Philosophical health check: survey

http://philosophyexperiments.com/health/Default.aspx
I found this through another forum (Tromboneforum.org) and found it to be fun and approriate for this forum. From the website description:

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!

Interesting. My tension score is 35 percent below average. Some of the questions were worded rather ambiguously, though I think the test is pretty good at identifying conflicting beliefs.

I scored a 7. I’m not sure that any data can be extrapolated from that test.
I think this because there were a few questions which were too specific on current social issues.
It’s important to recognize that we all have “conflicting tensions” in regards to specific topical, or specific social-cultural items.
It said my tension was between the “art is taste” question and the “Michelangelo” question.
The first asked if art’s quality was simply a matter of taste. I said yes.
The second asked if Michelangelo is one of the best artists ever. I said yes. I said yes on this because it is historically and contextually true(or recognized) that
Michelangelo is one of the greatest artists ever.
I thought I would have gotten “gigged” for a tension between the question about “allowing people to do what they want as long as no one is harmed”
and the question about “people should walk or bike or train”
I said people should be allowed to do what the want.
I also stated that people should walk, bike or train. And in my interpretation of this, it should be mandated to a certain level.
I know the question said “should” and not “must”. Many folks, as we know, will interpret that as “must”.
So I think people should essentially be forced to walk or rail(when feasible).
I can support the “tension” with the other question because it is being shown that the number of cars is harming others.(through pollution, and environment degradation).

I had zero. Yay.

I scored a 27. One of the conflicts was the same "Michelangelo question Vyazma mentioned. I don’t see it as a contradiction, though. I can maintain that art is subjective and still claim that (at least to me) Michelangelo was a great artist.
Another one was my agreeing with the proposition that the taking of life is always wrong, and I also agreed that WWII was a just war. In my mind to not oppose the Nazis would have been also wrong. It was a question of the lesser of two evils.

I can maintain that art is subjective and still claim that (at least to me) Michelangelo was a great artist.
Yeah, but you was not a part of the sentence. Agreeing that art is subjective and that Michelangelo was a great artist makes no sense.
In my mind to not oppose the Nazis would have been also wrong.
Then taking life is sometimes okay, right?

I scored a 20 and also flubbed the Michelangelo question as well. I think my natural prejudice for his works screwed me up. Come to think of it I like Da Vinci better. oh, and to butt in on George’s post, sometimes it is ok to kill, especially to defend yourself.
Cap’t Jack

I can maintain that art is subjective and still claim that (at least to me) Michelangelo was a great artist.
Yeah, but you was not a part of the sentence. Agreeing that art is subjective and that Michelangelo was a great artist makes no sense. Why not? What can an opinion on art be but subjective? The two questions are hardly contradictory. Can a person have an objective opinion about art? Lois

Yes, but advocatus agreed that Michelangelo was a great artist which is an objective claim. In his opinion and as per his taste he may think he was a great artist, but again, that is not what the question asked.

My score was “1”.
Tension was detected between questions about the reality of the holocaust, and objective/subjective reality.

Yes, but advocatus agreed that Michelangelo was a great artist which is an objective claim. In his opinion and as per his taste he may think he was a great artist, but again, that is not what the question asked.
Whether you or I agree with someone else's opinion about art, doesn't make our answer objective. All opinion is subjective whether we agree with one other person or millions or if we stand alone. Lois
Yes, but advocatus agreed that Michelangelo was a great artist which is an objective claim. In his opinion and as per his taste he may think he was a great artist, but again, that is not what the question asked.
Whether you or I agree with someone else's opinion about art, doesn't make our answer objective. All opinion is subjective whether we agree with one other person or millions or if we stand alone. Lois :question:

Ok, I’ll try to be more patient and recapitulate what we are talking about here. advocatus cannot agree that all art is subjective and, at the same time, agree that Michelangelo was a great artist, since Michelangelo’s art falls in the category of “all art.” Once he agrees that “Michelangelo was a great artist,” he is clearly saying that Michelangelo was a great artist no matter what else anybody thinks and that all those who don’t like Michelangelo’s stuff are WRONG. He would have to be a great artist not only to all the humans, but also to all the Martians, the Borg and the Q, and every other sentient being capable of perceiving art.
That said, I have often played with the idea that people who may not like, say, Michelangelo (or my design :coolsmirk:) are in fact wrong, but I have never found a convincing argument to, well, convince me.

Yes, but advocatus agreed that Michelangelo was a great artist which is an objective claim. In his opinion and as per his taste he may think he was a great artist, but again, that is not what the question asked.
The question said "Michelanglo was indubitably a great artist". I agreed, based on my subjective impression AS WELL AS the general consensus of most people. It's just the way I interpretted the question. If they had asking if Picasso was a great artist, I would have had to think about it.
In my mind to not oppose the Nazis would have been also wrong.
Then taking life is sometimes okay, right? Not really. It's just that doing nothing while an army of stormtroopers is marching across Europe would also be wrong.
Not really. It’s just that doing nothing while an army of stormtroopers is marching across Europe would also be wrong.
That was my point as well but I didn't want to dwell on the details. Cap't Jack
Yes, but advocatus agreed that Michelangelo was a great artist which is an objective claim. In his opinion and as per his taste he may think he was a great artist, but again, that is not what the question asked.
The question said "Michelanglo was indubitably a great artist". I agreed, based on my subjective impression AS WELL AS the general consensus of most people. It's just the way I interpretted the question. If they had asking if Picasso was a great artist, I would have had to think about it. You clearly misunderstood, then. The question had nothing to do with your subjective impression. Agreeing that "Michelanglo was indubitably a great artist" is the same thing as agreeing that 1+1 equals 2, no matter what our subjective impression may be.
In my mind to not oppose the Nazis would have been also wrong.
Then taking life is sometimes okay, right? Not really. It's just that doing nothing while an army of stormtroopers is marching across Europe would also be wrong. I really don't think you're understanding what the survey is all about.
Yes, but advocatus agreed that Michelangelo was a great artist which is an objective claim. In his opinion and as per his taste he may think he was a great artist, but again, that is not what the question asked.
The question said "Michelanglo was indubitably a great artist". I agreed, based on my subjective impression AS WELL AS the general consensus of most people. It's just the way I interpretted the question. If they had asking if Picasso was a great artist, I would have had to think about it. You clearly misunderstood, then. The question had nothing to do with your subjective impression. Agreeing that "Michelanglo was indubitably a great artist" is the same thing as agreeing that 1+1 equals 2, no matter what our subjective impression may be.It depends upon how you read the question. Now I completely understand what you're saying. But when I took the test I tried to answer the questions as quickly as possible in order to follow my so-called "gut intuition". In hindsight I can look back and deconstruct what I was thinking. When I saw the word "indubitably", I thought, "well, Michelanglo is generally considered a great artist, but since I believe that art is subjective, that doesn't necessarily cut much ice with me. In this case, I happen to agree, so Michelangelo WAS undoubtedly a great artist!" If they had asking about Picasso or Jackson Pollock, I would have disagreed for the same reason!