Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 54

Thread: Morality and Type

  1. #1
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Morality and Type

    I don't why I didn't think of this before because it's actually pretty simple. Consider the following

    Ethics (moral, amoral, immoral)

    Strong Fi-valued -> decides with moral consideration
    Strong Fe-nonvalued -> acts with some passionate/persona consideration

    Weak Fi-valued -> wants to decide with moral consideration
    Weak Fe-nonvalued -> wants to act with no passionate/persona consideration

    Strong Fi-nonvalued -> decides with amoral consideration
    Strong Fe-valued -> acts with passionate/persona consideration

    Weak Fi-nonvalued -> wants to decide with no moral consideration (immoral)
    Weak Fe-valued -> wants to act with passionate/persona consideration


    It would be interesting to apply ethical philosophies to each. But I don't know that much about philosophy. So does anyone that knows a lot about the different studied philosophies of the world want to assign some categories based on the above?

    The only ones that stand out for me would be

    Strong Fi-nonvalued -> decides with amoral consideration
    as probably a moral nihilist.

    Strong Fi-valued -> decides with moral consideration
    as probably some form of idealist.

  2. #2
    stray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    864
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So basically, Fi has dominion over morality. While can investigate just about everything else under the sun..except moral considerations. While is limited to morality and dumbfounded with all else.


  3. #3
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Strong types can be amoral.
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
    Strong types can be amoral.
    Example? I haven't seen this.

  5. #5
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    that was so not a morality test

  6. #6
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Igxfl View Post
    Example? I haven't seen this.
    I admit I have no personal examples, but the concept of amorality is to rise above the notion of morality. That doesn't mean these people are necessarily "bad" or "good", they just don't see through those limited lenses. An example of the approach is Utilitarianism. I think Satanism and Nihilism are others.
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  7. #7
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    This thread is dumb. Can't you guys find a more interesting angle to talk about instead of this 'morality' shit?

    Besides, the egos apparently suck at morality anyway considering their performances on morality test lol: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=35121
    Yeah, but dude, that's kind of the whole point. If say an ILE put much mental effort into Fi, should we really consider them as ILE? Their Ti would operate outside the bounds of what is considered moral, considering constructs that don't have to relate to the relationships of the people around them. I mean sure, an ILE could be moral and probably has to to an extent. But the difference is between feeling a positive motivation to do so and feeling irritated or annoyed by having to be.

    I'm just not sure I could see much point into typing someone an Fi ego if the consideration of what is best for people around them isn't of greater motivational concern. It just makes sense that from just looking at how the types are constructed that XLE would be seen as immoral compared to the other types.

    My definition of morality just refers to established views of how we should treat one another. So going against that isn't truly immoral by any objective standards, but immoral by definition in relation to everyone else.

    It's just the model and probably necessary for the relations to manifest. If you feel it is inadequate, what would you rather suggest in place of that?

    And that test was bullshit. There's no objective standard of reference for viewing consistency of morals. It was more of a test of whether or not someone can use good enough Ti to be consistent without assuming anything other than what they are given.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kramer View Post
    It was more of a test of whether or not someone can use good enough Ti to be consistent without assuming anything other than what they are given.
    Which, of course, explains the poor performance of Fi egos.

  9. #9
    lump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 6 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,596
    Mentioned
    631 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kramer View Post
    My definition of morality just refers to established views of how we should treat one another.
    so Fi = morality and morality = established views of how people should treat eachother? am i getting you right?

    do you honestly think that anyone would claim established views of morality as being so important to them that it would color everything about their worldview or that the most important quality that they seek in a person is their ability to conform to the the most widespread rule of ethics? do you think that all Fi egos would support genocide or slavery if those were the popularly accepted values of their time and place (and not just some of them but ALL of them, because Fi = established views of how people should be treated?)

    maybe i'm getting you wrong.

  10. #10
    So fluffeh. Cuddly McFluffles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    TIM
    ESI
    Posts
    2,780
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    OP: Try using a term that is less loaded.
    Johari/Nohari

    "Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."

    Fruit, the fluffy kitty.

