So me and Niffweed at a long debate about something on Aim

[Hitta]

I even came to the conclusion after this debate that the people here would agree with me(which would be unique). The reason being is this really requires a small amount of common sense AND a small amount of analytical logic to understand. I've came to the conclusion that Niffweed is just a bit slow. But anyways, here it goes.

I was debating with him about Fi. I said that Fi was judgement, and he said no. By judgement I proceeded by say that love was a judgement, or an ethical evaluation of a person. This means that when you love someone you make a evaluation of that person, and if things come out to your standards you love the things about that person. Love is an ethical evaluation. To me this is blatantly obvious. Love is a subjective feeling about someone based on something(you can love people for different reasons). There is always a reason for loving someone(which is the connection between Ti and Fi). This has nothing to do with what I am asking though. I'm just asking for your opinion on love; is it an ethical evaluation. I say that love is a judgement or an ethical evaluation and he said no. I don't see what else love could be except a subjective realization about someone.

[XoX]

what exactly is the point of this thread? niffweed or Fi or love or xyz?

[Hitta]

love, I say that love is an ethical subjective judgement, meaning that there has to be a reason that you love someone, he says otherwise.

[cracka]

what exactly is the point of this thread? niffweed or Fi or love or xyz?

80% to be a prick to Niff, and 15% to actually ask about love and Fi... then the other 5% is to be an ass to anyone who doesn't share his views of all the above.

[aestrivex]

NiffweedXVII (11:40:14 AM): regardless, simply "liking" something is not necessarily Fi
NiffweedXVII (11:40:27 AM): it can be
NiffweedXVII (11:40:36 AM): but that kind of an explanation of Fi is overall too simple
NiffweedXVII (11:40:46 AM): liking cheese
NiffweedXVII (11:40:48 AM): for example
NiffweedXVII (11:40:50 AM): nothing to do with Fi
anarchyintheus7 (11:40:59 AM): depends on what you mean by liking
NiffweedXVII (11:41:03 AM): umm
NiffweedXVII (11:41:05 AM): not precisely
NiffweedXVII (11:41:13 AM): it depends what the object being liked is
NiffweedXVII (11:41:19 AM): and what context it is understood in by the individual
NiffweedXVII (11:41:27 AM): in essence
NiffweedXVII (11:41:47 AM): it depends what aspect of reality that object lies in and what the frame of reference is to the subject
NiffweedXVII (11:41:56 AM): the "liking" part
NiffweedXVII (11:42:07 AM): is something that i would be loath to actually associate with any particular information element
NiffweedXVII (11:42:21 AM): rather the surrounding environment is important
anarchyintheus7 (11:42:40 AM): but T and F are connected
anarchyintheus7 (11:42:53 AM): you can't use them individually
NiffweedXVII (11:42:56 AM): what
NiffweedXVII (11:43:00 AM): i dont understand where you get that from
anarchyintheus7 (11:43:28 AM): ok i just kind of see it intuitively... but ill give it a shot to explain it
anarchyintheus7 (11:43:59 AM): like you said F is the hiddens
NiffweedXVII (11:44:05 AM): not completely
NiffweedXVII (11:44:09 AM): thats an oversimplification
NiffweedXVII (11:44:12 AM): ethics is internal
NiffweedXVII (11:44:19 AM): dont try to make it anything more specific
anarchyintheus7 (11:44:27 AM): ok
anarchyintheus7 (11:44:47 AM): ethics has to be based on logic
NiffweedXVII (11:44:51 AM): no it doesnt
NiffweedXVII (11:44:54 AM): what the hell does that mean
anarchyintheus7 (11:45:20 AM): its impossible to make an internal ethics ideology without using objective consideration
NiffweedXVII (11:45:26 AM): no that isnt true
NiffweedXVII (11:45:35 AM): that flies in the face of everything related to socionics
anarchyintheus7 (11:45:46 AM): how do you make an ethical decision based on nothing then?
NiffweedXVII (11:45:57 AM): its not based on nothing
NiffweedXVII (11:46:07 AM): its based on ethical stimuli
NiffweedXVII (11:46:12 AM): in terms of Fi
NiffweedXVII (11:46:22 AM): static-ish connections to the outside environment
NiffweedXVII (11:46:26 AM): now
anarchyintheus7 (11:46:28 AM): like
NiffweedXVII (11:46:31 AM): what is important about this
NiffweedXVII (11:46:37 AM): is that Fi cannot exist without Te
anarchyintheus7 (11:46:37 AM): making a subjective decision
anarchyintheus7 (11:46:42 AM): thats right
NiffweedXVII (11:46:43 AM): because Te is an aspect of reality
anarchyintheus7 (11:46:49 AM): can't exist without Ti either
anarchyintheus7 (11:46:55 AM): im trying to prove that
NiffweedXVII (11:46:57 AM): and not because they are inherently connected in terms of information type
anarchyintheus7 (11:46:59 AM): let me finish
NiffweedXVII (11:47:01 AM): ok
anarchyintheus7 (11:47:18 AM): you said earlier that an aspect of Fi could be likes and dislikes
NiffweedXVII (11:47:26 AM): no
anarchyintheus7 (11:47:27 AM): not fully
NiffweedXVII (11:47:29 AM): thats not what i said
anarchyintheus7 (11:47:30 AM): but an aspect
NiffweedXVII (11:47:35 AM): in certain contexts
anarchyintheus7 (11:47:38 AM): yes
NiffweedXVII (11:47:46 AM): in people contexts mostly
NiffweedXVII (11:48:00 AM): not completely actually
NiffweedXVII (11:48:03 AM): but you can work with that
anarchyintheus7 (11:48:11 AM): when people make subjective ethical judgements they have to base it on logical information
NiffweedXVII (11:48:17 AM): umm
NiffweedXVII (11:48:17 AM): no
anarchyintheus7 (11:48:20 AM): yes
NiffweedXVII (11:48:20 AM): thats flatly wrong
NiffweedXVII (11:48:26 AM): let me explain my side of this
anarchyintheus7 (11:48:28 AM): give me an example then
NiffweedXVII (11:48:31 AM): which i think will get rid of yours
NiffweedXVII (11:48:48 AM): basically Te and Fi are diametrically opposed in terms of the overall focus
anarchyintheus7 (11:48:57 AM): wait
anarchyintheus7 (11:49:03 AM): give me an example of Fi without logic
NiffweedXVII (11:49:04 AM): but an individual has to be able to detect that kind of information in some fashion
NiffweedXVII (11:49:06 AM): wait
NiffweedXVII (11:49:08 AM): let me explain this my way
NiffweedXVII (11:49:28 AM): the example is of types with weak Se
NiffweedXVII (11:49:35 AM): say ILEs
NiffweedXVII (11:49:40 AM): who by jung's model have no Se at all
NiffweedXVII (11:49:46 AM): if they really had no Se
NiffweedXVII (11:50:05 AM): they would not be able to make any perceptions of their outside environment

[aestrivex]

anarchyintheus7 (11:50:12 AM): exactly
NiffweedXVII (11:50:12 AM): and they would consequently be running into walls
anarchyintheus7 (11:50:17 AM): we're on the same page now
NiffweedXVII (11:50:17 AM): because they could see nothing
anarchyintheus7 (11:50:21 AM): exactly
NiffweedXVII (11:50:25 AM): obviously this is absurd
NiffweedXVII (11:50:30 AM): so all types must have Se in some fashion
NiffweedXVII (11:50:47 AM): but that in and of itself doesnt mean that Se has to be related to Ni
NiffweedXVII (11:51:04 AM): those two information aspects deal with very different kinds of information
NiffweedXVII (11:51:13 AM): according to socionics, diametrically opposed information
NiffweedXVII (11:51:19 AM): which has nothing to do with each other
anarchyintheus7 (11:51:21 AM): they are related though
NiffweedXVII (11:51:29 AM): well they are related in that they are unrelated
NiffweedXVII (11:51:39 AM): now about Fi
NiffweedXVII (11:51:47 AM): an Fi person has to be able to use other functions
anarchyintheus7 (11:51:49 AM): if i were to say that i love my girlfriend
NiffweedXVII (11:51:52 AM): including logical functinos
anarchyintheus7 (11:51:56 AM): would you say that is an example of Fi?
NiffweedXVII (11:52:00 AM): umm
NiffweedXVII (11:52:03 AM): no because its too vauge
NiffweedXVII (11:52:04 AM): vague
anarchyintheus7 (11:52:07 AM): k
anarchyintheus7 (11:52:12 AM): give me an example of Fi
anarchyintheus7 (11:52:16 AM): i want to prove something to you
NiffweedXVII (11:52:31 AM): umm
NiffweedXVII (11:52:52 AM): i met a girl with whom i fostered a deep and personal connection based upon mutual trust and respect
NiffweedXVII (11:52:56 AM): thats closer
anarchyintheus7 (11:53:14 AM): ok lets consider that an ethical ideology
NiffweedXVII (11:53:21 AM): all right
anarchyintheus7 (11:53:53 AM): is the determination that you are in love consider Fi to you?
NiffweedXVII (11:54:11 AM): in this Fi kind of scenario you mean?
anarchyintheus7 (11:54:17 AM): yea
NiffweedXVII (11:54:20 AM): then i guess so
anarchyintheus7 (11:54:53 AM): you have to base that on logical ideologies....... to actually say you love something or like something you actually have to have objective ideals about the love
anarchyintheus7 (11:55:02 AM): you can't just say
NiffweedXVII (11:55:04 AM): uhh
anarchyintheus7 (11:55:04 AM): i love this person
NiffweedXVII (11:55:12 AM): what do you mean by "objetive ideals"
NiffweedXVII (11:55:13 AM): about love
anarchyintheus7 (11:55:37 AM): there actually has to be a reason you love that person
NiffweedXVII (11:55:46 AM): i dont understand
NiffweedXVII (11:55:56 AM): like
anarchyintheus7 (11:56:01 AM): i love this person because they make me feel happy
NiffweedXVII (11:56:08 AM): umm
anarchyintheus7 (11:56:11 AM): thats a dual statement
NiffweedXVII (11:56:20 AM): there doesnt have to be such a reason like that
NiffweedXVII (11:56:25 AM): but regardless
NiffweedXVII (11:56:32 AM): that doesnt have anything to do with logic
anarchyintheus7 (11:56:33 AM): you have to have a reason to show ethics
anarchyintheus7 (11:56:41 AM): or to feel ethics
NiffweedXVII (11:56:45 AM): ehh
NiffweedXVII (11:56:54 AM): the thing is that "you make me feel happy"
NiffweedXVII (11:57:01 AM): is kind of universal in its application
NiffweedXVII (11:57:12 AM): its also an ethical statement
NiffweedXVII (11:57:18 AM): it hasnt got anything to do with logic
anarchyintheus7 (11:57:24 AM): what im trying to say is, that to make a subjective ethical though, it actually has to be based on logic
NiffweedXVII (11:57:28 AM): no
NiffweedXVII (11:57:35 AM): i dont understand where you come up with that
NiffweedXVII (11:57:36 AM): at all
anarchyintheus7 (11:57:49 AM): theres a reason for everything
anarchyintheus7 (11:57:57 AM): there has to be a reason that the person loves the other person
anarchyintheus7 (11:58:04 AM): that reason is Ti
NiffweedXVII (11:58:11 AM): lets say that there has to be some reason
NiffweedXVII (11:58:15 AM): idk if i agree with that
NiffweedXVII (11:58:16 AM): but
NiffweedXVII (11:58:27 AM): how on earth do these reasons have to be Ti?
NiffweedXVII (11:58:40 AM): lets say i love a person because i've gotten to know them and i trust them
NiffweedXVII (11:58:48 AM): and i want to spend time with them
NiffweedXVII (11:58:55 AM): and we have developed an ethical Fi connection
NiffweedXVII (11:59:11 AM): what in the hell does that have to do with Ti
anarchyintheus7 (12:00:26 PM): Ti has to do with understand, like Ti is how we see things
anarchyintheus7 (12:00:32 PM): what we do with things
anarchyintheus7 (12:00:38 PM): in a way
anarchyintheus7 (12:00:42 PM): ok
NiffweedXVII (12:00:44 PM): umm
anarchyintheus7 (12:00:46 PM): im gonna try to explain this
anarchyintheus7 (12:01:12 PM): im gonna use the +/- scale
NiffweedXVII (12:01:17 PM): dont
NiffweedXVII (12:01:22 PM): because i dont agree with any of it
NiffweedXVII (12:01:33 PM): if you can't explain it to me without using that
NiffweedXVII (12:01:39 PM): its probably based on your faulty assumptions
anarchyintheus7 (12:01:59 PM): im not sure how to explain Ti in words... but i see it intuitively
anarchyintheus7 (12:02:01 PM): its kind of like
anarchyintheus7 (12:02:24 PM): how we view information
anarchyintheus7 (12:02:29 PM): and what we do with information
anarchyintheus7 (12:02:44 PM): we either -Ti break it down
NiffweedXVII (12:02:55 PM): wait a minute here
NiffweedXVII (12:03:04 PM): explain this again
NiffweedXVII (12:03:08 PM): how we view information?
NiffweedXVII (12:03:12 PM): what we do with information?
NiffweedXVII (12:03:15 PM): what does that even mean?
NiffweedXVII (12:03:24 PM): in very very oversimplified terms
NiffweedXVII (12:03:33 PM): you could call Ti a structural organization of information
NiffweedXVII (12:03:38 PM): but "how we view information?"
NiffweedXVII (12:03:39 PM): no
anarchyintheus7 (12:03:44 PM): thats not right
anarchyintheus7 (12:04:04 PM): Ti is connected to Fi, im just trying to make it sound independent
anarchyintheus7 (12:04:21 PM): +Ti is implication
anarchyintheus7 (12:04:28 PM): common sense
anarchyintheus7 (12:04:33 PM): logic
NiffweedXVII (12:04:38 PM): shut up about Ti+/Ti-
NiffweedXVII (12:04:48 PM): tell me what Ti vanilla is
anarchyintheus7 (12:05:16 PM): Ti is like information processing
anarchyintheus7 (12:05:24 PM): its like the processor in a computer
anarchyintheus7 (12:05:38 PM): it reads and understands information
anarchyintheus7 (12:06:04 PM): Fi makes the subjective ethical evaluation of Ti
NiffweedXVII (12:06:09 PM): no
anarchyintheus7 (12:06:12 PM): yes
NiffweedXVII (12:06:17 PM): i disagree with your interpretation of Ti
NiffweedXVII (12:06:18 PM): wholly
NiffweedXVII (12:06:22 PM): and of Fi
anarchyintheus7 (12:06:39 PM): why?
NiffweedXVII (12:06:56 PM): because thats not the way that i understand it as an information element
NiffweedXVII (12:07:13 PM): we appear to disagree on the very fundamentals of information here
anarchyintheus7 (12:07:18 PM): im not referring to the information elements though independantly
anarchyintheus7 (12:07:24 PM): im referring to functional dualism
NiffweedXVII (12:07:25 PM): well you have to
NiffweedXVII (12:07:31 PM): fuck functional dualism
NiffweedXVII (12:07:40 PM): each information aspect is an independent part of reality
anarchyintheus7 (12:07:44 PM): yes
anarchyintheus7 (12:07:46 PM): i agree
NiffweedXVII (12:08:04 PM): if you cant describe what the information elements are independent of each other
NiffweedXVII (12:08:12 PM): then trying to connect them is meaningless
anarchyintheus7 (12:08:17 PM): i agree
anarchyintheus7 (12:08:38 PM): though
NiffweedXVII (12:08:39 PM): basically i'm not inclined to argue with you about your interpretation of Ti
NiffweedXVII (12:08:44 PM): because i think you're full of shit
NiffweedXVII (12:08:52 PM): and it would be a long arduous argument that would go nowhere
NiffweedXVII (12:09:00 PM): because we would find no common ground to speak of on that element
anarchyintheus7 (12:09:09 PM): you tell me what Ti is?
NiffweedXVII (12:09:21 PM): ok
NiffweedXVII (12:09:24 PM): back to these definitions
NiffweedXVII (12:09:34 PM): Ti is referred to as external statics of fields
NiffweedXVII (12:09:45 PM): first of all we need to finish explaining these dichotomies in order for this to make sense
NiffweedXVII (12:09:59 PM): in terms of whatever limited sense it might make to Ti-ize this problem extensively
NiffweedXVII (12:10:36 PM): static/dynamic youve at least heard of
anarchyintheus7 (12:10:45 PM): yes
NiffweedXVII (12:10:46 PM): which refers to the differing rings of the psyche
NiffweedXVII (12:10:59 PM): static dynamic is a dichotomy that i dont know i can explain
NiffweedXVII (12:11:06 PM): but i almost sort of understand it intuitively
NiffweedXVII (12:11:40 PM): its like some aspects focus on states and very particular constructs
NiffweedXVII (12:11:46 PM): whereas others on processes or changing data
NiffweedXVII (12:11:54 PM): i understand how this is manifest in certain elements over others
NiffweedXVII (12:12:02 PM): better*

[aestrivex]

NiffweedXVII (12:24:24 PM): uhh
NiffweedXVII (12:24:28 PM): can you elaborate
NiffweedXVII (12:24:28 PM): ?
anarchyintheus7 (12:24:46 PM): when you love someone
anarchyintheus7 (12:25:05 PM): your making an evaluation of everything about the person
NiffweedXVII (12:25:25 PM): i dont understand what you mean by that
anarchyintheus7 (12:25:45 PM): this isn't hard to understand lol
NiffweedXVII (12:25:48 PM): do you agree that love has something to do with an emotional connection?
anarchyintheus7 (12:25:55 PM): im making a simple statement
anarchyintheus7 (12:26:04 PM): to say that you love or like someone
anarchyintheus7 (12:26:12 PM): you are making an evaluation of that person
NiffweedXVII (12:26:18 PM): do you agree that love has something to do with an emotional connection?
anarchyintheus7 (12:26:28 PM): what do you mean by emotional connection?
NiffweedXVII (12:26:35 PM): umm
NiffweedXVII (12:26:56 PM): i mean that two people just develop a sense of trust and mutual respect
NiffweedXVII (12:27:00 PM): for each other
NiffweedXVII (12:27:17 PM): like i might trust this person
NiffweedXVII (12:27:22 PM): but not anybody else
anarchyintheus7 (12:27:34 PM): maybe
anarchyintheus7 (12:27:39 PM): but thats still estimative
NiffweedXVII (12:27:48 PM): what do you mean by estimative
anarchyintheus7 (12:28:06 PM): its an evaluation of that person and his character or whatever you love about that person
NiffweedXVII (12:28:53 PM): what kind of an evaluation do you mean
NiffweedXVII (12:28:56 PM): what are you evaluating
NiffweedXVII (12:29:03 PM): and how does that contribute to a sense of love
NiffweedXVII (12:29:12 PM): essentially how does "evaluating" someone make you love them?
anarchyintheus7 (12:29:22 PM): because its a judgement of that person
NiffweedXVII (12:29:29 PM): you are running in circles
anarchyintheus7 (12:29:40 PM): oh dear god, its not that hard to understand
NiffweedXVII (12:29:42 PM): judging somebody does not make you love them
NiffweedXVII (12:29:46 PM): i am judging you
NiffweedXVII (12:29:49 PM): i think youre a moron
NiffweedXVII (12:29:51 PM): does that mean i love you
anarchyintheus7 (12:30:25 PM): no
anarchyintheus7 (12:30:30 PM): but you are judging me
anarchyintheus7 (12:30:33 PM): you are using Fi
NiffweedXVII (12:30:37 PM): umm
NiffweedXVII (12:30:38 PM): no
NiffweedXVII (12:30:41 PM): i'm using Te
NiffweedXVII (12:30:47 PM): i'm looking at the arguments youre making
NiffweedXVII (12:30:54 PM): and making a conscious decision that they are stupid
NiffweedXVII (12:30:58 PM): i guess its not purely Te
anarchyintheus7 (12:31:05 PM): its Fi
NiffweedXVII (12:31:07 PM): but it has more to do with my ability to analyze your ideas
anarchyintheus7 (12:31:09 PM): and Te
NiffweedXVII (12:31:10 PM): than it does with Fi
anarchyintheus7 (12:31:11 PM): and Ti
NiffweedXVII (12:31:13 PM): and Ni
NiffweedXVII (12:31:18 PM): and every other function
NiffweedXVII (12:31:20 PM): sure
NiffweedXVII (12:31:24 PM): but in practical terms
NiffweedXVII (12:31:27 PM): its Te
NiffweedXVII (12:31:32 PM): blocked with Ni
anarchyintheus7 (12:31:33 PM): the actual judgement is Fi
NiffweedXVII (12:31:37 PM): and disdain for having my time wasted
NiffweedXVII (12:31:39 PM): NO IT ISNT
NiffweedXVII (12:31:40 PM): GAH
NiffweedXVII (12:31:51 PM): judgment itself is not Fi
anarchyintheus7 (12:31:52 PM): Fi is the feelings or the estimation of something
NiffweedXVII (12:31:56 PM): it has nothing to do with Fi
NiffweedXVII (12:32:01 PM): no it isnt
NiffweedXVII (12:32:02 PM): look
NiffweedXVII (12:32:08 PM): Fi can deal with judgment
NiffweedXVII (12:32:28 PM): in areas where Fi is the element which deals with the context of the situation it does
anarchyintheus7 (12:32:35 PM): Fi involves what you think of things
NiffweedXVII (12:32:35 PM): but this is a situation which is not related to Fi
NiffweedXVII (12:32:39 PM): NO IT DOESNT
NiffweedXVII (12:32:41 PM): YOURE A MORON
NiffweedXVII (12:32:45 PM): listen
anarchyintheus7 (12:32:47 PM): thats the only thing it could involve
NiffweedXVII (12:32:49 PM): this is a discussion about ideas
NiffweedXVII (12:32:56 PM): a very abstract such discussion
NiffweedXVII (12:33:07 PM): i'm using Ni and Te to interpret your ideas and make responses
NiffweedXVII (12:33:20 PM): fundamentally the reason that i dont agree with your ideas
NiffweedXVII (12:33:27 PM): is a result of Te-related information
NiffweedXVII (12:33:35 PM): that suggests to me that your ideas do not correspond
anarchyintheus7 (12:33:35 PM): actually its Ti but go on
NiffweedXVII (12:33:43 PM): to any other information that i've seen
NiffweedXVII (12:33:49 PM): yeah this discussion is actually based a lot on Ti
NiffweedXVII (12:34:03 PM): but i don't necessarily think that's my normal mode of discourse
NiffweedXVII (12:34:11 PM): rather it has more to do with socionics is a Ti field
NiffweedXVII (12:34:19 PM): in certain ways
NiffweedXVII (12:34:25 PM): and since you dispute the legitimacy of information
NiffweedXVII (12:34:31 PM): i have to really delve into the building blocks of it
NiffweedXVII (12:34:41 PM): now i forgot what i was talking about
NiffweedXVII (12:34:48 PM): yeah
NiffweedXVII (12:34:57 PM): so basically the discssion is Ni and Te and Ti
NiffweedXVII (12:35:09 PM): those are the elements prevalent in this discussion
anarchyintheus7 (12:35:10 PM): Ti is thought, Ti is reasoning
NiffweedXVII (12:35:14 PM): oh shut up and let me talk
NiffweedXVII (12:35:31 PM): based on the fact that i dont think your ideas are correct
NiffweedXVII (12:35:39 PM): and that they dont correspond with what i've observed in reality
NiffweedXVII (12:35:51 PM): in terms of how Fi is manifest as an information element
NiffweedXVII (12:35:55 PM): and an information preference
NiffweedXVII (12:36:00 PM): i'm saying that you're an idiot
NiffweedXVII (12:36:13 PM): and i'm saying so also largely because you've been touting this shit for months
NiffweedXVII (12:36:21 PM): without responding to one rational call of dissent
NiffweedXVII (12:36:42 PM): i think this is a fundamental example of where Fi has nothing to do with judgment
NiffweedXVII (12:36:47 PM): my judgment is obviously not purely Te
NiffweedXVII (12:36:52 PM): because pure Te doesnt make judgments
NiffweedXVII (12:37:03 PM): but even so
anarchyintheus7 (12:37:10 PM): if you think you haven't just made a judgement on me you need to reconsider
NiffweedXVII (12:37:21 PM): oh of course i have
NiffweedXVII (12:37:31 PM): but i think that the fundamental reasoning behind my judgment
NiffweedXVII (12:37:34 PM): has mostly to do with Te and Ni
NiffweedXVII (12:37:36 PM): and maybe Ti
NiffweedXVII (12:37:44 PM): and that given the context of the situation
NiffweedXVII (12:37:47 PM): this is appropriate
NiffweedXVII (12:37:56 PM): and it shows a situation where Fi is irrelevant
NiffweedXVII (12:37:59 PM): or largely irrelevant
NiffweedXVII (12:38:17 PM): just an example of what i was talking about earlier
anarchyintheus7 (12:38:37 PM): Fi is used in every situation
NiffweedXVII (12:38:45 PM): to an extent yes
NiffweedXVII (12:38:56 PM): but thats because everybody has Fi in some respect
NiffweedXVII (12:39:01 PM): and because its an aspect of reality
NiffweedXVII (12:39:08 PM): which is inherently impossible to totally ignore
NiffweedXVII (12:39:12 PM): but in practical terms
anarchyintheus7 (12:39:12 PM): every aspect of ideology requires Fi
NiffweedXVII (12:39:19 PM): again, to some extent
NiffweedXVII (12:39:22 PM): but in practical terms
NiffweedXVII (12:39:23 PM): no
anarchyintheus7 (12:41:01 PM): i still can't believe you can't see that Fi is the subjective ethical evaluations
anarchyintheus7 (12:41:10 PM): i thought that was a given
NiffweedXVII (12:41:11 PM): i dont see that because it isnt true
NiffweedXVII (12:41:29 PM): thats an oversimplification
anarchyintheus7 (12:41:38 PM): everything is an oversimplization
NiffweedXVII (12:41:42 PM): no
NiffweedXVII (12:41:43 PM): not actually
NiffweedXVII (12:41:45 PM): for example
NiffweedXVII (12:41:52 PM): calling Fi internal statics of fields
NiffweedXVII (12:41:58 PM): is not an oversimplification
NiffweedXVII (12:42:06 PM): which is also why its not a useful definition
NiffweedXVII (12:42:10 PM): however
anarchyintheus7 (12:42:11 PM): um if you don't see that thats an oversimplization you haven't thought it through
NiffweedXVII (12:42:24 PM): that kind of an exposition doesnt actually help you understand anything about the function
NiffweedXVII (12:42:33 PM): but it does prevent it from being broken down into something it isnt
NiffweedXVII (12:42:37 PM): totally
anarchyintheus7 (12:43:28 PM): you are calling Fi intangible, i just don't see why you don't consider this an oversimplization too
NiffweedXVII (12:43:42 PM): that is an oversimplification
NiffweedXVII (12:43:51 PM): Fi is sometimes tangible
NiffweedXVII (12:43:55 PM): but first of all
NiffweedXVII (12:43:59 PM): tangible is defined very vaguely
NiffweedXVII (12:44:13 PM): what i mean by the idea thats Fi is intangible
NiffweedXVII (12:44:17 PM): its that its mental in nature
NiffweedXVII (12:44:32 PM): and cant be understood by a purely external understanding of the situation
NiffweedXVII (12:44:46 PM): which is true for the most part

[XoX]

80% to be a prick to Niff, and 15% to actually ask about love and Fi... then the other 5% is to be an ass to anyone who doesn't share his views of all the above.

haha

[leckysupport]

From looking at the AIM conversation I would say that Fi makes it's subjective assumptions (I have deep feelings of attraction for her) and Ti then tries to makes sense of it ("all of my ex-girlfriends have had blond hair and she believes in God so it makes sense that I feel that way").

But your explanation wasn't the real reason you fell for her, you fell for because you fell for her and you really don't know why but you give yourself an explanation just so the world can make sense again.

Anyway shows hittas preference for Ti > Fi?

[aestrivex]

But your explanation wasn't the real reason you fell for her, you fell for because you fell for her and you really don't know why but you give yourself an explanation just so the world can make sense again.

Anyway shows hittas preference for Ti > Fi?

yes. exactly.

[Hitta]

Um… not to me. You can choose whether or not to allow yourself to love someone else or to be loved by another, but love in itself is not a judgment. Love is not about people meeting your ethical standards. I’ve noticed that love seems to be a very complex matter that can’t be logically reduced (as you seem to be trying to do). For one, there are a great many different sorts of love, including but not limited to adoration, admiration, infatuation, sexual, physical, unconditional, emotional, romantic, platonic, maternal/paternal (or otherwise family related), protective, etc. I find that love generally seems to arise within me through empathy. When you see something in someone else that touches you because you understand it so well, you empathize with it, and then you feel compassion and love for that person. Love takes time to grow or to fade. I have also learned that love is something that can be taught and learned. In my case, I understood love much better after someone else loved me (outside of family)… this showed me more about what love is and how to love… there is always more one can learn about love. It is also something that everyone deeply needs… we thrive when in touch with it… we die inside without it.

I think that your attempts to explain love through functions or IM elements aren’t going to be fruitful. I think that love is one of those things that is beyond the realm of information metabolism (as I’ve tried to say before when you include it in your +/- system descriptions of types). There are limits I believe to what can be explained by IM metabolism, and love lies beyond those limits.

Um, so yea, its possible to love someone without actually loving them.... wait I'm confused?? To love someone, you actually have to love something about them. You can't just love someone without reason. Its not possible, there is a reason for everything.

[marooned]

Um, so yea, its possible to love someone without actually loving them.... wait I'm confused?? To love someone, you actually have to love something about them. You can't just love someone without reason. Its not possible, there is a reason for everything.

Okay, in general there's a reason for everything... but why would that mean love is a judgment? (Btw, I didn't read that long im conversation.)

[Hitta]

Okay, in general there's a reason for everything... but why would that mean love is a judgment? (Btw, I didn't read that long im conversation.)

Because you find someone that you like because of their characteristics and you decide:I love this person via judgment or evaluation. You can't love someone without loving their characteristics.

[marooned]

Because you find someone that you like because of their characteristics and you decide:I love this person via judgment or evaluation. You can't love someone without loving their characteristics.

Liking someone may have more to do with their characteristics than loving them does. For instance, I once had a roommate who I didn't really like, but over time being in close proximity to her, I started to care about her and this eventually overcame whatever traits I didn't like about her in the beginning. Generally, I think if in close proximity with anyone for a length of time, you start to love and care about them. I think perhaps this is because we are all a lot more alike than we are different. And even if you can't love someone without loving their characteristics (at least some of their characteristics) that doesn't mean that you love them *because* of their characteristics. Also, the reasons for loving someone at first can be different than the reasons for loving them later. In order to love someone, I think you have to see them as a *person*, not as a set of characteristics or traits.

[Expat]

Generally, I think if in close proximity with anyone for a length of time, you start to love and care about them.

How many people here agree with the above?

[FDG]

How many people here agree with the above?

Maybe if in close proximity and get along well I start to care, but definitely nothing to do with love...

[implied]

How many people here agree with the above?

i really don't. some things are unacceptable.

[Phaedrus]

Love is an ethical evaluation. To me this is blatantly obvious. Love is a subjective feeling about someone based on something(you can love people for different reasons).

I can't be sure that I understand love the same way as others do, but I definitely believe that you are wrong about this. A feeling and an evaluation are not the same thing. I agree with you that love is a subjective feeling, but it is not an evaluation in itself. The ethical evaluation can be added to the feeling, but it is not necessary.

Here's an analogy: I might like something very much, for example watching a certain film. But even though watching the film gives me satisfaction, I might at the same time believe that the film is not really that good. It is possible to like B-movies, and it is possible to like bad movies (I might even like to watch them because I know that they are bad). There is no necessary logical connection between my feeling (my liking or disliking someone or something) and my evaluation of the same person or thing. They often coincide, but they don't have to.

[Hitta]

there is always a reason why you love someone though, you love someone because they make you happy in a lot of circumstances(you could break down the reasons they make you happy too). There is a reason for everything. This is where the Ti>Fi transition comes from. Ti allows you to understand what you are looking at, and Fi makes the ethical subjective decision.

[Phaedrus]

there is always a reason why you love someone though, you love someone because they make you happy in a lot of circumstances(you could break down the reasons they make you happy too). There is a reason for everything. This is where the Ti>Fi transition comes from. Ti allows you to understand what you are looking at, and Fi makes the ethical subjective decision.

Maybe. But the love itself is not identical to your ethical decision.

[FDG]

I can't be sure that I understand love the same way as others do, but I definitely believe that you are wrong about this. A feeling and an evaluation are not the same thing. I agree with you that love is a subjective feeling, but it is not an evaluation in itself. The ethical evaluation can be added to the feeling, but it is not necessary.

Here's an analogy: I might like something very much, for example watching a certain film. But even though watching the film gives me satisfaction, I might at the same time believe that the film is not really that good. It is possible to like B-movies, and it is possible to like bad movies (I might even like to watch them because I know that they are bad). There is no necessary logical connection between my feeling (my liking or disliking someone or something) and my evaluation of the same person or thing. They often coincide, but they don't have to.

+1

[Creepy-Cyclops]

How many people here agree with the above?

Nope. For me,if anything over time if I find their behaviour is not good for me I find myself even less capable of it.

[XoX]

How many people here agree with the above?

As a first reaction no. Pretty much the opposite. If I dislike them in the beginning I probably dislike them more as time goes by (and vice versa). However, there probably exists a psychological theory which says that something like Loki says could happen under certain (abnormal) circumstances.

[consentingadult]

Scientists have gone mad investigating the nature of love, so I don't assume we're going to resolve it here.

When I was younger, I used to believe in the concept of Psychological Visibility as put forward by Nathaniel Branden. The idea here is that someone else mirrors you psychologically, which allows an individual to experience him- or herself in an objective fashion: the other is you objectified, and this causes feelings of love, be it friendship of romantic love. But this does not include the concept of love for ones children.

Nowadays I tend to have a more Sartrian/Freudian understanding of love, that still echoes Branden's concept of love: the other is still yourself objectified, and you are in love with your own image, thus narcissistic love, or externalized self-love. If this kind of love is romantic, it is typically the attachment of the 'child inside' to the mother, transferred (as in the psychological concept of transference) to the new object of love. All too often, we see couples where people are psychologically largely the same as their partner, or their partner takes the place of a parent.

There is another kind of love, which is so different in nature, that I don't dare to call it love. The individuals in the couple are different in psychological makeup, but still allow each other to be completely themselves. It is not the kind of strong, passionate romantic love that so often is the subject of romantic movies and love songs, but rather a strange form of attachment where the stereotypical violins are completely absent and you are completely relaxed. It causes a very strong kind of attachment, but like I said, I don't dare to call it love, because the passionate, narcissistic dimension is completely absent. This is what I'm sort of experiencing for the first time in my life with my new girl friend, who I think is SEI. From what I read here and there, I suspect what I'm experiencing in this relationship is semi-duality, because there still is a little friction every now and then

[Hitta]

If you say that love isn't an evaluation you are basically saying that you can love someone without a reason. Things do not happen without reasons. I don't see how anyone can argue this. There has to be a reason you love someone. You slowly find things about a person that you like, so you slow start to love someone. You are evaluating that persons actions and ideals and how that person makes you feel. Love is an evaluation with a positive result. You have weighed everything about that person and you feel that that person makes you happy so you love them.

Note: If you cannot see this you are just dumb, period.

[consentingadult]

If you say that love isn't an evaluation you are basically saying that you can love someone without a reason. Things do not happen without reasons. I don't see how anyone can argue this. There has to be a reason you love someone. You slowly find things about a person that you like, so you slow start to love someone. You are evaluating that persons actions and ideals and how that person makes you feel. Love is an evaluation with a positive result. You have weighed everything about that person and you feel that that person makes you happy so you love them.

Note: If you cannot see this you are just dumb, period.

Sorry for saying, but I do get a strong sense you have accepted Ayn Rand's concept of love? There are so many aspects to love, and some are quite dark and pathological. What Rand, and you, are describing, is passionate love, the kind of love that I consider narcissistic.

[marooned]

Sorry for saying, but I do get a strong sense you have accepted Ayn Rand's concept of love? There are so many aspects to love, and some are quite dark and pathological. What Rand, and you, are describing, is passionate love, the kind of love that I consider narcissistic.

This has taken an interesting turn. For some reason I didn't think Ayn Rand's concept of love was pathological... I thought it was interesting... hmm.

[FDG]

Advice: it's better not to listen to anything negativists have to say about the concept of love.

[consentingadult]

This has taken an interesting turn. For some reason I didn't think Ayn Rand's concept of love was pathological... I thought it was interesting... hmm.

I thought so too from age 23-39. Now I see how Rand spent most of her life still trying to gain the acceptance and recognition of (one of) her parents, who of course weren't around, and she transferred this need to people resembling her parents that, for one reason or another, weren't able to give her the love she wanted to have. Save Nathaniel Branden of course: he probably was the only one who had the capacity to provide her psychological visibility. But Branden himself would be the last to deny that this relationship was pathological, as we can tell from his accounts in Judgement Day.

[XoX]

If you say that love isn't an evaluation you are basically saying that you can love someone without a reason. Things do not happen without reasons. I don't see how anyone can argue this. There has to be a reason you love someone. You slowly find things about a person that you like, so you slow start to love someone. You are evaluating that persons actions and ideals and how that person makes you feel. Love is an evaluation with a positive result. You have weighed everything about that person and you feel that that person makes you happy so you love them.

Note: If you cannot see this you are just dumb, period.

You analyze love with highly abstracted concepts. It is possible yes but not really any better than to say "love is just a chemical reaction". In any case you are just missing the point of love. That there is no point. Just love.

[consentingadult]

Advice: it's better not to listen to anything negativists have to say about the concept of love.

Serious question here: what do the negativists say about the concept of love? The things that I am saying?

[FDG]

Serious question here: what do the negativists say about the concept of love? The things that I am saying?

And hitta's for example, and Freud (an ENFj), etc etc

Not going to say that their advice is not useful, but leave to us positivists the things that are "beautiful" so that they remain such

BTW on topic: you don't decide who you love but you can decide if you want to suppress the love or not.

[consentingadult]

And hitta's for example, and Freud (an ENFj), etc etc

Not going to say that their advice is not useful, but leave to us positivists the things that are "beautiful" so that they remain such

BTW on topic: you don't decide who you love but you can decide if you want to suppress the love or not.

Well, I think from a procedural efficiency, Te perspective, you're might be right. But I, and many other people, are not inclined to follow such procedural advice without knowing how and why, and also aren't inclined to leave the subject to those who claim to be exclusively competent in the matter.

A psychologist once said to me, when asked the question if love exists: "it exists, because people feel it that way." Now he was right, of course. But still, that doesn't say anything about the nature of love. For all we know, love just serves to make babies, and the end justifies the means, so love, pathological or not, serves a purpose.

I fully agree with your statement that you can't decide who you love (contrary to Ayn Rand, who claimed reason should be the only guide to decide who you fall in love with or not). Love, I think, resides in the evolutionary older parts of the brain.

HOWEVER (yes, there always is a HOWEVER), although who you fall in love with is outside your conscious control, who you fall in love with, is usually a reflection of your cognitions.

[Hitta]

There is definitely a lack of intellectual ability and the skill to effectively analyze things amongst the people on this forum.

[consentingadult]

There is definitely a lack of intellectual ability and the skill to effectively analyze things amongst the people on this forum.

You might be right, but it would be helpful if you would be more specific about it, instead of just declaring it.

[Phaedrus]

There is definitely a lack of intellectual ability and the skill to effectively analyze things amongst the people on this forum.

Either you must believe that there is a fundamental difference between liking and loving (not just in degree), or you must explain why I can't like something that I believe is intrinsically worse than something else that I don't like that much (as in the movie analogy). You haven't presented a convincing argument yet. What is wrong with my reasoning?

[XoX]

There is definitely a lack of intellectual ability and the skill to effectively analyze things amongst the people on this forum.

and what conclusion do you draw from that with your mighty intelligence?

[marooned]

BTW, I thought I might add, I don't think it's generally the case that you could fall *in love* with anyone given that you're around them for some length of time... I mean if I was thrown into an arranged marriage (just for instance) with someone who I didn't like or didn't love, I would be pretty resistant, and unlikely (at least I think) to ever fall *in love* with said person. But I could come to care about them (in a platonic way)... and caring I think is love.

[liveandletlive]

@ hitta- i couldn't disagree with you more. i dont know what else was said in the thread but just reading the first post is more than enough. how does your idea of Fi explain why people fall in love with the wrong people? or bad timing? or wishing you loved someone but you can't?

I've had all of the above experiences in which i WISH i could have just made a decision to love someone. being an Fi type, i must say that you're wrong.

[Hitta]

I don't get how the people here can't understand that it's impossible to love someone without actually loving something about them. Love is a judgment or a conclusion that one comes to when there are things about a person that they like and enjoy to be around. The people here are implying that its possible to love someone while hating everything about them which is theoretically impossible within our context of reality. Love is an evaluation, the result of a test thats subject is on that your standards. You love people based on them fitting your standards of what you actually like. It is an ethical judgment. I do not see how you cannot see this, its very simple.