What is your world-view (quiz)?
Moderator: Fist and Faith
-
Prebe
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 7926
- Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 7:19 pm
- Location: People's Republic of Denmark
Existentialist 100%
Materialist 81%
Modernist 69%
Romanticist 50%
Cultural Creative 44%
Postmodernist 38%
Fundamentalist 25%
Idealist 0%
I'm glad to see that idealist scored so low. It bloody well should for a pragmatist
A bit worried about the 25% fundie part though. Well, Ok, perhaps it's from going for the middle for the questions worded so that none of the options were palatable.
"I would have gone to the thesaurus for a more erudite word."
-Hashi Lebwohl
-Hashi Lebwohl
You scored as Idealist.
Idealism centers around the belief that we are moving towards something greater. An odd mix of evolutionist and spiritualist, you see the divine within ourselves, waiting to emerge over time. Many religious traditions express how the divine spirit lost its identity, thus creating our world of turmoil, but in time it will find itself and all things will again become one.
Postmodernist......69%
Cultural Creative..69%
Idealist................69%
Existentialist.........50%
Fundamentalist.....50%
Materialist............38%
Modernist...............6%
Romanticist............6%
Idealism centers around the belief that we are moving towards something greater. An odd mix of evolutionist and spiritualist, you see the divine within ourselves, waiting to emerge over time. Many religious traditions express how the divine spirit lost its identity, thus creating our world of turmoil, but in time it will find itself and all things will again become one.
Postmodernist......69%
Cultural Creative..69%
Idealist................69%
Existentialist.........50%
Fundamentalist.....50%
Materialist............38%
Modernist...............6%
Romanticist............6%
-
Zarathustra
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 19847
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 1 time
Thread resurrection time ...
As per Vraith's suggestion in the post-modernism thread, I decided to do a question-by-question discussion in this thread, rather than muck up that one. So, here's the first half ...
1. Scriptures should, at times, be open to symbolic interpretation.
I think I chose the strongest "agree" option, based on the spirit of the question, but the "at times" wording bothered me. I think scripture should always be open to symbolic interpretation.
2. It is humanity's responsibility to progress.
Well, our progress (if you want to call it that) is no one else's responsibility. For instance, it's not God's. So in that sense I totally agree. But do we really have a responsibility to progress? No. If we want to stagnate or regress, no one (like God) is going to punish us. The universe has no expectation of us. We're all going to die. Who's to say we have any responsibility beyond ourselves, much less to the history of mankind?
Another way to look at this is to ask, "What or who is responsible for our progress?" In other words, what's the cause of progress that we have made? Well, natural selection and random mutation. So in that sense, we're not responsible. We don't choose our children or our genes (not yet, anyway).
So it's a difficult question to answer. In these cases, I often find myself answering in the middle between "agree" and "disagree." But in this instance, I tended toward agree.
3. The idea of god is purely for comfort.
I was really tempted to answer all the way to the agree side, but the word "purely" made me hesitate. Again, I think I understand the spirit of the question. It's asking whether or not we make up the idea of god for ourselves, or if there is truth to the god concept beyond our needs. In that sense, I'm in total agreement. But even if you concede the idea of God as a man-made concept, there are many reasons to make Him up. Comfort isn't the only one. And there's not really anything comforting about the idea of a god who will drown nearly every lifeform on earth merely to punish sin.
4. Mankind is condemned to be free. (there is no outside control)
I'm glad it qualified this with the parenthetical phrase. We're certainly not "condemned" (which implies external judgement). And freedom--while sometimes terrifying--can also be quite liberating. Anyway, I answered all the way to the Agree side.
5. Life has been a self-alienation of the divine and we're moving closer to realizing our true nature.
This one really bothered me. I don't believe in Divine (big "D") but I still use the word for a less-than-absolute meaning. We're matter becoming aware of itself. Protons, neutrons and electrons that have woken up to their own reality. That's about as "divine" as this universe can get. If that's not "moving closer to realizing our true nature," I don't know what is. But (as an existentialist) I don't believe in a Human Nature. I think we get to choose our nature, or the essence of being human is choosing what you'll be. So this one is tricky. I think I answered mostly agree.
6. Religious dogma and scientific empiricism are both steps in the wrong direction.
No. The former is a step in the wrong direction, and the latter is most definitely a step in the right direction. But while that's true, science can't answer everything, and materialism can't capture all of reality. I answered this one in the middle, even though the correct answer is, "no."
