And yet you don't even realize the irony of using (objective) logic to try to disprove my logic that it is objective.
Are you ok there, Bertrand? It sounds more like this amount of illogicality, irrationality and lack of intellect is personal hell to me.
logic is not your strong sideOriginally Posted by Singu
Logic is objective, propositions may not be. Probably.
not all logical propositions are true
logic can be objective or subjective
identifying falsehood with subjectivity with feeling is like self hatred for feeling types, but the good thing is they can't possibly mean what they say
... and I care who she is and whom you prefer. Right. The entitlement.She's EIE, while I prefer EII.
have a nice med
The rest I couldn't decipher and believe it or not, I am using the best random jibberish translator.
Y'all must get off from this 8====D
everyone everyone else's long lost daddy
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
Not all propositions are true, but logic itself is objective. Given sufficient definitions, anybody should reach the same conclusion about whether a rule has been broken or not. People may disagree about what is meant by "Thou shall not kill", but that is another matter.
there's an entire field of study devoted to subjective logic within analytic philosophy precisely on that point
true, but the sufficiency cuts all waysgiven sufficient definitions
the bottom line is normative logic amounts to A=A but that does not exhaust the possibilities inherent to subjective logic, which retains for itself the right to redefine the scope of what A=A means at its root. A=A is straightforward until it is not, and you can devise a system that swallows such a simple rule in exceptions [1]. this is precisely the achievement of the 20th century, which is to allow for the categorical validity of the exception as such. once you realize that A=A contains latent within it the possibility of the explosion (i.e. exception) to the very rule it is based on, you see how subjective logic is radically subjective and A=A only holds as "objective" for as long as people cling to it as an article of faith. you can easily derive A= /A on the basis of A=A if you so desire--this is precisely the incompleteness theorem--it introduces an irreducible element of uncertainty as to the completeness of A=A, i.e.: within A=A lies the possibility of A=/A on the very assumption that A=A. this is another way to say what Nietzsche said earlier, which is to say that within the Christian ideal of the logos lied its unravelling
another way to think about it is to frame it in terms of values. are some deeds always wrong, wrong by definition? the question becomes "whose definitions?" inasmuch as the result is inextricably linked to the values of the evaluator does that make subjective values objective? no: simply because those links are traceable in no way makes the thing objective in any meaningful sense of the word. it only means it can be viewed as an objective dynamic, but says nothing about the "objectivity" of the object itself. here what you have is how Fe looks at Fi and Te looks at Ti and vice versa, essentially one can view the other from the point of view of its links from the outside looking in, but any objectivity is a projection, because within it are nested assumptions that make such a view possible, namely as assumption of causality itself. the point of all this is to say that to say subjective logic has an objective element is to bring that objective element to it, which is itself a subjective move and goes to show the two things hang in a relativistic dynamic that is mutually subjective on some level and if you want to get beyond that you have to admit it first. in other words, you don't get at objectivity by mere declaration, that is more force and less reality. the ultimate form of objectivity would account for the fact that opinions can differ even on A=A. when we remain in the world of "well logic is objective, inasmuch as it is deterministic" totally ignores the starting point that makes it subjective at its root. it is a denial that there is such a root, which is itself a root statement
in the final anaylsis objectivity is made possible by subjective assumptions that fix the dynamic. some of these assumptions are at the pre-cognitive level, i.e.: psychological features. this is what makes Te as a mode of being possible. valued, and strong, Ti views the world (if coupled with Ne) in terms of playing with those assumptions and constructing its own system. in other words, the entire point of socionics is across the informational spectrum we clamp certain areas in order to explore others more fully. to maintain a meaningful psychological paradigm you have to realize that whether or not you subsume the subjective into an objective view or vice versa is a product of your own unique perspective. to view Ti in terms of Te and call it objective becomes a projection then on the basis of the assumptions you bring to the table about the causal relationships being fixed, which a different person would explode and play with. thus whether or not logic is per se objective is nothing but a reflection of the psychological values of the speaker. in Singu's case the pathological character of such a projection seems like a manifestation of polr, whereas I would say it may simply be valued Te and a relatively benign projection from Subteigh
