http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes
The man was fuck it, I dunno.
René Descartes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes
The man was fuck it, I dunno.
Last edited by JWC3; 07-09-2012 at 04:52 AM.
Easy Day
You have to be kidding me, that is, you have to have a completely skewed view of socionics, Maritsa. Oh well, it's socionics.
Looks like JWC3 is SEE-LII in Aleksei's vision of socionics. Anyhow, SEE descriptions ought to be re-written to fit people from now on and his famous lines like the mind is a software program running in a piece of computer hardware called the brain, and cogito ergo sum incorporated in them.
Plus it is going to hasten my literary genius and deliver the book of books on socionics earlier than I thought.
Last edited by Absurd; 07-08-2012 at 04:45 PM.
Originally Posted by Radio
Well, I do find nothing of use in what he's said. Perhaps I am mislabeling my disinterest as that of communicating with an identical when conflictor relations may be a better indication of how I veiw him. I'll look back over his discourse on method.
Easy Day
I concede, SEE is incorrect.
Last edited by JWC3; 07-09-2012 at 05:55 AM. Reason: You can't win 'em all
Easy Day
Yeah... I'ma go be embarrassed someplace now.
Easy Day
Rene Descartes was a big let down to me. After years of hearing his name quoted abstractly and/or being referenced, i was expecting him to say some profound stuff.
But after reading about him, it was just meh. How do i prove my existence? I had a thought, and therefore am thinking! It's objectively and deductively proven! MEH. Not really. It's a subjective conclusion, and i feel that for something that's clearly subjective, there's alot more leeway to add in insight or wisdom without being inaccurate. His most famous quote strikes a resounding "D'uh" in my spirit.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Essentially yes to everything you just said.
Easy Day
lmao... those Ej's....Maybe I should leave his biography lying around for my ESE mother to read (ha!) so she'll stop trying to wake me up at noon yelling, "Half the day's gone!"
jwc, I like you.
lol Thanks hommie. I mean sometimes I don't know shit about fuck, I guess that's endearing.jwc, I like you.
Easy Day
nah you smart
I love you too buddy.
Easy Day
Whatever type of asshole thinks animals don't have emotions.
But like you can see the stray we adopted shrink away whenever you try to pet him, it's pretty obvious he's scared. We think whoever had him last wasn't too nice to him to say the least.
Easy Day
I don't know why, but he looks laid back and content to me in that photo. Contrast this with the typical philosopher look of either stoicism, looking mildly pissed, or giving a withdrawn pose, as if to suggest there is a monkey on their back and they don't know how to get it off, and it just seems kind of funny, like some kind of cosmic joke.
You should type Kant now.
I cannot imagine Kant being anything other than LII - oh wait, you want JWC3 to propose an off the wall typing. I see. Yes. Like Kant is really an LSE? Yes. Ok, very funny!
Socionics -
the16types.info
#1 example ever of Causal-Deterministic thinking, I'm pretty sure...
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Actually yes, but not SEE. Plus I'm not entirely convinced to those cog styles going off a small portion of residents this forum has to offer. More like genetic determinism.
most overrated philosopher.
His significance is found in he how he inspired other philosophers to build on his system, or to refute it.
Last edited by Saberstorm; 07-09-2012 at 08:26 PM.
Socionics -
the16types.info
Yes
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Definitely my type.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
You're an animal. Shall we see if you have emotions? *Dr. Claw chuckle*Definitely my type.
Inspector Gadget on the other hand, a deeply profound protagonist.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
The idea is that nothing empirical can be certain, all manifestations of nature are, to us, just our perception, about which we have no guarantee to tell something accurate, or something at all - for example it may be all a dream. I may be immaterial, I may not be actually human, I may not have a brain - all these could be illusions. The maximum that I can tell is that something exists; in abssence of this, my question or doubt is impossible, but that is all about it.
Er... idk about weak Ne. I think his idea is more suggestive of an intuitive function, denying the validity of sensation, seeing a greater context beyond our sensory awareness that could in fact determine our sensations. That is something Ne creative/Ni demonstrative would conjure. Not that I necessarily agree with Descartes, nor would I use that theme in and of itself in typing him.
Yes, Jung even references the Cogito in differentiating Extraverted and Introverted Thinking:
"Whereas the latter sinks to the level of a mere presentation of facts, the former evaporates into a representation of the unknowable, which is even beyond everything that could be expressed in an image. The presentation of facts has a certain incontestable truth, because the subjective factor is excluded and the facts speak for themselves. Similarly, the representing of the unknowable has also an immediate, subjective, and convincing power, because it is demonstrable from its own existence. The former says 'Est, ergo est' ('It is ; therefore it is') ; while the latter says 'Cogito, ergo cogito' (' I think ; therefore I think'). In the last analysis, introverted thinking arrives at the evidence of its own subjective being, while extraverted thinking is driven to the evidence of its complete identity with the objective fact."
Yeah good point. I think to Se Egos, in particular Ne-PoLRs, the empirical as we perceive is always a self-evident given. The "what if" - as in what if all sensory experience is illusionary - betrays Intuitive Ego.
No, it has nothing to do with that. It just tells the necessity of existence from the standpoint of Rationalism.
And BTW, rationalists don't affirm that things in nature do not exist, just that we can't be sure of knowing anything outside our mind the way it is ("things in themselves" in Kant) as we get all that information through our senses and make a mere representation of the phenomena in our minds. Think of blind people who do not see colors, to them things have not the property of visibility and can't be distinguished from a distance. Then blind people who regain vision cannot at first interpret what they see.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