7. Interpretation is an intrinsic feature of the fabric of the universe.
Eh ... an intrinsic feature? The fabric? What a clumsy question. Interpretation is integral to our experience of reality. I'm not sure the universe has a "fabric." Would there be interpretation without sentient beings? No. Are sentient beings intrinsic features of the universe? No. Is the possibility an intrinsic feature? Obviously. I answered mostly agree, based on my (rudimentary) understanding of quantum mechanics.
8. Morals are socially constructed.
Wholeheartedly agree. (I almost said, "absolutely agree." Heh.)
9. Life is just a complex arrangement of physical particles.
Well, it's mostly a complex arrangement. There's no soul or animating spirit. No dualism. But I believe life is holistic, not merely the sum of its parts. Materialistic reductionism doesn't capture everything. But maybe that's just sentient life, and not the simpler kind of life of bacteria. I think I answered in the middle.
10. Science has destroyed or at least severely lessened the original purpose of life.
Disagree, but not entirely. My reservation here is not due to any negative judgment of science, but rather the idea that there was ever any "original purpose of life." Science destroys things, but I'm mostly positive about it. However, I felt that disagreeing completely was another way of saying that science doesn't destroy the purpose of life, that it in fact serves the purpose of life. But I don't believe that either.
11. There are no more heroes like there once were.
This question just annoyed me. How silly. How should I know? One man's hero is another man's terrorist. It's all relative. But if I disagree, aren't I saying that there *are* heroes like there once were? Again, I don't know. I think I answered leaning-disagree.
12. Everything is rational if given the right amount of effort.
Mostly disagree. Not *everything* is rational. But at the same time, I think reason has its place, and it not useless.
13. The world was a more ideal place years ago.
Strongly disagree. It was a molten rock years ago.
14. Life includes and transcends fundamental physical particles.
Wholeheartedly agree.
15. In the end there will be a togetherness (or oneness) of all things.
What the fuck is this shit? How the fuck am I supposed to know? I can't even tell you what's going to happen tomorrow to the tiny bit of the universe that I'm familiar with, much less "all things."
No.
[Wait. Isn't the universe's expansion going to go on forever? What's the latest data on that? If not, then I suppose I could change my answer.]
16. Spirituality halts the progress of society.
Well, it depends upon what you mean by "spirituality." If you mean blowing up people because someone insulted your religion, yes. If you mean you're going to heaven and I'm going to hell, then yes. If you mean teaching creationism in school, then yes. If you mean that God exists and has a preference for our lives, then yes. But if you mean "be good to each other because humans are extremely precious, special bits of the universe with transcendent qualities," then no.
17. Evolution is taking us closer to the spiritual realm, whatever that may be.
Because of the last phrase, "whatever that may be," I choose agree. But I don't think there is a purpose or necessary direction to evolution (teleology), so I didn't totally agree. I do think it's a truism and self-evidence fact that blind, random mutations have been shaped by the non-random force of natural selection into something that has contingently produced beings that are closer to "spiritual" than, say, rocks are.
18. Language itself must be put under a critical eye.
Yes, including the language of this quiz.
19. Anything can be reduced to simple understandable components.
No, not anything. But lots of things, sure. However, "anything" is such a strong word, I mostly disagreed.
20. All that exists is matter and energy.
No, but that doesn't mean supernatural or ghostly things exist (like souls, spirits, ghosts, angels, gods, etc.). Ideal objects--like numbers--have an ideal existence. They are objective, trans-personal objects (e.g. the number "three" that I think is the same one you think ... they transcend subjectivity). I'm kind of Platonist, in that sense.
As per Vraith's suggestion in the post-modernism thread, I decided to do a question-by-question discussion in this thread, rather than muck up that one. So, here's the first half ...
1. Scriptures should, at times, be open to symbolic interpretation.
I think I chose the strongest "agree" option, based on the spirit of the question, but the "at times" wording bothered me. I think scripture should always be open to symbolic interpretation.
2. It is humanity's responsibility to progress.
Well, our progress (if you want to call it that) is no one else's responsibility. For instance, it's not God's. So in that sense I totally agree. But do we really have a responsibility to progress? No. If we want to stagnate or regress, no one (like God) is going to punish us. The universe has no expectation of us. We're all going to die. Who's to say we have any responsibility beyond ourselves, much less to the history of mankind?
Another way to look at this is to ask, "What or who is responsible for our progress?" In other words, what's the cause of progress that we have made? Well, natural selection and random mutation. So in that sense, we're not responsible. We don't choose our children or our genes (not yet, anyway).
