Most either or questions are entirely arbitrary. The second, third and fourth are certainly examples.
As for a test, you could come up with a list of various statements from various systems, but I'm not sure you could ever create a test in the scientific sense.
You can google search philosophy tests online that do just this, some better than others, but all clearly inadequate.
I think it speaks to the nature of philosophy. You might measure familiarity with a view point, but measuring what someone thinks about the issues seems out of reach. At least, I cannot imagine how it could ever be possible.
I Individualism vs. collectivism as the fundamental unit of humanity.
II. self-sacrifice (the Deontological position) vs self-actualization (the Eudemonic position) as the ultimate ethical value.
the will (the Voluntarist position) vs. the intellect (the Intellectualist position) as the ultimate constituent of ontological reality
and to acknowledge that we view humans as either truly capable of evil or intrinsically motivated towards good.
IV. a Being vs. a Becoming ontology, to choose between a view of material reality as either predominantly becoming and passing away, or predominantly being, one and continuous, all-inclusive and eternal.
V. are you a Materialist position, an Idealist position, an Aristotelian position, or a Dualist position?
Again, I see no reason for an either or. If humans are intrisically motivated towards good, it does not follow that they are somehow not truly capable of evil.
You want to regurgitate the Ancient Greeks who took positions on each side of these issues?
Did they only scratch the surface?
Have philosophers managed to dig much deeper since then?
Are they passe?
Well, first of all, the 5 dimensions/themes you bring up are not narrow as you suggest.
Your presentation of these themes was narrow. So what? Should I be concerned about psychology as a science because you, for whatever reason, think psychology is dependent upon such narrow understandings of what are actually broad and complex issues?.
And find more holes. But these topics are not only the domain of western philosophers. Only using western perspectives would be silly.
In some ways, yes. Consider Aristotle - given the extent of study of his works, quality criticism of Aristotle is easy to come by. But for the very same reason, his influence, we have also learned a great deal from his works and they are certainly valuable to us.
If I said psychology, I made a mistake. I meant psychotherapy.
as for narrow understanding of what are actually broad and complex issues, I feel like you're throwing mud on me without backing it up. Do you believe in two-poled constructs at all? Good and Evil?
I'd love for you to point me to some other philosophers. I feel like you're just attacking my idea, but holding out with your knowledge.
Thanks. Are you also suggesting that no modern person holds worldview positions similar to Aristotle's?
Are you saying that by suggesting people might hold a position on a continuum, I'm oversimplifying?
I'm NOT a philosopher. I could use your help, but I'm struggling to understand. I got an idea. I think it could grow legs and walk. I think it's too young to be shattered.
No, but suggesting "that every model of psychotherapy has taken positions on 5 philosophical dimensions" and that those positions are limited to your continuum is oversimplyfying the issue.
If your models are based on assumptions regarding these 5 dimensions because it is convenient to do so in this particular line of work, I see no trouble. When you try to use those same 5 dimensions, those either or situations, to generalize the whole of the population you are bound to run into problems.
first, again, while it may be written as either-or, that's how the PHILOSOPHERS construed it, not the psychologists. I think you can take any position along the continuum, say, from 1 to 10, 1 being extreme collectivist (Karl Marx?), 10 being extreme individualist (Ayn Rand?)
All models are simplifications, all analysis reductive. If not they wouldn't serve us, wouldn't give us a handle, wouldn't probvide baskets to separate them into.
Most importantly, remember, I'm generalizing to the whole population of psychotherapy models (psychoanalysis, gestalt, behavioral, etc.), NOT the population of people.
There are only so many theories of psychopathology, and a finite number of treatments or models. Like the choice between chemo and radiation for cancer, the choice of psychotherapies is finite and limited, but each treats MANY people.
With this in mind, I hope I can get you to reconsider this idea. I do appreciate the attention you've given it so far.
Philosophers often present their views as compared to other views; using examples of other's ideas to clearly show differences is not unusual in any field. But the notion that philosophers, at least modern philosophers, have placed these issues as either or is misleading. Anyone who reads two books on the same issue should realize the problem is not either/or even if the either or is either hard/soft determinism or indeterminism. .
And my point is that psychological science cannot adopt a worldview narrowly defined on 5 dimensions/themes because placing people into such baskets would be horribly misleading. These issues are too nuanced to handle in such a matter if the individual has even the slightest degree of education in philosophy. .
Given the problem explained above, I dont see how the information could be useful. .
That's a shame. Problems of the mind a very different than problems of the physical body..
My attention is the consideration. The topic has been interesting, and I think we've made some progress - at least in understanding one another.
Am I in the right place? Does a discussion of worldview belong in epistomology? If not, I hope a monitor (?) can move this to the appropriate place.
I'm not a philosopher. I dropped out of symbolic logic after getting an F on the midterm, and didn't too well in deductive logic either.
Now I'm a psychotherapist working with the idea that every model of psychotherapy has taken positions on 5 philosophical dimensions. Worldview is a sort of umbrella term or superset that groups a number of concepts, all of which may have an impact on one's perspective, including specific ethnic worldviews, social worldviews, scientific worldviews, philosophic worldviews, religious worldviews, etc.
In struggling to make sense of the human condition over the centuries, Western philosophers have tended to focus on five philosophical themes. I narrowly define worldview as a coherent array of positions on these five philosophical themes. The first four of the five philosophical themes require us to choose between two positions, while the fifth requires us to choose one out of four possible positions.
The first theme or dimension requires us to choose between the group (the Collectivist position) and the individual (the Individualist position) as the fundamental unit of humanity.
The second theme requires us to choose between self-sacrifice (the Deontological position) and self-actualization (the Eudemonic position) as the ultimate ethical value.
The third theme requires us to choose between the will (the Voluntarist position) and the intellect (the Intellectualist position) as the ultimate constituent of ontological reality, and to acknowledge that we view humans as either truly capable of evil or intrinsically motivated towards good.
The fourth theme requires us to choose between a Being or a Becoming ontology, to choose between a view of material reality as either predominantly becoming and passing away, or predominantly being, one and continuous, all-inclusive and eternal.
The fifth theme requires us to choose between four epistemological solutions concerning the relationship between mind and body, between the human and the physical: the Materialist position, the Idealist position, the Aristotelian position, and the Dualist position.
I'm just looking for a response to this idea. Does anything seem arbitrary about it?
I'd also like to design a test for people to find out their own positions on each dimension.
Does anyone know ANY tests in philosophy that help people learn their philosophical positions?