Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 142

Thread: Alpha Philosophy & Religion

  1. #1
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Alpha Philosophy & Religion

    What philosophies, philosophers, religions, and religious founders contained substantial elements of , , , and ? It seems that Betas generally claim the religious, and that Gamma will often claim the philosophers and scientists. But where does that leave Alpha?
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  2. #2
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,626
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Gamma will often claim the philosophers and scientists
    Really? There are lots of Alpha philosophers and scientists.

  3. #3
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,626
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think transhumanism is kind of Alpha.

  4. #4
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,626
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Actually, never mind, it's Delta.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    Gamma will often claim the philosophers and scientists
    Really? There are lots of Alpha philosophers and scientists.
    I never said that they are not, but think back to when scientists' types are on the chopping block, how often the overrated "Objectivist vs. Subjectivist" dichotomy comes into play often in a game of claims between Alpha and Gamma.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  6. #6
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,626
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That's just Phaedrus...

  7. #7
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    That's just Phaedrus...
    True enough, but the question still remains: who are the religious and philosophical Alphas?
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  8. #8
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,626
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Descartes
    Kant
    Hume
    Oscar Wilde
    Dr. Seuss
    Buddha/Buddhism

    I think Judaism is the best example of FeSi in religion/culture, and Thoreau & transcendentalism in philosophy.

  9. #9
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    Descartes
    Kant
    Hume
    Oscar Wilde
    Dr. Seuss
    Buddha/Buddhism

    I think Judaism is the best example of FeSi in religion/culture, and Thoreau & transcendentalism in philosophy.
    I love the inclusion of Dr. Seuss. But, I have heard Judaism described as a Beta religion: Aristocratic (chosen people), with strict guidelines in terms of Kosher laws (), the element of Adonai and the general system of the theology.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  10. #10
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,626
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    Descartes
    Kant
    Hume
    Oscar Wilde
    Dr. Seuss
    Buddha/Buddhism

    I think Judaism is the best example of FeSi in religion/culture, and Thoreau & transcendentalism in philosophy.
    I love the inclusion of Dr. Seuss. But, I have heard Judaism described as a Beta religion: Aristocratic (chosen people), with strict guidelines in terms of Kosher laws (), the element of Adonai and the general system of the theology.
    How is Kosher Se? Also, the "chosen people" thing is not played up all that much in practice, although I agree it sounds Aristocratic. Jewish culture is definitely Alpha, I'm not as sure about the religious beliefs. But then again, most so-called Jews aren't religious anyway. It doesn't have the missionary imposing-one's-beliefs-on-other-people aspect like Christianity does, and I think the historical depiction of the Jewish people as a kind of underdog could also point away from valued Se. Actually, a comparison to Christianity (which is of course Beta) makes Judaism's Alpha aspects stand out.

  11. #11
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    Descartes
    Kant
    Hume
    Oscar Wilde
    Dr. Seuss
    Buddha/Buddhism

    I think Judaism is the best example of FeSi in religion/culture, and Thoreau & transcendentalism in philosophy.
    I love the inclusion of Dr. Seuss. But, I have heard Judaism described as a Beta religion: Aristocratic (chosen people), with strict guidelines in terms of Kosher laws (), the element of Adonai and the general system of the theology.
    How is Kosher Se? Also, the "chosen people" thing is not played up all that much in practice, although I agree it sounds Aristocratic. Jewish culture is definitely Alpha, I'm not as sure about the religious beliefs. But then again, most so-called Jews aren't religious anyway. It doesn't have the missionary imposing-one's-beliefs-on-other-people aspect like Christianity does, and I think the historical depiction of the Jewish people as a kind of underdog could also point away from valued Se. Actually, a comparison to Christianity (which is of course Beta) makes Judaism's Alpha aspects stand out.
    I knew the basic argument for Judaism as Beta, but it is good to actually here the argument for Judaism as Alpha. But I am technically a Presbyterian ("the Frozen Chosen") and that whole predestination thing which is greatly downplayed as well and has led to some interesting twists of theology in ways that I am not sure that Calvin intended.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  12. #12
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,626
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Theology is f'd up.

