Basically it's a choose your own adventure book that figures out a representative opinion of the theories of prominent philosophers, on all sorts of issues.
On a related note, how does a person go about formally approaching their own personal philosophy, or moral code? I know how to consider these things in the abstract, but it's hard to find, for lack of a better word, application.
Edit* One of my favorite passages from the end of the exercise
Do people always do what they think is best? On the face of it, the answer should be 'yes'.
After all, why should you ever (deliberately) take what seems to be the worse of two
options. In real life, though, people often seem to do just this. They eat cake, when they're
trying to diet; they put off urgent pieces of work; they have another glass of wine knowing
that they will regret it in the morning. And they do this (it seems) despite the fact that they
think that it would be best to lose weight; to get the work done; to avoid the hangover. According to Plato, Socrates (470-399BCE) held that weakness of will was impossible - that
no-one would follow a course of action if they knew that a better course existed. What
looks like weakness of will is really just ignorance of what's best: when I eat the cake it's
because I mistakenly believe that it's the best option (whatever I might say). Thomas
Hobbes (1588-1679) also questioned the existence of weakness of will - but for the
opposite reason. According to Hobbes, our actions are not controlled by reason, but by
passion: we simply act on whatever passion is strongest at the time. If I eat the cake, it's
because, at the time, my desire for cake was stronger than my desire to diet (whatever I
might say). In contrast, Aristotle (384-322 BCE) tried to make space for weakness of will. He
distinguished between the weak (who make a rational choice but then break with it) and
the impetuous (who do not go through a rational thought process at all). The weak might
decide not to drink alcohol on a particular night, because they have to get up early in the
morning, but then decide to have a glass of wine after all; whereas the impetuous would
never consider the next morning in the first place. Aristotle's account of what happens in
these cases is hard to interpret, but he seems to think that weakness of will involves a
moment of befuddlement: at the moment of action, passion interferes with reason,
causing us to make the wrong choice. Is weakness of will really possible, then? A lot of philosophers still argue that it isn't - that
when we fail to take the best option, it's because we don't consider it best at all. Perhaps
we're just deceiving ourselves about what really matters to us. Others see weakness of
will as a failure of rationality: a moment when we simply do not do what reason suggests
we should.You're fairly forgiving, at heart; you agreed with the robin more than the blackbird, and you don't like blaming people for their decisions. You value pleasure, but not at the cost of everything else - there are clear limits to how far you'll take the pursuit of enjoyment. If you're looking to investigate some philosophers you agree with, there are a few places you can look. You could try David Hume, who agrees with you on the nature of desire. You and Aristotle feel the same way about weak will. You're on the same page as John Rawls about collective responsibility. And Max Weber feels similarly to you with regard to whether it's possible to be too rational. And if you want to challenge your opinions and seek out people you instinctively disagree with, there are plenty of them as well. You think very differently to Aristotle and Epicurus about whether desires can be rational. You disagree with Socrates and Thomas Hobbes about weak will.
Well that was a pretty interesting thought experiment or "game". I feel like it was pretty spot on about my philosophy, and I think I might go ahead and look into Socrates, Aristotle and Epicurus. Time to get a library card or dig through the internet for their work/s. You've explored the castle. You've made your choices. And here's what we know about you:
I had to use my Google-fu for a second to figure out who came up with the Allegory of the Cave, turns out my initial guess was wrong, it's Plato, not Socrates - I think I had them mixed up. Come to think of it, I think have Plato's Republic in PDF form somewhere, I might read it. Side bar: I tried to read The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli and I couldn't understand it. Or rather I didn't understand what he was talking about with that treatise. Are you familiar with it?
That was fun little escapade, but I can't help but feel a little underwhelmed after doing all that and receive but 4 sentences of vague analysis. Though the suggestions of further reading that work both for and against your choices is a nice touch. Here's what it said about me: Sometimes you judge people harshly, sometimes you're forgiving; sometimes you're happy to declare someone irrational, and at other times you're willing to make allowances for them. You agreed with the robin and the blackbird about the same amount. You value pleasure, but not at the cost of everything else - there are clear limits to how far you'll take the pursuit of enjoyment. I would like to say I'm not as harsh a judge as it states, but on reflection I can see there's truth to everything it said. I've got a book full of thought experiments so some of these circumstances I had encountered before in one form another. But yeah, thanks for sharing.You're a pretty harsh judge; you agreed with the blackbird more often than the robin, and you're quite willing to declare someone irrational or say that they made the wrong decision.
"You're fairly forgiving, at heart; you agreed with the robin more than the blackbird, and you don't like blaming people for their decisions." "You value pleasure unusually highly." "If you're looking to investigate some philosophers you agree with, there are a few places you can look. You could try David Hume, who agrees with you on the nature of desire. You and Aristotle feel the same way about weak will. You're on the same page as John Rawls about collective responsibility. And Max Weber feels similarly to you with regard to whether it's possible to be too rational."