Woo, another introspector.
I did notice you were the only other amid this crowd of eccentrics
We will have to ponder what this means for us.
Tri-Variable Personality Test
- Thread starter Raccoon Love
- Start date
I did notice you were the only other amid this crowd of eccentrics
We will have to ponder what this means for us.
I did notice you were the only other amid this crowd of eccentrics
Indeed! I have been.
So tell me, fan of philosophy at all?
Indeed! I have been.
So tell me, fan of philosophy at all?
Well that's an interesting question. About 3-4 years ago I did begin reading some lightweight and then quite a few heavyweight philosophy books, finding that I agreed with some bits of it, but disagreeing with other bits.
I really enjoyed reading them, especially enjoying the writer's command of language, and how they managed to articulate complex ideas, which is something I've been trying to learn and emulate in my writing. But most surprising to me was that the contents of these books were almost exclusively trains of thoughts I'd had independently throughout my teenage years and early 20s, having already internally debated and drawn my conclusions upon them. So in my arrogance (whether rightfully or wrongfully) I felt the books were beneath me.
I mean I've never been schooled in philosophy, so finding these books so closely mirroring my own thinking was a profound yet edifying experience. It left me feeling that I had free reign at that point, because I knew I was capable in this subject.
Well that's an interesting question. About 3-4 years ago I did begin reading some lightweight and then quite a few heavyweight philosophy books, finding that I agreed with some bits of it, but disagreeing with other bits.
But most surprising to me was that the contents of these books were almost exclusively trains of thoughts I'd had independently throughout my teenage years and early 20s, having already internally debated and drawn my conclusions upon them. So in my arrogance (whether rightfully or wrongfully) I felt the books were beneath me.
I mean I've never been schooled in philosophy, so finding these books so closely mirroring my own thinking was a profound yet edifying experience. It left me feeling that I had free reign at that point, because I knew I was capable in this subject.
Nice! Some of the questions seem really simple to me until I really think about them. Epistemology has been my primary interest lately. I also like psychological studies of the conscious. Just generally finding what makes people tick. One of the forum members turned me on to philosophical logic which is something I am going to start focusing on. Bertrand Russell was a major logician, I haven't read any of his work, but I am looking forward to seeing where it took him.
<--- Not surprised.
Last edited:
I expect there's a lot of overlap between our philosophical interests.
My background has been in sciences and mathematics. But the typical scientist personality doesn't fit with me. (Or at least, 99% of the science oriented people I've encountered have a fundamentally different world view than I do.).
I see the subject as incomplete, with empiricism not revealing complete truth, if truth at all as it relies on making generalisations and then presuming them to extend beyond what has been observed, which inherently involves a leap of faith.
hwell:I'm also interested in the nature of mind, pondering over the fact that the universe is self aware. (I am a subset of the universe, and I think therefore I am.)
I have some familiarity with logic through my education: From basic propositional logic through paradoxical "this sentence is false" arguments; then fuzzy/non-monotonic logic; constructions of numbers; and the concept of inconsistency vs incompleteness.
So I'm sure there is much we can talk about
I expect there's a lot of overlap between our philosophical interests.
My background has been in sciences and mathematics. But the typical scientist personality doesn't fit with me. (Or at least, 99% of the science oriented people I've encountered have a fundamentally different world view than I do.).
I see the subject as incomplete, with empiricism not revealing complete truth, if truth at all as it relies on making generalisations and then presuming them to extend beyond what has been observed, which inherently involves a leap of faith.
I'm also interested in the nature of mind, pondering over the fact that the universe is self aware. (I am a subset of the universe, and I think therefore I am.)
I have some familiarity with logic through my education: From basic propositional logic through paradoxical "this sentence is false" arguments; then fuzzy/non-monotonic logic; constructions of numbers; and the concept of inconsistency vs incompleteness.
So I'm sure there is much we can talk about
Right now the book I am reading covers syllogistical logic then moves on to more complex styles. So far it is VERY interesting, I look forward to being able to automatically translate anything someone says into a logical equation. Intuitively I already am able to detect fallacy and invalid arguments but I have a hell of a time explaining why they are that way without some super-complex set of different perspectives.
