. To answer the question, I would say that genocide and torture are an inferior mean to an end, because that's my opinion and not how I would go about it (reaching that "end"). I prefer sophisticated plans to bloodbaths, special ops over full scale invasions.... It's a matter of taste really, and I can't really explain mine other than "that's what my experiences tell me is best".

Statements 17 and 28: Are there any absolute truths?

37% of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
There are no objective truths about matters of fact; 'truth' is always relative to particular cultures and individuals
And also that:
The holocaust is an historical reality, taking place more or less as the history books report

If truth is relative then nothing is straightforwardly 'true' or 'factual'. Everything is 'true for someone' or 'a fact for them'. What then, of the holocaust? Is it true that millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and other 'enemies' of the Third Reich were systematically executed by the Nazis? If you believe that there are no objective truths, you have to say that there is no straight answer to this question. For some people, the holocaust is a fact, for others, it is not. So what can you say to those who deny it is a fact? Are they not as entitled to their view as you are to yours? How can one both assert the reality of the holocaust and deny that there is a single truth about it? Resolving this intellectual tension is a real challenge.

I make a difference between "a truth" and "the truth". A truth is the kind of non-sense people here like quite a lot. "a truth" is basically their opinion, but written down in some kind of "I love your opinion even though I disagree with it" way. The truth is something that is unknowable to anyone or anything that isn't the Force itself -> The collection of all facts . Because "the truth" is unknowable what we believe to be "the truth" necessarily suffers from perception bias.
It's my opinion that the holocaust is a historical reality and that the books (minus the "victor writes history" bias) are more or less accurate in its description. Maybe it's not... However my opinion can only ever be the closest to fact as I can possibly think. If I doubt my opinion's accuracy (about historical events for example), then my opinion is changing at the same time as I do all that doubting... I really don't have a problem with holocaust deniers, it's not like all those who died in the holocaust are around to tell us exactly what went on.
Once again I really see no challenge here.

As a philosophy student I dislike this test lol, some of the questions are philosophically ambiguous.

Judge someone solely on their merits? Meaning their beliefs and acts, or does that mean what is meritable as opposed to dislikeable?

Take for example moral relativity. I agreed moral relativity was real, but then I said that genocides are a testament to evil. Well they are, because relative to my morality they are evil lol.

Another was brain death resulting in loss of self and living beyond in a non-physical form. Well first I didn't know what they meant by 'physical', a particle of nature? Or simply what we are able to 'touch'? I can lose my sense of self while continuing to exist as that self in the minds of others...

I guess I felt a need to write this to defend myself against the test's results lol. It does however demonstrate the limitations of these tests, especially because you are unable to justify your reasoning. I wouldn't take too much away from this if you are apparently full of tension I would however double check the reasons it gives to check whether or not they apply to you.

The test identifies a pair of beliefs as being in tension, where (a) there is a direct contradiction between them, or (b) some sophisticated reasoning is required to allow both beliefs to be held consistently. If two of your beliefs are in tension, we advise that either giving one of them up, or developing some rationally coherent way of reconciling them (assuming you have not already done so).

It may help to think of the idea of 'tension' in terms of an intellectual balancing act. Where there is little or no tension between two beliefs, no particular intellectual effort is required to balance them. But where there is a lot of tension, either one has to "jump off the highwire" by abandoning one belief; keep one's balance by intellectual effort and dexterity; or else "fall off the highwire" by failing to deal with the tension.

You should note this test only detects tensions between pre-selected pairs of beliefs - it does not detect all the possible tensions between all permutations of beliefs. So there may well be additional tensions between beliefs you hold which are not detected by this test.

Connor...

The chart above shows your "tension quotient" score and also the average tension quotient score across all the people who have completed this test (where lower is better). The next page of analysis will detail the particular tensions in your beliefs identified by the PHC.

Dear Jestor....

Attachment hd2481e2.png not found

Philosophical Health Check - Analysis 2

The Philosophical Health Test has identified the following tension(s) in your beliefs:


Statements 8 and 18: What is faith?

