Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 69

Thread: INTp uncovered

  1. #1
    implied's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    7,750
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default INTp uncovered

    http://www.socionics.com/prof/intp2.htm

    Quote Originally Posted by socionics.com
    "Oh my God! This is awesome! I'm so excited! I can't wait! I feel like jumping and screaming and clapping my hands!" behaviour will guarantee you the front seat before INTp firing squad. It is taboo as INTps cannot tolerate enthusiasm and you will soon be punished for openly showing the excitement. If you like something - you should stay quiet, if you don't like something - you must hate it! No emotional attachments or commitments are permitted either.

    INTps fear rules and adore them, because what's clear - they fear, unclear - they dear! Nevertheless, they stick to the rules and they demand the same from others. The rules that can be interpreted in many ways guarantee freedom. Ironically, INTps learn about their environment through studying of the limitations. If the rule states you can't say "knee" and INTp decides to respect and obey it they could get extremely annoyed with someone who decides to ignore it.

    The rules for INTps often transform into rituals and they have no problems with rituals. Because of this INTps could get comfortable with routine, often mistyping themselves into J types, resulting in many of them thinking of themselves as INTjs. However the most common way is for INTps to type themselves into INTxs, with undecided preference for J or P.

    INTps would not accept anything concrete and solid on principal. The more unshakable it seems the more challenging for INTp it appears. Irrefutable truth to them means death. If a sign "Take your hats off" is normally understood as a request to take headwear off, you may suddenly find yourself arguing with an INTp over what is considered a hat. Thanks God for dictionary! INTps respect it - it is printed and it is public. But beware of broad interpretations. A broad interpretation is INTp's ally; exact meaning is INTp's enema.

    The arithmetic perhaps is the only discipline where INTps cannot use their powers of ambiguity. 2 + 2 = 4 will always remain true, although it is not inconceivable to assume that at some point an INTp was contemplating a different result. On the other hand, the very foundation of arithmetic was built upon few self evident axioms, and it is the self evident part of course that is very much INTp debatable.

    In fact, INTps will debate for the sake of debate. The process becomes more important than the outcome. They often lose the point of a debate when they shift focus to other unrelated subjects in the process. When defeated, INTps can easily do a U turn on something they were arguing just seconds ago. They deserve respect for being able to accept the defeat and disrespect for never being truly committed in their views.

    So what is it that makes them so meticulously scrutinising? Being natively intuitive, INTps are not quite able to swallow big chunks of information. They choke on it. Big theories of everything are spam to them and people who make them are instant opponents. The combination of words like "in general", "on principal", "on the whole", "in most cases", "as a general rule" are not friends to INTps, as they befriend "in particular" in particular. They do not like trends, as trends usually encompass more than one tendency, making the trend more "in general" than "in particular". The notion that there are 16 psychological types is also alien to INTps, because in their heads the 16 types could be further dissected into oblivion, thus making them even more "in particular" than "in general".

    Finally, INTps have this very special relationship with Socionics. They are like plague, eating its very foundation. They are like ever growing tumour that turns once solid and sound principals into a formless jelly. Just like a bunch of angry termites on rampage, they feed on anything structural, bearing clarity and simplicity... by turning it to dust.

    That's all folks, it's a dissection time!

    let's have at it!

  2. #2
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't agree with half of it.

    But it's called Uncovered, so it's probably supposed to be written from a bad angle.

  3. #3
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,625
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno
    But it's called Uncovered, so it's probably supposed to be written from a bad angle.
    How is that relevant?

    The combination of words like "in general", "on principal", "on the whole", "in most cases", "as a general rule" are not friends to INTps, as they befriend "in particular" in particular.
    Valued Te + subdued Ne.

  4. #4
    reyn_til_runa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    new jersey
    Posts
    1,009
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So what is it that makes them so meticulously scrutinising? Being natively intuitive, INTps are not quite able to swallow big chunks of information. They choke on it. Big theories of everything are spam to them and people who make them are instant opponents. The combination of words like "in general", "on principal", "on the whole", "in most cases", "as a general rule" are not friends to INTps, as they befriend "in particular" in particular. They do not like trends, as trends usually encompass more than one tendency, making the trend more "in general" than "in particular". The notion that there are 16 psychological types is also alien to INTps, because in their heads the 16 types could be further dissected into oblivion, thus making them even more "in particular" than "in general".
    Funny. Personally, I use those terms like "in general" all the time, but it wouldn't be uncommon for me to give the impression of being a hair splitter working on the head of a person possessing one solid chunk of hair. I am guessing this paragraph is meant to be tongue-in-cheek, sort of getting at the impossibility of particularizing all the general trends we perceive. Heh.
    whenever the dog and i see each other we both stop where we are. we regard each other with a mixture of sadness and suspicion and then we feign indifference.