Any sort of consciousness in the universe that transcends physically manifested entities is certainly something I debate with myself on constantly. I tend to avoid the metaphysical/ontological aspect just simply because it makes more sense for me to understand myself first from an epistemological perspective.
I am really not well cultured in either science nor philosophy, but I am working on it. Physics, specifically theoretical but also sub-particle and astronomical, has always been intensely interesting to me.
I have a very mathematical mind, even if I didn't pursue advanced mathematics in school. I intend to learn on my own over time.
I also understand what you mean with the reductionist perspective of denying any sort of entity or knowledge outside of what we already know. That is argumentum ad ignorantiam, or appeal to ignorance.
We make new breakthroughs all the time that advances into the realms of the unknown. To blatantly state there is nothing 'unknown' seems a bit silly to me. Now to say that the unknown is not a conscious entity, well that argument might have some validity, even if it is not necessarily sound.
Last edited:
The Eccentric
You scored 60Artist, 40 Philosopher, 0 Scientist!
You live in a world of vast abstraction and color. You are hardly interested in the mechanics of real life; you are preoccupied with the substance of existence (the story and narrative, the symbolism), and the form and shape which life itself takes. You mix the mystical with the rational, like St. Thomas Aquinas, you find inroads between the sublime and the tangible ... you might have a propensity to let yourself go, though, in different ways. Everyday chores and responsibilities are not high on your list of passions; neither is any kind of "daily ritual" most likely. Your ideal work involves something that combines a medium for self expression (such as writing), with the inherent rationality and inquisitiveness of your philosophical side. You are very youthful in your demeanor. You are a true representative of modern culture and society; with its shifts toward new systems of spirituality which combine ancient mysticism with classic reason. You are not preoccupied with wealth most likely. Examples of Eccentrics: Timothy Leary, Stanley Kubrick, Socrates. Quotes from "Eccentrics": "I am a little unusual, a little different and very unique."
The last quotation does not apply to me: I see myself as one part of a great whole. Neither do I see myself an artist, but rather an observer of life. Otherwise this is quite true. An interesting if somewhat abstract assessment.
You scored 60Artist, 40 Philosopher, 0 Scientist!
You live in a world of vast abstraction and color. You are hardly interested in the mechanics of real life; you are preoccupied with the substance of existence (the story and narrative, the symbolism), and the form and shape which life itself takes. You mix the mystical with the rational, like St. Thomas Aquinas, you find inroads between the sublime and the tangible ... you might have a propensity to let yourself go, though, in different ways. Everyday chores and responsibilities are not high on your list of passions; neither is any kind of "daily ritual" most likely. Your ideal work involves something that combines a medium for self expression (such as writing), with the inherent rationality and inquisitiveness of your philosophical side. You are very youthful in your demeanor. You are a true representative of modern culture and society; with its shifts toward new systems of spirituality which combine ancient mysticism with classic reason. You are not preoccupied with wealth most likely. Examples of Eccentrics: Timothy Leary, Stanley Kubrick, Socrates. Quotes from "Eccentrics": "I am a little unusual, a little different and very unique."
The last quotation does not apply to me: I see myself as one part of a great whole. Neither do I see myself an artist, but rather an observer of life. Otherwise this is quite true. An interesting if somewhat abstract assessment.
The Creator
Artist 40 higher than 63% of your peers
Philosopher 20 higher than 6% of your peers
Scientist 40 higher than 83% of your peers
Science is cool guys
Artist 40 higher than 63% of your peers
Philosopher 20 higher than 6% of your peers
Scientist 40 higher than 83% of your peers
Science is cool guys
Last edited:
The Constructor
You scored 20Artist, 25 Philosopher, 55 Scientist!
