Results 1 to 34 of 34

Thread: Te and Stoicism

  1. #1
    Azeroffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    California
    TIM
    ENTj 3w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,216
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Te and Stoicism

    Quote Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism
    Stoicism (Greek Στοά) was a school of Hellenistic philosophy founded in Athens by Zeno of Citium in the early 3rd century BC. The Stoics considered destructive emotions to be the result of errors in judgment, and that a sage, or person of "moral and intellectual perfection," would not suffer such emotions. Stoics were concerned with the active relationship between cosmic determinism and human freedom, and the belief that it is virtuous to maintain a will (called prohairesis) that is in accord with nature. Because of this, the Stoics presented their philosophy as a way of life, and they thought that the best indication of an individual's philosophy was not what a person said but how he behaved. Later Stoics, such as Seneca and Epictetus, emphasized that because "virtue is sufficient for happiness," a sage was immune to misfortune. This belief is similar to the meaning of the phrase 'stoic calm', though the phrase does not include the "radical ethical" Stoic views that only a sage can be considered truly free, and that all moral corruptions are equally vicious.
    I don't know a whole lot about stoicism, but from what I've heard/read stoicism seems like a good representation of what pure Te is. It's essentially a way of approaching the world indifferently and totally impartially so as to have totally clear and unbiased way of handling it. The stoic will admit to his guilt because it is true. The stoic is indifferent to his personal attachment to anything and he does what he does because that's just how it should be. He does not react to pain or pleasure, he just recognizes it's existence and acts according to what would result in the greatest good. It's about having a picture without letting emotions disrupt the clarity needed to know what needs to be done.


    any thoughts on this?
    3w4-5w6-9w8

  2. #2
    Hello...? somavision's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,474
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Azeroffs View Post
    I don't know a whole lot about stoicism, but from what I've heard/read stoicism seems like a good representation of what pure Te is. It's essentially a way of approaching the world indifferently and totally impartially so as to have totally clear and unbiased way of handling it. The stoic will admit to his guilt because it is true. The stoic is indifferent to his personal attachment to anything and he does what he does because that's just how it should be. He does not react to pain or pleasure, he just recognizes it's existence and acts according to what would result in the greatest good. It's about having a picture without letting emotions disrupt the clarity needed to know what needs to be done.


    any thoughts on this?
    Beautiful
    IEE-Ne

  3. #3
    lump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,627
    Mentioned
    634 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    i find it appealing and i wouldn't mind having it associated with Te. Te feels stoic to me, but i don't know if it really is, like, objectively.

    but i think i've also heard it described in conjunction with Ti before, so i'm interested in how it would be Te>Ti or maybe approached differently between the two or something (if it could be).

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Belgium
    TIM
    9w1
    Posts
    2,775
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    great thread.me likey.
    unholy water sanguine addiction

  5. #5
    Airman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,556
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I agree it is Te because it is unbiased. Many times I was taken for stupid because I admitted that I was wrong. I think Te-base types strive to be unbiased, like for example, I would never type someone on the basis 'I like him/her so he belongs to my quadra' or the opposite. This is ridiculous biased judgment. In order to have any good evaluation of something you must see it totally objectively, detached from your likes and dislikes, like if YOU were not there, there was just a mind evaluating something, but when you put your own persona in it, it gets fucked up because you take all your prejudices and all your opinions and evaluate something totally biased by them.

  6. #6
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I associate Stoicism more with Leading-/, as it appears to be popular primarily with static-types (especially rational statics) over dynamic-types. Stoicism deals with the relationship one has with and . These are dynamic elements outside of the direct control of individuals. For some Stoics, this involved developing ones relationship with more strongly. Stoicism does not disparage . It dealt with minimizing negative while maximizing positive , albeit with disciplined restraint. This is as much of a -seeking goal as it is a -devaluing one. For example, LII frequently try to minimize negative through a certain measure of indifference and aloofness. Even when a LII is experiencing a positive rush, they will attempt to maintain some semblance of composure. While the Logos, the underlying divine order, exists as a principle that the Stoic sought to determine its nature. But moreover, Stoicism did not concern itself tremendously with / so much as it did with the here and now of one's surroundings. There was even a certain amount of criticism towards , as it sometimes tries to control what is outside of one's control. Furthermore, using against one's fellow humanity was seen as antithetical to Stoic philosophy. And as can be seen through some of Stoicism's most renowned followers, Stoics typically falls along / lines.

    Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism, was likely a EII. Chrysippus of Soli, third head of the Stoic School following Zeno and Cleanthes, was probably a LII. He expanded the teachings of Zeno and Stoicism, such that Chrysippus is considered to be a second founder of Stoicism. Seneca the Younger, a Roman Statesman and Stoic writer, was a ILE. Marcus Aurelius, the Roman Philosopher-Emperor and one of the most prominent Stoics, was an EII.

    But part of the problem with Stoicism is that its popularity was also its death, as everyone eventually became a self-proclaimed Stoic, even its contemporary Christians. So Stoicism to some degree lost its prominence through its dilution. Stoicism attracted a number of admirers in the modern era, especially Baruch Spinoza (ILE/LII) and Albert Einstein (ILE).
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  7. #7
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos View Post
    I associate Stoicism more with Leading-/, as it appears to be popular primarily with static-types (especially rational statics) over dynamic-types. Stoicism deals with the relationship one has with and . These are dynamic elements outside of the direct control of individuals. For some Stoics, this involved developing ones relationship with more strongly. Stoicism does not disparage . It dealt with minimizing negative while maximizing positive , albeit with disciplined restraint. This is as much of a -seeking goal as it is a -devaluing one. For example, LII frequently try to minimize negative through a certain measure of indifference and aloofness. Even when a LII is experiencing a positive rush, they will attempt to maintain some semblance of composure. While the Logos, the underlying divine order, exists as a principle that the Stoic sought to determine its nature. But moreover, Stoicism did not concern itself tremendously with / so much as it did with the here and now of one's surroundings. There was even a certain amount of criticism towards , as it sometimes tries to control what is outside of one's control. Furthermore, using against one's fellow humanity was seen as antithetical to Stoic philosophy. And as can be seen through some of Stoicism's most renowned followers, Stoics typically falls along / lines.

    Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism, was likely a EII. Chrysippus of Soli, third head of the Stoic School following Zeno and Cleanthes, was probably a LII. He expanded the teachings of Zeno and Stoicism, such that Chrysippus is considered to be a second founder of Stoicism. Seneca the Younger, a Roman Statesman and Stoic writer, was a ILE. Marcus Aurelius, the Roman Philosopher-Emperor and one of the most prominent Stoics, was an EII.

    But part of the problem with Stoicism is that its popularity was also its death, as everyone eventually became a self-proclaimed Stoic, even its contemporary Christians. So Stoicism to some degree lost its prominence through its dilution. Stoicism attracted a number of admirers in the modern era, especially Baruch Spinoza (ILE/LII) and Albert Einstein (ILE).
    Good analysis Logos, more or less what I think.

    Te is inherently biased as it deals with profits and productivity.

  8. #8
    Azeroffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    California
    TIM
    ENTj 3w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,216
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos View Post
    I associate Stoicism more with Leading-/, as it appears to be popular primarily with static-types (especially rational statics) over dynamic-types. Stoicism deals with the relationship one has with and . These are dynamic elements outside of the direct control of individuals. For some Stoics, this involved developing ones relationship with more strongly. Stoicism does not disparage . It dealt with minimizing negative while maximizing positive , albeit with disciplined restraint. This is as much of a -seeking goal as it is a -devaluing one. For example, LII frequently try to minimize negative through a certain measure of indifference and aloofness. Even when a LII is experiencing a positive rush, they will attempt to maintain some semblance of composure. While the Logos, the underlying divine order, exists as a principle that the Stoic sought to determine its nature. But moreover, Stoicism did not concern itself tremendously with / so much as it did with the here and now of one's surroundings. There was even a certain amount of criticism towards , as it sometimes tries to control what is outside of one's control. Furthermore, using against one's fellow humanity was seen as antithetical to Stoic philosophy. And as can be seen through some of Stoicism's most renowned followers, Stoics typically falls along / lines.
    I don't really know what you're saying about stoicism because of how you keep using the elements to describe it. Your understanding of the elements is unclear.

    The idea that stoicism most strongly correlates with IJ is interesting. Idk if it makes sense that an Fi-base type would naturally lend itself to this way of thinking though. Their judgment system is fundamentally biased. They would have a very hard time putting their passions aside.

    If Stoicism can represent anything socionics related, it's Ti and/or Te as far as I understand the philosophy.



    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    Good analysis Logos, more or less what I think.

