I found a way to measure my relative compatiblity with various philosophies at http://www.smartselect.com/philosophy
(100% indicates the closest match, not an absolute match)
1. Ayn Rand (100%)
Everyone has a reason for it, I'm just more honest than average. I seek the universal. But this doesn't mean I'm a materialist; I think I'm using her philosophy as a metaphor for struggle, where objects and money come to represent even spiritual goods. Partly I'm a sucker for the modern English language, with many of its commercial trappings.
2. Jean-Paul Sartre (78%)
Free-will is inherently a moral issue, or it should be; this is something I can agree with. People shouldn't suppress emotions; society should support conflicted people and recognize the meaningfulness of the struggle.
3. St. Augustine (76%)
We should seek pleasures that are moral, that are in accordance with our spiritual nature.
4. Cynics (73%)
I agree that in many ways society is wrong. But a feel that conscious beings are deserving of a better society.
5. Nietzsche (71%)
I do not perceive God, I have good qualities, and it seems as though a belief in free-will is essential, although perhaps just as conventional morality is a crutch, so too is free will. It seems relative whether something is fate or free-will. The two are not mutually exclusive. When free-will is fate, and the individual is happy, we can say that he has acheived a respectable life. Is this life what I want? to some extent, but not absolutely. Until it is absolutely what I want I am powerless, because free-will is partly determined by how satisfied I am--the freedom of making challenging choices in an imperfect world may imply less actual will-power than the freedom to live as I wish. This is even more interesting if we bring fate into the picture--the world that I wish may entail having the power to change the world, to "frac with fate." When my willpower is maximized, do these other beings still have the same value to me--can we be equals without a mutual creation capacity? Is it always wrong to want more from life? There is an imperative to have a moral life, and there are several kinds of moral fiber. There is the good that I have, and there is the good that I can acheive. There is also the good of being good and feeling good. Since feelings are indicators of thoughts, it follows that one ought to understand what is good--but how can one be responsible without a free will? And how can a free will be attained? It cannot, especially if we believe in the eternal present. So long as we are responsible we must already have a free-will. What more is there to attain? Ethics is a mystery to me. It seems that potentially anyone could be corrupted in the instance where someone has power over them. So it may be that I agree with Aristotle, that virtue is power (although I heard this second-hand). Although I don't feel experienced in the utilization of power, I assume that as with passions, real power reflects deep reasoning or commitment.
6. Kant (69%)
Morality can be reasoned to some extent, insofar as reason is the effective world and creates contexts for moral situations.
7. Stoics (69%)
Reason is important, indeed, reason is consciousness. But consciousness by itself only creates a capacity for a good life. Reasoning isn't the key to finding a good life, because the good is only achieved by feeling good. A thought that has no feeling is meaningless except where it might be used to achieve power or a higher good, or where it inhibits by blocking the awareness of feelings. Thought might also have value if it is perceived to be useful, but until a being has consciousness it is useless to think that a thought has value in relation to an ethical life. A being that cannot think is an inhibited consciousness--it is the obligation of the effective world to allow consciousness to blossom. Otherwise an ethical world is not possible.
8. David Hume (59%)
People should be guided by passions, because passions imply a strong foundation of reasoning, a great deal of motivation, and a level of manifest destiny, and even soul.
9. Spinoza (53%)
It is important to understand determinism: it helps in the development of an awareness of how one is being manipulated. It feels like God respects me when I can "address the path."
10. Ockham (43%)
11. Aquinas (40%)
12. Nel Noddings (34%)
13. Thomas Hobbes (34%)
14. Plato (26%)
15. Prescriptivism (26%)
16. Aristotle (25%)
17. Jeremy Bentham (21%)
18. John Stuart Mill (15%)
19. Epicureans (7%)
--------------------------------------------MAIN-------------------------------------------------------