Your result for The Freedom (Inspired by Spinoza's Ethics) Test ...
Your level of freedom is about average. With respect to vices, you've basically got them under control, so that if you over-indulge, it typically occurs during relatively infrequent binge episodes. You're not overly attached to the past, and you possess about the average amount of material objects that serve primarily as reminders of it.
You're not above thinking that changing tables can change your luck at blackjack, but you try to avoid basing consequential decisions on superstition.
The chief problem is that in many situations, you're either indifferent or indecisive. This affords far too wide a berth to external forces as determinants of your behavior. In order to encourage you to be more decisive, consider the following.
Although you doubt it, it can be demonstrated that each of the items in the test admits of only one response that is fully rational and therefore fully indicative of freedom. First, reflect that nobody says stones are free. Why not? Because they do not have rational agency, which is the same as saying that their "behaviors" (more accurately, their changes of state) are determined by external forces such as the wind. Now consider someone who insists at noon that they're going on a diet, and then, at 7pm, selects a heaping slice of lemon meringue pie (notice the importance of proximity and the fact that it's a visual stimulus) when the dessert cart rolls around. Is this person rational? Surely not: their preference switches in such a way that the 7pm decision has more value simply because it's the one that's close in time and space. Notice that this is no different in principle from preferring 1 dollar now to 5 million dollars 5 minutes from now. So our hypothetical person is not rational, and therefore not free-their decision was determined by the external forces of time and the presence of the dessert cart, which is, in terms of freedom, is equivalent to the wind's determination of the movement of a stone.
Reflect now upon, for example, the item inquiring whether an addiction to heroin is morally equivalent to an addiction to shopping. In all likelihood, you strongly agree that they are *not* morally equivalent.
Presumably, what one might have in mind are the different consequences of the two patterns of behavior. However, since each is addicted, neither is in control of their own behavior, and so drawing a moral distinction between the two cases is akin to drawing a moral distinction between stones on the basis that the wind blew one stone through a window while leaving another stone undisturbed. How, Spinoza would ask, can one who is "willing" to draw moral conclusions, and *react to others,* on such a flimsy basis be free?
Consider also the item that inquires whether pity and compassion can be meaningfully distinguished. Spinoza says it can be demonstrated that free, and therefore rational, agents draw no such distinction. Since pity and compassion each presuppose identification with one who is suffering, they are in themselves aversive states. The question then becomes whether those states are valuable. If they are, surely it is not because of their painfulness; it must therefore be because of the consequences they bring about. If that is so, however, the analysis in the preceding paragraph applies unless one can show that compassion is under the control of the actor while pity is not, or the other way around. Now, Spinoza would ask, how is a person's being moved either by pity or compassion different from a stone's being moved by the wind?
As a general matter, when does a person act more freely: when they are motivated by pain, or when they are motivated by a justifiable sense that something ought to be done for its own sake? More specifically, ought one render assistance to others because one will feel pained if one does not, or ought one render assistance to others because one perceives that forces difficult to control are preventing a person from realizing freedom for themselves? Is a donation "philanthropic" if it's made for public relations purposes?
Taken 916 times.
This test is checking you for obedience - not the conspicuous one requiring whip and chain, but the internalised type which you can't see, because it has blended in with who you think you are.
Taken 2406 times.
Hi! And welcome to my Progressive Rock music Test. I'll be using advanced logic and knowledge to determine if this music appeals to your tastes and yo...
Taken 2764 times.
Hi! And welcome to my Yor mom test Test. I'll be using advanced logic and knowledge to determine your true nature. TODO: REWRITE THIS.
Taken 8169 times.
This test is intended to just give you a laugh. In a day and age of constant competition I decided not to make this test about scoring but rather a br...
Taken 1739 times.
Hya Visitor !
Welcome to my FrenchKissFullMouthPierro Test.
Be ready for anything, life is short ...
Intelligence, Humour, Kinkiness, Slavabilit...
Taken 3083 times.
Hi! And welcome to my Useless Trivia As Determined By the Author Test. I'll be using advanced logic and my useless knowledge amassed over years of veg...
Taken 1782 times.
This is my first test and it contains 50 questions of various facts about dogs. Each question is scored 2 points so there is a possible 100 points. ...
Taken 9778 times.
What science-fiction spaceship should you command?
Taken 5153 times.
Ok, so you think yor're a geek huh? Or maybe you're trying to prove to yourself you aren't a geek....(honestly, who ARE you kidding?)....Anyway, This ...
Taken 4636 times.
Some people like to get a sweat on... Some don't. Which are you?
View More Top Tests
Share this test with your friends!!!
Take The Freedom (Inspired by Spinoza\'s Ethics) Test