people who want to play with assumptions are generally Ne valuing whereas people who want to impose them without directly assessing them tend to be Se/Ni (creative Ni being the most able to play that game if pressed, with Ne polr being the least, which is why they are dual)
[1] you might ask why would anyone ever engage in such a ptolemaic project, but you must realize this is progress, in the sense of relativistic physics do more than newtonian physics, in the same way minkowski space is a triumph over euclidian geometry. this is nothing less than enhanced dimensionality itself. only normative Ti wants to exclude exception in order to maintain a 2d linear structure of logical propositions. to qualify this as objective is itself a nested value judgement, but it does say something about how Fe needs to be "ordered" or "structured" by Ti in order to function properly. you can think of Ti as the structural form-giver to Fe, so normative Ti is the basis for making certain Fe judgements. in other words, if 2d Ti weren't what it is, neither could 3d Fe be what it is. they hang in a necessary relationship to one another, such that this view of logic is actually a view of logic required in order to have 3d Fe (4d Fi) it is a necessary trade off. hence a degree of derp can easily be forgiven except when it becomes super militant and neurotic as in Singu's case. he's sort of the IEI equivalent of a logical type on a moral high horse. perhaps this is why he bothers me so much, since I see a shade of that in myself from a different side
Last edited by Bertrand; 04-13-2018 at 02:21 AM.
Some truths are certainly more true than others.
factual logic (Te) is objective
logic of interpretations (Ti) - not. it's only models in your head
another way to put this is they all have a baseline value (and should be respected inasmuch as that is the case) but can be compared as better/worse in view of the work they do. this is to impose a Te/Fi view on truth, but in the language of Ti. Te/Fi valuing just accepts this on a pre reflective level, that's what defines Te/Fi in terms of psychological type (they embody, not simply declare it). its the disjunction between being able to manifest something in declarative space versus living it that makes people psychological beings. its the existence of a mask or two layered system, which is what freud's insight into the unconscious revealed. except he said most people spoke from their super ego in social space but to do so posits a layered psyche, and were essentially living in their super ego because of how civilization forced them into that space, and that was the cause of much neuroses, which is actually true for a large portion of neurotic people, but Jung later developed with greater sophistication and incorporated Adler's psychology which was a neglected side to Freud, and now we have socionics
Everything we perceive is subjective cuz were subjects end of story go to bed
does a chair perceive an objective world
Did u just assume my furniture
Do you perceive a chair?
Isn't it your subjective world that perceives the chair and the objective world?
Does it even matter if are able to sit down in the chair and can operate in the objective world?
im curious what do you mean by this, even if you mean it to be nonsense, can you clarify? because it seems like white noise but I feel like there must be something to it
Whos to say were in an objective world and not dreaming m8. Yeahyeahyeah
I haven't followed the whole convo but...we don't really know if the world outside ourselves is real or not. No real way to know, I mean if we perceive it correctly. We can do practical stuff and still not be sure if we perceive it correctly, or completely etc. Insects see different colors than we do and still are able to operate too. That's the philosophical side.
But the scientific side is really the practical side, we can't be sure data is "real" in an ontological sense, we can be sure its real enough that we can use it. If you wanna get stuff done in the world, you do need facts, not saying facts represent the highest level of whats real, but they work for us. It is possible to build a rollercoaster and have it crash, and its also possible to build a rollercoaster that doesn't crash, one of the builders of the two rollercoasters must've got it right, no? Accurate knowledge is accurate for us.
Facts are useful, not necessarily "true". It doesn't even matter if they're "true", so long as they work.
Ti in Jung= Ni in Socionics
weak Ti valuing is stuff like earnestly believing in cold blood stuff like "if the shoe fits you must acquit." you see people stand around and mutter weak tautologies to justify whatever they're doing, even though they know as a matter of ethics something is wrong. its always kind of sad to see. xEI is very pitiful when reduced to this
Right, and how do you exactly access this "factual logic" or the "objective world"?
EVERYTHING is an interpretation of our perception through our brain. And hence, there's no such thing as "Te". We might as well say that all of our thoughts are "Ti", if we suppose that Ti is "logic".
lol at the Te types trying to claim objectivity because they think about and know how to do stuff.