Evidence and proof of the claims of others are very important to you. You probably have a highly developed spatial ability and work in a field such as engineering or mathematics, or which involves those things explicitly. You enjoy building things and discovering what makes them work - you probably took things apart as a child and played with Lego's (building blocks). You are active in exploring the world around you, discovering its intricacies and mechanics fills your mind. You can become highly aloof intellectually; you may find socializing to be boring. Much of your life may revolve around a specialized field like computing, design, research, etc. You demand evidence. You need reasons and explanations to function properly ... you are undoubtedly scrupulous about accepting claims regarding religion. You might find art somewhat difficult to appreciate ... it's also possible that you are an atheist. More so than the other types. Examples of Constructors: Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynman.
You scored 20Artist, 25 Philosopher, 55 Scientist!
Evidence and proof of the claims of others are very important to you. You probably have a highly developed spatial ability and work in a field such as engineering or mathematics, or which involves those things explicitly. You enjoy building things and discovering what makes them work - you probably took things apart as a child and played with Lego's (building blocks). You are active in exploring the world around you, discovering its intricacies and mechanics fills your mind. You can become highly aloof intellectually; you may find socializing to be boring. Much of your life may revolve around a specialized field like computing, design, research, etc. You demand evidence. You need reasons and explanations to function properly ... you are undoubtedly scrupulous about accepting claims regarding religion. You might find art somewhat difficult to appreciate ... it's also possible that you are an atheist. More so than the other types. Examples of Constructors: Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynman.
One more eccentric...
Well, I knew that anyway. Although I am very conscious of my environment, I've always seemed to live in a world of my own. I had a Philosophy course in college, but didn't do much with it. I preferred to read and research on my own, as I was very undisiplined at that time. One problem I have with Philosophy is that many, or most, seem to be trying to describe what the cosmologists try to describe, and that is a so-called "Theory of Everything", or TOE. That is my problem with the Reductionists. They reduce everything into parts, and even tie them together somewhat, but there seems no unity in their conclusions. I enjoy the British Empericists, but they seem not to go very much past their theory of an implied Social Contract between people...much of what they talk about is useful in understand how Society interconnects, yet it seems to me there should be a higher plane above their conclusions.
Jasmine, I am really enjoying your discussion with the other person above (sorry I can't remember his/her name...apologies). I enjoy the way you guys think! This is my first longer-type post here as I'm new. I hope to get to know you all! Rick
Well, I knew that anyway. Although I am very conscious of my environment, I've always seemed to live in a world of my own. I had a Philosophy course in college, but didn't do much with it. I preferred to read and research on my own, as I was very undisiplined at that time. One problem I have with Philosophy is that many, or most, seem to be trying to describe what the cosmologists try to describe, and that is a so-called "Theory of Everything", or TOE. That is my problem with the Reductionists. They reduce everything into parts, and even tie them together somewhat, but there seems no unity in their conclusions. I enjoy the British Empericists, but they seem not to go very much past their theory of an implied Social Contract between people...much of what they talk about is useful in understand how Society interconnects, yet it seems to me there should be a higher plane above their conclusions.
Jasmine, I am really enjoying your discussion with the other person above (sorry I can't remember his/her name...apologies). I enjoy the way you guys think! This is my first longer-type post here as I'm new. I hope to get to know you all! Rick
I got the Agile Thinker one. It suits me fine
I didn't care much for the wording of the answers on the quiz. I would have gone into much more specifics with my answers. Whoever wrote it opened themselves up to a can of worms that they didn't seem ready to talk about.
I didn't care much for the wording of the answers on the quiz. I would have gone into much more specifics with my answers. Whoever wrote it opened themselves up to a can of worms that they didn't seem ready to talk about.
The Introspector
You scored 23Artist, 65 Philosopher, 13 Scientist!