    Te is inherently biased as it deals with profits and productivity.
    sarcasm?
    3w4-5w6-9w8

  9. #9
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,117
    Mentioned
    140 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have a completely irrational distaste for this kind of mentality. I can't explain why it bothers me so much, except for the way it comes across as arrogance and falseness. I can't help but think that they're judging a person for having emotions, especially "negative" emotions. This especially makes me angry "a sage, or person of "moral and intellectual perfection," would not suffer such emotions." Man, what bullshit. Sorry.

  10. #10
    Hiding Typhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Valhalla
    TIM
    Ni-ENFj
    Posts
    2,645
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It doesnt come off as so much as a lack of . Wait. What is the difference?

  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 Azeroffs View Post
    I don't really know what you're saying about stoicism because of how you keep using the elements to describe it. Your understanding of the elements is unclear.
    What in particular is unclear?

    The idea that stoicism most strongly correlates with IJ is interesting. Idk if it makes sense that an Fi-base type would naturally lend itself to this way of thinking though. Their judgment system is fundamentally biased. They would have a very hard time putting their passions aside.

    If Stoicism can represent anything socionics related, it's Ti and/or Te as far as I understand the philosophy.
    The idea that a Fi-base type could naturally lend itself to this style of thinking is supported by the number of prominent Fi-base Stoic philosophers and writers. There is in fact a noticeable dearth of Te-leading Stoic philosophers and writers.

    Stoics are not without bias or partiality. I am not entirely sure where you got that idea. They sought clear judgment, but this is not necessarily a freedom of bias. They are not without passions either. Stoicism seeks to minimize harmful emotions, suffering, and disruptive passions. Fi-leading does this through harmonizing itself to the dynamically changing world of Te. Ti-leading, with strong Te, does this through understanding the underlying principle of the Logos and establishing a virtue in its accordance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    I don't know much about Stoicism either, but I agree with what you're describing here as being a characteristically kind of outlook. It's the absence of this kind of outlook which is what's enraging about .
    I must have missed the memo about lacking this kind of outlook. The prominent historical Stoics must have missed this memo too.
    "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
    Azeroffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    California
    TIM
    ENTj 3w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,216
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos View Post
    What in particular is unclear?
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos View Post
    Stoicism deals with the relationship one has with and . These are dynamic elements outside of the direct control of individuals. For some Stoics, this involved developing ones relationship with more strongly. While the Logos, the underlying divine order, exists as a principle that the Stoic sought to determine its nature. But moreover, Stoicism did not concern itself tremendously with / so much as it did with the here and now of one's surroundings. There was even a certain amount of criticism towards , as it sometimes tries to control what is outside of one's control. Furthermore, using against one's fellow humanity was seen as antithetical to Stoic philosophy. And as can be seen through some of Stoicism's most renowned followers, Stoics typically falls along / lines.
    All of this. Could you explain it without symbols?


    The idea that a Fi-base type could naturally lend itself to this style of thinking is supported by the number of prominent Fi-base Stoic philosophers and writers. There is in fact a noticeable dearth of Te-leading Stoic philosophers and writers.
    This isn't convincing. How do you know their type and even if I assume they were typed correctly it still doesn't tell me why Fi-base type thinking lends itself to this way of thought.

    Stoics are not without bias or partiality. I am not entirely sure where you got that idea. They sought clear judgment, but this is not necessarily a freedom of bias. They are not without passions either. Stoicism seeks to minimize harmful emotions, suffering, and disruptive passions. Fi-leading does this through harmonizing itself to the dynamically changing world of Te. Ti-leading, with strong Te, does this through understanding the underlying principle of the Logos and establishing a virtue in its accordance.
    Quote Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism
    Stoicism teaches the development of self-control and fortitude as a means of overcoming destructive emotions; the philosophy holds that becoming a clear and unbiased thinker allows one to understand the universal reason (logos).
    As far as I understand, Stoicism demands looking at the world completely unbiased and devoid of any passion in order to have a completely clear picture. Only minimizing harmful emotions doesn't accomplish anything. It leaves bias in only making things happen that are best for you rather than "universally best."
    3w4-5w6-9w8

  13. #13
    wants to be a writer. silverchris9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,107
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah. Stoic epistemology is pure Te. The stoic philosophers seem heavily gamma (the good ones anyway). Stoic epistemology is basically "only believe true things" which are called "cognitive impressions," and basically includes absolute, objective facts like sense perception (and then, only sense perceptions that meet certain standards), while still leaving room for some degree of intuition (especially given the vagueness of the term "cognitive impression"---vagueness which may not exist in Greek, but roll with me).
    Not a rule, just a trend.

    IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

    Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

    I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

  14. #14
    Hiding Typhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Valhalla
    TIM
    Ni-ENFj
    Posts
    2,645
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Airborne View Post
    I agree it is Te because it is unbiased. Many times I was taken for stupid because I admitted that I was wrong. I think Te-base types strive to be unbiased, like for example, I would never type someone on the basis 'I like him/her so he belongs to my quadra' or the opposite. This is ridiculous biased judgment. In order to have any good evaluation of something you must see it totally objectively, detached from your likes and dislikes, like if YOU were not there, there was just a mind evaluating something, but when you put your own persona in it, it gets fucked up because you take all your prejudices and all your opinions and evaluate something totally biased by them.
    Id like you to cite me one human judgement which isnt unbiased.

  15. #15
    wants to be a writer. silverchris9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,107
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typhon View Post
    Id like you to cite me one human judgement which isnt unbiased.
    Oh, of course there is no such thing as an unbiased judgment, but there is such a thing as attempting to be unbiased and emphasizing those aspects of information and those types of information about which one is most likely to be objective.
    Not a rule, just a trend.

    IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

    Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

    I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

  16. #16
    Hiding Typhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Valhalla
    TIM
    Ni-ENFj
    Posts
    2,645
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You can attempt to be unbiased, but does mean you will succeed? I dont know. What do you mean those aspects of information in which is likely to be unbiased? Are you trying to link this to socionics and say that some people are more unbiased than others in the domains pertaining to their strong functions?

  17. #17
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Azeroffs View Post
    All of this. Could you explain it without symbols?
    Sure.

    Stoicism deals with the relationship one has with emotional states and living in a virtuous accordance with the universe. For some Stoics, this involved understanding more strongly. The Logos, the underlying divine order, exists as a logical principle of reason that the Stoic sought to determine its nature. The Logos operates as a principle much like a theoretical law of physics. This universal reason was linked with the study of both rhetorical and dialectic forms of logic. Stoics also frequently employed propositional logic. But moreover, Stoicism did not concern itself tremendously with coercion, force, or the temporal future so much as it did with the here and now of one's immediate surroundings. "How are my actions in accordance with the environment that surrounds me?" There was even a certain amount of criticism towards force, as it sometimes tries to control what was deemed to be outside of one's control or to negatively interfere with well-being of another. Force also frequently stems from acting on our passions. Wealth was not criticized per se, but it was when it was pursued in excess or driven by strong passions of lust, greed, and power. And as can be seen through some of Stoicism's most renowned followers, Stoics are typically found among Si/Ne-valuing quadras.

    This isn't convincing. How do you know their type and even if I assume they were typed correctly it still doesn't tell me why Fi-base type thinking lends itself to this way of thought.
    I know their types partially through my own individual study of Socionics, Stoicism, and these individual philosophers. We have also had past discussions about most of these people to varying degrees on this forum. I am slightly puzzled as to why you are wondering why a Fi-base type would lend itself to an ethical philosophy dealing with the cultivation of moral virtue and rationality?

    As far as I understand, Stoicism demands looking at the world completely unbiased and devoid of any passion in order to have a completely clear picture. Only minimizing harmful emotions doesn't accomplish anything. It leaves bias in only making things happen that are best for you rather than "universally best."
    First of all, Stoicism does not really demand anything. It seeks to cultivate a mind unhampered by disruptive passions that would interfere with judgment. It strives for rational selection. But this does not remove the bias of the individual. (The Stanford link below, for example, does not mention anything about removing bias.) If anything, clearing the mind of passions, allows one to potentially act stronger on one's bias. It merely helps orient the mind towards rational choices. Many prominent Stoics retained their biases. It is hard, for example, to argue that Cato the Younger, Seneca the Younger, or Marcus Aurelius were freed of bias in their judgments.

    For further reading, I would recommend the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Marcus Aurelius's Meditations.

    Quote Originally Posted by silverchris9 View Post
    Yeah. Stoic epistemology is pure Te.
    Really? It seems almost Kantian.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  18. #18
    Azeroffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    California
    TIM
    ENTj 3w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,216
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos View Post
    Sure.