Another error of "Te" is the doctrine of "what works" or "what's practical", which is another way of saying, if the test or an experiment is deemed to have been successful, then it has "worked". Or, if a theory successfully predicts something, then that's all that matters, and its explanations or understanding are not relevant (this is called instrumentalism, because the theory is no more than an "instrument" for making predictions).
But if all we care about is what "works", then it would not tell us what to experiment in the first place. For example, how would it know how to build a spaceship? We may know that a spaceship "works" in an experiment by its successful liftoff, but it could not tell us the design of the spaceship. And if the spaceship turns out to explode during the test, then it would not tell us how to prevent that explosion, because then that would take an understanding of how the spaceship works.
And if you say "Well the Ti types come up with these things, and Te types figure out what works!", but then how would you even know that it would work, without even understanding how it works? So the explanations and the understanding of something becomes paramount, as they build up on knowledge, and not just simply looks at the final product.
Te guesses and tries stuff, this is how a lot of new stuff is developed. this happens in the ethical realm as well where people do new things and only later do we describe it in structural language and situate within a narrative and call it progress. in any case this is why LIE is called a "natural scientist" because they formulate guesses (hypotheses) and gamble on them and retain and build on that which produces desired results. you can say its somehow empty because there's not a rigid description of why it worked available, as of yet (although you can bet people will work on figuring it out depending on how amazing the results are), but I doubt LIE or anyone else cares how much you value their process. if you had a shred of maturity you would focus on appreciating those aspects that are different than your own approach and try to learn from them rather than denigrate them at every turn
Ironically, the process of understanding "what works", is through the understanding itself. Experiments could provide the evidence for what "works" or not, but then it doesn't tell us what to experiment on, i.e. it doesn't tell us the design of a spaceship that is the subject of the experiment.
Another classical error of Socionics functions, is for example to say that Ti is about reducing things into components to understand things, or "reductionism", and that only the very deepest layer of its reductions could be considered to be fundamental. And Te is about looking at the whole or the complete parts, or "holism". The error of reductionism lies in the view that only deeper, lower-level complexity could be considered as the most fundamental explanations. And the error of holism lies in denying the reductionist explanations at all, or even denying the existence of reduced parts altogether.
So how one tries to explain something, depends on how one looks at it. It's not as if there's a "fundamental building block" of our consciousness that only allow us to be either reductionists or holists. We can't say, that since this is a Ti type, he will ALWAYS be a reductionist. It depends on his ability to reduce things to components, AND his belief that explanations require higher-level emergent phenomena as well, i.e. he is NOT a reductionist, nor a holist.
Another error of Socionics lies in explanations that don't make a whole lot of sense, or the explanation stops prematurely. For instance, you could say that two people are conflicting. And when you ask why they're conflicting, it's because they had been fighting. And you ask why they had been fighting, it's because one had insulted another. And you ask what was the insult about, then it's because he insulted his wife, and because he was in love with her and thought highly of her or something. Basically, the explanation just leads on and on to another explanations, which get us closer and closer to the truth.
And yet with Socionics, it says "It's due to a Conflictor relation, period. The end", and the explanation stops there. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to say, that feelings and logic, namely Fi and Ti, is the reason for conflict, as it doesn't necessarily mean that they would conflict, perhaps it would only cause lack of understanding between each other.
But perhaps we could also say for example, "There would be a conflict between people, if one person insults another person, and if and only if, the insult affects the insulted, because it denies the concept of his self, which might violate his view on self-preservation..." or something like that. That would be a much better explanation than just saying, "feelings and logic conflict".
But if it's just about "what works", and we were only looking at the result of the relationship, then we wouldn't have known that!
your first sentence is cracking me up
you're describing subconscious Ti but refusing to admit socionics
In such case no one will understand you.