You are an abstract thinker and probably spend a good deal of time by yourself, or at least, isolated mentally. Much of the way you view the world is relativistic; shades of grey. Right and wrong may exist in extreme forms, but the world is mostly neutral to you. Your lifes purpose is to discover the meaning of your own existence; your tools are rational, self contained ones: Self questioning, criticism, and skepticism. Perhaps you've experienced clinical depression as a result of this arduous search. You may work as a teacher, or in a job that does not require you to pay too much attention (so as to allow for your day dreaming). You can be difficult to deal with in that you are a harsh judge of all things; you cannot tolerate foolishness and can be seen as petty at times or semantical in arguing points that are important to you but may seem meaningless to others. Be careful not to isolate yourself too much - prone to agoraphobia and other forms of social isolation. Examples of Introspective Types: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre Quote from an Introspective Type: "I'm mostly concerned with idea's, human concepts and so forth. I want to understand the limitations of human understanding."
You scored 23Artist, 65 Philosopher, 13 Scientist!
You are an abstract thinker and probably spend a good deal of time by yourself, or at least, isolated mentally. Much of the way you view the world is relativistic; shades of grey. Right and wrong may exist in extreme forms, but the world is mostly neutral to you. Your lifes purpose is to discover the meaning of your own existence; your tools are rational, self contained ones: Self questioning, criticism, and skepticism. Perhaps you've experienced clinical depression as a result of this arduous search. You may work as a teacher, or in a job that does not require you to pay too much attention (so as to allow for your day dreaming). You can be difficult to deal with in that you are a harsh judge of all things; you cannot tolerate foolishness and can be seen as petty at times or semantical in arguing points that are important to you but may seem meaningless to others. Be careful not to isolate yourself too much - prone to agoraphobia and other forms of social isolation. Examples of Introspective Types: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre Quote from an Introspective Type: "I'm mostly concerned with idea's, human concepts and so forth. I want to understand the limitations of human understanding."
The "confusing" wording on the quiz was entirely deliberate. This mode of test is purposely riddled with suggestion words meant to attract or repel different theoretical criteria that assist in determining one's final score. How accurate of an assessment it makes in accordance to its own theories, however, I cannot even begin to fathom.
The Introspector
You scored 28Artist, 50 Philosopher, 23 Scientist!
You are an abstract thinker and probably spend a good deal of time by yourself, or at least, isolated mentally. Much of the way you view the world is relativistic; shades of grey. Right and wrong may exist in extreme forms, but the world is mostly neutral to you. Your lifes purpose is to discover the meaning of your own existence; your tools are rational, self contained ones: Self questioning, criticism, and skepticism. Perhaps you've experienced clinical depression as a result of this arduous search. You may work as a teacher, or in a job that does not require you to pay too much attention (so as to allow for your day dreaming). You can be difficult to deal with in that you are a harsh judge of all things; you cannot tolerate foolishness and can be seen as petty at times or semantical in arguing points that are important to you but may seem meaningless to others. Be careful not to isolate yourself too much - prone to agoraphobia and other forms of social isolation. Examples of Introspective Types: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre Quote from an Introspective Type: "I'm mostly concerned with idea's, human concepts and so forth. I want to understand the limitations of human understanding."
You scored 28Artist, 50 Philosopher, 23 Scientist!
You are an abstract thinker and probably spend a good deal of time by yourself, or at least, isolated mentally. Much of the way you view the world is relativistic; shades of grey. Right and wrong may exist in extreme forms, but the world is mostly neutral to you. Your lifes purpose is to discover the meaning of your own existence; your tools are rational, self contained ones: Self questioning, criticism, and skepticism. Perhaps you've experienced clinical depression as a result of this arduous search. You may work as a teacher, or in a job that does not require you to pay too much attention (so as to allow for your day dreaming). You can be difficult to deal with in that you are a harsh judge of all things; you cannot tolerate foolishness and can be seen as petty at times or semantical in arguing points that are important to you but may seem meaningless to others. Be careful not to isolate yourself too much - prone to agoraphobia and other forms of social isolation. Examples of Introspective Types: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre Quote from an Introspective Type: "I'm mostly concerned with idea's, human concepts and so forth. I want to understand the limitations of human understanding."
That makes sense to do (although I'm not one of the ones who found the wording confusing, just limiting).
And as a part of such limiting. My response is face-palm. Picard Style