25% of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You disagreed that:
It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence
But agreed that:
Atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God

In disagreeing with the first statement, you are acting consistently with the general principle which states that in the absence of good grounds for believing something, it is not rational to believe it. For example, it is not possible to disprove the possibility that there are invisible pink fairies at this moment circling the planet Pluto, but we don’t countenance it as a real possibility because there is no evidence for their planetary activities. This is not to be thought of as a matter of faith, but of sound reasoning. But asserting that atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God contradicts this principle. It replaces the principle 'in the absence of good grounds for believing something, it is not rational to believe it' with the principle, 'in the absence of good grounds for believing something, it requires faith not to believe it'. For this reason, atheism is not a matter of faith in the same way as belief in God. In short, belief without evidence (a form of faith) is not the same as non-belief due to lack of evidence (rational refusal to assent).

Hahahaha...

I misread the question....

I thought it said,

Atheism is a faith just like any other, because [they believe]it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God. [So therefore, they have faith the God doesnt exist, because he/she/it cannot be proven]

Ah well...

I wonder what other sorts of conflicts I might have that the test doesnt cover... Plaid v stripes? Polka dot v spiral? red v blue?

The Philosophical Health Test has identified the following 3 tension in your beliefs:

Statements 1 and 27: Is morality relative?
48% of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.
You agreed that:
There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures
And also that:
Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil
The tension between these two beliefs is that, on the one hand, you are saying that morality is just a matter of culture and convention, but on the other, you are prepared to condemn acts of genocide as 'evil'. But what does it mean to say 'genocide is evil'? To reconcile the tension, you could say that all you mean is that to say 'genocide is evil' is to express the values of your particular culture. It does not mean that genocide is evil for all cultures and for all times. However, are you really happy to say, for example, that the massacre of the Tutsi people in 1994 by the Hutu dominated Rwandan Army was evil from the point of view of your culture but not evil from the point of view of the Rwandan Army, and what is more, that there is no sense in which one moral judgement is superior to the other? If moral judgements really are 'merely the expression of the values of a particular culture', then how are the values which reject genocide and torture at all superior to those which don ot?

Seeing how the instructions in the test state to choose the answer that closets fits; the results are not surprising. Also seeing how we follow a set of beliefs that are not popularized, there may be added differences.
Morality is something set by culture and era but there are certain aspects that pertain to all human life which is common and be agreed upon. And arbitrarily exterminating a people for any reason is an act of evil which (except for a few crazy people) can universally be agreed upon.

Statements 10 and 23: Is there an all-good, all-powerful God?
28% of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.
You agreed that:
There exists an all-powerful, loving and good God
And also that:
To allow an innocent child to suffer needlessly when one could easily prevent it is morally reprehensible
These two beliefs together generate what is known as 'The Problem of Evil'. The problem is simple: if God is all-powerful, loving and good, that means he can do what he wants and will do what is morally right. But surely this means that he would not allow an innocent child to suffer needlessly, as he could easily prevent it. Yet he does. Much infant suffering is the result of human action, but much is also due to natural causes, such as disease, flood or famine. In both cases, God could stop it, yet he does not.
Attempts to explain this apparent contradiction are known as 'theodicies' and many have been produced. Most conclude that God allows suffering to help us grow spiritually and/or to allow the greater good of human freedom. Whether these theodicies are adequate is the subject of continuing debate.

I believe in the Force and the will of the Force. Suffering is something we see in the universe and is a creation of man. Where we see other life forms suffering, we do not know that other life forms recognize suffering for what we see it to be. Sure they are not happy with their predicament, but then we are associating another human emotion with other life forms. And without some suffering there could not be rejoicing or glad times. There is a time and reason for everything.

