Results 1 to 32 of 32

Thread: Is following Socionics similar to following a religeon?

  1. #1
    meatburger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    A Quazar named Northern Territory
    Posts
    2,570
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Is following Socionics similar to following a religeon?

    My ESTj friend said the other day he was thinking about it and he thinks Socionics is like a Religeon. We were in a group so i didn't want to discuss it with him. ESTj's can be a bit like this, they dont like to accept something new especially if it hasn't been published / proven. I can see where he comes from.

    I was thinking about it and i suppose i do see Socionics as my Religeon a little. It seems to tie everything together in quite a perfectly rounded way. I suppose it made me think how amazing it really would be if there are 16 types and they all fit together in their quadras etc. Evolution has created this??. Strange.. Maybe Socionics doesn't work quite as equally as we thought but we have molded it so as not to exclude anyone?

    I dont particularly believe any master being created us but its pretty funky if everything has worked out in such an even way?

    Anyway this is just me rambling what do you think?
    ENFp (Unsure of Subtype)

    "And the day came when the risk it took to remain closed in a bud became more painful than the risk it took to blossom." - Anaïs Nin

  2. #2
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I can't see where he comes from. I would have ganged up on him, argued heathedly, and then we'd have a physical fight, oh yeah.

    By the way, the analogy is incorrect because religions always pose a belief which is not grounded in reality, socionics does not do so. It's not that things have worked out this way...it proceeded in the opposite way: things worked out, then humans saw it, and then they proceeded at creating a system which approximates things they have seen.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  3. #3
    meatburger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    A Quazar named Northern Territory
    Posts
    2,570
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hehe. Yeah what i meant by i can see where he comes from, is i know that he is an ESTj and he sees socionics as not based in reality at all.

    Of course i dont agree with him. I have seen far too many Intertype relationships now to believe its just chance.

    He wouldn't have fought you as hes quite weedy. He would have lost
    ENFp (Unsure of Subtype)

    "And the day came when the risk it took to remain closed in a bud became more painful than the risk it took to blossom." - Anaïs Nin

  4. #4
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meatburger
    Hehe. Yeah what i meant by i can see where he comes from, is i know that he is an ESTj and he sees socionics as not based in reality at all.

    I think it depends on what exactly is meant. If one starts by stating, "everyone is one of 16 types" as a given fact, I'd also say that it's almost like a religion.

    Socionics just gives a working model to understand why some people naturally get along with just with some others, why people A and B, and B and C, are close friends but A and C not really and would not hang around together without B. This is seen in reality, but most people like to say "oh that's just how people are, there's no explanation" etc.

    Model A, the 16 types, functions, relationships, quadras, temperaments, etc, etc; are just approximated reflections of this reality. Perhaps there is a biological explanation for the functions and the 16 types. But in the meantime, if tomorrow someone came up with a model that was based on, say, 21 types and 7 functions - or whatever - that reflected observable reality better than Socionics, I'd drop Socionics instantly.

    For instance, if someone would say, "no, Socionics can't be true because I believe in the Enneagram, and they say that there are only 9 types, therefore Socionics is wrong" - or the other way around - that, indeed, would be like believing in a religion.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    745
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meatburger
    He wouldn't have fought you as hes quite weedy. He would have lost
    And I would have cheered. Ah. :evil:

    I don't think that following Socionics is necessarily like following a religion. However, if it becomes a guide you base your entire life on, then that's something to think about.

  6. #6
    meatburger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    A Quazar named Northern Territory
    Posts
    2,570
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Expat. Thanks you perfectly described what i was thinking but couldn't put it into words

    @Stefana. Yes i very much agree with this. I try to look at people not as an ENTj or an ESTp etc, i think of them as a person who shows ENTj traits etc.
    ENFp (Unsure of Subtype)

    "And the day came when the risk it took to remain closed in a bud became more painful than the risk it took to blossom." - Anaïs Nin

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics is indeed like a religion, because it is peseudoscience. Pseudosciences tend to always rely on a small basis of faith that some sort of calculation or generalization is true without much empiricle evidence backing it up. However, this does not mean that proof for socionics can not be supported by objective observations and sensory information, it just can not necessarily said to fundamentally be said to have its basis in those methods.

    So, your ESTj was right in saying that it seems like a religion taking what I have said above. On the other hand, socionics should not necessarily categorize as a religion necessarily because of that fact.