So it's a difficult question to answer. In these cases, I often find myself answering in the middle between "agree" and "disagree." But in this instance, I tended toward agree.
3. The idea of god is purely for comfort.
I was really tempted to answer all the way to the agree side, but the word "purely" made me hesitate. Again, I think I understand the spirit of the question. It's asking whether or not we make up the idea of god for ourselves, or if there is truth to the god concept beyond our needs. In that sense, I'm in total agreement. But even if you concede the idea of God as a man-made concept, there are many reasons to make Him up. Comfort isn't the only one. And there's not really anything comforting about the idea of a god who will drown nearly every lifeform on earth merely to punish sin.
4. Mankind is condemned to be free. (there is no outside control)
I'm glad it qualified this with the parenthetical phrase. We're certainly not "condemned" (which implies external judgement). And freedom--while sometimes terrifying--can also be quite liberating. Anyway, I answered all the way to the Agree side.
5. Life has been a self-alienation of the divine and we're moving closer to realizing our true nature.
This one really bothered me. I don't believe in Divine (big "D") but I still use the word for a less-than-absolute meaning. We're matter becoming aware of itself. Protons, neutrons and electrons that have woken up to their own reality. That's about as "divine" as this universe can get. If that's not "moving closer to realizing our true nature," I don't know what is. But (as an existentialist) I don't believe in a Human Nature. I think we get to choose our nature, or the essence of being human is choosing what you'll be. So this one is tricky. I think I answered mostly agree.
6. Religious dogma and scientific empiricism are both steps in the wrong direction.
No. The former is a step in the wrong direction, and the latter is most definitely a step in the right direction. But while that's true, science can't answer everything, and materialism can't capture all of reality. I answered this one in the middle, even though the correct answer is, "no."
7. Interpretation is an intrinsic feature of the fabric of the universe.
Eh ... an intrinsic feature? The fabric? What a clumsy question. Interpretation is integral to our experience of reality. I'm not sure the universe has a "fabric." Would there be interpretation without sentient beings? No. Are sentient beings intrinsic features of the universe? No. Is the possibility an intrinsic feature? Obviously. I answered mostly agree, based on my (rudimentary) understanding of quantum mechanics.
8. Morals are socially constructed.
Wholeheartedly agree. (I almost said, "absolutely agree." Heh.)
9. Life is just a complex arrangement of physical particles.
Well, it's mostly a complex arrangement. There's no soul or animating spirit. No dualism. But I believe life is holistic, not merely the sum of its parts. Materialistic reductionism doesn't capture everything. But maybe that's just sentient life, and not the simpler kind of life of bacteria. I think I answered in the middle.
10. Science has destroyed or at least severely lessened the original purpose of life.
Disagree, but not entirely. My reservation here is not due to any negative judgment of science, but rather the idea that there was ever any "original purpose of life." Science destroys things, but I'm mostly positive about it. However, I felt that disagreeing completely was another way of saying that science doesn't destroy the purpose of life, that it in fact serves the purpose of life. But I don't believe that either.
11. There are no more heroes like there once were.
This question just annoyed me. How silly. How should I know? One man's hero is another man's terrorist. It's all relative. But if I disagree, aren't I saying that there *are* heroes like there once were? Again, I don't know. I think I answered leaning-disagree.
12. Everything is rational if given the right amount of effort.
Mostly disagree. Not *everything* is rational. But at the same time, I think reason has its place, and it not useless.
13. The world was a more ideal place years ago.
Strongly disagree. It was a molten rock years ago.
14. Life includes and transcends fundamental physical particles.
Wholeheartedly agree.
15. In the end there will be a togetherness (or oneness) of all things.
What the fuck is this shit? How the fuck am I supposed to know? I can't even tell you what's going to happen tomorrow to the tiny bit of the universe that I'm familiar with, much less "all things."
No.
[Wait. Isn't the universe's expansion going to go on forever? What's the latest data on that? If not, then I suppose I could change my answer.]
16. Spirituality halts the progress of society.
Well, it depends upon what you mean by "spirituality." If you mean blowing up people because someone insulted your religion, yes. If you mean you're going to heaven and I'm going to hell, then yes. If you mean teaching creationism in school, then yes. If you mean that God exists and has a preference for our lives, then yes. But if you mean "be good to each other because humans are extremely precious, special bits of the universe with transcendent qualities," then no.
