"If a tree falls in the forest......"

You scored as Existentialism. Your life is guided by the concept of Existentialism: You choose the meaning and purpose of your life. "Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does." "It is up to you to give [life] a meaning." --Jean-Paul Sartre "It is man's natural sickness to believe that he possesses the Truth." --Blaise Pascal More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page... Existentialism 100% Utilitarianism 80% Hedonism 75% Justice (Fairness) 75% Strong Egoism 65% Kantianism 55% Divine Command 30% Nihilism 25% Apathy 10% What philosophy do you follow? (v1.03) created with QuizFarm.com

Hmmm......okay, I know this sounds reeally bad coming from me, but I really don't know what Kantianism is, 'cause I've not read bloody much Immanuel Kant...I know he lived back in the 1700s and kissed ass with Frederick the Great, but that was from reading Comet (by Carl Sagan), not because of actually having any interest in his philosophy itself.  Utilitarianism, I'm very big on as a social foundation  (because it makes sense, dammit!--and it credits more intelligent and experienced people for making better choices/having better taste than the ignorant!).....that and Pragmatism, and whatever you see as a positive on "Divine Command" in this is the result of being as utterly non-denominationally spiritual as possible.  But hey, at least I'm not apathetic.  Dynamic tension, yes, but my natural state is to be very passionate about things, while not going overboard into any ideological fanaticism. 

On Existentialism, though.....enh, those are good Sartre quotes, but I really am not too fond of the guy, as he seemed to take the line of things too far into an academic and abstract freedom rather than staying focused on the human milieu in which those choices are played out.  I vastly prefer Camus, as he retained an emphasis on the most central question of  choosing existential liberty in one's life and interactions with others -- that is, is it possible to "be a saint"--to live a live of positive virtues and actions--without relying on the existence of God?  This question was first highlighted (to my knowledge) by Fyodor Dostoyevsky in The Brothers Karamazov, where he postulated through his characters that belief in a higher power and in the soul's immortality is the only thing that actually compels humans to be humane to each other, and that without it what we know as "immorality" was bound to become not only accepted but a rule of action in itself.  That, though, I find to be the same kneejerk attitude that underlies orthodox Satanism....the proto-existential Christian sees it as a necessary rein that leads to the truth, whereas the Satanist sees it only as a chain that holds man back from self-knowledge and freedom.  The literal precepts of both are too predetermined to be accurate, as they both rely on a traditional (human-defined, culturally-shaped) idea of "God" to either cleave to or to overturn.  I am not an atheist, personally...actually, I consider those who firmly are to have as much of an attachment (or more) to their negatively-defined religion as a should-be absolute as do any other breed of believers. 

And then there's Hedonism.....hmm.  Well, I'd have to say that my hedonism is informed by my utilitarianism, and that the pleasures I accept and feed on (and also the idea of "fun" and "joy" as being good and desirable for all) are generally in opposition to the commercially-proffered forms thereof.  I believe in intrinsic pleasures, not in the chasing or the denial of extrinsic ones.  Things like a dinner out, or going to see a big-name movie, are valued more for the sensations or mood thereof than for the want of "something to do"...also, entertainment to me is more a matter of interpersonal connection or conscious internal growth (that sounds a lot drier than it is) than having anything dependant on what's popular among the general population.  Utilitarianism holds that all pleasures/pains can be ranked as greater or lesser on a scale, but that those with the wider personal experience of things are better qualified (in their broader subjectivity) to have objectively better taste.  Though, when it comes to pain vs. pleasure, every rule and even the duality itself has an exception....therefore, no firm structure can be build on such a varying and consciousness-defined foundation.  Only personal consciousness itself can choose these things, and therefore the proper task of education is to teach individuals (insofar as they're able) how to think, not what to believe or mistrust per se, or what things are healthy and which depraved.  The general rule of "logical consequences" is the best to be taught as an ethical consideration, well before that other valuable (but easily twisted in the name of faith) rule of treating others as one wants to be treated oneself.  And as the child grows older than logical consequences are better appreciated as a web of cause-and-effect, not as isolated actions bereft of their influence on self and others.  What one does with that perception is undoubtedly part of the great challenge of defining one's own personally-guiding principles.

Enh, quite a sermon there.....but if you understand the famous koan I tossed up to head this, then of course you know that there's only so much that explicit precepts can do in reality.  Therefore I am technically Existentialist on this scale because I know that existentialism is not an answer but a question, and that I cannot complete its answer for anyone but myself.

So there.  :P