# Thread: Ni vs Ne?

1. ## Ni vs. Ne?

I recently had an argument with a friend (an IEI) about whether or not 1+1 always equals 2. My argument was basically for 1+1 to not equal 2, you would need to change the definition of either 1, +, =, or 2 to get a different answer. He basically said that there is always room for doubt and nothing is absolutely true all the time. He then accused me of having too much faith in the system that I have been "forced" into and that I need to expand my mind, but I countered that I didn't need faith because if someone wanted to prove that 1+1=2, they wouldn't have a very hard time, unlike someone who was trying to prove that 1+1 could equal anything else. I'm sure you can assume that we were not in our right minds at the time, but I'm still irritated by what he was trying to force upon me. I kinda had flashbacks of 1984, like he was trying to convince me that 2+2=5.

Anyway, I'm using this as what I would consider an example of an argument against because I'm having trouble differentiating between the two. Feel free to add anything and/or provide your own examples.

2. ## Re: Ni vs. Ne?

Originally Posted by ataronchronon
...if someone wanted to prove that 1+1=2, they wouldn't have a very hard time, unlike someone who was trying to prove that 1+1 could equal anything else.
Depends on your definition of 'to prove'.
-

3. I don't think it's vs .

It's more + with PoLR vs + .

4. "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."
- INTp Uncovered

5. In a sense a feeling function can be seen as one that gives thoughts of living in a world of doubt where nothing is certain. INFp has feeling as a creative function, so there are also likely to take liberties using Fe and to stick with what they discover through it's use (as using it again is strainful).

Doubting premisses is ordinarily a characteristic of function axes that have an introverted function that is also external (Ti/Fe and Si/Ne). Of the two functions the introverted external one is the one that navigates the 'world of uncertainty' from a subjective viewpoint and manages to find certainties within it despite the chaos.

Another thing to notice: accepting Ti and creative Fe are both empowering functions. I interpret this as meaning they seek extremes and test how radical ideas they can come up with... Empowering Ti and empowering Fe need not necessarily agree, as neither of them wants to give up it's supposed position of being in command.

I have always been convinced that feeling functions play a much greater role in philosophy and intellectual matters than is commonly understood.

6. Sigh... I always find it hard to read anything an INTj has written.

7. Originally Posted by KSpin
Sigh... I always find it hard to read anything an INTj has written.
Side notes, which I use frequently, are a bitch. Aren't they? That's how I really talk though.

Originally Posted by Expat
I don't think it's vs .

It's more + with PoLR vs + .
Hmm, I can definitely see where comes into play. I ignored the urge to simply state that he was not being practical, but that would not have proved him wrong.

You wouldn't say has a part in this at all?

8. Originally Posted by Diana
Lack of Te. You could have handed him one object - asked him if he was holding one object - then handed him a second object while asking if it was one object as well, then ask him to tell you how many objects he was now holding in his hand. If he continued to argue, suggest he be sent back to kindergarten.
HAHA

Anyway, I would personally never make that kind of argument. But maybe Ne and Ti together would? I don't know - it does seem more Te vs. Ti to me.

9. I'd say Te vs. Ti.

10. ## Re: Ni vs. Ne?

Originally Posted by ataronchronon
I recently had an argument with a friend (an IEI) about whether or not 1+1 always equals 2. My argument was basically for 1+1 to not equal 2, you would need to change the definition of either 1, +, =, or 2 to get a different answer.
You are perfectly right about that. But most often when I have made your point here it has been in discussions with INTjs or other types from the group of philosophers that I have called "Relativists" or "Subjectivists". They all seem to think from a different perspective than I am -- a non-Te perspective.

Originally Posted by ataronchronon
He basically said that there is always room for doubt and nothing is absolutely true all the time.
And many of those relativists tend to believe that it is possible to be uncritical skeptics like your IEI friend. In my opinion and other Te-philosophers opinion that is a mistake. Such a skepticism is not critical towards itself; it is dogmatic. And we should instead try to be critical skeptics -- that is the only rationally justified kind of skepticism.

Even if it would turn out that we all have been deluded and that 2+2 does not equal 4, there is no room for doubt. None of us can truly doubt that 2+2=4, because our "doubt" doesn't make any sense. We could as well doubt that we know the meanings of the words we use to express that "doubt". We cannot choose to doubt anything we want at will. We have to have a reason to doubt. Otherwise it is nothing but a play with words.

But to focus on words (language) rather than the referents to the words (the world) is what differentiates the Relativists from the group of philosophers that I (and others) have called "Objectivists". Typical representatives of the Objectvist attitude to these problems are Bertrand Russell and Karl Popper, who both might have been ENTjs. At least Popper has an extremely clear Te perspective, but in my opinion so does Russell, even though some socionists believe that he was an ENTp.

11. Sounds like your friend is an idiot who took too many 100 level philosophy courses in college.

12. He was right; 1+1 can be equal also to 1+1, or 3-1

However if generalized you always get 1+1=(n+2)-n so if you cancel the n's, you get 2

13. Or, you're rounding those 1s down. So 1.4 + 1.4 = 2 is wrong, as you would round it up.

Therefore, 1+1 = 3.

14. Perhaps if it was like the natural Limit of 1 + the Limit of 1, but even with limits, it is generally accepted that the Limit of 1 means that it acts like 1 for all general practical purposes.

15. Originally Posted by Thunder
1 is defined as 1, not 1.4, therefore it's still irrelevant.

You could go and redefine the value of 1 as 1.4, but then it's still irrelevant because you're not even talking about the same concept.
You don't need to redefine it, you've just rounded it. Not hard to grasp, really.

16. ## Re: Ni vs. Ne?