    Jerry, The Zoo Story by Edward Albee

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    The desert
    Posts
    275
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno
    I don't agree with half of it.

    But it's called Uncovered, so it's probably supposed to be written from a bad angle.
    lol, agreed.

    The first half was hilarious, but the last couple chunks rang hollow.
    INTp, ILI Logical subtype

    Drum 'n' Bass head

    GorillaSound.net

  6. #6
    implied's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    7,750
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drd252
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno
    I don't agree with half of it.

    But it's called Uncovered, so it's probably supposed to be written from a bad angle.
    lol, agreed.

    The first half was hilarious, but the last couple chunks rang hollow.

    that's generally how i felt about it, honestly. halfway reaffirming and halfway, huh?

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    994
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Agreed. The first part is almost spot on, but the last part (last two paragraphs and a bit) is not true at all, in fact it is the opposite of how I would say I worked, mentally.

    I'd also have to say that the first line is probably what, I at least, like about our dual. The way they can get so excited about almost nothing.
    INTP/ILI(Ni) /5w4

    "When my time comes, forget the wrong that I've done.
    Help me leave behind some reasons to be missed."

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    The desert
    Posts
    275
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KSpin
    I'd also have to say that the first line is probably what, I at least, like about our dual. The way they can get so excited about almost nothing.
    Agreed, there's little else better than a hot SEE bouncing around for no apparent reason, or getting excited about dirt.

    P.S. I like how much "agreed" is being used in replies
    INTp, ILI Logical subtype

    Drum 'n' Bass head

    GorillaSound.net

  9. #9
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KSpin
    I'd also have to say that the first line is probably what, I at least, like about our dual. The way they can get so excited about almost nothing.
    Yes, I've noticed that part about enthousiasm a couple of times. I've come up with two possible causes for that seemingly flaw in the description of an ILI.

    1) The Enthousiast, is our conflictor, so this implies that we tend hate everything that is enthousiastic.

    2) Somewhere down the line, someone misinterpretated the meaning of critic. It is supposed to mean critical thinking (=precise thinking), while someone later translated this into criticism (=negative comment). Which is a possible explanation why people say the ILI is a negative person.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KSpin
    The first part is almost spot on, but the last part (last two paragraphs and a bit) is not true at all, in fact it is the opposite of how I would say I worked, mentally.
    That was exactly my first reaction too. After having given it a second thought I can actually see some truth in the last paragraphs -- a truth that would become more visable to those who have studied Wittgenstein's later philosophy. I have become more and more inclined to believe that Wittgenstein was an INTp after all, and a central part of his (and my own) thinking is the focus on differences. If you are more interested in how one thing is different from another thing than in what way they are similar, maybe an INTj like SG would perceive us to be hostile to general truths. But like reyn-til-runa I use words like "general" very often.

  11. #11
    reyn_til_runa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    new jersey
    Posts
    1,009
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno
    Quote Originally Posted by KSpin
    I'd also have to say that the first line is probably what, I at least, like about our dual. The way they can get so excited about almost nothing.
    Yes, I've noticed that part about enthousiasm a couple of times. I've come up with two possible causes for that seemingly flaw in the description of an ILI.

    1) The Enthousiast, is our conflictor, so this implies that we tend hate everything that is enthousiastic.

    2) Somewhere down the line, someone misinterpretated the meaning of critic. It is supposed to mean critical thinking (=precise thinking), while someone later translated this into criticism (=negative comment). Which is a possible explanation why people say the ILI is a negative person.

    'critic" comes from the greek word kritikos (sp?) and means one who discerns. modern critics certainly worked their magic, i'd agree.
    whenever the dog and i see each other we both stop where we are. we regard each other with a mixture of sadness and suspicion and then we feign indifference.

    Jerry, The Zoo Story by Edward Albee

  12. #12
    Grek0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    114
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah you spelled it alright , that's how we greek would write it in internet "greeklish" ;-)

    Theatre and literary critics also worked their magic to help attach a negative aura to the word. I like this quote I heard (I think it's from an Irish writer speaking about literary critics):

    "Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how it's done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves."