  8. #8
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rmcnew
    Socionics is indeed like a religion, because it is peseudoscience.
    Non sequitor. Get lost.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Quote Originally Posted by rmcnew
    Socionics is indeed like a religion, because it is peseudoscience.
    Non sequitor. Get lost.
    If you think what I have said is "Non sequitor" and that deserves a "Get lost"; you've indeed missed the point of what I intended.

  10. #10
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    zip

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think it is funny how everyone seems to avoid saying that socionics is anything like a religion. And you are right, it is not a religion, but the fact that it is a faith based pseudoscience used to interpret reality does a good job of putting it in the same category as a religeon.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rmcnew
    faith based pseudoscience
    you would classify socionics as faith based?

  13. #13
    Mariano Rajoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,120
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I am the Pope of Socionics, and as such I declare that:

    1: Religion, despite modern "dawkin-esqe" interpretations, was never intended to interpret reality or give an account of the "phenomenal" world. To suggest so is to divorce the original texts from their original context, and impose an inappropriate context. Scientific invesitigation and fundamental scientific worldviews were absent thousand(s) of years ago.

    2: Religion sought to bring about a direct knowledge or encounter with reality. (Note: reality is inseperable from G-d). The notion of "interpreting reality" is foreign to the original religious tests because "interpreting reality" comes from the supposition that man can never come into direct contact with reality. This notion of a division between man and a reality that can only be "modelled" or "theorized", is a cultural development that occured much later than the original religious texts.

    3. Given the agenda of religious text, Socionics is anti-thetical to religion. Despite the reluctance of the scientific community to accept Socionics, the study of the socion is fundamentally aligned with the scientific world view as relates to what is real.
    LII
    that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17
    Quote Originally Posted by rmcnew
    faith based pseudoscience
    you would classify socionics as faith based?
    Pseudosciences often begin with theories, which are faith based non-scientific generalizations that branch out into other disciplines. That is why they are called pseudosciences, they normally spring from religious/philosophical basises that may only after a period of time begin to be looked at from a scientific standpoint.

    And furthermore, I see no reason to be supecious or prejudiced against using the term "faith based" in relation to socionics, because you would first need a certain amount of faith to believe the generalizations of the type theory are true in order to use it as a tool to interpret reality.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rmcnew

    Pseudosciences often begin with theories, which are faith based non-scientific generalizations that branch out into other disciplines. That is why they are called pseudosciences, they normally spring from religious/philosophical basises that may only after a period of time begin to be looked at from a scientific standpoint.
    perhaps so, but would it not have already crossed that threshold?

    And furthermore, I see no reason to be supecious or prejudiced against using the term "faith based" in relation to socionics, because you need a certain amount of faith to believe the generalizations of the type theory are true in order to use it as a tool to interpret reality.
    irrelevant; if the model corresponds to reality it should be used; if not it should be ignored or reworked. faith in the model out of its own sake is necessarily misplaced.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17
    Quote Originally Posted by rmcnew

    Pseudosciences often begin with theories, which are faith based non-scientific generalizations that branch out into other disciplines. That is why they are called pseudosciences, they normally spring from religious/philosophical basises that may only after a period of time begin to be looked at from a scientific standpoint.
    perhaps so, but would it not have already crossed that threshold?

    And furthermore, I see no reason to be supecious or prejudiced against using the term "faith based" in relation to socionics, because you need a certain amount of faith to believe the generalizations of the type theory are true in order to use it as a tool to interpret reality.
    irrelevant; if the model corresponds to reality it should be used; if not it should be ignored or reworked. faith in the model out of its own sake is necessarily misplaced.
    It is relevant, because Model-A is based on the philosophy of old Greek philosophers such as Plato, this is why many people say that Model-A is BS and attempt to discover other models. In fact, it is actually a plagerization of the types of Governments found in Plato's republic reworked into a nice little human psyche. Many people do not realize that, because they are not familiar with Plato's Republic.

    Now, why is socionics not a pseudoscience and not faith based if in its beginnings it based its first model, Model-A, on the theories of Plato and of the Republic, and why do people want to throw Model-A out now and not then? Because people want to take something that was initially accepted on faith and make it more scientific.

    So, as you can see, socionics is a faith based pseudoscience, that some people want to make more scientific.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i never heard of anything like that.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17
    i never heard of anything like that.
    Well, believe it ... socionics had its history and beginnings in the research of the theories of old world philosophers.

  19. #19
    Mariano Rajoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,120
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Faith defined as belief in the face of contrary evidence is an interpretation that misses the original meaning. The contemporary notion of faith should not be accepted by anyone in either the scientific or religious communities.

