Questions to differentiate between philosophies

Questions about Objectivism
1

I’m putting together a short online questionnaire that will help people identify which philosophical school they belong to. One of my motivations is that many people who claim to strongly disagree with Objectivism also don’t understand it very well, even after they’ve read Rand’s books. They might have some cursory sense about it, but more often than not, it’s very distorted.

My initial goal is to differentiate between rationalism, subjectivism and Objectivism, by asking a series of multiple-choice questions. In every case, the A answer is for rationalists, B is subjectivists and C is Objectivists. I am intentionally staying away from buzz-words and oft-repeated or easily-identified phrases (like “A is A”) or hot-buttons (such as atheism).

I’m including below what I have so far, and would appreciate feedback and suggestions for additional questions.

  1. To best way to know the world around us is to:

A. Just leave yourself open. The truth will come to you.

B. Direct your focus inward.

C. Study it.

  1. Can we believe our senses?

A. No, the senses can’t be trusted.

B. Yes, the senses are the only things we can trust.

C. Yes, the only starting point for knowledge is perceptual.

  1. How do you know that key pieces of knowledge you possess are true?

A. I just know.

B. I don’t. No one can really know anything.

C. Based on a combination of observation (induction), deduction and connection to related hierarchical knowledge.

  1. What is the role of emotions in your daily life?

A. They are basically useless. They are corrupting and an element of evil.

B. Emotions are central to the way I live my life. If it feels good, then do it!

C. Emotions are important, but should be balanced with conscious thought.

  1. What role do moral principals play in your daily life?

A. My moral principles are based on rules that I must obey no matter what.

B. Moral principals aren’t important.

C. My moral principles are important, but their application depends on the circumstances (context)

  1. Can morality exist independently of God?

A. No. If there was no God, then anything would be permitted.

B. Whatever I think is moral, is moral. Anything is permitted.

C. Yes.

  1. Do things have a specific nature? If so, do they always act according to that nature? Does a rock always act like a rock, or does it sometimes act like a tree?

A. Yes, things have a nature, but outside forces can cause them to act in ways that are counter to that nature.

B. I don’t know. Certainty is impossible. There is too much that’s unknown, how can I be sure one way or the other?

C. Yes, things have a nature, and yes, they always act according to that nature.

2

Apart from discussing whether this questionnaire will serve your purpose(s): I think it is problematic to construct a sort of philosophical compass with very short answers. The possible answers are very abstract and very vague. Take 4C: how should one balance emotions with thought? Could one say, “I feel like murdering my girlfriend who is unfaithful, but I think I should let her alone; as a compromise, I will hurt her with a knife”? One would have to be as exact as possible in formulating these answers.

3

Your survey is way too direct–anyone who actually knows the answers to those questions will already know what their philosophy is. I think you’d be better off asking more concrete questions like: “You encounter situation X. What’s the first thing you do?” And having five or six possible answers that give a the survey-taker a certain number of points, then having a “you tend toward this philosophical outlook” based on the points they accrue.

You’re also going to run into problems because a lot of people have fragmented philosophies where they believe one thing re: epistemology but another contradictory thing re: ethics. So I wouldn’t try to fit people to a given philosophical outlook, but to something more specific like “this is your epistemology” or “this is your metaphysics” (ethics and politics are done to death, but the metaphysics and epistemology might be interesting) and then list a number of philosophies they might be interested in based on their metaphysics or epistemology.

4

In every case, the A answer is for rationalists, B is subjectivists and C is Objectivists.

It would be much better to randomize the answers.

John Link

5

Your survey is way too direct–anyone who actually knows the answers to those questions will already know what their philosophy is. I think you’d be better off asking more concrete questions like: “You encounter situation X. What’s the first thing you do?” And having five or six possible answers that give a the survey-taker a certain number of points, then having a “you tend toward this philosophical outlook” based on the points they accrue.

I thought about a situational/concrete-based approach too. I’ve noticed that many people have trouble thinking in abstract terms, so I think you’re right that it would be better. Any ideas for good, short, to-the-point questions?

I agree about scoring with a “you tend toward this philosophical outlook” result. My idea isn’t to try to pigeon-hole people, but to say their answers are X% in one school, Y% in another, etc.

You’re also going to run into problems because a lot of people have fragmented philosophies where they believe one thing re: epistemology but another contradictory thing re: ethics. So I wouldn’t try to fit people to a given philosophical outlook, but to something more specific like “this is your epistemology” or “this is your metaphysics” (ethics and politics are done to death, but the metaphysics and epistemology might be interesting) and then list a number of philosophies they might be interested in based on their metaphysics or epistemology.

I like that idea, too. It would be more difficult to formulate questions along those lines, but I’ll give it some thought.

It would be much better to randomize the answers.

The test would be published online with randomized answers. The fixed answers are just for discussion.

6

Could you expand on your purpose of the test? What do you expect the test-taker to “do next”, once he has the result? What types of thinking are you trying to spark in your audience?

7

Could you expand on your purpose of the test? What do you expect the test-taker to “do next”, once he has the result? What types of thinking are you trying to spark in your audience?

The main purpose of the test would be to help people with philosophies that are close to Objectivism to be able to see that fact.

There is also a secondary purpose: to help show people that the aspects of philosophies that they dislike and that are often attributed to Objectivism (things like excessive materialism or rationalism) are actually primary traits of very different philosophies. That might be done in part by having them choose answers that reflect the opposite of their values.

The ideal “do next” goal would be for them to learn more about Objectivism through books, online sources, etc.

8

The main purpose of the test would be to help people with philosophies that are close to Objectivism to be able to see that fact.

In that case, have you considered making the questions less abstract? If you’re using this to make a point (“you’re more Objectivist than you think”), you might consider having a slightly concrete example at one point, with a slightly more abstract example a little further down.

Take one example:

  1. To best way to know the world around us is to:

A. Just leave yourself open. The truth will come to you.

B. Direct your focus inward.

C. Study it

“Know the world around us” is extremely broad. If you think of your typical reader, in what major areas of his life does this apply? Is there a narrower (but important) part of his life that he can focus on to give you an answer? Work? school? Right now, I can’t quite think of a good way to re-frame it, but I think it would benefit from being a little more concrete. The reason for this is that there are many people who will tell you that they are rational about some major part of their life; yet, they will be a little less willing to state that rationality is universally supreme as a way to know the world.

Another way to make things concrete would be to personalize. That way, instead of thinking of what “people” would do, he can focus on what he would do. For instance:

  1. Can morality exist independently of God?

A. No. If there was no God, then anything would be permitted.

B. Whatever I think is moral, is moral. Anything is permitted.

C. Yes.

Perhaps he might think that some people need God for morality. However, would he himself act differently – beginning to steal from grannies – if he learned there was no God?