  11. #11
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryene Astraelis View Post
    OP: Try using a term that is less loaded.
    egos, especially Base, are hypersensitive to cause-effect?
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  12. #12
    lump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 6 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,596
    Mentioned
    631 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryene Astraelis View Post
    OP: Try using a term that is less loaded.
    i was trying to keep an open mind when i saw the op because i thought maybe his conception of morality wouldn't be something so insulting, but he defined how he meant it in a later post.

  13. #13
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,612
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Weak Fi-nonvalued -> wants to decide with no moral consideration (immoral)
    pretty sure that's the same as amoral.

  14. #14
    stray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    864
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Is Socrates because he protested against the mob mentality of his countrymen, and plead that they stop and listen to reason.. to live "examined" lives?

  15. #15
    Le roi internet Bluenoir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Zeta Reticuli
    TIM
    Ne-LII
    Posts
    392
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What does ethics have to do with morality? This seems to be an equivocation on the word "ethics"

    I was under the impression was about the maintenance/understanding the relational attitudes people have with one another.

    , the recognition of emotional states.

    Am I missing something here?

    I thought morality was more of a prouduct of cultural influence, as well as the human instincts/need for social co-operation.
    Last edited by Bluenoir; 04-07-2011 at 04:20 AM.
    The mode of goodness conditions one to happiness, passion conditions him to the fruits of action, and ignorance to madness.

    Chapter 14, Verse 9.
    The Bhagavad Gita

  16. #16
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,612
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Neotropic View Post
    What does ethics have to do with morality? This seems to be an equivocation on the word "ethics"

    I was under the impression was about the maintenance/understanding the relational attitudes people have with one another.
    , the recognition of emotional states.

    Am I missing something here?
    Good question. On a practical level, ethics exist in order to define these relational attitudes. If they are considered on a more theoretical level then some comes into play. IMO has nothing to do with "ethics" per se, much like has nothing to do with "logic" per se.

  17. #17
    stray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    864
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Neotropic View Post
    Am I missing something here?
    No. Thank you.

  18. #18
    Le roi internet Bluenoir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Zeta Reticuli
    TIM
    Ne-LII
    Posts
    392
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Good question. On a practical level, ethics exist in order to define these relational attitudes. If they are considered on a more theoretical level then some comes into play. IMO has nothing to do with "ethics" per se, much like has nothing to do with "logic" per se.
    Thanks for your response. You've given me something to consider here.

    I think it's a little immature to put something as open ended and nuance as "morality" down to nothing but how you vaule your "ethics" functions though.
    The mode of goodness conditions one to happiness, passion conditions him to the fruits of action, and ignorance to madness.

    Chapter 14, Verse 9.
    The Bhagavad Gita

  19. #19
    stray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    864
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    If they are considered on a more theoretical level then some comes into play. IMO
    And they will be considered. or may go about it in a different manner, but I don't see how it's an avoidable subject for either one (I would say that a Se type's inclination to theorize would usually be more emergent and directly situational). Outside some people being constantly distracted with their own narcissism and juvenile interests (which can happen), they're going to be moral in some way. It's a shared interest across all of the types.

    Hopefully this doesn't look too conventional, but one could even look at "archetypes" and come to some impression that morality is still a noticable trait in types. I could see the of "Zhukov" being more naturalistic in their worldviews. Not necessarily reaching idealistic conclusions about morality, but being practical and honorable in some way, more or less. Quixote and Robespierre are very much idealists though. What does Dostoevsky have that necessarily makes him more moral? That wasn't the distinction being made.

  20. #20
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,739
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Deontology

    Immanuel Kant's approach to ethics is naturally a rather approach.

    Moral sentiments

    Hume discusses what I tend to view as a more one.

    The Good

    Aristotelian ethics are executed using a more well rounded logical approach, perhaps in a more intuitive fashion. Considering it right now, I'm more inclined to see him perhaps as an INTj like silverchris proposed. His arrival at what 'the good' is does strike me as more than anything else.

    Daoist ethics

    If you take those aspects of Daoism that touch on what we might call a view on ethics, it's more of an amoral perspective, but you could easily call it an example of an ethical theory.

    Mohism

    Mohism is probably an excellent example of ethics, particularly LSE.

    I'll try to think of some more.
    Moonlight will fall
    Winter will end
    Harvest will come
    Your heart will mend

  21. #21
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i'm definitely consequentialist > deontologist. i've always held that the idea that you can't kill 1 person to save millions just because doing so involves leveraging your agency in a "forbidden" direction is completely absurd. catastrophically wrong even.

    the reason why killing is not a good idea has to do with tail end risk (i.e. you kill the person and things pan out completely different than you expect; now you've still killed a person - the lower bound to the damage done is very high) and imperfect epistemics (i.e. your understanding of the situation is not infallible, hence the tail end risk), not with a final result analysis of the situation.

  22. #22
    stray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    864
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    i'm definitely consequentialist > deontologist. i've always held that the idea that you can't kill 1 person to save millions just because doing so involves leveraging your agency in a "forbidden" direction is completely absurd. catastrophically wrong even.
    How about if the person you were killing was yourself?

    @muenori: Those are pretty good.

    I think Confucianism might be Gamma in general.

  23. #23
    Éminence grise mikemex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Third Planet
    TIM
    IEE-Ne
    Posts
    1,631
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by munenori2 View Post
    Aristotelian ethics are executed using a more well rounded logical approach, perhaps in a more intuitive fashion. Considering it right now, I'm more inclined to see him perhaps as an INTj like silverchris proposed. His arrival at what 'the good' is does strike me as more than anything else.
    A Ti-LSI can use intuition from time to time. But that by no chance turns an LSI into a LII. It should be evident that Aristotle was Beta and not Alpha.
    [] | NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)

    You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life.
    - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.

  24. #24
    So fluffeh. Cuddly McFluffles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    TIM
    ESI
    Posts
    2,780
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
    egos, especially Base, are hypersensitive to cause-effect?
    "Cause-effect" is pretty broad, perhaps too broad to pin on one function.
    Johari/Nohari

    "Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."

    Fruit, the fluffy kitty.

  25. #25
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryene Astraelis View Post
    "Cause-effect" is pretty broad, perhaps too broad to pin on one function.
    Definitely, to me, cause-effect are the Field / Subject / Relational / Introverted functions.

    Okay, so by "Cause-effect", in terms of , I mean the cause-effect relationships of well-defined(clearly observable) behavior that happens over time.

    By "well-defined" I mean actions that you can do. Like "walk the dog", or "kiss this person", or "eat this sandwich" or "curse out this person".

    By "happens over time", I mean movement.

    Would you agree?
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  26. #26
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think this is what gives the attribute of morality.

    For example:
    interprets the long term cause-effect relationship of explicit temporal behavior - conscientious
    interprets the long term cause-effect relationship of explicit spatial behavior - cautious
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  27. #27
    So fluffeh. Cuddly McFluffles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    TIM
    ESI
    Posts
    2,780
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
    Definitely, to me, cause-effect are the Field / Subject / Relational / Introverted functions.
    I think it can apply to any function.

    Okay, so by "Cause-effect", in terms of , I mean the cause-effect relationships of well-defined(clearly observable) behavior that happens over time.

    By "well-defined" I mean actions that you can do. Like "walk the dog", or "kiss this person", or "eat this sandwich" or "curse out this person".

    By "happens over time", I mean movement.

    Would you agree?
    I'm wondering if we are on the same page here. Cause-effect applies in that pays attention to how its words and actions affect the other person (and vice versa). If that is what you are trying to say, then we are in agreement on that point. However, given that cause-effect is not specific to , you cannot take the term on its own as a substitute for "morality".
    Last edited by Cuddly McFluffles; 04-08-2011 at 04:07 AM.
    Johari/Nohari

    "Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."

    Fruit, the fluffy kitty.

  28. #28
    So fluffeh. Cuddly McFluffles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    TIM
    ESI
    Posts
    2,780
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
    I think this is what gives the attribute of morality.

    For example:
    interprets the long term cause-effect relationship of explicit temporal behavior - conscientious
    interprets the long term cause-effect relationship of explicit spatial behavior - cautious
    What is this in English?
    Johari/Nohari

    "Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."

    Fruit, the fluffy kitty.

  29. #29
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryene Astraelis View Post
    I think it can apply to any function.
    If we refer to the IM aspects, only the Introverted aspects observe cause-effect. The Extraverted aspects observe behavior but are blind to the effect, or the development of said behavior.

    In practice, this crudely equates to:
    Extraverts acting but not considering
    Introverts considering but not acting.

    I'm wondering if we are on the same page here. Cause-effect applies in that pays attention to how its words and actions affect the other person (and vice versa). If that is what you are trying to say, then yes, I agree.
    Yes, that's what I mean.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryene Astraelis View Post
    What is this in English?
    It means, for example that:
    IxFjs monitor temporal developments. X action will lead to X state
    INxps monitor spatial developments. X state will lead to X action

    So IxFjs will watch their and other people's actions for fear of some unwanted state.
    So INxps will watch their and other people's/things' states for fear of some unwanted action.
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  30. #30
    So fluffeh. Cuddly McFluffles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    TIM
    ESI
    Posts
    2,780
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I edited my post. You may want to take a look at it.
    Johari/Nohari

    "Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."

    Fruit, the fluffy kitty.

  31. #31
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    pretty sure that's the same as amoral.
    Quote Originally Posted by laghlagh View Post
    i was trying to keep an open mind when i saw the op because i thought maybe his conception of morality wouldn't be something so insulting, but he defined how he meant it in a later post.
    Wait, wait. Let me get my definitions out here first. I think you're misunderstanding me.

    Moral Person - Consideration of the established rules, relationships, and customs of a culture or society of importance. These things are seen as rather concrete. They are seen as everlasting or at least supported to be. *This boils down to a strong sense of how we should treat one another...basically...I'm sorry, but it does*

    Amoral Person - Is not really sure that these rules, relationships, and customs really exist in any concrete sense. They see them as loosely connected and easily changed and influenced. Can attempt to create a sense of rules, relationships, and customs without really believing that what they are doing is concrete or will last very long even and isn't really supported to be everlasting.

    Immoral Person - Consideration of the established rules, relationships, and customs of a culture or society as not important. These rules, relationships, and customs are seen as self-serving or a manifestation of trying to control the freedoms of individuals and groups.

    So for the record, when I refer to immoral versus moral I'm not talking about sympathy or empathy. Fi-PoLRs can be very empathetic. But that's not the point of this.

    I just wanted to clarify a bit the concepts. I feel this distinction is important unless someone can give me a good reason why they think it is incorrect.

    So, anyway...

  32. #32
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryene Astraelis View Post
    I edited my post. You may want to take a look at it.

    ---

    However, given that cause-effect is not specific to , you cannot take the term on its own as a substitute for "morality".
    Oh, I'm not. I was showing how morality exists partly in the aspect of . Morality that deals with being conscientious, at least.
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  33. #33
    stray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    864
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kramer View Post
    Moral Person - Consideration of the established rules, relationships, and customs of a culture or society of importance. These things are seen as rather concrete. They are seen as everlasting or at least supported to be. *This boils down to a strong sense of how we should treat one another...basically...I'm sorry, but it does*[url]
    A person could be highly moral, and yet at odds with the surrounding rules and culture. They may have more general, abstract concerns about morality. Or they might be so moral that may even try to reform the surrounding culture.

    Some of the most famous philosophers/moralists were doing things along these lines. Either they were killed for it, caused a ruckus, or they were alone in their work. Socrates, Gandhi, Jesus, MLK Jr., Joan of Arc, etc.. No matter how expressed it, you couldn't accuse them of not being moral in some manner. And their morality didn't entail any of this cookie cutter, "established rules" angle on things. That's very one dimensional.