    As for the description, I don't mind reading one that is negative/hostile to INTps , so long as it is actually insightful. But my impression from the above description is that of a lack of understanding from the part of the writer, as to the actual drivers of displayed INTp behaviour. For example this part : "INTps fear rules and adore them, because what's clear - they fear, unclear - they dear" seems to imply that we dislike rules because we dislike the clarity they seek to generate. I do not know other INTps and can only speak about myself, but to the extent that I can serve as representative of my "kind" here is why I display such hostility against rules: it is not because I hate the clarity they bring, but because many people tend to see them as set in stone, which means that they reduce openness of mind, and the willingness./ability to consider alternative possibilities. I am for rules and the structure they help bring, but I am against people using them to uncritically discard thoughts, theories, opinions, plans and propositions that may be generated outside the limits those rules have set.
    INTJ [mbti]
    INTp [socionics]

    A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

    -Robert A. Heinlein

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    994
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I dislike a lot of rules because they're usually not very well thought out.
    INTP/ILI(Ni) /5w4

    "When my time comes, forget the wrong that I've done.
    Help me leave behind some reasons to be missed."

  14. #14
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Rules are made for people of which can be expected that they cannot think for themselves.

  15. #15
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno
    Rules are made for people of which can be expected that they cannot think for themselves.
    Everybody can think for him/herself.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    994
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno
    Rules are made for people of which can be expected that they cannot think for themselves.
    Everybody can think for him/herself.
    Lol. *Disagrees* Not everybody. Some people can think for themselves, they come to completely the wrong conclusions.
    INTP/ILI(Ni) /5w4

    "When my time comes, forget the wrong that I've done.
    Help me leave behind some reasons to be missed."

  17. #17
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KSpin
    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno
    Rules are made for people of which can be expected that they cannot think for themselves.
    Everybody can think for him/herself.
    Lol. *Disagrees* Not everybody. Some people can think for themselves, they come to completely the wrong conclusions.
    Yeah, but they must be left free to come to wrong conclusions.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    994
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Quote Originally Posted by KSpin
    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno
    Rules are made for people of which can be expected that they cannot think for themselves.
    Everybody can think for him/herself.
    Lol. *Disagrees* Not everybody. Some people can think for themselves, they come to completely the wrong conclusions.
    Yeah, but they must be left free to come to wrong conclusions.
    Must they? Really? You honestly think that?
    INTP/ILI(Ni) /5w4

    "When my time comes, forget the wrong that I've done.
    Help me leave behind some reasons to be missed."

  19. #19
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KSpin
    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Quote Originally Posted by KSpin
    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno
    Rules are made for people of which can be expected that they cannot think for themselves.
    Everybody can think for him/herself.
    Lol. *Disagrees* Not everybody. Some people can think for themselves, they come to completely the wrong conclusions.
    Yeah, but they must be left free to come to wrong conclusions.
    Must they? Really? You honestly think that?
    Of course, nobody has the right to take anybody else's freedom.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    994
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There's no such thing as having "the right" to do anything. Just the ability and the power.
    INTP/ILI(Ni) /5w4

    "When my time comes, forget the wrong that I've done.
    Help me leave behind some reasons to be missed."

  21. #21
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG

    Of course, nobody has the right to take anybody else's freedom.
    exactly, just another reason to not oblige the rules.


    I truly hate rules.

  22. #22
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KSpin
    There's no such thing as having "the right" to do anything. Just the ability and the power.
    So you think that if somebody is more powerful, he should crush other human beings just for its sake? Sure you have a distorted view of how the world really works.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  23. #23
    Elro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    2,796
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Quote Originally Posted by KSpin
    There's no such thing as having "the right" to do anything. Just the ability and the power.
    So you think that if somebody is more powerful, he should crush other human beings just for its sake? Sure you have a distorted view of how the world really works.
    FDG, I agree with your ethical views but logically Kspin has a point. He's basically saying (I think) that in the real world there are no such things as "shoulds" or "musts" - we humans introduce those. He isn't saying anyone should crush other humans, but he's not saying anyone shouldn't either. "Rights" are value-filled words that are entirely in our minds, too.
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Holy mud-wrestling bipolar donkeys, Batman!

    Retired from posting and drawing Social Security. E-mail or PM to contact.


    I pity your souls

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    994
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Exactly. 'Rights' are only created by people who believe they have the power to stop others from doing things they think they shouldn't be doing.

    The Universe won't punish you because you killed 10 people, but other people will.
    INTP/ILI(Ni) /5w4

    "When my time comes, forget the wrong that I've done.
    Help me leave behind some reasons to be missed."