Statements 22 and 15: What is the seat of the self?
31% of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.
You agreed that:
Severe brain-damage can rob a person of all consciousness and selfhood
And also that:
On bodily death, a person continues to exist in a non-physical form
These two beliefs are not strictly contradictory, but they do present an awkward mix of world-views. On the one hand, there is an acceptance that our consciousness and sense of self is in some way dependent on brain activity, and this is why brain damage can in a real sense damage 'the self'. Yet there is also the belief that the self is somehow independent of the body, that it can live on after the death of the brain. So it seems cnsciousness and selfhood both is and is not dependent on having a healthy brain. One could argue that the dependency of the self on brain only occurs before bodily death. The deeper problem is not that it is impossible to reconcile the two beliefs, but rather that they seem to presume wider, contradictory world-views: one where consciousness is caused by brains and one where it is caused by something non-physical.

Brain damage can take away the individual ability to experience being as we understand it in a corporeal being. We continue on in the Force after our physical bodies have died.

i thought I would have vary few but I ended up with seven, I did not understand a couple when I read them the first time. But after I reread them i understood what they meet and I would change my answer.

Akkarin wrote: As a philosophy student I dislike this test lol, some of the questions are philosophically ambiguous.

Agreed:

Statements 8 and 18: What is faith?

25% of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You disagreed that:
It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence
But agreed that:
Atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God

In disagreeing with the first statement, you are acting consistently with the general principle which states that in the absence of good grounds for believing something, it is not rational to believe it. For example, it is not possible to disprove the possibility that there are invisible pink fairies at this moment circling the planet Pluto, but we don’t countenance it as a real possibility because there is no evidence for their planetary activities. This is not to be thought of as a matter of faith, but of sound reasoning. But asserting that atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God contradicts this principle. It replaces the principle 'in the absence of good grounds for believing something, it is not rational to believe it' with the principle, 'in the absence of good grounds for believing something, it requires faith not to believe it'. For this reason, atheism is not a matter of faith in the same way as belief in God. In short, belief without evidence (a form of faith) is not the same as non-belief due to lack of evidence (rational refusal to assent).

I simply don't agree with that assessment. If it is wrong to believe in something something because it is impossible to prove one way or the other, it is equally wrong to believe in the absence of that thing. If we can't know either way, then neither abject belief or abject denial are rational.

I understand the point it makes about the burden of proof, but I feel that's an unhelpful concept in metaphysics. Even if you disagree with my viewpoint, surely that's an obvious conclusion. It's known as agnosticism... pretty common perspective. Theists "strongly" believe in something I feel they have no evidence for; atheists "strongly" disbelieve in something I feel they have no evidence for. The point is, I believe we (should) require evidence before forming a strong opinion either way. There's no "tension" there.

I could not copy the graph, however I scored 40 and the average is 27. It said I had 6 tensions...however, I believe that some of these questions were not entirely fair:

Statements 10 and 23: Is there an all-good, all-powerful God?
28% of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.
You agreed that:
There exists an all-powerful, loving and good God ( yes, I was raised to believe in God and Jesus, the Bible, it wasn't until much later that I broadend my beliefs)
And also that:
To allow an innocent child to suffer needlessly when one could easily prevent it is morally reprehensible( I was raised that this was a given)


You agreed that:
There are no objective truths about matters of fact; 'truth' is always relative to particular cultures and individuals
And also that:
The holocaust is an historical reality, taking place more or less as the history books report
( To both of these, It is something I just believe in my heart. The question of Objective truth: Everyone has a different view on what the truth is)


54% of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.
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 live in Georgia, My parents live in Virginia. While I agree that if you can afford it, taking a Train is beneficial...not everyone can afford it. and If I walked or rode my bicycle to my parents house, I'd have to sleep for 3 days just to get my energy back... :lol:


You agreed that:
Individuals have sole rights over their own bodies ( you try to tell a woman how to or not to feel and see what happens...there are some women out there that if you tell them what to do or how to feel, they will react so badly it would scare the sith emperor into hiding) ....and no, I'm not married for those of you who joke about " you must be married SilverWolf" :lol:
And also that:
Voluntary euthanasia should remain illegal

