Randomness

[reyn_til_runa]

then using the example you did was pointless.

No.

Either way, no matter how many people say "me too" does not mean that the answer is right, I could have used A as the "me too" answer and my point would have still stood as valid. The answer is not validated by "me too" but by an actual understanding of the system.

partially true, but there is still the problem of verifying whether or not one's understanding of the system is correct. a system in itself is not really judged on the basis of whether it is correct or incorrect. it's just an arrangement of objects for a particular purpose. so, even the system can't be totally objectified.

Oh no! Do I smell a subjectivist? ! Burn the witch!

objects are behind the proverbial black veil. if we are to grasp the essence of the objects, it must be in our minds, in some system we create to arrange the various aspects of the objects we observe into a reasonable whole.

every object is an object only to itself. to everything else, it is an abstraction.

So yea, you are INTj or ENTp.

how do you see an INTp using Ti as eight function?

[Logos]

objects are behind the proverbial black veil. if we are to grasp the essence of the objects, it must be in our minds, in some system we create to arrange the various aspects of the objects we observe into a reasonable whole.

every object is an object only to itself. to everything else, it is an abstraction.

So yea, you are INTj or ENTp.

how do you see an INTp using Ti as eight function?

Not like Kant.

[reyn_til_runa]

objects are behind the proverbial black veil. if we are to grasp the essence of the objects, it must be in our minds, in some system we create to arrange the various aspects of the objects we observe into a reasonable whole.

every object is an object only to itself. to everything else, it is an abstraction.

So yea, you are INTj or ENTp.

how do you see an INTp using Ti as eight function?

Not like Kant.

are you referring more to the style or content of argument, or to both?

[discojoe]

Little tiny pigeons, tapping at the windows, patrolling the moors.

[Gilly]

Hey man, this isn't the 1800s. Be cool.

[Logos]

objects are behind the proverbial black veil. if we are to grasp the essence of the objects, it must be in our minds, in some system we create to arrange the various aspects of the objects we observe into a reasonable whole.

every object is an object only to itself. to everything else, it is an abstraction.

So yea, you are INTj or ENTp.

how do you see an INTp using Ti as eight function?

Not like Kant.

are you referring more to the style or content of argument, or to both?

Both. To exert the "Kant Song":

Let us first divide cognition into rational analysis
and sensory perception (which Descartes considered valueless).
Now reason gives us concepts which are true but tautological;
sensation gives us images whose content is phenomenal.

Whatever greets our senses must exist in space and time
for else it would be nowhere and nowhen and therefore slime;
the space and time we presuppose before we sense reality
must have innate subjective transcendental ideality.

Thus space and time
are forms of our perception
whereby sensation’s synthesized in orderly array;
the same must hold
for rational conception:
in everything we think, the laws of logic must hold sway.