  25. #25
    Dioklecian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    4,304
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The description I find is typical of the INTJ PERSEPCTIVE of INTPs. I don't think that this is how most people view INTPs.

    The last paragraphs seem the most confused on first reading, but on second thought I found them accurate, but badly writen. Ti people have ideological systems that purport to describe the entire known univers (and they also try to imply the unknown). They do this by noticing certain "self evident truths" or "axioms" and then they extrapolate an entire system of how the universe is roganized based on these basic assumptions. The problem is that not all people see the same self evident truths. If you point out that each person has a different persepctive that depends on their particular background and experiences, the Ti people become quite annoyed because their Ti system actually is very very important to them, it gives DIRECTION to their ENTIRE LIFE.

    INTPs on the other hand don't reaally have ONE, sole direction, but usually switch from on to another quite easily.

    INTJs are even more weary of INTPs because they have weak Se, so their ideologies are not very factual, or are factual in a "general way", meaning that they are extrapolations from reality. INTJs need to bring all their extrapolations together in order to create a coherent architecture of ideas by removing the logical contradictions in them. Needless to say this process is very difficult and often thankless. INTPs intuitively notice the problems with such generalizations and try to make the sytem more practical and hence the criticism.
    Well I am back. How's everyone? Don't have as much time now, but glad to see some of the old gang are still here.

  26. #26
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KSpin
    Exactly. 'Rights' are only created by people who believe they have the power to stop others from doing things they think they shouldn't be doing.

    The Universe won't punish you because you killed 10 people, but other people will.
    What's the difference? If people are as much a part of the universe as you are, then is the universe not in some perverse way punishing you through the judgment of these other people?
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  27. #27
    Dioklecian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    4,304
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Quote Originally Posted by KSpin
    Exactly. 'Rights' are only created by people who believe they have the power to stop others from doing things they think they shouldn't be doing.

    The Universe won't punish you because you killed 10 people, but other people will.
    What's the difference? If people are as much a part of the universe as you are, then is the universe not in some perverse way punishing you through the judgment of these other people?
    Ti logic can be formidable.
    Well I am back. How's everyone? Don't have as much time now, but glad to see some of the old gang are still here.

  28. #28
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elro
    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Quote Originally Posted by KSpin
    There's no such thing as having "the right" to do anything. Just the ability and the power.
    So you think that if somebody is more powerful, he should crush other human beings just for its sake? Sure you have a distorted view of how the world really works.
    FDG, I agree with your ethical views but logically Kspin has a point. He's basically saying (I think) that in the real world there are no such things as "shoulds" or "musts" - we humans introduce those. He isn't saying anyone should crush other humans, but he's not saying anyone shouldn't either. "Rights" are value-filled words that are entirely in our minds, too.
    It's not exactly true. They have arisen after interactions with other human beings, due to the fact that without them the intractions would be much less smooth. Every man, nowadays, has the potential to kill another human being. Obviously this works also as a deterrent for people acting that way.

    Basically, Ksping agrees with me when he says "other people will punish you for killing", but since other people are a part of the universe, then you can't separate them. Mill centuries ago proved that humanity is a part of the nature, it's meaningless to try to make two notions out of them.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  29. #29
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Quote Originally Posted by KSpin
    Exactly. 'Rights' are only created by people who believe they have the power to stop others from doing things they think they shouldn't be doing.

    The Universe won't punish you because you killed 10 people, but other people will.
    What's the difference? If people are as much a part of the universe as you are, then is the universe not in some perverse way punishing you through the judgment of these other people?
    Perfect!
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    994
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Quote Originally Posted by KSpin
    Exactly. 'Rights' are only created by people who believe they have the power to stop others from doing things they think they shouldn't be doing.

    The Universe won't punish you because you killed 10 people, but other people will.
    What's the difference? If people are as much a part of the universe as you are, then is the universe not in some perverse way punishing you through the judgment of these other people?
    Perfect!
    The very fact that you cannot seperate these people is quite sad. The Universe works through physics, as do people, but people also work through electrical impulses in the brain, and are 'sentient'.

    Physics will not punish you if you kill somebody, and if a person killed all other humans in the world, there would be noone left with the power to stop them. What would happen to them "not having the right" then?
    INTP/ILI(Ni) /5w4

    "When my time comes, forget the wrong that I've done.
    Help me leave behind some reasons to be missed."