17. Evolution is taking us closer to the spiritual realm, whatever that may be.
Because of the last phrase, "whatever that may be," I choose agree. But I don't think there is a purpose or necessary direction to evolution (teleology), so I didn't totally agree. I do think it's a truism and self-evidence fact that blind, random mutations have been shaped by the non-random force of natural selection into something that has contingently produced beings that are closer to "spiritual" than, say, rocks are.
18. Language itself must be put under a critical eye.
Yes, including the language of this quiz.
19. Anything can be reduced to simple understandable components.
No, not anything. But lots of things, sure. However, "anything" is such a strong word, I mostly disagreed.
20. All that exists is matter and energy.
No, but that doesn't mean supernatural or ghostly things exist (like souls, spirits, ghosts, angels, gods, etc.). Ideal objects--like numbers--have an ideal existence. They are objective, trans-personal objects (e.g. the number "three" that I think is the same one you think ... they transcend subjectivity). I'm kind of Platonist, in that sense.
Success will be my revenge -- DJT
-
aliantha
- blueberries on steroids
- Posts: 17865
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 7:50 pm
- Location: NOT opening up a restaurant in Santa Fe
I don't think I took this quiz before. I'm happy with my result.
You Scored as Cultural Creative
Cultural Creatives are probably the newest group to enter this realm. You are a modern thinker who tends to shy away from organized religion but still feels as if there is something greater than ourselves. You are very spiritual, even if you are not religious. Life has a meaning outside of the rational.
Cultural Creative 94%
Existentialist 81%
Postmodernist 69%
Idealist 56%
Modernist 50%
Materialist 50%
Romanticist 38%
Fundamentalist 13%
EZ Board Survivor
"Dreaming isn't good for you unless you do the things it tells you to." -- Three Dog Night (via the GI)
https://www.hearth-myth.com/
-
aliantha
- blueberries on steroids
- Posts: 17865
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 7:50 pm
- Location: NOT opening up a restaurant in Santa Fe
Similar results, but apparently I'm more existentialist, and more postmodern (ack!), than I was seven years ago. Hunh.On June 15, 2005, aliantha wrote:Cultural Creatives are probably the newest group to enter this realm. You are a modern thinker who tends to shy away from organized religion but still feels as if there is something greater than ourselves. You are very spiritual, even if you are not religious. Life has a meaning outside of the rational.
Cultural Creative 94%
Idealist 63%
Materialist 63%
Modernist 56%
Postmodernist 50%
Existentialist 50%
Romanticist 38%
Fundamentalist 19%
EDIT to add: Sorry to hijack your thread resurrection, Z. I'll go back and read your deconstruction of the quiz answers now.
EZ Board Survivor
"Dreaming isn't good for you unless you do the things it tells you to." -- Three Dog Night (via the GI)
https://www.hearth-myth.com/
You Scored as Cultural Creative
Cultural Creatives are probably the newest group to enter this realm. You are a modern thinker who tends to shy away from organized religion but still feels as if there is something greater than ourselves. You are very spiritual, even if you are not religious. Life has a meaning outside of the rational.
Cultural Creative
81%
Existentialist
56%
Postmodernist
50%
Romanticist
50%
Materialist
44%
Modernist
38%
Idealist
38%
Fundamentalist
31%
The loudest truth I ever heard was the softest sound.
-
Avatar
- Immanentizing The Eschaton
- Posts: 62038
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 32 times
- Contact:
Nice idea Z.
I tended to even have similar rationalisation to many of your answers. But as I said in the other thread, I got existentialist this time by one tie-breaking question.
Of course, as I always say about these type of things, what they tend to do is reflect how we like to think of ourselves.
--A
I tended to even have similar rationalisation to many of your answers. But as I said in the other thread, I got existentialist this time by one tie-breaking question.
Of course, as I always say about these type of things, what they tend to do is reflect how we like to think of ourselves.
--A
-
Vraith
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 10623
- Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 pm
- Location: everywhere, all the time
- Been thanked: 3 times
Just for fun, I did what Z pointed out as one of the problems. Took it a few times giving different answers based on ambiguity/reinterpretation of the questions. It made a significant difference in results...even more than I expected since many of the "schools" actually share a lot of common ground.
In some cases, I understand why they phrase as they do.
For instance 2&3 [responsibility to progress, god purely comfort]...cuz they're direct statements/tenets of particular views.
But then they undermine that by asking things like question 1. As Z noted, the "at times" undermines in several ways. It needs to be either "should" or "should not" to set the extremes and allow the middles to be revealed. A more "real" answer results. [and it's also then more consistent in form with questions like 2&3].