( If the person is truly suffering and it is a last resort method because keeping them alive would mean they would live in constant pain, then yes, euthanize them. But to take a life needlessly, is not right)


You agreed that:
Severe brain-damage can rob a person of all consciousness and selfhood ( If a Invididual is so severely damaged they are basically kept alive by a machine, in my belief, that is not a healthy way to live, because it does take a mental toll on everyone in that person's life)
And also that:
On bodily death, a person continues to exist in a non-physical form ( watch the clip of Yoda explaining the force to luke before Yoda lifts the x-wing out of the Water, There is a lot of truth in what he says)

You agreed that:
The government should not permit the sale of treatments which have not been tested for efficacy and safety ( a lot of companies make medicines and I believe cut corners to get it out quickly, I believe that this is wrong)
And also that:
Alternative and complementary medicine is as valuable as mainstream medicine ( herbal medicine has been around for centuries in Asia, and in Native American culture, so it must have some value.I am currently learning all I can about it.

Anyway, This is what the results of my test were



SilverWolf

People seem to struggle with Atheism. Atheism means "no faith in god". NOT "faith in no god".

Agnosticism means there is no way to know.... And you can bet the vast majority of atheists are agnostics, as the main reason for lack of belief in god is the lack of evidence for a god.

The atheist lack of belief in allah is different from let's say, christians' belief that allah doesn't exist.

It said I have 4 tensions...

I read what they had tooffer and respectively, I don't believe I have any.

in my opinion 2 of the tensions were not tensions. First the thing about art being a taste... my reply to the second question was MY taste. Then the things about truth... oh god I don't even want to enter that discussion!!! Also morality,... again I gave MY opinion... ×_×

I didn't recognize one of the words in a question that resulted in a tension

ren wrote: People seem to struggle with Atheism. Atheism means "no faith in god". NOT "faith in no god".

Agnosticism means there is no way to know.... And you can bet the vast majority of atheists are agnostics, as the main reason for lack of belief in god is the lack of evidence for a god.

The atheist lack of belief in allah is different from let's say, christians' belief that allah doesn't exist.

Indeed, most people are agnostic atheists: they don't know if there is no God but they don't believe in one.

It is different to a gnostic atheist: they know they is no God.

A gnostic atheist you might argue is representing a belief, they choose to believe that there is no God in the same way a gnostic theist believes there is definitely a god.

Akkarin wrote:

ren wrote: People seem to struggle with Atheism. Atheism means "no faith in god". NOT "faith in no god".

Agnosticism means there is no way to know.... And you can bet the vast majority of atheists are agnostics, as the main reason for lack of belief in god is the lack of evidence for a god.

The atheist lack of belief in allah is different from let's say, christians' belief that allah doesn't exist.

Indeed, most people are agnostic atheists: they don't know if there is no God but they don't believe in one.

It is different to a gnostic atheist: they know they is no God.

A gnostic atheist you might argue is representing a belief, they choose to believe that there is no God in the same way a gnostic theist believes there is definitely a god.

I have an atheist friend who used to go on and on about how god isnt real, blah-blah....

He would post links and articles on it...

I ask him, why he did it, he said something about 'waking people up' and 'protecting them'....

I said, "From what"... He basically said "the evils of religion"....

I said,"so you are basically a 'Atheist Preacher'?"

The posts slowed, lol...

Third times a charm for me... :laugh:
No tensions in my belief...
First Average
Second time around, below average
third time, no tension...
I would have gotten it right the second time around, accidentally clicking on an agree, when I disagreed.

I enjoyed seeing the contradictions, and the explanation of analysis.

Br.John, how did you score? If you do not mind the question.

ren wrote: Atheism means "no faith in god". NOT "faith in no god".

It can be either. From the OED:

atheism
Line breaks: athe|ism
Pronunciation: /ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m /
NOUN

[MASS NOUN]
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Or, from the eternally reliable Wikipedia:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.