  13. #13

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

    Default

    When I compare myself with my father (whom I have typed as INTj) some clear differences in our attitudes towards science, religion, and philosophy emerge.

    None of us is religious in the strict sense of the word. We both share some sort of general skepticism based on some sort of scientific attitude, probably since we are both NTs, but I am much more aggressively against religion in general than he is. I am clearly pro-science and anti-religion, whereas his attitude is more "postmodernist" in the sense that he thinks in terms of different "forms of knowledge" etc. He does not require (at least not as much as I do) that claims to truth can be tested empirically by the generally accepted methods of science, which means that he has a much more relativistic attitude than I have.

    My view is that there is only one form of science (Science) and that we should use the same method(s) to test our hypothesis. Differences in perspectives or positions of outlook are irrelevant, and I think we should try to eliminate misunderstandings and differences in opinions if possible. False beliefs should be criticized and abandoned, and no system, theory, or belief is immune to critique.

    Our different general life attitudes are reflected in the religions we identify, or symphathize, most with (even though we don't really believe in them). He identifies most with Buddhism, whereas I identify most with Taoism -- J versus P.

    The most strikingly clear difference (and also the most interesting in my opinion) between my father and me is our incompatible attitudes to philosophy. He has always been interested in various philosophers and thinkers in the Continental tradition, especially Martin Buber, Abraham Maslow, and others that have influenced the existentialist or humanistic psychology. He is strongly opposed to various attempts to reduce humans to objects ("machines"), to all forms of behaviorism, and at least slightly opposed to medical treatments of psychiatric disorders, since such treatments are all based on the same externalist perspective on human beings, where we are reduced to objects without intentions and free will.

    Like Kant's, my father's perspective is clearly subjectivist in the sense that he wants to start with the subject, what it is like for us as humans to exist in the world. The focus is on Meaning, on how we "construct" the "world" to make sense to us through our ways of thinking, our language.

    In contrast, I have almost no problem at all with seeing humans as objects, as "machines" in a more or less deterministic world or a world that is ruled by chance, anyway a world where our intentions as Subjects become rather irrelevant, at least in a scientific explanation of events. Here we see a basic difference between him and me. I think in terms of events that just "happen" to objects (and we as humans belong to the group of objects), whereas he thinks in terms of actions initiated by subjects. I don't believe in the existence of a free will, he does (or at least wants to).

    My focus is not on Meaning, my focus is on Truth (objective truth, since I am strongly opposed to the idea that there can be many different truths in different contexts, life forms, cultures, etc.). As I see it, the basic idea of all forms of philosophy or science worth my interest is the seek for truth (knowledge). I want to know how it really is, I want to discover the (objective and existing in itself with or without our knowing it) structure of the universe, and I have always been rather puzzled by the fact that there are other "philosophers" in the Continental tradition who don't seem to be very interested in that. It seems as though both traditions -- the Continental emanating from Kant and the Analytic (empiricist) emanating from Hume -- see the works done by the other as rather pointless, trivial, and missing the point.

    By the way, David Hume is not Alpha. He is clearly Gamma. And I have my slight doubts about Descartes too. I am not sure that he was an INTj, but I have no strong arguments for another type other than that his perspective does seem rather different from Kant's and more in line with how I myself see it, even though I am not a dualist.

    This is actually something worth thinking about. According to Karl Groos, our philosophical outlooks are the logical consequences of the structure of our personality. He mentions Descartes as an example of a philosopher that is "doomed" to become a dualist, working with opposites, like in the various mythologies that are contrasting light with darkness, chaos and cosmos, good and evil, etc. Descartes would prefer the ultimate explanation of the world to be dualistic.

    In contrast to Descartes's dualism, Spinoza's system is an example of a monistic solution to the fundamental philosophical problems. Plato is also a monist, and all the modern scientific "solutions" to the body-mind-problem, where everything is seen as manifestations of the one and the same fundamental substance -- usully matter or energy or something like that (for example "strings") -- are also monistic frameworks.

    If that is true, maybe Descartes was an INTj after all. Anyway, I am very sure that I am myself a monist. I feel more at home with Plato's kind of philosophy than with Kant's. I definitely prefer to reduce everything to one single substance than to two fundamental substances. I don't know why I want the world to be monistic, but that's the way I like it to be.

  14. #14
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    Theology is f'd up.
    Which is why it needs more Ti to clean up the system.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  15. #15
    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 Phaedrus
    By the way, David Hume is not Alpha. He is clearly Gamma.
    How so? I'm not convinced he's Alpha, but I'm not sure why he would be Gamma, either.
    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

  16. #16

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elro
    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    By the way, David Hume is not Alpha. He is clearly Gamma.
    How so? I'm not convinced he's Alpha, but I'm not sure why he would be Gamma, either.
    What do you associate with David Hume? What do you associate with Gamma?

    On of the most central aspects of Hume's philosophy is his empiricism, and empiricism in itself is much more Gamma than Alpha. Empiricism is .

    Hume questions everything, and asks for empiricial evidence of our beliefs. His perspective is externalist in the sense I described in my previous post. He is looking at humans from a natural science, Te-based, perspective as objects.

    Compare Hume's perspective with Kant's, and you'll see the difference. Kant does not view humans as objects, he sees them as agents. My hypothesis is that this is one of the most central and fundamental differences between Te and Ti philosophies. (One of the biggest problems with the hypothesis is Albert Einstein, who had a clearly accentuated externalist perspective, despite the fact that he is usually type as ENTp.)

    Hume also has a strongly accentuated critical attitude, and Gamma is much more critical than Alpha.

    Does that suffice to convince you? Please comment and/or ask more questions if you want.

  17. #17
    Elro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    2,796
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I wasn't incredibly convinced before, and your points seem reasonable. But why Ne, Si < Ni, Se? Or are you just going by overall impression Gamma>Delta?
    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

  18. #18
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Quote Originally Posted by Elro
    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    By the way, David Hume is not Alpha. He is clearly Gamma.
    How so? I'm not convinced he's Alpha, but I'm not sure why he would be Gamma, either.
    What do you associate with David Hume? What do you associate with Gamma?

    On of the most central aspects of Hume's philosophy is his empiricism, and empiricism in itself is much more Gamma than Alpha. Empiricism is .

    Hume questions everything, and asks for empiricial evidence of our beliefs. His perspective is externalist in the sense I described in my previous post. He is looking at humans from a natural science, Te-based, perspective as objects.

    Compare Hume's perspective with Kant's, and you'll see the difference. Kant does not view humans as objects, he sees them as agents. My hypothesis is that this is one of the most central and fundamental differences between Te and Ti philosophies. (One of the biggest problems with the hypothesis is Albert Einstein, who had a clearly accentuated externalist perspective, despite the fact that he is usually type as ENTp.)

    Hume also has a strongly accentuated critical attitude, and Gamma is much more critical than Alpha.

    Does that suffice to convince you? Please comment and/or ask more questions if you want.
    Sorry, but by definition Ti and Te both look at the world almost completely as objects.

    ETA: Interestingly enough, thehotelambush, I just remembered that supposedly one of the religious fads that is becoming popular on the West Coast (especially Hollywood) is something akin to Judaic Buddhism.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  19. #19
    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 Logos
    Sorry, but by definition Ti and Te both look at the world almost completely as objects.
    What came to mind when he said that were "objects" and "fields" (not agents, so perhaps I mistranslated):

    http://socionics.us/theory/information.shtml
    where
    Te=external dynamics of objects
    and
    Ti=internal statics of fields

    In that context it made some sense, though I'm still just starting to study that kind of stuff.
    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

  20. #20

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elro
    I wasn't incredibly convinced before, and your points seem reasonable. But why Ne, Si < Ni, Se? Or are you just going by overall impression Gamma>Delta?
    I haven't really investigated Hume's type that much, but I think Expat and/or some others on this forum have suggested INTp in the past.

  21. #21

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Sorry, but by definition Ti and Te both look at the world almost completely as objects.
    By which definition?

  22. #22
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,725
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee
    Hippism
    grateful dead-ism. doses, man, doses =*D

    ILE

    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

  23. #23
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Sorry, but by definition Ti and Te both look at the world almost completely as objects.
    By which definition?
    I concede my point, but I do not think that most of your post was very relevant to what I was originally asking for: philosophies, philosophers, religions, and religious founders/theologians who are Alphas.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  24. #24
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee
    Why do so, fire in the hole!
    Why do so what?
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  25. #25
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Phaedrus: your point on Buddhism seems rather odd to me. Although more rigid and guide-line oriented than the live-and-just-live attitude of traditional Taoism, a correlation cannot be made between preference of one over the other and the J/P dichotomy, as Buddhism is still rather P in nature, most especially when contrasted to many other major religions and general theologies, such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  26. #26

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic
    Phaedrus: your point on Buddhism seems rather odd to me.
    I didn't make a point on Buddhism, at least not a strong one.

    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic
    Although more rigid and guide-line oriented than the live-and-just-live attitude of traditional Taoism, a correlation cannot be made between preference of one over the other and the J/P dichotomy, as Buddhism is still rather P in nature, most especially when contrasted to many other major religions and general theologies, such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
    We agree on this. My point was that if Buddhism and Taoism were the only possible choices, an INTj would prefer Buddhism, and an INTp would prefer Taoism.

  27. #27
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    Gamma will often claim the philosophers and scientists
    Really? There are lots of Alpha philosophers and scientists.
    I never said that they are not, but think back to when scientists' types are on the chopping block, how often the overrated "Objectivist vs. Subjectivist" dichotomy comes into play often in a game of claims between Alpha and Gamma.
    That dichotomy means exactly - explicitly - the Ti-Fe/Te-Fi divide, hence the better known name "merry/serious", and therefore it is no more "overrated" than the concept that Alpha is Ti and Gamma is Te. Reinin and Augusta's original writings on that make very clear that that is what they meant. Phaedrus's personal preference for calling it objectvist vs subjectivist is what is "overrated" imo, and the cause of confusion.

    That dichotomy means Ti-Fe vs Te-Fi. No more, no less. As explicitly described by Reinin and Augusta; it's not my interpretation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Compare Hume's perspective with Kant's, and you'll see the difference. Kant does not view humans as objects, he sees them as agents. My hypothesis is that this is one of the most central and fundamental differences between Te and Ti philosophies. (One of the biggest problems with the hypothesis is Albert Einstein, who had a clearly accentuated externalist perspective, despite the fact that he is usually type as ENTp.)

    Hume also has a strongly accentuated critical attitude, and Gamma is much more critical than Alpha.

    Does that suffice to convince you? Please comment and/or ask more questions if you want.
    I have a question -- what does that hypothesis have to do with Te and Ti? Why is the "humans-as-agents" a Ti thing, and the "humans-as-objects" a Te thing?
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  28. #28
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    Gamma will often claim the philosophers and scientists
    Really? There are lots of Alpha philosophers and scientists.
    I never said that they are not, but think back to when scientists' types are on the chopping block, how often the overrated "Objectivist vs. Subjectivist" dichotomy comes into play often in a game of claims between Alpha and Gamma.
    That dichotomy means exactly - explicitly - the Ti-Fe/Te-Fi divide, hence the better known name "merry/serious", and therefore it is no more "overrated" than the concept that Alpha is Ti and Gamma is Te. Reinin and Augusta's original writings on that make very clear that that is what they meant. Phaedrus's personal preference for calling it objectvist vs subjectivist is what is "overrated" imo, and the cause of confusion.