    Nothing in the canon of philosophy or religion was ever accepted on faith.
    LII
    that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
    Faith defined as belief in the face of contrary evidence is an interpretation that misses the original meaning. The contemporary notion of faith should not be accepted by anyone in either the scientific or religious communities.

    Nothing in the canon of philosophy or religion was ever accepted on faith.
    Elaborate ...

  21. #21
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,938
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think it's a bit strong to call socionics a pseudoscience - it has some observations about people that appear to hold true - some socionists may be pseudoscientists, however, if they deliberately obscure + twist 'facts' to fit their theories. As long as their is a scientific framework in place, socionics will remain relevant until superseded by a better theory.

    Mariano Rajoy: I don't see how god is inseparable from reality - If I can't be sure I exist, I certainly can't be sure God exists - this argument implies 'because I exist, god must also exist'. Also, most (if not all) religions do seek to explain reality through creation myths etc. + the very suggestion that god exists and created the world. Scientific investigation as we know it may not have existed thousands of years ago, but religion involves an universal framework which obscures observation of phenomenon either through indoctrination + persecution. Humans have always had their individual perceptions of reality, and on this level, understanding + interpretation of phenomenon existed before religion.
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  22. #22
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,625
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rmcnew
    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17
    i never heard of anything like that.
    Well, believe it ... socionics had its history and beginnings in the research of the theories of old world philosophers.
    Where can I read about this? It sounds interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by rmcnew
    I think it is funny how everyone seems to avoid saying that socionics is anything like a religion. And you are right, it is not a religion, but the fact that it is a faith based pseudoscience used to interpret reality does a good job of putting it in the same category as a religeon.
    Socionics is neither science nor religion.

    And it works. Period.

  23. #23
    Mariano Rajoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,120
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rmcnew
    Quote Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
    Faith defined as belief in the face of contrary evidence is an interpretation that misses the original meaning. The contemporary notion of faith should not be accepted by anyone in either the scientific or religious communities.

    Nothing in the canon of philosophy or religion was ever accepted on faith.
    Elaborate ...
    Faith defined as belief in the face of contrary evidence is an interpretation from a scientific worldview.

    Faith as it was originally written was much more poetic and meaningful, and lets not forget that understanding was not divorced from meaning. Faith was thought of as devotion, or love. This idea of faith as conviction is absurd, and completely perverts the Christian tradition.
    LII
    that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.

  24. #24
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,938
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Faith implies having complete trust in something\someone, even if this isn't valid. In a religious context, this is having complete trust in something\someone who may not even exist - for god to reveal himself, you have to 'believe' in him, despite all evidence to the contrary - this is the opposite of logic.

    If you have a complete belief in god, he'll reveal himself, but at that stage, you don't need any evidence - so you don't need god to reveal himself. Even if god turned out to be a carrot, you'd still have complete faith - if you knew god existed without evidence, the carrot 'god' will just be a triviality, confirming what you already know.
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  25. #25
    Mariano Rajoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,120
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean
    I think it's a bit strong to call socionics a pseudoscience - it has some observations about people that appear to hold true - some socionists may be pseudoscientists, however, if they deliberately obscure + twist 'facts' to fit their theories. As long as their is a scientific framework in place, socionics will remain relevant until superseded by a better theory.

    Mariano Rajoy: I don't see how god is inseparable from reality - If I can't be sure I exist, I certainly can't be sure God exists - this argument implies 'because I exist, god must also exist'. Also, most (if not all) religions do seek to explain reality through creation myths etc. + the very suggestion that god exists and created the world. Scientific investigation as we know it may not have existed thousands of years ago, but religion involves an universal framework which obscures observation of phenomenon either through indoctrination + persecution. Humans have always had their individual perceptions of reality, and on this level, understanding + interpretation of phenomenon existed before religion.
    People twist religion to fit what they want and they often get away with it. Human behavior has not changed from the times that people were indoctrinated + persecuted until now. People continue to manipulate a tradition founded on love into something to be used for their own agenda.

    I am not sure how to convince you of your own existence. I will say that the doctrines of today have many people chasing their own tail.

    I would also venture a guess and say if you do not see G-d, then you do not see reality, which would make sense because you are unsure of your own existence.

    Religions do not seek to explain reality. Science does that! The brevity of the Christian tradition, which is hard to come to terms with, is that the word is G-d. There is no difference between reality and the written word. In this backhanded way, the Christian tradtition holds some affinity to the Buddhist tradition.
    LII
    that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.