Then there are problems like question 6: It's an attempt, like 2&3, to summarize a position...but no view I'm aware of means it the way they ask it. I think that results from the fact that "dogma" and "empiricism" are neither synonyms nor antonyms. And one person could answer full agree, another full disagree, for the exact same reasons and meaning the same thing...yet it aligns them with different views.
7 is just silly. To the extreme, in the very early universal stew, does anyone think quarks and gluons were running around interpreting each other??? that would be a very odd meaning for interpretation [though I think I heard recently that in some apparent paradox situations like "Schrodinger's Cat" a particle counts as an observer, making the paradox less troublesome....hmmm]
Still...it's not meaningless overall, and a bit of fun.
In some cases, I understand why they phrase as they do.
For instance 2&3 [responsibility to progress, god purely comfort]...cuz they're direct statements/tenets of particular views.
But then they undermine that by asking things like question 1. As Z noted, the "at times" undermines in several ways. It needs to be either "should" or "should not" to set the extremes and allow the middles to be revealed. A more "real" answer results. [and it's also then more consistent in form with questions like 2&3].
Then there are problems like question 6: It's an attempt, like 2&3, to summarize a position...but no view I'm aware of means it the way they ask it. I think that results from the fact that "dogma" and "empiricism" are neither synonyms nor antonyms. And one person could answer full agree, another full disagree, for the exact same reasons and meaning the same thing...yet it aligns them with different views.
7 is just silly. To the extreme, in the very early universal stew, does anyone think quarks and gluons were running around interpreting each other??? that would be a very odd meaning for interpretation [though I think I heard recently that in some apparent paradox situations like "Schrodinger's Cat" a particle counts as an observer, making the paradox less troublesome....hmmm]
Still...it's not meaningless overall, and a bit of fun.
[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler]
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
-
Zarathustra
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 19847
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 1 time
Interesting results, Ali. Everything was very close to being the same, but your existentialism and post-mod scores moved up. I'd take that as a positive sign of growth. (The fact that it moved your scores closer to mine have nothing to do with the judgment. 
).
Vraith, good point on the difference between "dogma" and "empiricism." I have no idea why they put empiricism in that question, when science certainly has had its share of dogmas. How could empiricism ever be a step in the wrong direction? We're not supposed to use our experience as a guide? The question could be answered "disagree" for two very different reasons. Opposite reasons, in fact.
Av, I saw that Lurch answered "agree" to every question and came up as Existentialist. So I took the quiz again and answered "disagree" to every question. It came up a tie. I wonder why that's not a position.
). Vraith, good point on the difference between "dogma" and "empiricism." I have no idea why they put empiricism in that question, when science certainly has had its share of dogmas. How could empiricism ever be a step in the wrong direction? We're not supposed to use our experience as a guide? The question could be answered "disagree" for two very different reasons. Opposite reasons, in fact.
Av, I saw that Lurch answered "agree" to every question and came up as Existentialist. So I took the quiz again and answered "disagree" to every question. It came up a tie. I wonder why that's not a position.
Success will be my revenge -- DJT
-
aliantha
- blueberries on steroids
- Posts: 17865
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 7:50 pm
- Location: NOT opening up a restaurant in Santa Fe
Personally, I was heartened that my Fundie score dropped by a couple of points.Zarathustra wrote:Interesting results, Ali. Everything was very close to being the same, but your existentialism and post-mod scores moved up. I'd take that as a positive sign of growth. (The fact that it moved your scores closer to mine have nothing to do with the judgment.
My takeaway is that I'm strongly a Cultural Creative, definitely *not* a Fundie, and the vast middle ground varies, depending on the day. 
SD, maybe you got stuck in a loop. Did you try going back and hitting submit again?
EZ Board Survivor
"Dreaming isn't good for you unless you do the things it tells you to." -- Three Dog Night (via the GI)
https://www.hearth-myth.com/
-
Orlion
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 6666
- Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 12:30 am
- Location: Getting there...
- Been thanked: 1 time
I can agree, only in that I can view myself as about half-modernistYou Scored as Modernist
Modernism represents the thought that science and reason are all we need to carry on. Religion is unnecessary and any sort of spirituality halts progress. You believe everything has a rational explanation. 50% of Americans share your world-view.
Modernist
56%
Cultural Creative
50%
Materialist
38%
Postmodernist
38%
Existentialist
31%
Fundamentalist
25%
Idealist
13%
Romanticist
13%
There is a dependency on rational and science, but I would hardly say the two provide the answers to everything. Of course, I take issue with what most people seem to have a problem with the two and their conclusions.