    Stoicism deals with the relationship one has with emotional states and living in a virtuous accordance with the universe. For some Stoics, this involved understanding more strongly. The Logos, the underlying divine order, exists as a logical principle of reason that the Stoic sought to determine its nature. The Logos operates as a principle much like a theoretical law of physics. This universal reason was linked with the study of both rhetorical and dialectic forms of logic. Stoics also frequently employed propositional logic. But moreover, Stoicism did not concern itself tremendously with coercion, force, or the temporal future so much as it did with the here and now of one's immediate surroundings. "How are my actions in accordance with the environment that surrounds me?" There was even a certain amount of criticism towards force, as it sometimes tries to control what was deemed to be outside of one's control or to negatively interfere with well-being of another. Force also frequently stems from acting on our passions. Wealth was not criticized per se, but it was when it was pursued in excess or driven by strong passions of lust, greed, and power. And as can be seen through some of Stoicism's most renowned followers, Stoics are typically found among Si/Ne-valuing quadras.

    I know their types partially through my own individual study of Socionics, Stoicism, and these individual philosophers. We have also had past discussions about most of these people to varying degrees on this forum. I am slightly puzzled as to why you are wondering why a Fi-base type would lend itself to an ethical philosophy dealing with the cultivation of moral virtue and rationality?

    First of all, Stoicism does not really demand anything. It seeks to cultivate a mind unhampered by disruptive passions that would interfere with judgment. It strives for rational selection. But this does not remove the bias of the individual. (The Stanford link below, for example, does not mention anything about removing bias.) If anything, clearing the mind of passions, allows one to potentially act stronger on one's bias. It merely helps orient the mind towards rational choices. Many prominent Stoics retained their biases. It is hard, for example, to argue that Cato the Younger, Seneca the Younger, or Marcus Aurelius were freed of bias in their judgments.

    For further reading, I would recommend the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Marcus Aurelius's Meditations.
    Ill just have to take your word for at this point. I just don't have a thorough enough understanding.

    As far as why I don't think Fi types would lend itself to stoicism.. While I think the ends of what stoicism tries to achieve may be attractive to them, I think the method is a bit counter-intuitive. But, as I said, I don't have a thorough enough understanding.
    3w4-5w6-9w8

  19. #19
    lump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,627
    Mentioned
    634 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    after reading Logos' post i don't think that what i had in mind was actually stoicism, but something else.

  20. #20
    lump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,627
    Mentioned
    634 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    i've been looking for this old post of Expat's that i think described it really well, but i can't find it. i don't remember exactly what it said, and i don't want to misquote him but it basically talked about how cold Te thinking could be and how Fi types might even be repelled if they were inside a Te brain (which i doubt, but anyway). i remember sort of swooning when i read it, haha.

    damnit, i really wish i could find it because if i remember it correctly it was basically perfect.

  21. #21
    Azeroffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    California
    TIM
    ENTj 3w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,216
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by laghlagh View Post
    after reading Logos' post i don't think that what i had in mind was actually stoicism, but something else.
    Yeah same
    3w4-5w6-9w8

  22. #22
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aixelsyd View Post
    It def. does sound like a Te/Fi thing with the emphasis on Te.
    It doesn't sound very Fi to me. But its just like Te yeah.

  23. #23
    when you see the booty Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    everywhere at once
    Posts
    8,449
    Mentioned
    203 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Yeah, types seriously have a love affair with the 'coldness' of .
    I think it's more a love affair with devaluing haha. Kinda like I don't have to put on a show to please somebody.

    But yeah, I think Archon said something about Te egos being "stoic," not in the sense of a philosophical state of mind but more in just how they act externally. As an guy I've found that such behavior has always been infinitely alluring to me, because it's like there's so much underneath the ego's surface that I want to explore. And from my experiences, people seem to really appreciate and respect that sort of invasion into their inner selves.
    "And above all, watch with glittering eyes the whole world around you because the greatest secrets are always hidden in the most unlikely places. Those who don't believe in magic will never find it." -Roald Dahl

    http://forum.socionix.com/
    It's pretty cool

  24. #24
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  25. #25
    The Greeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    602
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I agree with Logos; Stoicism has a strong leaning towards rational static types with Ne/Si tendencies.

    Purely from Azeroffs' quote, it may seem to be Te-oriented but if you read the literature, particular ones by its prominent proponents, the holistic, more complete impression is as what as been previously stated.
    Ceci n'est pas une eii.