  26. #26
    Mariano Rajoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,120
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean
    Faith implies having complete trust in something\someone, even if this isn't valid. In a religious context, this is having complete trust in something\someone who may not even exist - for god to reveal himself, you have to 'believe' in him, despite all evidence to the contrary - this is the opposite of logic.
    This is not how the gospels understood faith. This is a meaning that is superimposed upon the ancient texts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean
    If you have a complete belief in god, he'll reveal himself, but at that stage, you don't need any evidence - so you don't need god to reveal himself. Even if god turned out to be a carrot, you'd still have complete faith - if you knew god existed without evidence, the carrot 'god' will just be a triviality, confirming what you already know.
    The implication of your understanding of faith is that faith is delusional. I completely disagree and suggest a reading of the text. And not some shitty New International Version, or whatever. Stick with KJ.
    LII
    that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.

  27. #27
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,938
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
    Faith defined as belief in the face of contrary evidence is an interpretation that misses the original meaning.
    Quote Originally Posted by Monty Python
    O Lord, please don't burn us,
    Don't grill us or toast your flock,
    Don't put us on a barbecue,
    Or simmer us in stock,
    Don't braise us or bake or boil us,
    Or stir-fry us in a wok.
    Oh please don't lightly poach us,
    Or baste us with hot fat,
    Don't fricassee or roast us,
    Or boil us in a vat,
    And please don't stick thy servants, Lord,
    In a Rotissomat.

    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  28. #28
    Mariano Rajoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,120
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean
    Quote Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
    Faith defined as belief in the face of contrary evidence is an interpretation that misses the original meaning.
    Quote Originally Posted by Monty Python
    O Lord, please don't burn us,
    Don't grill us or toast your flock,
    Don't put us on a barbecue,
    Or simmer us in stock,
    Don't braise us or bake or boil us,
    Or stir-fry us in a wok.
    Oh please don't lightly poach us,
    Or baste us with hot fat,
    Don't fricassee or roast us,
    Or boil us in a vat,
    And please don't stick thy servants, Lord,
    In a Rotissomat.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
    LII
    that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.

  29. #29
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,938
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    your argument would be quite convincing if god came down from heaven and told me himself - but even then I could doubt the event as my perceptions gone wrong, a dream etc. Even facts which are supposedly true which are told to me are relayed through my possibly 'faulty' perceptions +reasoning. I don't need you to tell me I'm imperfect, but you seemed to have convinced yourself you exist using some evidence I can't be certain of.
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  30. #30
    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

    Yes because there is people who sees socionics as an univeral answer.

    Socionic's scope is limited and the theory is more descriptive than resolutive. People not used to intellectual pursuits often tries to turn such theories into a cookbook.

    This happens to most ideas when they hit "the masses". Read this document to understand what I am talking about:

    http://www.doubletongued.org/index.p...he_digital_age
    [] | 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.

  31. #31
    Mariano Rajoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,120
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean
    your argument would be quite convincing if god came down from heaven and told me himself - but even then I could doubt the event as my perceptions gone wrong, a dream etc. Even facts which are supposedly true which are told to me are relayed through my possibly 'faulty' perceptions +reasoning. I don't need you to tell me I'm imperfect, but you seemed to have convinced yourself you exist using some evidence I can't be certain of.
    This will be my last post because I don't want to beat a dead horse, and I certainly have not made personal attacks or implied that you are imperfect. In parting I will suggest looking into Gadamer and his hermeneutics.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics
    LII
    that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.

  32. #32
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,938
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't think you did offend me - but my point was I'm imperfect and therefore can't ever be sure of my existence, let alone god's. But, despite the fact I'm imperfect, I can be more sure of my existence than god's (because I already know myself, e.g. 'I think therefore I am').

    Hermeneutics is the understanding of the unknown\spiritual matters\god through yourself - like understanding a foreign country by comparing it to your own. It isn't really acceptable - things should stand up on their own (be empirical), not based on something else - the whole hermeneutics thing seems to be 'you can never (fully) know god, because he is greater and better than you', please believe in him, because his understanding of what is good for you is better than your own, despite the fact you can never know this or prove it, because god is unknowable. Believe or burn etc. This text is also completely valid because it was written by a human being who claims his interpretation is better than yours, so believe it and don't ask questions in case you make some other conclusions, you imperfect idiot'. Disclaimer: God denies that creating human beings imperfect in no way invalidates the warranty: Act perfect and believe in him, or burn in hell for all eternity. Love God. This statement was written by a third party and is no guarantee of God's true opinion, or even proof that he exists.
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

Posting Permissions

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