SUPHI hasn't been that active, so I thought I'd throw this question to the blog and see if it spurs any interest.
What do you take to be the most important philosophical question (or questions)? And, of course, why do you think that?
Here's one that a friend sent me. My results are a little surprising, but not that much. I wouldn't have expected that Existentialism would be so high, but the rest of it seems roughly in order.
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%
Strong Egoism 90%
Justice (Fairness) 85%
Hedonism 80%
Kantianism 55%
Utilitarianism 25%
Nihilism 5%
Apathy 0%
Divine Command 0%
What philosophy do you follow? (v1.03)
created with QuizFarm.com
I am sure most of you have taken this quiz or something similar. Try it again and post what you get!
Ethical Philosophy Selector
Here's my Top Ten...surprised?
1. Aristotle (100%)
2. Ayn Rand (97%)
3. John Stuart Mill (94%)
4. Epicureans (91%)
5. Aquinas (86%)
6. Plato (81%)
7. Nietzsche (78%)
8. Thomas Hobbes (78%)
9. David Hume (73%)
10.Jean-Paul Sartre (73%)
For those interested, I pose this as a question for discussion. Is it appropriate for sports leagues to ban the use of particular types of supplements or chemicals?
As a libertarian, I think a private league can set such a policy with legal and political impunity. The question I am wondering about is if there are good (and enough) reasons for a league to set such a policy. (leaving aside public relations reasons or do-it-yourself-before-government-steps-in reasons)
My skepticism towards such policies arises namely out of its apparent arbitrariness. Why are some substances banned, but not others? Why steroids and HGH, but not protein shakes and other diets/supplements that allow for great muscle growth and recover time? Most would, I think, argue that the former are dangerous and set bad examples for youth. Yet, the former under physician care can be used safely, no doubt with risk. The 'children' argument has some weight, but again, targeting these substances and not others seems arbitrary. It can be unhealthy for a teenager to live on a diet of protein shakes and bars, but that is not brought up as a justification to ban these.
Certainly there is a continuum here from highly risky to less risky, from highly advantageous to only moderately so. The question seems to be at what point one thinks the risk is too great or the advantage too great (and thus unfair).
Another thought: is there a difference between using said substances to maintain condition and recover from injury versus using them a performance enhancement?
And why the focus on substances and not other performance enhancing activities? Excessive training can be unhealthy (and thus fall into the category of bad example) and give one a performance advantage. Some trainers and conditioning approaches are far superior to others and so provide for performance advantages. Why not also ban chiropractors and physical therapists from aiding in injury recovery and prevention? Why does MLB allow for voluntary Tommy-John surgery but not taking a pill that might accomplish similar results?
Thoughts?