    That dichotomy means Ti-Fe vs Te-Fi. No more, no less. As explicitly described by Reinin and Augusta; it's not my interpretation.
    And I indeed meant overrated in the "Phaedrus never shuts up about it" sense. So it is good to know that we are in agreement about this.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  29. #29
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    And I indeed meant overrated in the "Phaedrus never shuts up about it" sense. So it is good to know that we are in agreement about this.
    I think Phaedrus goes about it in what to me is a roundabout way. For instance, I agree that Kant was Ti and Hume was Te. But I think the case for that has no need for things like "humans as agents or objects" things, or reference to objectivist or subjectivist philosophies, except if to mean precisely Te and Ti, in which case to use those terms is merely confusing.

    As for Einstein not being Ti, what is then a "externalist perspective" that he supposedly had? I have no idea what he means by that.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  30. #30
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    And I indeed meant overrated in the "Phaedrus never shuts up about it" sense. So it is good to know that we are in agreement about this.
    I think Phaedrus goes about it in what to me is a roundabout way. For instance, I agree that Kant was Ti and Hume was Te. But I think the case for that has no need for things like "humans as agents or objects" things, or reference to objectivist or subjectivist philosophies, except if to mean precisely Te and Ti, in which case to use those terms is merely confusing.

    As for Einstein not being Ti, what is then a "externalist perspective" that he supposedly had? I have no idea what he means by that.
    Again we are in agreement; Phaedrus could have easily cut the fat from what he wrote. But the fact that many modern philosophers are split between those who prefer to trace their philosophic lineage to either Hume or Kant is an indication of the Te/Ti divide as well. The question though is who and what falls into this specified divide apart from Hume and Kant into the Alpha sphere of thought. Any ancient or medieval philosophers? Any modern or ancient religions?
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  31. #31
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm not that much into philosophy, which is itself significant. I think philosophy is much more a Ti than Te concept. Take Hume; he was perhaps more a historian than a pure philosopher, like Kant. And there are also Fi philosiphers.

    I guess Hegel is also Ti, but not sure whether Alpha or Beta.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  32. #32
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    I'm not that much into philosophy, which is itself significant. I think philosophy is much more a Ti than Te concept. Take Hume; he was perhaps more a historian than a pure philosopher, like Kant. And there are also Fi philosiphers.

    I guess Hegel is also Ti, but not sure whether Alpha or Beta.
    Why is that significant? You are just a single person within a single type? But I do agree that there is certainly a large component to philosophy and religion. But again, this is more of a thread for trying to determine and accumulate Alpha ones.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  33. #33

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    I have a question -- what does that hypothesis have to do with Te and Ti? Why is the "humans-as-agents" a Ti thing, and the "humans-as-objects" a Te thing?
    I'm not sure. But that seems to be the case. It's an observation of a general pattern that seems to exist. And that pattern makes some sense in view of the fact that Te is focused on what can be measured, on empirical facts, whereas Ti view things from the other end, from the subject's (that is the agent's) perspective. That is also in line with how Jung understood the difference between Te and Ti.

  34. #34

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    And I indeed meant overrated in the "Phaedrus never shuts up about it" sense. So it is good to know that we are in agreement about this.
    I think Phaedrus goes about it in what to me is a roundabout way. For instance, I agree that Kant was Ti and Hume was Te. But I think the case for that has no need for things like "humans as agents or objects" things, or reference to objectivist or subjectivist philosophies, except if to mean precisely Te and Ti, in which case to use those terms is merely confusing.
    I don't understand why this is so confusing to people, since almost everything I say on the matter is the same as how the difference between Subjectivists and Objectivists (which of course is the difference between a Ti and a Te perspective) is understood in Socionics. I have only taken that one step further, a step that is perfectly in line with Socionics and also in line with empirical observations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    As for Einstein not being Ti, what is then a "externalist perspective" that he supposedly had? I have no idea what he means by that.
    Einstein was a determinist. He viewed the universe as one static whole, in which everything that happens is seen from a position that has been called "the view from nowhere". The universe is static because nothing really happens. Every event can be described as a point in space-time, and space-time is just as static as Parmenides's unchanging whole. Such a perspective is objectivist in the sense that it sees any local perspective as irrelevant. Nothing is relative in such a perspective (that Einstein's theory is sometimes called The Theory of Relativity is totally misleading), and humans are seen as objects, just like any other object (consisting of matter (= energy)) in the universe.

  35. #35
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Unitarian Universalism (Alpha/Delta)

    And to put on the Alpha chopping block:
    - Karl Marx
    - Moses Maimonides
    - Philo Judaeus/Alexandria
    - Baruch Spinoza
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  36. #36

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    I guess Hegel is also Ti, but not sure whether Alpha or Beta.
    I definitely agree with you here. There is no way Hegel could be Te. Almost every Te philosopher (I usually mention Russell and Popper as typical examples of Te philosophers) is strongly opposed to Hegel, and I agree with them. Hegel is nothing but a charlatan, and almost everything he has said in philosophical matters is either false or nonsense. (By stating that truth I am not intending to criticize Ti philosophy in general. It's just that Hegel is probably the best example of a how a total misuse of Ti can result in one of the worst kind of bullshit that has ever been produced.)

  37. #37
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    I guess Hegel is also Ti, but not sure whether Alpha or Beta.
    I definitely agree with you here. There is no way Hegel could be Te. Almost every Te philosopher (I usually mention Russell and Popper as typical examples of Te philosophers) is strongly opposed to Hegel, and I agree with them. Hegel is nothing but a charlatan, and almost everything he has said in philosophical matters is either false or nonsense. (By stating that truth I am not intending to criticize Ti philosophy in general. It's just that Hegel is probably the best example of a how a total misuse of Ti can result in one of the worst kind of bullshit that has ever been produced.)
    My guess is that Hegel is probably Beta anyway, because even Marx could not help but trash-talk Hegel.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  38. #38
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Einstein was a determinist. He viewed the universe as one static whole, in which everything that happens is seen from a position that has been called "the view from nowhere". The universe is static because nothing really happens. Every event can be described as a point in space-time, and space-time is just as static as Parmenides's unchanging whole. Such a perspective is objectivist in the sense that it sees any local perspective as irrelevant. Nothing is relative in such a perspective (that Einstein's theory is sometimes called The Theory of Relativity is totally misleading), and humans are seen as objects, just like any other object (consisting of matter (= energy)) in the universe.
    It may be objectivist according to this definition, or externalist, or view humans as objects, etc.

    Despite all this, what you described of Einstein's views is totally consistent with being a Ti type. His final views don't matter as much as how he got there. This is science, not philosophy. What you described is one Ti viewpoint; that he chose to stick to this viewpoint in face of others that were being proposed in face of still fuzzy evidence is the sign of Ti, not the viewpoint itself.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  39. #39
    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 Expat
    I have a question -- what does that hypothesis have to do with Te and Ti? Why is the "humans-as-agents" a Ti thing, and the "humans-as-objects" a Te thing?
    Probably, because Te is external-dynamic, and Ti is internal-static. The only way Te has to study an human is to treat it as an object.

    Hegel, in my opinion, was very not a thinking type. Probably ENFj.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  40. #40

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    The only way Te has to study an human is to treat it as an object.
    Basically that's the essence of it, I think. At least it is very natural for Te to see everything it focuses on as an object to be scrutinized and analyzed from a non-emotional, detached, impersonal, objective view point. That is clearly different from Ti, at least from how Jung describes the nature of introverted thinking.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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