  34. #34
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,739
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikemex View Post
    A Ti-LSI can use intuition from time to time. But that by no chance turns an LSI into a LII. It should be evident that Aristotle was Beta and not Alpha.
    This is actually my original typing for Aristotle, as he was in many ways a hierarchical apologist or justifier. It's just the way he arrives at what constitutes the highest good (something being desirable for itself, not desirable for the sake of any other good, and all other goods being desirable for its sake) struck me as an approach hallmarked by and involving use of his PoLR so centrally in his logic is somewhat problematic.
    Moonlight will fall
    Winter will end
    Harvest will come
    Your heart will mend

  35. #35
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by straytk View Post
    A person could be highly moral, and yet at odds with the surrounding rules and culture. They may have more general, abstract concerns about morality. Or they might be so moral that may even try to reform the surrounding culture.

    Some of the most famous philosophers/moralists were doing things along these lines. Either they were killed for it, caused a ruckus, or they were alone in their work. Socrates, Gandhi, Jesus, MLK Jr., Joan of Arc, etc.. No matter how expressed it, you couldn't accuse them of not being moral in some manner. And their morality didn't entail any of this cookie cutter, "established rules" angle on things. That's very one dimensional.
    And these types were not Fi-valuing by my definitions. I've clarified the concepts. Don't argue this one dimensional bullshit. I know better than anyone the abstract nature of morality, but this is how socionics uses them to understand some of the relations. There is nothing cookie-cutter about the definitions. Most of these people were killed for going against established society.

    You just don't like the fact that I'm using "morality" to mean something you don't think encompasses the nature of it "well enough" since no definition will ever suffice anyway. You complain a lot for someone that hasn't even "attempted" to clarify anything. Nit-picking is not constructive and shows me your ignorance.

    These threads are meant to be constructive; if you people are going to criticize and critic you should have another idea in mind because just attacking ideas stops discussion and makes people not want to discuss this anymore. Quite being pricks.

    Edit: I don't include Jesus since I no nothing about his actual life, and neither does anyone else.

  36. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,934
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    eh.. Fi is more about personal boundaries / attachments. That is a feeling of morality but the moral dogmas don't come from Fi. Norms like that are more Fe / Te. Ti can also be regulatory, though. It's just instead of ignoring you the person will quote you and berate you with information, like Bolt.

  37. #37
    stray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    864
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kramer View Post
    These threads are meant to be constructive; if you people are going to criticize and critic you should have another idea in mind because just attacking ideas stops discussion and makes people not want to discuss this anymore. Quite being pricks.
    Sigh. Ok, buddy. I'll be constructive.

    You sound like you need someone to suck your dick. Asap. Hope that works out for you.

    Happy?

  38. #38
    So fluffeh. Cuddly McFluffles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    TIM
    ESI
    Posts
    2,780
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kramer View Post
    And these types were not Fi-valuing by my definitions. I've clarified the concepts. Don't argue this one dimensional bullshit. I know better than anyone the abstract nature of morality, but this is how socionics uses them to understand some of the relations. There is nothing cookie-cutter about the definitions. Most of these people were killed for going against established society.

    You just don't like the fact that I'm using "morality" to mean something you don't think encompasses the nature of it "well enough" since no definition will ever suffice anyway. You complain a lot for someone that hasn't even "attempted" to clarify anything. Nit-picking is not constructive and shows me your ignorance.

    These threads are meant to be constructive; if you people are going to criticize and critic you should have another idea in mind because just attacking ideas stops discussion and makes people not want to discuss this anymore. Quite being pricks.

    Edit: I don't include Jesus since I no nothing about his actual life, and neither does anyone else.
    No. types do not automatically support and conform to the surrounding values and traditions simply because they are majority sentiment. Nor are quadra people incapable of doing so. You claim your view is socionically supported. Where is your source? While we're at it, I'm curious to know how you define to begin with.

    You want something you feel is constructive. Alright. Maybe you should scrap this idea and quit trying to describe as absolutely bound by tradition and majority view. It's not that clear cut, and it's not that simple. Also, there's no need to be insulting just because you feel people aren't responding to you correctly.
    Johari/Nohari

    "Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."

    Fruit, the fluffy kitty.

  39. #39
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazedratsshadow View Post
    .
    permaban and then back in a week. hehehe.

  40. #40
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,612
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by straytk View Post
    I think Confucianism might be Gamma in general.
    Yeah, totally. Confucius was probably ESI, maybe EII.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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