Great LII's conclusions about what can be believe in
Descartes said "I think, therefore, I am". I will have to look into his philosophy sometime.
What about other LIIs? What did they decide was "certain enough to believe in"? etc? What did they settle on? Or even you, an LII on the forum - what have you settled on?
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
I believe that you should go out more and make an effort to know the world you pretend to reduce to concepts and rules.
[]
| NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
Re: Great LII's conclusions about what can be believe in
I believe Immanuel Kant is considered LII - his Critique of Pure Reason is what I'm most familiar with and is paradigm-shifting, although bloody fricking difficult to parse in any language. To be honest, most of what I know of his philosophy came from listening to The Kant Song over and over until the meaning of the lyrics sunk in.Originally Posted by UDP
I'm not sure if I'm LII - may well not be. But I've talked with LIIs (especially Subterranean over PM) about philosophy and we seem to share similar views. My own is a sort of conglomeration of several: Descartes (trying to throw out all assumptions possible, although Descartes' form was so radical it's pretty much impossible to get anywhere - arguably even "I think therefore I am" is indefensible), Hume (the problem of induction mainly, though he made good points about other topics here and there), Bertrand Russell, and early Wittgenstein (also hard to get through, but specifically I agree with his views on language causing a large proportion of the confusion in philosophy).
Looking back at your question, I'm pretty sure I missed it mostly, though really all of those views contribute some to my views on certainty. Basically I question how possible certainty is. I tend to view nothing as certain, due to the sheer number of filters information has to pass through to get to my consciousness. The senses are imperfect, memory is imperfect, hell even judgement is imperfect because one can never fully escape biases in one's thinking. So I view things in shades of certainty so to speak. Depending on what you mean by "believe," I may believe nothing or lots of things - I try not to trust anything completely, but in some cases it's really best to function as if one believes something - I may not be sure I exist, but it does little good to sit around pondering that forever.
In practice, I try to find ways to behave so as to cover multiple possibilities. That way, either way, things work out pretty well.
Retired from posting and drawing Social Security. E-mail or PM to contact.
I pity your souls
Elro, thanks for that song.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Does anybody else get the sadistic urge to punch mikemex's avatar in the face or is it just me?
The more they see the world the more rules and concepts they'd develop because of it, anyway, so it's probably better that you INTjs are sheltered, your dual does an absolute incredible job of taking care of you anyway. They will also filter in anyand
you might not have gotten that day and help you to see the more 'worldview' that you care about.
Nothing against you mikemex, but again my question still stands:
Does anybody else see mikemex's avatar and want to inflict violence upon it?
You should try to keep a low profile until the Alpha Revolution takes place - then we will have our revenge, comrade.
Sub, I also hate dogs & love cats.
Intuition
hehe okay, I can be patient. For now.
yes i get that urge too. *shrugs* lol
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
I personally think Kant is an example of pathological Ti: trying to base morality on logic the way he did is misguided. Hume's ideas make a lot more sense. I'm a logical positivist; logic, math, and science are the only certain things. I believe in subjectivism and relativity. I believe in socionics too.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
