Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: How are ethical functions nonarbitrary?

  1. #1
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default .

    .
    Last edited by xerx; 10-12-2008 at 06:15 AM.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    they don't build systems. Te doesn't build systems. you're just Ti-ing the problem.

  3. #3
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    In a way, all introverted functions can be said to be "arbitrary" especially from the point of view of outsiders.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  4. #4
    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

    Ethical functions are nonarbitrary because they are not-well-defined. If you don't need to precisely define something you can easily bridge gaps between people in terms of understanding, and thus reach a consensun on the terms you are using. In this sense they are not arbitrary because they speak a language which is naturally common to multiple subjects, as opposed to thinking functions, whose language has to be learnt before being able to communicate effectively in it.

    By the way, it's not right to say that thinking functions are about what it is, and feeling functions are about what it should be. Every judging function deals with how it should be, and every perceiving function deals with how it is.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  5. #5
    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 jxrtes View Post
    To put it more succinctly...
    -What something is = a judgment. Because by defining what it is you are really defining what it isn't
    WHAT!! I am not defining anything just perceiving what it is. (and by contrast, also what it isn't)
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  6. #6
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes
    If logical functions treat an object as a component in an arbitrary system then what sort of systems do ethical functions build?
    Fi would be an arbitrary system of values. Fe wouldn't be a system, and the same with Te - they are dynamic and focused on objects.
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    95
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think you are making things too complicated. At least I don't understand most of what has been said so far, but I wanted to give this example anyway. Take for instance a stone. Logically, a stone is just a stone, it has a history, shape, structure, type, etc. Ethically, a stone can be a souvenir or it could connect you to someone close, have sentimental value, etc. Logical functions look at external information, stuff any human being can figure out and experience in the same way, since it's external to us. Ethical functions look at internal information, stuff a person attaches to something apart from its physical reality. It's an experience of reality that only exists within a person, but it can be expressed through enthusiasm for instance, or emotions in general. That's where the dichotomy is in so far as I understand it. Another example are words. Logical types can be pretty blunt in their choice of words imho, but they just communicate a message. An ethical type seeing something like that would look at how someone responds to those words, what extra effect they might have beyond their message and then go "uh, he shouldn't have said it that way..."

  8. #8
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mm
    I think you are making things too complicated. At least I don't understand most of what has been said so far, but I wanted to give this example anyway. Take for instance a stone. Logically, a stone is just a stone, it has a history, shape, structure, type, etc. Ethically, a stone can be a souvenir or it could connect you to someone close, have sentimental value, etc. Logical functions look at external information, stuff any human being can figure out and experience in the same way, since it's external to us. Ethical functions look at internal information, stuff a person attaches to something apart from its physical reality. It's an experience of reality that only exists within a person, but it can be expressed through enthusiasm for instance, or emotions in general. That's where the dichotomy is in so far as I understand it. Another example are words. Logical types can be pretty blunt in their choice of words imho, but they just communicate a message. An ethical type seeing something like that would look at how someone responds to those words, what extra effect they might have beyond their message and then go "uh, he shouldn't have said it that way..."
    good stuff. I agree that a logical type will offend someone for speaking too much in terms of 'properties', so it comes across as blunt. an ethical type, however, can be just as insensitive, and hurt people more, for the reason you gave: they know what effect certain words will have.
    4w3-5w6-8w7

Posting Permissions

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