  31. #31
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KSpin
    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Quote Originally Posted by KSpin
    Exactly. 'Rights' are only created by people who believe they have the power to stop others from doing things they think they shouldn't be doing.

    The Universe won't punish you because you killed 10 people, but other people will.
    What's the difference? If people are as much a part of the universe as you are, then is the universe not in some perverse way punishing you through the judgment of these other people?
    Perfect!
    The very fact that you cannot seperate these people is quite sad. The Universe works through physics, as do people, but people also work through electrical impulses in the brain, and are 'sentient'.

    Physics will not punish you if you kill somebody, and if a person killed all other humans in the world, there would be noone left with the power to stop them. What would happen to them "not having the right" then?
    You still don't get the issue, right? There's no objective way to distinguish between the rest of the universe and us. Physics does punish me if I kill somebody IF people punish me, since people obey the law of physics!

    Of course you can separate people into another subset, but the set universe will always contain people, too, and they share the same properties of the rest of "nature".
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  32. #32

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    994
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    They obey the law of physics, but they are not physics themselves! Is this getting lost in translation or something? Do you just not get the English language?

    And are you completely ignoring the second part of my post?
    INTP/ILI(Ni) /5w4

    "When my time comes, forget the wrong that I've done.
    Help me leave behind some reasons to be missed."

  33. #33
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KSpin
    They obey the law of physics, but they are not physics themselves!
    ???? They are part of the universe which obeys the law of physics, so you can effectively say that the law of physics punish you given the existence of human beings.
    The electrical impulses of the brain obey the law of physics too. If you kill all the other human beings in the world, then you can't kill anybody else, so paradoxically you can't make no crime anymore at that point in time.

    Imagine you kill all the humans in the world except yourself. Then the concept of rights would be meaningless of course, since they appear only when relating to other human beings. However, since human beings obey the law of physics, we can say that the external manifestation (behaviour) of "rights" obeys the law of physics, too.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  34. #34

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    994
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yes. But as soon as you've killed all the other human beings, all possibility of being punished is gone. There are no Universal human rights, plenty of horrendous things have been done in the past, and the person that performed them would have simply died of old age, such as Stalin.

    I'm simply trying to show you that there is no mythical "rights" in the Universe, all there is is the ability to do things, and other people with the ability to stop you from doing it. Throw in some logic, emotions and opinions, and there you go.
    INTP/ILI(Ni) /5w4

    "When my time comes, forget the wrong that I've done.
    Help me leave behind some reasons to be missed."

  35. #35
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KSpin
    Yes. But as soon as you've killed all the other human beings, all possibility of being punished is gone. There are no Universal human rights, plenty of horrendous things have been done in the past, and the person that performed them would have simply died of old age, such as Stalin.

    I'm simply trying to show you that there is no mythical "rights" in the Universe, all there is is the ability to do things, and other people with the ability to stop you from doing it. Throw in some logic, emotions and opinions, and there you go.
    I suppose then we have a different definition of rights. What's yours? By rights I mean:

    right
    1) n. an entitlement to something, whether to concepts like justice and due process or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal. These rights include: various freedoms; protection against interference with enjoyment of life and property; civil rights enjoyed by citizens such as voting and access to the courts; natural rights accepted by civilized societies; human rights to protect people throughout the world from terror, torture, barbaric practices and deprivation of civil rights and profit from their labor; and such U.S. constitutional guarantees as the right to freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition.
    We are probably then actually in accord. Rights give you the ability to do things. It's interconnected: rights are synchronous with the ability, if there's ability, there's a right.

    Your example of somebody having the power to do something, and thus dequalifying the concept of right, does not exactly hold. There are two possibilities:

    - You kill somebody, and people want to get back at you
    - You kill somebody, and you're so powerful that you're able to create for yourself a right to kill them, legally speaking.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  36. #36
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KSpin
    The very fact that you cannot seperate these people is quite sad. The Universe works through physics, as do people, but people also work through electrical impulses in the brain, and are 'sentient'.
    I am still not getting this distinction. And the fact that you are still trying to separate the two and denigrate others by calling them sad is really quite sad. Sentience is something humanity loves to talk about as a distinguishing characteristic in order to make ourselves feel better about our role as "Alpha species" on this planet. Humans are not the only beings with self-awareness and electronic impulses on this planet. So this hypothetical man who has slain the entire human race cannot be killed by other humans, but what is he to gain by being the last human? He would be a psychopathic overlord without an servants, kinky sex slaves, or other standard fares for lunatics suffering from such tenancies.

    Physics will not punish you if you kill somebody, and if a person killed all other humans in the world, there would be noone left with the power to stop them. What would happen to them "not having the right" then?
    Again, this perverse universe may use non-human agents (ie the last human is killed by a rabid bear or chokes on a pretzel).

    And just because someone goes unpunished does not necessarily mean that these rights do not somehow exist, since these rights exist under the basic premise that these are the base requirements for people to co-exist peacefully, with all the laws and punishments existing in a society to merely reinforce and elaborate upon these rights. But part of the problem is that you seem to clearly misunderstand the idea of what is meant by universal rights. These are not rights which exist all across the universe, but universal in terms of all-encompassing on earth amongst humans (which you may agree with), but I still disagree with you distinguishing humans (and their overrated sentience) over that of the universe. A part may not be the whole, and the whole may not be the part, that does not somehow make the part less a part of the whole.

    Interesting Note: KSpin is arguing against something which some of the most famous INTps (or at least Gamma NTs) argued for: Plato and Socrates.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  37. #37

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    994
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    God, right, let me explain to you, before you start putting more words in my mouth, which I did not speak. I mean "rights" in the purely human sense, such as FDG emboldened during his post.

    Rights such as these do not exist everywhere in nature (there are a few exceptions for other social animals, such as rabbits), nothing has the right to own property, nothing has the right to even exist, they just do. The only reason they exist in the legal sense, is to protect the people that would otherwise be incapable, in nature, of these things.

    You cannot say to a mass murderer, "You cannot kill because you have no right to do so." Well, you can try, but I bet no invisible barrier appears and stops them from killing you.
    If this mass murderer is not caught by the police, then he faces no repercussions, except the consequences of his actions. For example: If he killed the local milk man, he may not receive milk for a couple of days.
    If he -is- caught, then he would face the human/social justice system.

    If rights existed universally, then why do some nations have them, and some do not? Why were they not there from the beginning of time?
    INTP/ILI(Ni) /5w4

    "When my time comes, forget the wrong that I've done.
    Help me leave behind some reasons to be missed."

  38. #38

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    994
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Are we just arguing about definitions here?

    Are you saying that if somebody with the ability/power to stop you from living, doesn't kill you, they have given you the right to live?

    Is that all you're saying?
    INTP/ILI(Ni) /5w4

    "When my time comes, forget the wrong that I've done.
    Help me leave behind some reasons to be missed."

  39. #39
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KSpin
    Are we just arguing about definitions here?
    Seems that way. The only reason why I entered the conversation to begin with was the issue between the universe and humans. Rights is unfortunately one of the words with a lot of different meanings, contexts, and connotations which causes people to be talking about multiple attestations of different ideas all in the same sentence. That is generally how philosophy works. Changing definitions to suit the philosopher's ideas to the point that everything they say becomes convoluted.

    Are you saying that if somebody with the ability/power to stop you from living, doesn't kill you, they have given you the right to live?

    Is that all you're saying?
    Somewhat, but you make it sound like the person in question wants to kill you or that to kill people is his natural instinct. So it is not that if someone with the power to stop you from living, doesn't kill you then they have given you the right to live, but that by not killing you or simply by letting you live without the threat of killing you they expect that you will not try and kill them. Rights exist in societal mutuality, which is why rights do not seem to be universal between societies. There are basic liberal rights (generally the acknowledgment to the right to life, the right of liberty, and the right of property), and just about everything else which people claim to be rights are not really rights. For example, although I believe that the US should have universal healthcare, I do not believe that somehow universal healthcare is a right unless it was somehow construed as a right to life, and that it is society's (a.k.a. government's) role to ensure that right to life. But it is very rarely structured as a right to life, but proponents always call it a right to universal healthcare. Or environmentalism, while not a right, can be still be seen as a protection of the ability of current and future generations to maintain their lives or their personal pursuits of happiness and leisure.

    Rights are more a contract which exist between people. In the standard schools of liberalism, society exists as a series of unofficial agreements between its members. "If you agree to be a part of our society, you must agree that you will not kill me or any other, as I will not do likewise. And if you do, then you will face some punishment as a break of the social contract." Now, as FDG says, if you do kill everyone on the planet, you have effectively ended your societal contract with them.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  40. #40

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    994
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yes indeed. Which is why I said they don't exist. They are a human/social construction.
    INTP/ILI(Ni) /5w4

    "When my time comes, forget the wrong that I've done.
    Help me leave behind some reasons to be missed."

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •