an example of Ti vs Te

[squark]

Kant's viewpoints are Ti and anti-Fi, in that prinicples should be consistent and universal. If you decide something is the right thing to do, you should also be able to see it as the right thing for anyone else to do in the same circumstances. An objective viewpoint. This is against the subjectivity of Fi where the who is just as important as the what, and the sentiments towards and background of that who is taken into account. This is why Fi and favoritism can be so linked together. The difference between Ti and Fi is objective vs subjective (aka external/internal, universal/personal, explicit/implicit) To Fi, Ti can look cold, or heartless, and to Ti, Fi can look biased and hypocritical but it all comes down to objective vs subjective.

Example: Two people commit the same crime, objectively both should be given the same punishment. Subjectively a person might take into account factors other than the crime, their feelings about the person, etc. and give different punishments.

Each person will have a different standard, or different set of principles, whether Ti or Fi. In other words, a Ti person could live by their own set of laws, completely at odds with the rest of the world quite easily (and that'd be an example of ignoring Te in favor of Ti,) but would apply those laws universally, iow holding each person to the same standards and treatment regarding the Ti's own principles.

As for Te vs. Ti, that's externally oriented vs internally oriented thinking. I hate how the definitions of the elements and the words we have to work with make it seem like there's overlap between different concepts when there isn't. Too many of the same words for different ideas. We need a better vocabulary to make discussion easier and distinctions more clear. But anyway, all introverted elements are field, all extroverted ones are object. And so all extroverted elements are looking at the real, objects, what's there, real-world stuff, and the introverted elements are looking at how things fit together/relate to each other. So with Ti vs Te: Ti has this mental construct that explains reality in some way and puts it together, while Te is directly involved in that reality.

Ti: Its desire is to reach reality; its goal is to see how external facts fit into, and fulfil, the framework of the idea; its actual creative power is proved by the fact that this thinking can also create that idea which, though not present in the external facts, is yet the most suitable, abstract expression of them. Its task is accomplished when the idea it has fashioned seems to emerge so inevitably from the external facts that they actually prove its validity.

Te: In accordance with his definition, we must picture a, man whose constant aim -- in so far, of course, as he is a [p. 435] pure type -- is to bring his total life-activities into relation with intellectual conclusions, which in the last resort are always orientated by objective data, whether objective facts or generally valid ideas.

In a way, you can say that Te is externally objective, while Ti is internally objective. Makes sense to me, but whether it does to anyone else is another question, lol. Like I already said, we need better, more distinctive vocabulary because I can already see people arguing with the semantics of that statement.

[krieger]

i think what Ti and Te have in common is mostly just quantifyability.

[The Ineffable]

In a way, you can say that Te is externally objective, while Ti is internally objective. Makes sense to me, but whether it does to anyone else is another question, lol. Like I already said, we need better, more distinctive vocabulary because I can already see people arguing with the semantics of that statement.

Makes sense and I agree with what you said above.

I'm working on understanding what exactly is Externality, but indeed, in the common meaning of these terms, Sensing and Logic (External) are objective, while Intuition and Feeling (Internal) are subjective. This is obviously related to justification and they correspond to the internalist and externalist views (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...#Justification [1]), but how, *what is* this "justification" in a cognitive sense?
---

[1] - the way I understand these views. I read on Wikipedia that Descartes, a Rationalist, would be an example of internalist. To me either that statement is false, or I'm using these titles improperly, and here's the reason: the rationalist judgment is constrained by his former judgments, which include conventions, even if they (although IMO impossible) would all be exclusively a priori. That is, there exists an external justification and constraint for that judgment. Conventions themselves (including sentimental attachments, which is another form of convention) and different other cognitive processes like generating hypothetical scenarios, corresponding to what we know as Intuition and Ethics, are fully internal.
(I don't guarantee that I'm using internal/external in the established sense of internalism/externalism)

[Cerelict]

I'd link deontological systems of ethos to because they seem to focus on the integrity of the self and the mutual avoidance of damage to other selves. handles forces of emotional attraction and repulsion, and in this case would use knowledge of what is harmful to the self in order to minimize similar harmful actions on others. IME, -valuers seem to strongly emphasize the importance of personal boundary recognition in judging another person's character. Just from what I've seen, it's usually types who are more likely to take an ends-justify-the-means approach.

[ashlesha]

I'd link deontological systems of ethos to because they seem to focus on the integrity of the self and the mutual avoidance of damage to other selves. handles forces of emotional attraction and repulsion, and in this case would use knowledge of what is harmful to the self in order to minimize similar harmful actions on others. IME, -valuers seem to strongly emphasize the importance of personal boundary recognition in judging another person's character. Just from what I've seen, it's usually types who are more likely to take an ends-justify-the-means approach.

I think an Fi ego might take an ethical approach that's loosely deontological in nature but strict adherance to impersonal principles is Ti. Deontology restricts a person from behaving in a way they feel is appropriate in favor of behaving in a way that has been determined to be appropriate via some kind of logical process.

[Cerelict]

I think an Fi ego might take an ethical approach that's loosely deontological in nature but strict adherance to impersonal principles is Ti. Deontology restricts a person from behaving in a way they feel is appropriate in favor of behaving in a way that has been determined to be appropriate via some kind of logical process.

I'm saying it's fundamentally inspired by , developed by an -valuer and/or modeled after a general understanding of human ethos that primarily identified what we know as . My best guess is a -Creative trying to formulate an understanding of through his -Demonstrative (I'm probably wrong).

[Beautiful sky]

Te logic of action "I'm getting this because I will be able to do this"
Ti collects and rearrangement of info for analysis

[chemical]

I think Jung probably has similar things in mind. He definitely thought of Kant as quintessential Ti.

I still think the overall distinction of factual pragmatic logic vs structural logic overall just expresses the most general version of what's going on. So far I've found that the most useful way of thinking about these two things.

[Hermit Soul]

Hmm I typed myself as IEI and I find myself identifying with the utilitarianism approach, wouldn’t utilitarianism approach be Ti?

[ooo]

My ILE dad said he'd kill 3 people to save 5.

[Adam Strange]

My ILE dad said he'd kill 3 people to save 5.

Depends. Are any of them ILE's?

[Number 9 large]

id let 5 people die because im te valuing

[Hermit Soul]

I'm thinking about the concept of war. If I have to kill ten evil soldiers to rescue 100 innocent people, I'll definitely do this.

[Adam Strange]

I'm thinking about the concept of war. If I have to kill ten evil soldiers to rescue 100 innocent people, I'll definitely do this.

What about killing ten good people to save 100 evil assholes?

[Hermit Soul]

What about killing ten good people to save 100 evil assholes?

No way. Why would I kill ten good people just to save those 100 evil assholes? Even if I managed to save those 100 evil assholes, they won't be able to contribute anything positive to humanity and they will all end up killing each other anyway.

But if I save those 10 good people and kill those 100 evil assholes, those 10 good people will be able to contribute to humanity in positive ways. They will go around extending their kindness and compassion to everybody around them, hence making this world a better place for everybody to live in.

So in this situation, I'll save the 10 good people, and kill the 100 evil people.

[The Reality Denialist]

Assuming a condition that probably involves twisted scheme where people get selected by random number generator and are divided into two groups of inequal strength then I assume when gun is pressed to forehead most would choose kill y over x if members in x > members in y.

Then if groups consists exclusively from childcare vs old age home residents it starts to get more complicated.

[ooo]

lulz

[Exodus]

Hmm I typed myself as IEI and I find myself identifying with the utilitarianism approach, wouldn’t utilitarianism approach be Ti?

I'd say the OP is exactly right: utilitarianism is based on Te and Kant's Categorical imperative is based on Ti.

This doesn't mean that you value Te necessarily, though.

[WinnieW]

If I have to kill ten evil soldiers to rescue 100 innocent people, I'll definitely do this.

...and if you can kill ten evil soldiers by yourself then you can change your board name to Hermit Superhero.

Hmm I typed myself as IEI and I find myself identifying with the utilitarianism approach, wouldn’t utilitarianism approach be Ti?

I say Utilitarism is based on and somewhat on
"The end justifies the means"
Does sound quite gamma, doesn't it?

What about killing ten good people to save 100 evil assholes?

Sounds like a plan of an asshole²

[WVBRY]

I'm thinking about the concept of war. If I have to kill ten evil soldiers to rescue 100 innocent people, I'll definitely do this.

Who decides who is evil and who is good?




