SLEs/ESTps and nihilism

[Ezra]

I've noticed nihilistic thinking in Cook in Skins, and in the Comedian in Watchmen, both of whom are clear SLEs. I've also noticed it in myself, to some extent, and a coursemate who is a potential SLE. I think it's linked to their being SLEs, especially the kind of nihilistic thinking I've observed; it's the kind that isn't particularly philosophical or well thought out in some kind of structured thesis - it's almost inherent, like a natural way of looking at the world.

Have you noticed this in SLEs you know/have observed?

From where do you think this nihilism stems?

[ArchonAlarion]

yes i've noticed this quite alot and make note of it everytime.

[idolatrie]

Well, I'd probably need to clarify what you mean by nihilism, but I'll take it as...a sort of rejection of inherent meaning in things, that instead all knowledge is constructed and situationally dependent, there's no greater overarching narrative or meaning that we're moving towards.

I'd argue that it could possibly be explained in functional terms in the interaction of Se and Ti. Focus is on the experienced material world, and that is what is known. The meaning that is then attributed to the lived experience is only relevant to the individual, and formulated by the individual. But I mean, I'm basically just defining the two functions there and saying that correlates to a nihilistic outlook, it's no great insight.

I don't know the two characters you refer to there, and while I wouldn't really categorise my personal philosophy as particularly nihilistic, I'm completely a child of post modernity and cannot really accept any other perspective as my own in any authentic way. (I know, I'm the wrong beta ST to answer your question, sorry, but I don't feel I know enough about the inner philosophical leanings of any SLEs I know to assume what their beliefs are.) The correlation makes sense though. I mean...it just is, you know?

[Ezra]

Well, I'd probably need to clarify what you mean by nihilism, but I'll take it as...a sort of rejection of inherent meaning in things, that instead all knowledge is constructed and situationally dependent, there's no greater overarching narrative or meaning that we're moving towards.

Essentially, yes.

I'd argue that it could possibly be explained in functional terms in the interaction of Se and Ti. Focus is on the experienced material world, and that is what is known. The meaning that is then attributed to the lived experience is only relevant to the individual, and formulated by the individual. But I mean, I'm basically just defining the two functions there and saying that correlates to a nihilistic outlook, it's no great insight.

What it does do is clarify an important point.

(I know, I'm the wrong beta ST to answer your question, sorry, but I don't feel I know enough about the inner philosophical leanings of any SLEs I know to assume what their beliefs are.)

That's because we don't have any.

To elaborate, I'm constantly being called on for "changing my mind" (you can substitute mind for beliefs/opinions/arguments) by a variety of different people. In reality, what is happening is that I will get inspired by an idea, but never take it seriously enough to completely adopt it as my own. I love toying with ideas, and I love coming up with descriptive pictures of the world. But these are never "set" as such (probably in contrast to your own ideas, which are no doubt completely set and very hard to change). Ultimately, I prefer playing devil's advocate for the multitudes, rather than trying to find The Truth. I gave up that search long ago.

[lefty]

Well, I'd probably need to clarify what you mean by nihilism, but I'll take it as...a sort of rejection of inherent meaning in things, that instead all knowledge is constructed and situationally dependent, there's no greater overarching narrative or meaning that we're moving towards.

I'd argue that it could possibly be explained in functional terms in the interaction of Se and Ti. Focus is on the experienced material world, and that is what is known. The meaning that is then attributed to the lived experience is only relevant to the individual, and formulated by the individual. But I mean, I'm basically just defining the two functions there and saying that correlates to a nihilistic outlook, it's no great insight.

I don't know the two characters you refer to there, and while I wouldn't really categorise my personal philosophy as particularly nihilistic, I'm completely a child of post modernity and cannot really accept any other perspective as my own in any authentic way. (I know, I'm the wrong beta ST to answer your question, sorry, but I don't feel I know enough about the inner philosophical leanings of any SLEs I know to assume what their beliefs are.) The correlation makes sense though. I mean...it just is, you know?

i think there is nihilism running through the beta quadrant to some degree and i like the description of a rejection of cart blanche belief systems....the ENFJ says do the right thing - the ISTJ scours over the details and evaluates character and systems - the INFP maybe counters it to some degree, I dunno makes things interesting reconnects iwth life a bit but still kind of values "mysteries" - the ESTP could even be, I guess, our version of the superman. Reality can be gritty and we do want to be able to address things as they are and ESTPs are particularly suited for that.


i'm not saying estp is THE superman that neitchze spoke about just kind of making connections based on the topic. I think other types could be viewed in that same light or through the same archetypal filter.

[Brilliand]

Based on the exchange between Tom and I about nihilism (which amounted to two sentences, so maybe I'm reading too much into it), I'd say nihilism results from focus on Thinking and Sensing (which see objective truth) to the exclusion of Feeling and Intuition (which create meaning).

In our little exchange, I offered to pay a visit to nihilism (Thinking and Intuition - I can move in and out), and he said he was always there (Thinking and Sensing - no exit without outside help).

[lefty]

[lefty]

Based on the exchange between Tom and I about nihilism (which amounted to two sentences, so maybe I'm reading too much into it), I'd say nihilism results from focus on Thinking and Sensing (which see objective truth) to the exclusion of Feeling and Intuition (which create meaning).

In our little exchange, I offered to pay a visit to nihilism (Thinking and Intuition - I can move in and out), and he said he was always there (Thinking and Sensing - no exit without outside help).

Of course you are right...but to that I add....I'm becoming a socialist...

[ArchonAlarion]

Don't. I hear its bad for your health and those around you.

[lefty]

Don't. I hear its bad for your health and those around you.

do you think i'm intimidated because you're my benefactor?

[Gilly]

I think its sort of a natural consequence of seeing a "dog-eat-dog" world, and realizing to the fullest extent that power is the only way things get done, the ultimate controlling factor, and that, in the end, whoever has the most power can essentially do what they want. They need an IEI to help them appreciate the things that can't be dictated by power: passion, a sense of meaning and purpose, the depths of human subjectivity and self-awareness and all of the good that can come without forcing everything to be one way.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I love natural, hedonistic thinkers. I like people that... don't think too much. They react. They're powerful, forceful- they're not in their heads with their weird disjointed ideas that are only going to be destructive to people in some way. They can like integrate their mind, make it more malleable with the objects around them, with their immediate physical environment. It's still there. It's just integrated better. They spill out their 'messies' to the rest of the outside world, so what's left when they communicate is crisp, clean and clear/sharp.

They work on that primitive level, SLEs.

Most people suck because like I said in another thread, most people operate in boxes/systems/rigid structures. These boxes and systems make us feel safe and secure, but at the expense of our own soul's liberation. And if the least little tweak gets spilled out of that system, they panic and try to patch up the holes. But *beauty* and art and joy tends to be the EXACT OPPOSITE of those limiting structures. Or maybe they have some structure. But they peak with the liberating, they show all the wonderous and glories feelings you thought you had to sacrifice. If they would just let go, if they really would just 'let the colors run' pour and leak out of all the containers and abstract systems we try to put themselves in... humanity's progress would skyrocket at fast paces.

You can still have your ideals, your philosophical notions- your way of looking at the world. But understand it for what it is. It's not really the way to see the truth in what something really is. You're too caught up into what I could be, or what I was. SLEs (or more accurately, 'people that don't suck') look right at me and just see the core, the animal right away.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

"I'm Sick of Old Men Dreaming Up Wars for Young Men To Die In," George McGovern.

Ugh. I fucking love that quote.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I think its sort of a natural consequence of seeing a "dog-eat-dog" world, and realizing to the fullest extent that power is the only way things get done, the ultimate controlling factor, and that, in the end, whoever has the most power can essentially do what they want. They need an IEI to help them appreciate the things that can't be dictated by power: passion, a sense of meaning and purpose, the depths of human subjectivity and self-awareness and all of the good that can come without forcing everything to be one way.

Since Ni and Se ego are a cover up, infps really are the power hungry maniacs. (I know deep down I am since when I can force myself to 'just do' I pretty much abandon all my weird mental defenses.... things that didn't help me really before and thus upon doing so I pretty much ascend very quickly up the social ladders) and estps really are the emotional poets.

An ego function to me means it operates from primarily the head. You're faux-confident about it, and since it's all about your ego you will defend it viciously if confronted with others on it. (But all ego really is, is a shyster.) But since it exists in the mind and you use it so much, it's a false sense of confidence. Because you really crave, you really seek (and you really are) something that complements that. Now can you dualize yourself, do you need another types to do it. I think so!

I think you can essentially and ultimately dualize yourself. I think that's what we're all here for, really. Seeing it in other people might give you a quick boost, but I think in time you can achieve things yourself. You can have your own Se and Ni within you to fuck, so to speak. You are preprogrammed - born in a certain role. But you can liberate yourself and essentially act like every type, which is what I think really socionists are trying to do. Because everything needs to be malleable. Power, passion, love, hate, hope, fear. Everything we perceive has to be somehow under our wing of control.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request