This is part of the reason why it's so hard to talk about anything here. The fact that people want to define an introverted process as objective is...paradoxical and stops the discussion before it even starts. I mean Extroversion is extroversion because it's focus is on the outer (or objective) world. That's just what it is. Outer world and objective are considered the same thing (from a Jungian philosophical perspective anyway). Extroverts enjoy getting stimulated and interacting with things outside themselves. Introverts on the other hand turn in on themselves and paint the world as an extension of how they view themselves and others. For example, an Fi type might think about how their actions would effect someone or how they might feel about doing certain things or what things they are willing to do under certain circumstances, and what that tells them about other people, etc. A Ti type might think about a way to categorize or define people or introduce a formal way of thinking about the world and relating that with people and they might make choices or even judge people based on those representations they've created about them. An Si type might be flooded with unconscious impressions that becomes internalized and colors in their world. Such things like the way a girl or guy dresses or moves their hair or body or something can make such people think of a kaleidoscope of impressions that they deal with themselves. I think this is why Si is often considered "traditional" because something that becomes romanticized in their lives is something they don't want to get rid of or have desecrated. Homosexuals are often decried for desecrating the sanctity of marriage, for example, but it's not that that's true, it's that a lot of straight people don't want to lose their romanticized image of a man and a woman rather than man/man or woman/woman.
But ima stop here. Bertrand makes me want to talk more for some reason, where I normally try to avoid getting to into theory-discussion because everyone is just going to disagree.
good bye
Why do you think subjective statements cant be understoodIn such case no one will understand you.
If for your consciousness "everything we perceive is subjective" then it has no means to transfer your understanding to other one. It can't be sure you was understood.
The statements which can be understood contain also objective elements. Purely subjective statement - can't or unpredictable.
You may to have a limited consensus with some persons based on relatively subjective, but for it to appear you need objective anyway.
Last edited by Sol; 04-13-2018 at 10:33 AM.
well by that statement i mean everything we perceive is bound to our senses. we dont see objective reality, just an interpretation of it through our 5 senses. this means that we cannot perceive objective reality as it REALLY is. only as it shows to us. for example, our eyes cannot register Ultra violet or infra red radiation, but it still exists. therefore in reality the world should look different than how we perceive it. Just as the way a bat, through echolocation, sees the world in his way. thats what i mean ''by everything we perceive is subjective.''
The problem with objectivity is the more objective you try to become, the more you evaporate. Subjectivity keeps you properly grounded to something - for better or worse.
Nobody really wins anything by 'being objective' lmao its like gaslighting yourself. Perhaps you can grow by being more logical/efficient maybe but not 'objective.'
In fact if I was president of the united states I might just outlaw the word entirely. That and 'subjective' too because its too middle class dorky like. Everything is already subjective anyway- and the usefulness of objectivity only helps one insofar as to develop our personal subjective skills.
The problem I have with people who say "everything is subjective" is that it seems like an excuse to not use hard data because its funner not to.
I understand what you're saying I think, about being grounded through subjectivity, but they are actually not mutually exclusive, though alot ofpolr people act like they're suddenly gonna...evaporate (your word) if they resort to facts and such. Not to bring type into this, but I hear it often from SEIs for example " nothing is really objective". I dunno, I mean it really depends on what level of reality you're talking about.
I think I am being misunderstood in this debate because people seem to think its an either/or thing. It's not. You can be grounded in subjectivity and still have to navigate your way through the world...which requires objective knowledge. Kinda like Ayn Rand's "nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" quote. And Ayn Rand wasn't even
As much as I love subjectvity, I think it is dangerous without any kind of balance with objectivity. I think the essence is Freud's philosophy is summed up by the idea of balance between one's desires (pleasure principle) and reality. We can debate what the nature of reality is on a philosophical level but if you wanna get through your day you had better act like the outside world is real.
Last edited by Ave; 04-13-2018 at 11:25 AM.
