How are ethical functions nonarbitrary?

[xerx]

.

[aestrivex]

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

[Expat]

In a way, all introverted functions can be said to be "arbitrary" especially from the point of view of outsiders.

[FDG]

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.

[FDG]

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)

[strrrng]

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.

[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..."

[strrrng]

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.