Main information elements in Philosophy as a field

[jason_m]

Question: what information element(s) do you see in the field of philosophy?

(I am a philosophy major and am therefore interested to hear your answer...)

[ConcreteButterfly]

Probably and

[The Ineffable]

Philosophy is a large and diverse field. I've all types into different areas of it except for Delta (at least I can't recall about Deltas right now).

[The Ineffable]

Do you think it is necessary to be more specific, what kind of philosophy are you interested to know about? I mean we can't compare rationalist with humanist philosophers, to me this is somewhat like comparing art with science.

[Words]

All of them

[Maker of helmets]

In my opinion Ni and Ti, though not exclusively (being abstracting, condensing and organising functions)

Also Ne and Fe for psychosocial, political and moral philosophy (being observational of human systems)

[Amber]

Top types LII , ILI , IEI , ILE , EII ,

[willekeurig]

.

[krieger]

no more T than F imo, but definitely N and I.

[willekeurig]

Eww Analytical philosophy is so goddamned boring and rigid in their clinging to the dominion of logic. Unless you were lumping several groups together, I'd hardly classify Continentals as "practical" -- they're anything but that imo.

I was lumping several groups together. In the Nordic countries theoretical and practical philosophy are different subjects. The basic idea behind the division is that practical philosophy studies behaviour (ethics, philosophy of religion, philosophy of society...) and theoretical philosophy studies knowledge (logic, epistemology, philosophy of mathematics/science/language...).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_philosophy


It might not be everyone's cup of tea, but in my honest opinion analytical philosphy is the only sensible "school" there is, and I find it regrettable that the continentals have given the whole field a bad name. Some of their writings are interesting for sure, but I see their intellectual value as equilevant to that of horoscopes, so they'd be much much better suited for the literature department. I mean, phenomenology? Existentialism? Psychoanalysis? Really?

[Pookie]

The Philosophies i like are probably really Ni related. The ones i dont probably arent.

[Galen]

You can have a philosophy and not be XNXX. If you have an idiosyncratic perspective on the world (which you do if you're sentient) then you're set.

I have little value to contribute at this point, but I'm hoping someone makes some good correlations between certain philosophies and IEs (that aren't all intro fxns)

[willekeurig]

I have a thing for Albert Camus.

(source: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/30 )

[willekeurig]

.

[Words]

So you can use philosophy to justify why you don't need a bigger car, but the guy with the bigger car can fit more philosophy books in it than you

[willekeurig]

.

[The Ineffable]

In the Nordic countries theoretical and practical philosophy are different subjects. The basic idea behind the division is that practical philosophy studies behaviour (ethics, philosophy of religion, philosophy of society...) and theoretical philosophy studies knowledge (logic, epistemology, philosophy of mathematics/science/language...).

Nice! This means humanity has a chance... I was not aware of it so far. I would like to relocate and have children there, is there a virus that can deliver Scandinavia from feminists beforehand?

It might not be everyone's cup of tea, but in my honest opinion analytical philosphy is the only sensible "school" there is, and I find it regrettable that the continentals have given the whole field a bad name. Some of their writings are interesting for sure, but I see their intellectual value as equilevant to that of horoscopes, so they'd be much much better suited for the literature department. I mean, phenomenology? Existentialism? Psychoanalysis? Really?

Fully agree, except I don't understand what you guys are defining as "continentals"? I mean I am not into this trivia, just what about Kant, Wittgenstein, Frege?...

It surely is not everyone's cup of tea since anyway it is always the practical philowankers who keep mixing up the two things, I would say. Would you expect any of them to be able to make this discrimination?

[The Ineffable]

Ultimately the logic behind the analyses and methods that you promote are themselves meaningless -- merely constructs predicated on impulses that have no basis other than as a merely human interpretation -- conditioned conditioned, as Continentals would say, most likely by Euro-American intellectual history, sets of values, and so on. Or maybe for you personally perhaps it offers a sense of control, power, and stability no?

Platitude of the day: Agarina has earned my respect, and my set of values tell me, from this paragraph of yours, that you pretty much make her point.

For reasons I might detail sometime, it is actually paramount for our evolution that the two branches split apart, that analytical philosophy takes its place outside the humanities. Among other applications, we can witness the disappearance of religions, including Atheism, and philosophers of your kind may take the route of entertainment, earning a honest income as professional stand-up sophists. If I look back into history, I am perhaps being utopic here, just hope dies the last.

Meantime, please help yourself with one of these and feel free to humanly interpret it up your rear:

[Words]

Platitude of the day: Agarina has earned my respect, and my set of values tell me, from this paragraph of yours, that you pretty much make her point.

For reasons I might detail sometime, it is actually paramount for our evolution that the two branches split apart, that analytical philosophy takes its place outside the humanities. Among other applications, we can witness the disappearance of religions, including Atheism, and philosophers of your kind may take the route of entertainment, earning a honest income as professional stand-up sophists. If I look back into history, I am perhaps being utopic here, just hope dies the last.

Meantime, please help yourself with one of these and feel free to humanly interpret it up your rear:

I am absolutely sure this is not necessary for our evolution.

[The Ineffable]

Nah you're just trying to earn brownie points from her. Joking about ridding the world of feminism and insulting other people probably won't get her to like you.

Hey, stop tumbling my deepest subconscious desires around, will you? Now that you uncovered my plans, let me tell you there is something that evaded your 6th sense: I want her join the dark side, I want her entire being be mine.

You have a teleological understanding of history that is silly and absurd.

I suspect you got me wrong here - just let me know if this was not the case and explain.

I am talking about the lack of common ground between, in short graphic terms, the defenders of the real philosophy and the philowankers. Let us be realistic, there is no way they agree, it's either win or lose. Perhaps the current status quo seems natural to you, just to me and many before this is actually a regression. It was much better in the times of I. Kant, for instance, he was believing philosophy will be soon established as a science. Right, look the sort of things that happened meantime:

Afghanistan, 1972: women-afghanistan-70ies.jpg
Afghanistan, 2010: Kabul-Street-BurkaMoms.jpg

[silverchris9]

I mean, the tradition that goes from (I'd argue) Aquinas to Descartes to Kant is very clearly a Ti sort of thing. You can even take it back to Aristotle. All very systematic thinkers, interested in dividing and specifying.

By contrast, Hegel was a heavily Ni philosopher, both in his ideas of historical development and in how he writes: he has a very poetic style insofar as the flow of meaning is often very different than the temporal order of the words, i.e., a word half a paragraph down can totally change the meaning of a word three sentences prior. I haven't read heavily in Marx but i would assume the same, although the combination with the critique of capitalism suggests NiTe, whereas Hegel's mysticism is, to me, more indicative of NiFe. Haven't read Spinoza but I'd guess he's more of a Hegel type?

Nietzsche's philosophy can be easily seen in terms of Se-valuing and Fi-devaluing, and his method of evaluating Christian texts for clues as to the psychological motivations and historical process of development of Judeo-Christian ethics suggests NiFe-valuing if not both in his ego block. Rousseau employs a somewhat similar method in "On the Origins of Inequality," yet doesn't feel like an Ni-ego to me. Almost certainly an ethical type, however, and my suspicion is Ni/Se over Ne/Si. Not sure if there is an essential typing prevalent in his writings in the way there is with Kant, or even Shakespeare (character as the Ni pattern of Fe emotional/expressional changes)

Also I wonder if symbolic logic is more of a Ti thing or a Te thing? Insofar as it represents a system or schematic of logical operations one can perform on a proposition, it seems like Ti. But insofar as it can be seen as a way of externalizing, concretizing, and jargonizing language, it seems like it could be a kind of Te? Obviously can appeal to and be understood as both.

Also do we particularly see extroverted functions in philosophy? I think it's easy to see introverted functions in philosophy (including Si, which is emphasized more heavily in eastern philosophy than western philosophy, likely due to the influence of Socrates/Plato setting the terms of debate) but it's perhaps more difficult to discern the extroverted functions in philosophical argument? I could be wrong.

[ouronis]

So you can use philosophy to justify why you don't need a bigger car, but the guy with the bigger car can fit more philosophy books in it than you

The fuck you need to put philosophy books in your car for?

[Maker of helmets]

@silverchris9

Ne, Fe and Te could be in political philosophy, I reckon

[Words]

The fuck you need to put philosophy books in your car for?

Use that wondrous imagination.

[ouronis]

Use that wondrous imagination.

I did but they were fringe situations. Unless you're a door to door philosophy book salesman. And then, I don't see you having a car that big anyway.

[strangeling]

I don't know what you're asking.


I hope that helps.