Originally Posted by ataronchronon
I recently had an argument with a friend (an IEI) about whether or not 1+1 always equals 2. My argument was basically for 1+1 to not equal 2, you would need to change the definition of either 1, +, =, or 2 to get a different answer. He basically said that there is always room for doubt and nothing is absolutely true all the time. He then accused me of having too much faith in the system that I have been "forced" into and that I need to expand my mind, but I countered that I didn't need faith because if someone wanted to prove that 1+1=2, they wouldn't have a very hard time, unlike someone who was trying to prove that 1+1 could equal anything else. I'm sure you can assume that we were not in our right minds at the time, but I'm still irritated by what he was trying to force upon me. I kinda had flashbacks of 1984, like he was trying to convince me that 2+2=5.

Anyway, I'm using this as what I would consider an example of an argument against because I'm having trouble differentiating between the two. Feel free to add anything and/or provide your own examples.
You mean your friend argued over a trivial matter like this?

17. Originally Posted by Thunder
Originally Posted by KSpin
Originally Posted by Thunder
1 is defined as 1, not 1.4, therefore it's still irrelevant.

You could go and redefine the value of 1 as 1.4, but then it's still irrelevant because you're not even talking about the same concept.
You don't need to redefine it, you've just rounded it. Not hard to grasp, really.
Approximations are also irrelevant.
I'm finding it hard to find a reason why you would say that.

18. No, but you could write that down and it would be correct, in that instance. That's the only way you can get around it, is to miss out information.

19. I thought the point was like Gilly said, a Philosophy 101 type thing. Like, numbers don't mean anything in and of themselves - their meaning is completely reliant on us, and therefore arbitrary. That seems like a Ti argument to me.

20. Originally Posted by Slacker Mom
I thought the point was like Gilly said, a Philosophy 101 type thing. Like, numbers don't mean anything in and of themselves - their meaning is completely reliant on us, and therefore arbitrary. That seems like a Ti argument to me.
Of course. That's why different languages use different, and sometimes the same words to mean different things.

The word "four" and the numeral "4" will have no meaning to tribesmen in Africa if they've never been taught what they mean, but they still have a knowledge of the value that we call four.

21. ...

22. Me and my friend once had a debate about that..It was never settled, actually...

Basically the argument of the opposing side (against me) is that 1 can be called one or it can be called *insert whatever here* and that numerals don't matter because their like human invention or something...

My argument was that even if 1 wasn't called 1 it would still represent 1.. Say you had this II ... now you add this II.. Together it's II II ...which is IIII.. and no matter what, when II and II is put together, it will be IIII...

He never understood, and instead of trying to prove me wrong, just descended deeper into his angstfest,,, I felt smart >_>

23. Even if you were to debate that the 1 was ment to be ordinal, ordinal addition is not computable since the sets are always disjointed.

24. Originally Posted by Kioshi
"+" is also used to denote single group operations that have a commutative property and "*" to denote single group operations that do not have a commutative property. "1" or "e" is used to denote the identity for "*". "0" is used to denote the identity for "+". Beyond this I can use any symbol to represent any element in my set. There is no convention that says "1+1" must equal "2".
You have an issue with decimal notation?

25. This is all completely meaningless. Kioshi, the fact that numbers are "symbols" has nothing to do with the question at hand. The fact that that an inherent value is IMPLIED is pretty fucking obvious, and there's no other way of getting around it. Stop trying to look smart.

26. Originally Posted by Gilly
This is all completely meaningless. Kioshi, the fact that numbers are "symbols" has nothing to do with the question at hand. The fact that that an inherent value is IMPLIED is pretty fucking obvious, and there's no other way of getting around it. Stop trying to look smart.
THANK YOU

27. Ok, well, at least you understand that you're a complete quack.

28. Even Bertrand Russell couldn't prove 1+1=2. So why do we try it?

It's an axiom and that's what it always stays.

But that's not a problem, it has proven it's use until now.

29. Originally Posted by Kioshi
I notice the lack of decimal notation in naming the elements of the socion. Why do you suppose this is? Do you think they had an issue with decimal notation?
Group theory is more "convenient" for talking about the socion than about 1+1=2. You're abstracting out essential properties. Ever heard of the Peano postulates?

30. This thread is kind of funny, in a sick, twisted way.

31. God, more like depressing...

32. edit.

33. Addition is an arithmetical operation.

34. I wasn't aware that we were referring to any other kind.

35. Well, in arithmetic addition, 1+1=2, no matter what, given the assumed arithmetic definitions and numerical values of all of those symbols.

36. Actually I thought of a way in which 1 + 1 != 2, but it requires a departure from integers. 1 Thing A + 1 Thing B = 1 Super Combined Thing AB!

37. So 1+1=1?

Dude.

38. Originally Posted by Elro
So 1+1=1?

Dude.
That is generally how it is when making love too. :wink:

39. Originally Posted by Thunder
Originally Posted by Logos
Originally Posted by Elro
So 1+1=1?

Dude.
That is generally how it is when making love too. :wink:

Tell us more!
Sure, and I'll even do it in song:
I sit looking 'round
I look at my face in the the mirror
I know I'm worth nothing without you
In life one and one don't make two
One and one make one
And I'm looking for that free ride to me
I'm looking for you

I'd gladly lose me to find you
I'd gladly give up all I got
To catch you I'm gonna run and never stop

I'd pay any price just to win you
Surrender my good life for bad
To find you I'm gonna drown an unsung man

I'd call that a bargain
The best I ever had
The best I ever had

40. 1+1=2 is an axiom.

You can't prove it, because there's nothing of total certainty on which it is build upon.

Axioms are taken for granted. If one will be proven wrong, everything else collapses.

#### Posting Permissions

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