  26. #26
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Wait...Doesn't stoicism mean being indifferent to pleasure and pain?

  27. #27
    The Greeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    602
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa33 View Post
    Wait...Doesn't stoicism mean being indifferent to pleasure and pain?
    There is a significant difference between the philosophy of Stoicism and the layman's understanding of "stoicism"--a common noun.
    Ceci n'est pas une eii.




  28. #28
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Stoicism teaches the development of self-control and fortitude as a means of overcoming destructive emotions; the philosophy holds that becoming a clear and unbiased thinker allows one to understand the universal reason (logos).... According to the Stoics, the senses are constantly receiving sensations: pulsations which pass from objects through the senses to the mind, where they leave behind an impression (phantasia). The mind has the ability to judge (sunkatathesis) — approve or reject — an impression, enabling it to distinguish a true representation of reality from one which is false.

    This is Te, but more in the sense of Si.

  29. #29
    Airman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,556
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typhon View Post
    You can attempt to be unbiased, but does mean you will succeed? I dont know. What do you mean those aspects of information in which is likely to be unbiased? Are you trying to link this to socionics and say that some people are more unbiased than others in the domains pertaining to their strong functions?
    1- yes you can TRY to be unbiased and succeed but not 100%

    2- no I´m not saying certain types are more unbiased than others. there are some very unbiased Ti people. it has to do with intelligence more than with Te or Ti. intelligent people are oft less biased in their judgments whether they´re Te , Ti, whatever.

  30. #30
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  31. #31
    The Greeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    602
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pied Piper View Post
    If you read the literature you will understand that different representatives tell different things and you can't find the true essence of Stoicism in that, but among the teachings of it's founders. Representatives of a current deserve this title when their writings are consistent with its essence, not because they're "prominent" adherents.

    Is the "prominent" Kim Yong-Il what what Marx had in mind? No. Is the current Dalai-Lama what Siddharta Buddha had in mind? Most likely he was not interested in politics. Was the Inquisition what Jesus had in mind? No. The examples are countless and this corruption takes place in virtually in every field.

    I admit my errors in using the term "prominent". Nevertheless, by "prominent", I mean those who are well-known adherents (as mentioned by Logos) who also, in my opinion at least, stuck to the core concepts of Stoicism, which includes its founders. I'm not speaking of the corruption of the thing, or in other words, the manner in which the idea was applied, I'm speaking of it in its purest forms, the way it exists in thoughts. The examples you provide are sound, but they are all, as you say, corrupted in the translation from thoughts to application.
    Ceci n'est pas une eii.




  32. #32
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos View Post
    Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism, was likely a EII. Chrysippus of Soli, third head of the Stoic School following Zeno and Cleanthes, was probably a LII. He expanded the teachings of Zeno and Stoicism, such that Chrysippus is considered to be a second founder of Stoicism. Seneca the Younger, a Roman Statesman and Stoic writer, was a ILE. Marcus Aurelius, the Roman Philosopher-Emperor and one of the most prominent Stoics, was an EII.

    But part of the problem with Stoicism is that its popularity was also its death, as everyone eventually became a self-proclaimed Stoic, even its contemporary Christians. So Stoicism to some degree lost its prominence through its dilution. Stoicism attracted a number of admirers in the modern era, especially Baruch Spinoza (ILE/LII) and Albert Einstein (ILE).
    Also of note, Hadrian, whom I think is ILE, was a Stoic, Epicurean, and predecessor to Marcus Aurelius who groomed him from very young age.

  33. #33
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  34. #34
    The Greeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    602
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pied Piper View Post
    Possibly *the authors* of the quotes could be considered not complying to the fundamental principles of the founders, not their quotes. Besides the fact that it's only a possibility, not a fact, this is another hasty generalization from your part. So to review your fallacies up to now, in case you don't understand where I'm disagreeing with you:
    1. the assumption that all the writings of someone adhering to a certain school may safely be considered representative;
    2. that if someone makes writings in contradiction to a certain philosophy, it means that all his writings fall into the same contradiction.
    I know that you are pointing out my fallacies, but, if we consider the criteria you are using to evaluate my rhetoric, then this whole discussion is a fallacy, including your own claims. Anyway, I'm not interested in a meta-level discussion of this thread.
    Ceci n'est pas une eii.




Posting Permissions

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