Some very bizarre wording on some of the questions. Like the one about heroes. I tended more towards the disagree, but the wording seems to imply that if you disagree with it, you believe there are heroes. Could be that I never believed in heroes.
I'll have to read the rest of Z's post before commenting further, since I seem to agree with a lot of what his reactions to the questions.
'Tis dream to think that Reason can
Govern the reasoning creature, man.
- Herman Melville
I am Lazarus, come from the dead,
Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all!
"All creation is a huge, ornate, imaginary, and unintended fiction; if it could be deciphered it would yield a single shocking word."
-John Crowley
Govern the reasoning creature, man.
- Herman Melville
I am Lazarus, come from the dead,
Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all!
"All creation is a huge, ornate, imaginary, and unintended fiction; if it could be deciphered it would yield a single shocking word."
-John Crowley
-
aliantha
- blueberries on steroids
- Posts: 17865
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 7:50 pm
- Location: NOT opening up a restaurant in Santa Fe
Re heroes: I took it to mean, "We used to have perfect people to revere, and we don't any more." Pretty sure I picked strongly disagree. My take is that if our heroes of yore had to put up with the scrutiny of their records and their personal lives that people in the public eye do today, we'd never have had heroes at all. Everybody has "feet of clay".
EZ Board Survivor
"Dreaming isn't good for you unless you do the things it tells you to." -- Three Dog Night (via the GI)
https://www.hearth-myth.com/
-
Vraith
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 10623
- Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 pm
- Location: everywhere, all the time
- Been thanked: 3 times
Yea, that's what I thought it was saying/asking...the implication that people, at least the "top" people, used to be more worthy.aliantha wrote:Re heroes: I took it to mean, "We used to have perfect people to revere, and we don't any more." Pretty sure I picked strongly disagree. My take is that if our heroes of yore had to put up with the scrutiny of their records and their personal lives that people in the public eye do today, we'd never have had heroes at all. Everybody has "feet of clay".
O's point is a good one though...and I think it's another example of a view summary to essentialize a belief from particular categories.
[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler]
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
-
[Syl]
- Unfettered One
- Posts: 13021
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2002 12:36 am
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 1 time
Current results:
Postmodernist 88%
Existentialist 75%
Materialist 75%
Modernist 69%
Idealist 63%
Cultural Creative 50%
Romanticist 31%
Fundamentalist 31%
Old results:
Materialist 81%
Postmodernist 69%
Existentialist 69%
Idealist 69%
Modernist 63%
Cultural Creative 63%
Fundamentalist 44%
Romanticist 38%
I think the biggest change can be attributed to either my newfound adherence to Soto Zen Buddhism or my realization that everything (but especially myself) is the result and embodiment of historical forces, which in temporal form can simply be labeled as matter as energy (and, when you get down to it, that's awesome).
Postmodernist 88%
Existentialist 75%
Materialist 75%
Modernist 69%
Idealist 63%
Cultural Creative 50%
Romanticist 31%
Fundamentalist 31%
Old results:
Materialist 81%
Postmodernist 69%
Existentialist 69%
Idealist 69%
Modernist 63%
Cultural Creative 63%
Fundamentalist 44%
Romanticist 38%
I think the biggest change can be attributed to either my newfound adherence to Soto Zen Buddhism or my realization that everything (but especially myself) is the result and embodiment of historical forces, which in temporal form can simply be labeled as matter as energy (and, when you get down to it, that's awesome).
"It is not the literal past that rules us, save, possibly, in a biological sense. It is images of the past. Each new historical era mirrors itself in the picture and active mythology of its past or of a past borrowed from other cultures. It tests its sense of identity, of regress or new achievement against that past.”
-George Steiner
-George Steiner
-
Menolly
- A Lowly Harper
- Posts: 24184
- Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 12:29 am
- Location: Harper Hall, Fort Hold, Northern Continent, Pern...
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 15 times
- Contact:
A quiz I haven't taken!
The results, for me, are not a surprise...
The results, for me, are not a surprise...
You Scored as Cultural Creative
Cultural Creatives are probably the newest group to enter this realm. You are a modern thinker who tends to shy away from organized religion but still feels as if there is something greater than ourselves. You are very spiritual, even if you are not religious. Life has a meaning outside of the rational.
Cultural Creative - 88%
Idealist - 81%
Existentialist - 56%
Postmodernist - 56%
Romanticist - 56%
Modernist -38%
Materialist - 25%
Fundamentalist - 19%
