At the first go I got Epicureanism, and Humanism on the second.

Platonism. Eh. It's fine. Really more of an existentialist with humanist/Christian theist/mystic/taoist leanings.

I am a fan of Kantianism, but ultimately I am perhaps more aligned with neoplatonism. It is hard to say, really (I got platonism too).

Skepticism. I don't believe it!

I got Skepticism too, what are the odds?

It's always difficult deciding what kind of an -ist one foremost is.

I'm all for eudemonia and flourishing. So I may primarily be a florist.
I approve of the locution chi va piano va sano. So, I may also be a pianist.
In other moods I simply feel like being a recidivist, a playlist or a quarterfinalist.

At the first go I got Epicureanism, and Humanism on the second. — jorndoe

Believe it or not jorndoe, I am the same as you, Epicurean. I don't think I would ever get Humanism though, so I don't know how that works.

Stuck at first question. I do have a meaning of life. It is not on the list, and none-of-the-above is not an option. None of the options listed is even close to my philosophy.
What is divinity? Sounds like they want a definition. Are they asking if I believe in God? But they ask that several questions later.
What happens after Death? I presume they mean 'to me', but again, my answer is not up there.

I scored epicureanism in the end, which spell-check doesn't like.

I think the test is muddled, at certain points I had no "right" choice to pick, so I picked one which refuted all the others (which were wrong). I got Platonism, for what it's worth.

I picked "Other" in your poll. I don't belong to any school of thought, I think they're all mistaken. I don't understand how you guys adhere to any of them.

I would say most truth is found in Neoplatonism, Aristotelianism, Stoicism, Skepticism, Existentialism, Epicureanism. But I would not adhere to any of them.

I would not put much worth in Cynicism, Cyrenaicism, Hedonism, Empiricism, Humanism, Eclecticism, etc.

Skepticism. I would have predicted Humanism.

These are not parallel schools of thought. Some are -isms relating to moral positions, others to metaphysical positions, and some to both.

I put other. As I say in my profile, I describe myself in the following way:

Metaphysical voluntarist
Epistemological idealist
Ethical realist
Philosophical pessimist

Of these, I waver the most with respect to the first, as lately I've been attracted to classical theism and Platonism.

When I first saw this thread, thought it said "What Philosophical School of Thought do you FAIL in?
And I thought, well, most of them... :-d

I am a strong follower of T Clarkism. It fits my world view and values perfectly. For some reason, it wasn't included on the Wikipedia list.

Lol, solidarity.

Aerobic exercise benefits aside, isn't following oneself kind of chasing your own tail? :D jk!

Aerobic exercise benefits aside, isn't following oneself kind of chasing your own tail? — 0 thru 9

Well, I tried to take the quiz and I didn't agree with any answer on any of the questions. Straight "none of the above" or "who cares" on all of them.

I know, same here! Ize just being silly and yankin your chainsaw. ;)

I know, same here! Ize just being silly and yankin your chainsaw — 0 thru 9

I knew that.

When I forced myself to pick answers, it said I am a skeptic.

Of these, I waver the most with respect to the first, as lately I've been attracted to classical theism and Platonism. — Thorongil

What about Aristotelianism, what's your position on it and why?

It said Platonism for me.

I tend to have a postmodern worldview.

I wonder how Plato would feel about modernity / the Enlightenment.

The biggest problem with modernity / the Enlightenment is its belief in progress. I don't believe in progress.

Platonism. Sort of fits metaphysically, because it seems to me that abstract objects are parts of objective reality but I don't think they are more "real" or "perfect" than their instances.

I don't think I know enough about it to have a position on it. As a species of Platonism, I suppose I'm certainly not opposed to it.

I don't believe in progress. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I seems really unreasonable of me to say this, but I doubt very much that you have no belief in progress. Why so?

a) One has to do a tremendous amount of disassociating with the world one grew up in (the modern world) to really have no belief in progress. That much disassociation would make it difficult for you to operate in this world -- which it appears tp not be a problem for you.

b) I would guess that you expect certain benefits of progress, which you recognize as superior to what you could get in the past. For instance, you know that if you developed an infection in 1850, there was a fairly good chance you would die from it. Take your pick: tuberculosis or streptococci, or whatever you might get. In 1950, there were effective treatments for TB and strep infections. Why? Progress in medicine, bacteriology, micro mycology, and industrial production of antibiotics.

I don't see how you can deny the progression of events that has taken place since you were born. Even if you are only 18 years old, there has been a progression of speed in digital processing, digital memory, and communication since your post-modern nativity. You saw the photos from the Pluto Fly-By, didn't you? The latest pictures from Saturn and Jupiter? Fake news?

If by progress you mean "progress in the nature of human nature" well, sure -- there's not much evidence there of progress in the last 18 years (or however long either one of us has been on earth).

c) Your view of progress is itself the result of a progression and promotion of ideas. Post-Modernism didn't step out of a scallop shell like Aphrodite.

d) I don't know you, can only guess about this, and I don't mean it as an insult (and many of us do the same thing for practical reasons) but I suspect this is a position assumed for the time being.

How would Plato feel about modernity and the Enlightenment? Well, when you opened the door of the time machine and he stepped into 21st century Manhattan, he might very well have a stroke, and you would never find out. At the very least, he'd probably faint when you turned the lights on.

I prefer not to identify myself with any "schools" or "movements". It smells too much of dogmatic traditionalism. The map is confused for the territory, the "way things are" is not identifiable or reducible to a single person's name. "Reality" is more mysterious and withdrawn. The names of metaphysical systems, the terminology and structures, all of this makes them works of art. Even if they are ultimately right, it would still be wrong to call reality by these names.

But this indeterminacy is apparently intolerable, so people divide themselves up into different groups, all with their special idols and "masters". It goes beyond the pragmatic use of terms for ease of communication and into a realm of competition, so it's no longer about what "reality" is like but more about who can outsmart everyone else. Belonging to a group of fellow idolizers makes you feel like you're a part of something bigger, a tradition, and that you have "superpowers" of sorts - you "see" the world "differently" than the "other" people.

So let's be clear here: "reality", the "way things are", is not identical to a person's name. The world is not "Aristotelian" or "Platonic", it's not "Deleuzian" or "Schopenhauerian", it's not "Hegelian" or "Kantian", it's none of these things. Aristotle might have been right about the four causes but that doesn't make the world "Aristotelian". Schopenhauer might have been right about the "Will" but it doesn't make the world "Schopenhauerian". Labeling reality like this seems to be an affront to reality itself. It means you believe that you, or your idol, is a master of reality, and that reality answers to this.

If someone comes along and tells me "your thought is very Aristotelian!" or "you sound like a Heideggerian!" I will tell them I have no need for these labels outside of basic communication. I don't need to be a "part" of any tradition, I don't want to be a part of any tradition, and it's a mistake to identify reality with these labels, so take your names and shove off. Stop trying to make reality something that has a determinate identity, as if someone has a monopoly on reality. How nauseating it would be if the way things are is intrinsically and timelessly linked to someone's name! It's absurd!

darthbarracuda — darthbarracuda

I identify with the darthbarracuda school of philosophy, I think - maybe.

That test is really odd. I got it to spit out "Empiricism" which I'm vaguely okay with, but I knew that's what I was making it say because I like the other options in the poll even less.

I feel dirty.

Classical theism and Berkeleyan idealism.

I identify with the darthbarracuda school of philosophy, I think - maybe. — Thinker

No, NO, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Answered the stoopid questions and scored 'skepticism'. I'm not an 'ist' at all, but I guess it had to be something. It's flawed all the way down.

Personally I'm now going to tell everyone that I'm a skeptic because of the test until the day I die. I'm getting it tattooed into my calf as we speak.