I'm not a fan of war or revolution, but both can be necessary if done in self-defense. I do think that things would have to come to a sorry state for revolution to be necessary, though, but that quote made me think about the extent to which it is government that defines who "evil people" and "the enemy" are in times of war.

[Adam Strange]

No way. Why would I kill ten good people just to save those 100 evil assholes? Even if I managed to save those 100 evil assholes, they won't be able to contribute anything positive to humanity and they will all end up killing each other anyway.

But if I save those 10 good people and kill those 100 evil assholes, those 10 good people will be able to contribute to humanity in positive ways. They will go around extending their kindness and compassion to everybody around them, hence making this world a better place for everybody to live in.

So in this situation, I'll save the 10 good people, and kill the 100 evil people.

So your morality does not simply consider numbers, but also weighs by "moral virtue".

In the Star Trek episode "City on the Edge of Forever", Starship Captain Kirk has to travel back in time and kill the good pacifist woman he loves so the US will enter WWII soon enough to win, which led to the history which included Kirk. Letting her live led to a history which did not include Kirk or the starship Enterprise, or the Federation.

The woman embodied all the virtues of the Federation, all the principles which Kirk swore to uphold.

What would you have done in Kirk's place?

[Adam Strange]

Who decides who is evil and who is good?

I'm not a fan of war or revolution, but both can be necessary if done in self-defense. I do think that things would have to come to a sorry state for revolution to be necessary, though, but that quote made me think about the extent to which it is government that defines who "evil people" and "the enemy" are in times of war.

I think the morals of all groups are based on whatever it takes for that group to survive in the long run.

Whatever it takes.

Of course, I'm a Te-user.

[para]

I would not kill one person, even to save a million. My position on killing is deontological, unless we're talking defending myself or someone i love, and even then i would try my best not to take the life of the aggressor. I think the act of killing itself is equally wrong, no matter who you're targeting. I'm guessing this is a very Ti approach to the problem.

[WVBRY]

I think the morals of all groups are based on whatever it takes for that group to survive in the long run.

Whatever it takes.

Of course, I'm a Te-user.

I would point out this PoV is not utilitarianism (as per the OP), but nihilism since you are not saying there is anything inherently "good" about this, just that it's a survival mechanism and thus say that moral judgements do not actually exist. Utilitarians believe that benefit to the greater good is moral in itself, not a survival mechanism.

Personally I find ethics the most difficult branch of philosophy since it is so based on our emotional biases and yet we have to substantiate our pov thorugh logic...which makes logical arguments not based on fact but on bias, and yet, how do we function without an ethical philosophy?

As a Te user myself I actually think the OP is creating a false dichotomy, since I think it is a mistake to think everything is a choice between is and ought. There are some "oughts" which are unrealistic, some "is's" that ought not to be - that doesn't mean reality is a negation of the ideal, or vice versa.

I personally find utilitarianism (though not necessarily consequentialism) to be abhorent. How does the majority dictate death or violation of rights to the minority? Because that is what is being implied. It is a direct negation of the right to life. You can kill people because of "numbers" because individual lives don't matter, only the largest sum of individual lives.

[Hermit Soul]

So your morality does not simply consider numbers, but also weighs by "moral virtue".

In the Star Trek episode "City on the Edge of Forever", Starship Captain Kirk has to travel back in time and kill the good pacifist woman he loves so the US will enter WWII soon enough to win, which led to the history which included Kirk. Letting her live led to a history which did not include Kirk or the starship Enterprise, or the Federation.

The woman embodied all the virtues of the Federation, all the principles which Kirk swore to uphold.

What would you have done in Kirk's place?

That's a tough question. I haven't watched Star Trek, but if I'm Kirk, I wouldn't kill the person I love, especially if they are a good person and have all the principles that I swore to uphold.

[WVBRY]

It's relatively unfortunate that almost every example of utilitarianism is related to someone being killed in order to save someone's+n lives. You speak about expected utility: its usage it's exactly why utilitarianism cannot be applied to life-or-death situations, namely when the probability of dying is very much above zero, anyone's certain equivalent (meaning, the number of people that have to be saved in order to "make up" what was lost in utility by our own death) shoots towards infinity, because there is no way to clearly determine the worth of one's life - in civilized nations, at least.
So basically whenever life-or-death is at stake, there is no paretian optimum, and given that the notion of pareto-optimality is a direct extension of utilitarianism, no clear decision can be reached.

@FDG I know this is old but this touches on my earlier argument.

Are you basically saying that utilitarianism is about allocation of resources and not about fundamental things like the intrinsic value of an individual life? So it only concerns having the most optimal distribution of resources across a given population?

Still again, a categorial imperative does not exclude utiliarianism as its subset, you only need to apply some kind of restrictive functional that tells you to drop utilitarianism whenever it conflicts with the imperative.

I think this touches on the is/ought problem. A thing that is "categorically good" (or at least not categorically evil) can have favourable consequences and so there is not necessarily a contradiction.

My problem is more with maximizing the happiness of the "greater good" as it is abstract to me. You would basically have to argue that the group is not only something more than the individuals that compose it, but that it has intrinsic happiness worth maximizing. A collective sentience. Another problem is that utilitarianism is concerned with how widespread happiness is, not how intense it is. By maximizing happiness for the greatest quantity you may dilute it for happiness in greater quality even if the latter means less people are happy. I don't think happiness is a quanta or a resource. So even barring arguments about life and death, utilitarianism seems like a very odd take on "happiness".

Here it must be highlighted that utilitarianism is only a form of consequentialism, the latter being the metaethical stance that an action is good due to its consequences being good or bad. Also categorical imperative is only one form of deontology, the idea that it is actions in themselves that are good or bad. The third metaethical stance is virture ethics, intentions matter, not the actions or the consequences. I think consequentialism is fine, as long as it is not used alone, my problem is more with seeing happiness as a quanta that must be spread equally throughout society like butter on a piece of bread.

[Bertrand]

utilitarianism pre selects all the real work out in moral decision making, namely it apprises you of outcomes taken for granted as following from choices, when such outcomes in real life are never certain. a lot of morality inheres precisely in weighing choices that have a less than likely chance to suceed but still some chance. in other words, a 1/100 shot that you can save the princess and not die often is the moral choice despite a 99/100 chance of saving your own skin if you just walk away. in this case saving more lives is not worth it, rather the ethical choice is to risk both lives, rather than assuredly save 1. what a lot of utilitarian situations do is abstract everything into a statistical calculation from which you are removed, but in real life the only moral choices you control are your own. so if you take the utilitarian standpoint that exact scenario, when judged from a birds eye view, is you can save sacrifice one life to save 1 or not, what do? and its like the result is always wonky because the setup is never a real moral situation, despite how hard it tries to present itself as one with "you're at the switch" type hypotheticals. what makes anyone think those kinds of hypotheticals tell us anything about morality? the truth is all the real moral decisions were made prior to that precise moment in time (so why focus on that moment, when it matters the least, as if it tells us the most), it actually doesn't matter, from an ethical stand point what the person does (all the genuine blame goes to decisions made in bringing such a situation about), because the nature of the situation has been pre-selected as an amoral one, in order to prove an amoral theory. to transform, by selectively slicing time, an amoral situation into an amoral principle to be applied to actual moral situations (in theory).. at no point does utilitarianism deal in morality, it deals in statistics and numbers and is flat headed in precisely that way. utilitarianism confuses itself into thinking its dealing in morality when in reality its just talking about it from an inherently non moral perspective, its a kind of moral "chatter" without substance.. free will exists in time, the closer you get to the moment being upon you the less there is to go around, in other words, you have a wide discretion rooted in free choice the further out an event is, and at some point, even if its a nano second prior, the time for decision making is over. many utilitarian "dilemmas" that are meant to be instructive are just framing the situation where it is past the point of no return, and by asking someone to formulate a choice they are simply setting the whole thing up to have only one possible "choice", as if life were that easy, and we all lived in a chaotic omnipresent where we just happen to find ourselves in moral situations and thus can only formulate morality as a kind of meaningless instinctual reflex. which really just extinguishes morality not inform it, certainly not elevate man out of an animal existence, which is what I think is a distinguishing characteristic of morality if it is to have any meaning. that said utilitarianism can inform policy, which is basically just a deal with the devil, in order to create societal structures that blindly make moral choices out of necessity, but those choices really arise out of collective guilt qua the social contract. so all the victims in that case are not truly innocent either

[WinnieW]

So your morality does not simply consider numbers, but also weighs by "moral virtue".

In the Star Trek episode "City on the Edge of Forever", Starship Captain Kirk has to travel back in time and kill the good pacifist woman he loves so the US will enter WWII soon enough to win, which led to the history which included Kirk. Letting her live led to a history which did not include Kirk or the starship Enterprise, or the Federation.

The woman embodied all the virtues of the Federation, all the principles which Kirk swore to uphold.

What would you have done in Kirk's place?

This scenario is built – to my understanding – based on the so called trolley problem, an ethical dilemma situation...
combined with the classical time travel paradox.
I don't want to go into deep about time travelling right now, because it's quite speculative and hypothetical, imo.
Time travel violates some fundamental laws of physics.

Interesting aspect is that a person confronted with the real situation might decide in a different way... because of the emotional impressions being involved.

For me as a typ with -ego I'd look for a preferable alternative solution, one I don't have to kill someone.

I think the morals of all groups are based on whatever it takes for that group to survive in the long run.

Loosely based on the famous quote from Charles Darwin
"The survival of the people that fits together best, as a group"

[Exodus]

I think the morals of all groups are based on whatever it takes for that group to survive in the long run.

Whatever it takes.

Of course, I'm a Te-user.

Now, this is an Se-based philosophy. Some Te maybe, but mostly Se.

[Park]

Now, this is an Se-based philosophy. Some Te maybe, but mostly Se.

Because non Se types are less concerned about their (and their descendants) survival? Gee, no wonder 93.6% of the world's population are Gamma extroverts.

[Bertrand]

well there's embodied behavior and rational formulation of the behavior. in the mouth of logicians, they're often thinking of morality as the later, which are verbal expressions of behavioral patterns. in that sense rational codes are a kind of software people run to improve their fitness as a kind of strategy for dealing with the world. you could say the world poses a competitive environment in which these ideas are then put to the test. whether you're relying on someone else to provide the program or developing your own is what we mean in some sense by being an ethical type. ethical role functions are where you get programmed by norms, but the actual work the non-ethical type is developing is something of a different kind. this mainly goes for rational types in general. irrational types are doing something a little different but harder to describe, but mainly that whole dynamic is sandwiched between developing an irrational mode of being, which is something like bringing it into being as a concrete object or an archetype. thus the software is slightly more primitive but it stands a stronger chance of having a form of existence in the world beyond a relationship of ideas. the difference between an idea ventured on a page and an intuition that is made real is that the intuition is experienced as something deeper and more primitive, more "real" on the phenomenological level; one's ability to argue with an archetype is quite limited. the clubs represent domains carved out by this 4 way intersection. when people say then morals amount to "whatever it takes", embedded in this proposition is the likelihood that "whatever it takes" actually spins out to a great deal of pro-social altruism, despite on the surface sounding somewhat like a Machiavellian statement. Machiavellianism, on top of never being practiced by its spokesman, is more like outdated software, a form of horse and buggy, something that would only come back into style, or confer a competitive advantage, should the world radically change from where it stands today. the reason this is so is because you can achieve many of the same goals more efficiently by having a pro-social outlook without most of the drawbacks or risks inherent to less pro-social approaches. people can debate this but the debate is not a real debate, its an expression of psychological attitudes and the contestant's lives are the examples in action. how would they know how to view themselves objectively. this is why history is the judge. everyone thinks they're right on some level otherwise they wouldnt be doing what theyre doing. when they say history is written by the victors, its just as much a statement of progressive benevolence as one of brute force

[Spermatozoa]

To address the moral quandary: if I could get away with it, I would definitely save the three over the five if the minority were people I personally identified with. In fact, I would still save the three if they were more closely aligned to me in impersonal but still significant ways like nationality. Most people would do the same thing if they could get away with it, because you gain more by protecting those on your team than you do protecting those who are not.

Objective, codified rules, laws and so on might seem restrictive but they protect society (especially its unpopular and vulnerable members) from the corruption and exploitation that tends to run riot when might/status etc make right.

However to get back to the original question, I don't think there is a strong connection between any function and philosophy. If I could summarise the difference between Te and Ti it would be that while Te tends to explain how something happened, Ti explains why it happened. Te sees objects as they are, Ti is relational.

[Spermatozoa]

Now, this is an Se-based philosophy. Some Te maybe, but mostly Se.

Would you kill 3 of your children before 5 strangers?

The assumption of utilitarianism seems to be that the more of something there is, the more valuable it is, regardless of its qualities. Why should an ounce of silver be assigned the same value as an ounce of gold if they are not the same substance?

[WVBRY]

However to get back to the original question, I don't think there is a strong connection between any function and philosophy. If I could summarise the difference between Te and Ti it would be that while Te tends to explain how something happened, Ti explains why it happened. Te sees objects as they are, Ti is relational.

Pretty much this.

[Exodus]

Because non Se types are less concerned about their (and their descendants) survival? Gee, no wonder 93.6% of the world's population are Gamma extroverts.

There is a reason the word "Machiavellian" exists. If everyone was purely motivated by survival / self-interest then there would be no need for it. Plus we wouldn't have things like charity, academia, nonprofit organizations, art, etc, all of which have motivations other than pure survival.

[Spermatozoa]

There is a reason the word "Machiavellian" exists. If everyone was purely motivated by survival / self-interest then there would be no need for it. Plus we wouldn't have things like charity, academia, nonprofit organizations, art, etc, all of which have motivations other than pure survival.

The existence of win-win scenarios that arise out of self interest (or rational egoism) is an argument against this.

Let us say that I start a business - even though my motives would be to promote myself and make money, I am also creating opportunities for other people. Good (and evil) arises as a result of your actions, intent is ultimately less important.

This is why I believe that if you want to make the world a better place, the best thing you can do is improve yourself.

[Number 9 large]

Good and evil depends on perspective. How are u gonna make objective laws on something that isnt objective. Theres no "evil" or "good" people. Only people who are liked or disliked

[squark]

Btw, to say that something is a Te approach or way of thinking, or that something is a Ti way of thinking does NOT mean that every person with that element in their ego thinks the same way.

A house can be built with bricks, but given a truckload of bricks you can't say they're going to be used to build a house. They may be used to build a wall, or a bridge or etc etc. So while Te or Ti may be employed to build a philosophy, it doesn't say anything about the people choosing to adopt that philosophy, nor does it say that is the only way Te or Ti may be used.

[Exodus]

The existence of win-win scenarios that arise out of self interest (or rational egoism) is an argument against this.

Let us say that I start a business - even though my motives would be to promote myself and make money, I am also creating opportunities for other people. Good (and evil) arises as a result of your actions, intent is ultimately less important.

Huh? This doesn't contradict what I said, even though it becomes a somewhat ridiculous libertarian/trickle-down economics fantasy when you take it to the extreme.

It's absolutely true that pursuing one intention (goal) can accomplish another one in the long run that you didn't intend. But that's not where the conflicts in Model A arise. To answer @Park more directly: yes, there are people who are naturally less focused on "doing what it takes" to survive in the present sense because that can entail fighting and other unpleasant things that don't jive well with Si.

It's also no reason to diminish the importance of intent, which is dual to result but is the thing that you actually have responsibility for.

This is why I believe that if you want to make the world a better place, the best thing you can do is improve yourself.

I agree!

(And, btw, this is another motivation that is not survival )

Btw, to say that something is a Te approach or way of thinking, or that something is a Ti way of thinking does NOT mean that every person with that element in their ego thinks the same way.

A house can be built with bricks, but given a truckload of bricks you can't say they're going to be used to build a house. They may be used to build a wall, or a bridge or etc etc. So while Te or Ti may be employed to build a philosophy, it doesn't say anything about the people choosing to adopt that philosophy, nor does it say that is the only way Te or Ti may be used.

Yeah, this is a fallacy I see coming up again and again. Somehow people can't get it through their heads that WE USE ALL THE ELEMENTS. Maybe I should write it in all caps from now on

[Park]

To answer @Park more directly: yes, there are people who are naturally less focused on "doing what it takes" to survive in the present sense because that can entail fighting and other unpleasant things that don't jive well with Si.

You're answering questions no one asked/posed, here and in your previous response.

Survival isn't something you can isolate as a motivational factor like that. And Adam explicitly referred to doing whatever it takes for a group to survive in the long run, not in the present moment. But even then, your argument makes no sense. Si or no Si, if you are convinced that your life (or that of someone you cared about) depends on doing something you find unpleasant, chances are you are going to do it anyway.