Do introverts have a free pass to drive past red lights?This is part of the reason why it's so hard to talk about anything here. The fact that people want to define an introverted process as objective is...paradoxical and stops the discussion before it even starts. I mean Extroversion is extroversion because it's focus is on the outer (or objective) world. That's just what it is. Outer world and objective are considered the same thing (from a Jungian philosophical perspective anyway). Extroverts enjoy getting stimulated and interacting with things outside themselves. Introverts on the other hand turn in on themselves and paint the world as an extension of how they view themselves and others. For example, an Fi type might think about how their actions would effect someone or how they might feel about doing certain things or what things they are willing to do under certain circumstances, and what that tells them about other people, etc. A Ti type might think about a way to categorize or define people or introduce a formal way of thinking about the world and relating that with people and they might make choices or even judge people based on those representations they've created about them. An Si type might be flooded with unconscious impressions that becomes internalized and colors in their world. Such things like the way a girl or guy dresses or moves their hair or body or something can make such people think of a kaleidoscope of impressions that they deal with themselves. I think this is why Si is often considered "traditional" because something that becomes romanticized in their lives is something they don't want to get rid of or have desecrated. Homosexuals are often decried for desecrating the sanctity of marriage, for example, but it's not that that's true, it's that a lot of straight people don't want to lose their romanticized image of a man and a woman rather than man/man or woman/woman.
But ima stop here. Bertrand makes me want to talk more for some reason, where I normally try to avoid getting to into theory-discussion because everyone is just going to disagree.
Also, are you actually implying homophobia is related to extroversion, lol?
Fact is, even Jung spoke of how we have a second function, introverted for extroverts and extroverted for introverts. No one is 100% objective world oriented or subjective world oriented. Extroverts don't get a free pass to ignore themselves and introverts don't get a free pass to ignore the traffic laws.
Besides 2nd function, there is ID-block functions which are also used as shadow and have the opposite E/I than ego functions. We may do not concetrate our attention on ID, but it's assumed. When we analyse the links we assume the objects. When we think about objects we assume their context - the links.
For example, to evaluate how pretty (Si) a woman is we assume her having objective physical traits (Se), the links between which make the impression of her being pretty. When we think about fact (Te), - we always relate it to some category (Ti) of objects to describe it, and this fact should to have some relation to us to be important so we could to think about it.
Bats are cool.
I agree here, every person and animal perceives the objective world/universe from a different perspective, none of which is wholly objective. However, compile all those different subjective perspectives and we might get a true perception of objective reality, or something close (the nearest thing I can think of to the experience of being God would be perceiving the universe exactly as it is, from every perspective of every molecule in the cosmos (one unified perspective), but for us to experience that would likely overload our brains and senses). Sidenote - IIRC Kant referred to impressions of reality received via the senses as intuitions, but I'm not sure this would be the same as what Jung meant when he defined intuition
And maybe we are just brains in jars, plugged into some VR matrix style world, but even if we aren't brains in jars, we still sort of are, because our senses are actually only giving us an impression of objective reality. I really need to reread the Cave allegory, I think it's the best idea to come out of the Socratic/Platonic school of philosophy
Last edited by perpetuus; 04-13-2018 at 12:53 PM.
So much strife from a single word. Instead of saying objective and subjective when referring to the aspects, you can replace the terms with defined and undefined, explicit and implicit, external and internal etc. and it means the same thing. You could even use clear and fuzzy or other terms you like better.
Reworded definitions of the aspects:
Ti: Defined static connections between objects
Fi: Undefined static connections between objects
Si: Defined dynamic connections between objects
Ni: Undefined dynamic connections between objects
Te: Defined dynamics of objects
Fe: Undefined dynamics of objects.
Ne: Undefined statics of objects
Se: Defined statics of objects
In socionics aspects, extroversion/introversion doesn't mean external vs internal, it means objects vs fields. Fields are the spaces and connections between objects. All of the elements are mental processes that are represented by these aspects, so if you're concerned about an internal process being called "objective" then none of them can be. But object vs field or object vs spatial is a pretty well-known and studied topic outside of socionics. For example: LINK
Anyway, the extroverted elements are focusing on the characteristics of individual objects and the introverted elements link objects together. The element definitions diverge from Jung and MBTI going more in a information processing direction, but some socionicists prefer to stick closer to Jung so you'll see different applications by author.
edit:
According Jung, introverted elements are subjective and extroverted are objective, by definition.
Subjective concerns the individual...'Me in relation with/to'...so it loose sight of the extroverted reality to focus on the introverted one. Objective is the opposite, loosing sight of the individuality for the external reality.
I don't keep track and havent been reading this conversation, I just wanted to comment on this.
Yes, the socionics aspects differ from Jung in this. Some authors (like Reinin) stick closer to Jung's usage in their descriptions and definitions.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote