Yes
No
I am not LII (I am a retard - I don't even know why I'm answering this poll to be honest)
@Logos: He appears be torn between -Te/-Ti and +Te/+Ti, perceiving of the +Te/+Ti (subjective logical sense implies truth) as corresponding to capitulation to the subconscious.
...He doesn't seem to be flexible in his usage of functions at all, in that respect at least.
I am more inclined to realism than anti-realism, and then find myself to be a Kantian empirical idealist, which is by the way completely compatible.Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Well there is the utilitarian notion of the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, and there is the Rawlsian idea of the overlapping-consensus, which are very similar. They are not logically incompatible. I do not think that I'm an objectivist in my ethics though.Are you aware of the fact that utilitarianism is logically incompatible with Rawlsian ethics? Besides that, this gives us real insight into how you actually think, and that's a good start. Your views contradict Tibor Machan's, Karl Popper's, and Thomas Nagel's objectivist views on ethics, but at least you take an empiricist stance here, in contrast to tcaudilllg's more systematicperspective, which you can compare yourself to.
Others with more patience can answer here.Anything that can help me determine whether there is a meaningful sense in which an LII can be an objectivist. A lot of "LIIs" here say that they idenitfy with Paul James's INTP description, despite the fact that the type he describes is an Objectivist in Reinin's sense. I want to understand why a LII can misidentify with that INTP description.
Yes.Don't you have any principles that you wholehartedly adhere to? Aren't there any of your views that are so strong that you would at least be prepared to bet very much on the prediction that you will never change them?
You make it sound like subjectivism is the empirically wrong choice when really it is one amongst many.Yes, but that's just the way it is. It's a fact of nature. It is largely irrelevant to questions about truth and knowledge. (But try to avoid this misuse of language, please. A sense of reality cannot be true or false, only propositions can be true or false.)
Correct. Now you're getting it. That's what's important to focus on.
What you see as loss, I see as gain. If you wish to focus completely on the objective reality, you are free to do so, but I am open to both.And now you are at risk of losing it again. To think like you do here is not to think like an objectivist, it is a turning back to Kantian subjectivism.
Subjectivism is skeptical of objectivism and so it questions the basis by which objectivism can make their claims and the limitations in their pursuit. Objectivism is skeptical of subjectivism and so it questions the productivity and triviality of subjectivism.No, not in any strict sense. Maybe as some sort of metaphor, but your thinking is not clear here.
Incorrect. Multiple perspectives with open minds and to perceive different attributes of ideas and knowledge.Muddled thinking.
So you claim.Irrelevant.
Now you truly are misunderstanding me. I never said an objective truth can become muddled in itself, but that it can become muddled in the subjective realm of human behavior and power politics in which there is an invested interest in the implications of knowledge. We were not disagreeing here.A nonsensical metaphor. You are confusing things with more muddled thinking, I'm afraid.
Totally wrong. An objective truth can never become muddled in itself, only our perceptions of that objective truth can become muddled. Our beliefs can become distorted etc. But an objective truth is not the same thing as a belief.
Funny, it works that way for you. But instigating aside, it may be irrelevant, but this is the reality in which we live in contradictory "facts" and people making truth-claims about the facts.What people may call a fact is of course completely irrelevant to the facts themselves. A fact is not a fact because people call it a fact.
Sounds like an award-winning sitcom in the making.So why can't we try to specify those similarities as much as we can? That's exactly what I am trying to figure out: In which ways are we similar, and in which ways are we different?
If we really are Quasi-Identicals, that's exactly what we should expect.
Kant was something of a determinist, and I think it would be in error to make the logical leap that LIIs cannot be determinists or against human agency.That attitude I see as typical of LIIs in general. It is clearly accentuated in Kant's philosophy.
I still believe that Spinoza is an LII for reasons previously mentioned in the past thread. Views of fuman agency is not going to be found neatly divided between the Alpha/Beta and Gamma/Delta divide. Look at Joy who believes that people create their own luck, happiness, and fortunes. I am afraid that you are in error here about what the LII believes or as you see it, must believe, in order to be an LII.And this attitude is almost contrary to it. That's why I have reason to doubt that LII is the most likely type for Spinoza. It is typical of LIIs to believe that we, as humans, are essentially free agents, and this LII perspective is opposed to every kind of biological explanations of human nature. An LII would at least feel this tension between these two perspectives, and he would be inclined to prefer to view things from the human agent's perspective whenever possible. That's the nature of
Knowledge, experience, and happiness.And exactly what kind of freedom do you think is possible to obtain within a deterministic reality?
Tell me something I do not know.You seem to think like a collectivist here, which of course you must do if you are a democratic socialist. And that's why you can't be a libertarian. There is a fundamental difference between collectivists and individualists, and democratic socialism is logically incompatible with individualism.
And that is where we differ, as I do not think that they are accurately describing the same empirical phenomenon or even if they are describing the same one, they are doing so with enough error and inaccuracy that it leaves room for "muddled thinking" and type identification.It's incomprehensible that you don't understand simple logic. It is a logical contradiction to claim that an ENFP could be an ENFj in Socionics. It is a logical contradiction because both these two types are defined in terms of the four dichotomies, and the four dichotomies -- however those are are described in exact words -- refer to the same empirical phenomenon, and that phenomenon is the biological difference between a rational type and an irrational type, which no theory has any influence over whatsoever. The ENFP is an irrational type, and the ENFj is a rational type. Therefore an ENFP can never be an ENFj under any circumstances, because an irrational type is -- by definition -- not a rational type.
Yes, so it appears to be the case.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Yes, but it is not compatible with being an objectivist.
They are definitely incompatible.
No, you are not an objectivist in your ethics.
Name at least one such principle or view then. Preferably more than one.
It is wrong, yes.
There is only one reality.
Yes, but only objectivism is a correct stance. Subjectivism is wrong.
Inability to separe truth from falsehood. Inability to see clearly what is distinct due to a pathological wish to put some grey in it.
Now you said it again.
Yes, we are.
You really don't the basics of philosophical semantics, do you? Don't you study any philosophy in school in your country?
Kant was nothing of a determinist.
Nothing of that is freedom. You don't answer my question.
We can't differ on that point -- unless you don't know what you are talking about. You don't understand the four dimensions. You need to learn the basics of Socionics.
Your inability to make them compatible is not my problem.
I find the attempt to be an objectivist in something as abstract and insubstantial as ethics to be humorous.No, you are not an objectivist in your ethics.
Lack of belief in theism. Evolution.Name at least one such principle or view then. Preferably more than one.
As I believe as well. My use of the word reality was in error there.There is only one reality.
How is subjectivism wrong? Is it trivial or wrong? Trivialness does not necessarily imply incorrectness.It is wrong, yes.
Yes, but only objectivism is a correct stance. Subjectivism is wrong.
You are incorrect again. Get your facts straight about me and what I am saying.Inability to separe truth from falsehood. Inability to see clearly what is distinct due to a pathological wish to put some grey in it.
No we are not disagreeing here! The objective truth does not change and is not subjective in itself, but our understanding of it can be muddled in these subjective powers. How is that incompatible with what you said?Now you said it again.
Yes, we are.
Does every Swede understand philosophy then as you do? Otherwise, stop being so condescending. But until you tell me how I am wrong and provide substantial arguments, I will assume that you do not know what you are talking about but are merely strutting about like a peacock trying to make yourself out to be smarter than you are.You really don't the basics of philosophical semantics, do you? Don't you study any philosophy in school in your country?
Read more Kant.Kant was nothing of a determinist.
In which case there is no freedom in the regard that you seem to indicate in your meaning of the term.Nothing of that is freedom. You don't answer my question.
Once you relearn the functions.We can't differ on that point -- unless you don't know what you are talking about. You don't understand the four dimensions. You need to learn the basics of Socionics.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Phaedrus, I'm beginning to understand that you like this argument. You actually enjoy it, don't you? You think this conflict of ideas, is necessary to illuminate the differences between people. You actually think that these conflicts are useful and you seek to create them for purposes of better understanding the people around you. You see constellation not as a defensive or aggressive tool... but as a practical one.
In contrast, I assure you that Logos and I both are engaging you only with the intent of ending the argument.
You remind me of the Gundam Wing character Tres Kushrenada, who believed that only in war could human kind be at its best.
Maybe you don't understand the concept "logical incompatibility". Our ability or inability to do something is of course totally irrelevant. Logical incomapatibility is not up to us to decide, it is either there or it isn't.
It is not surprising that you don't understand the nature of ethics and the nature of objectivism. Neither do you understand that your stance is logically incoherent here too.
Good. At least something that we can agree on.
Okay, I'll add that to the list of agreements.
Correct. Subjectivism is either trivial or logically incoherent, and of course the former is much preferable to the latter. But even so, there is nothing particularly right in focusing so narrowly on something trivial. It is wrong not to leave Subjectivism in its triviality and go on to more important problems and issues.
Maybe you have forgotten what you said in the first place, which is what I responded to. You were confusing the concepts subjetive and objective in a way that was similar to how tcaudilllg is constantly confusing them. That is muddled thinking.
If you phrase it that way, it is compatible with what I said. But that is not what you said in the first place, and it is rather irritating to have to correct you on how you describe different philosophical positions. It is very imoportant that we are accurate in what we say here, because otherwise we are unable to see the fine logical distinctions between different concepts that are crucial to a correct understanding of these things. People's thinking is almost always muddled when they discuss things like those we are discussing now, and that's why they so often come to the wrong conclusions. You don't make the same obvious errors as many others, but you still have a few things to learn when it comes to correct philosophical reasoning.
No, of course not. You cannot expect the average person to understand things on the same level as an expert does.
You deserve it, because you claim a lot of things here, for example that you understand these things correctly, and that your philosophical views are in some sense unique and have not been held by others in the past. As I said, you are only a beginner. A beginner with a beginner's typical arrogance and ignorance.
I am not trying to be smarter than I am, but I have studied much more philosphy than you have, that's for sure. And I understand it better than you do.
Maybe you should read something else than Kant for a while. If you can misunderstand Kant's ideas so gravely, you need to get a wider perspective on his philosophy.
Okay, we can agree on that. There is no freedom, at least not in any strict, metaphysical sense of that term.In which case there is no freedom in the regard that you seem to indicate in your meaning of the term.
So you prefer to stick to your misunderstanding and ignorance? In that case I can't help you.Once you relearn the functions.
No, I don't. I find it rather loathsome.
Yes, it is a necessary but dirty work in order to get to the objective truth. I would very much prefer that we could agree in the first place, but since I am ultimately loyal only to the truth itself, people who are wrong must be corrected. I can't tolerate that false or even logically incoherent beliefs are being spread like a plague.
The conflict of ideas lies at the heart of the scientific method itself. Maybe you haven't understood that yet. It is the only reliable method we can use in order to avoid having false beliefs.
I am also interested in ending the argument. But it requires that you correct your false beliefs. You must realize that your philosophical position is logically incoherent. And you must realize that you are not an INTP.
If it is not for us to decide then who decides whether or not it is there or isn't? It may very well be there or not, but even then someone must make a value judgment on its logical coherency.
I am familiar with objectivist ethics, but I find it to be rather trivial. It is unrealistic and impractical. But how is my stance here logically incoherent? You do a great deal of telling me that I am logically incoherent, but you provide no explanation as to why that is the case.It is not surprising that you don't understand the nature of ethics and the nature of objectivism. Neither do you understand that your stance is logically incoherent here too.
Which is fine and dandy, but I am trying to correct your erroneous thinking that all LII are subjectivist and relativistic thinkers. As long as you equate LIIs with philosophy with which you disagree, you will continue to have an incorrect view of LIIs and Socionics.Correct. Subjectivism is either trivial or logically incoherent, and of course the former is much preferable to the latter. But even so, there is nothing particularly right in focusing so narrowly on something trivial. It is wrong not to leave Subjectivism in its triviality and go on to more important problems and issues.
I was not confusing them. They still remain distinct. You continue to misinterpret what I write. I just remain concerned for the whole picture and not just the untainted or parts of the picture with full clarity.Maybe you have forgotten what you said in the first place, which is what I responded to. You were confusing the concepts subjetive and objective in a way that was similar to how tcaudilllg is constantly confusing them. That is muddled thinking.
Arrogance? I am quite aware of my ignorance, however, and admit to mine. Can you?You deserve it, because you claim a lot of things here, for example that you understand these things correctly, and that your philosophical views are in some sense unique and have not been held by others in the past. As I said, you are only a beginner. A beginner with a beginner's typical arrogance and ignorance.
He was a determinist when it came to the empirical realm of objects that exist independently of the mind.Maybe you should read something else than Kant for a while. If you can misunderstand Kant's ideas so gravely, you need to get a wider perspective on his philosophy.
Nor can I help you. The wheel of our mutual ignorance then must keep on turning throughout time.So you prefer to stick to your misunderstanding and ignorance? In that case I can't help you.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
That question is irrelevant.
You can try to determine whether two statemtents are logically incompatible or not, or I can do it, or someone else can do it. But who cares? It is logic itself who is the ultimate "judge" here. We can't change the laws of logic.
If some kind of objectivist ethics is true, then it is certainly not a trivial matter.
No.
In so far as you make any ethical claims yourself, which you do all the time here, your stance is incoherent if you want us to take you seriously. It may not be a strict logical contradiction, but it is a form of implicit contradiction in the sense that your actions contradict what you say.
The only way you can falsify my hypothesis that all LIIs are subjectivist and relativistic thinkers is to provide a clear example of a LII that is an objectivist thinker. So far you have done a very poor job in that respect.
No. I don't admit that I'm ignorant, but I admit that I'm arrogant.
Yes, but that is of course irrelevant. Kant was not a determinist when it came to the realm of the mind and the existence of free will and free agency.
Why?
And where does logic itself say that they are logically incompatible?You can try to determine whether two statemtents are logically incompatible or not, or I can do it, or someone else can do it. But who cares? It is logic itself who is the ultimate "judge" here. We can't change the laws of logic.
If unicorns were true, then they would not be trivial matters of fantasy, but I've yet to see unicorns and I've yet to see any empirical truth of objectivist ethics. And some kind of truth is not full objective truth, no more than the trivialities of subjectivist truth.If some kind of objectivist ethics is true, then it is certainly not a trivial matter.
Yes. My logic wins.No.
Because ethics generally come down to the individual person due to biological programming and environmental factors.In so far as you make any ethical claims yourself, which you do all the time here, your stance is incoherent if you want us to take you seriously. It may not be a strict logical contradiction, but it is a form of implicit contradiction in the sense that your actions contradict what you say.
I will take this as proof of your ignorance.No. I don't admit that I'm ignorant, but I admit that I'm arrogant.
Because at the end of the day, the argument of determinism or free will doesn't matter at all. If determinism is true (which I believe it is), I will behave exactly like I would if I believed in free will and human agency. The argument is ultimately trivial and philosophically unproductive. It is irrelevant muddled thinking.Yes, but that is of course irrelevant. Kant was not a determinist when it came to the realm of the mind and the existence of free will and free agency.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
It is impossible to prove an objective reality. Objective reality is only our subjective interpretations. You can't prove a truth because you only have your perceptions to go on. This kind of contradicts the mere notion of determinism, because you can't prove determinism. The free will v.s. determinism argument assumes that there is an objective reality. You can't prove either free will or determinism because everything is relative. Technically neither might exist. If I were to address reality as of objective nature, adhering to only the mere appearance of things; which means the world that everyone assumes exists and the conformist actions that everyone follows to "exist". In the stereotypical assumption of existence everything is deterministic. Everything is always a result of what happens before it. There is always a reason that everything happens. There is a reason for everything within the "normal" existence of things. Within the world that we live or that we accept, everything is a mathematical equation, a mere evolution of binary logic. This isn't to say that everything really is a mathematical equation, thats just the stereotype that existence is causes us to interpret.
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
Because the correctness of logic is not the result of a democratic process or a poll. It wouldn't matter if all the people on earth decided that a certain logical argument is valid. If it isn't valid in the first place, totally independently of how many people happen to believe so, then it will not become valid after the unanimous verdict of the people or a highly appreciated expert on logic having acte as a judge.
Logic itself doesn't say that they are logically incompatible -- it shows it. Some things can not be said, only shown. The correctness of the most fundamental principles of logic belongs to that category. You cannot prove that logic is correct by any other means than by using the laws of logic, since every possible proof presupposes the correctness of the fundamental principles of logic. You simply see that they are correct if you understand them.
Unicorns cannot be true, because only propositions (which are abstract entities) can be true or false. Unicorns could exist though (but they don't). Existence is not truth.
There is no empirical evidence (I assume that you mean evidence when you incorrectly talk about "truth" here) for an objectivist ethics, at least not in any strict sense. The ultimate foundation of an objectivist ethics is rationality or logic itself.
Maybe. But that does not imply that some people's biological programming is not more correct than others. Even though we all might be prisoners in a deterministic universe, some of us could be in possession of the objective truth "by accident". And it is possible that those of us who happen to have objectively true beliefs in addition to that also have objectively valid reasons to believe in what they believe. And in that case they would have not only objectively true beliefs but also objective knowledge. That they may not know that they actually have objective knowledge is another matter. If we have objective knowledge or not is not determined by us, it is determined by reality too -- in a similar way to how truth is determined by reality.
This externalist theory of truth and knowledge might be hard to accept for an INTj, because INTjs have an internalist conception of truth and knowledge. INTjs tend to demand proofs for everything, and that's why they confuse the concepts "truth" and "knowledge" and don't really understand the logical distinctions involved.
That would be a mistake. The presence of arrogance is not an indication of the presence of ignorance. Those two things are logically independent of each other.
We agree on that. And that's why Kant's thinking was muddled.Because at the end of the day, the argument of determinism or free will doesn't matter at all. If determinism is true (which I believe it is), I will behave exactly like I would if I believed in free will and human agency. The argument is ultimately trivial and philosophically unproductive. It is irrelevant muddled thinking.
That's correct. But provability is not the same thing as truth, and it doesn't make sense to doubt the existence of an objective reality. That we may never know for sure the real structure of reality is no argument against its existence. If anything exists it also has an objective structure, it exists objectively.
You can't prove that that is the case, it doesn't follow from your assumptions that that is the case, and there is no reason to believe that that is the case. As so many people tend to do, you confuse truth with knowledge. An interpretation is always an interpretation of something, and that something exists objectively. There are correct interpretations and there are incorrect interpretations of reality. The correct interpretations represent objective truth, the incorrect interpretations represent objective falsehood, and the subjective beliefs of you and me are just what they are -- beliefs. And as such they are either objectively true or objectively false, whether or not we may be able to know that they are true or false.
It doesn't follow from the premise that you only have your perceptions to go on that you can't prove that your beliefs are true. And whether you can prove something to be true or not is irrelevant, because provability is logically independent of truth. Not all objective truths are provable. In fact, it is a proven fact (proven by Gödel and others) that there are objective truths that can't be proven to be true. That we don't know exactly which of our beliefs are unprovable objective truths is another (irrelevant) matter.
No, it does not contradict the existence of determinism, because the world can be deterministic even if we can't prove that it is.
If everything is relative, your statement that everything is relative is also relative, and as such it is not objectively true, which means that it is false, and therefore it should be dismissed as irrelevant.
Everything is not relative, and it is easy to prove that everything is not relative, because that assumption leads to a logical contradiction, and every logical contradiction is necessarily false. Take Einstein's theory of relativity for example. Many people have got the totally wrong idea that it is a relativistic theory, but that is totally false. The speed of light is not relative but absolute according to this theory.
Yes, it is possible that we neither have free will nor determinism. But here you assume the existence of an objective truth, becuase if neither might exist, it is possible the neither might exist, and if neither exists, then it is objectively true that neither exists. There will always be an objective truth of the matter. Either there is an objective world or there isnt'. But either way, there is an objective truth. Either it is objectively true that there is an objective reality, or it is objectively true that there isn't an objective reality. There will always be objective facts, even if the world doesn't exists.
Whether everything is deterministic is logically independent on whether everything has a reason. A casue is something totally different from a reason. There might not be any reasons in a totally deterministic universe. Everthing could just exist without any explanation for why it exists. And similarly, there could be a lot of reasons in a totally indeterministic universe where everything is due to chance. Don't confuse causes with reasons.
How do you know that? Especially since you explicitly say that we can't know anything. If there is a reason for everything within the "normal", then it is true that there is a reason for everything with the "normal". But that logically implies that there is an objective truth, otherwise you are contradicting yourself, and if you are contradicting yourself your statement is false.
.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
@Phaedrus, I get the impression that your thoughts are fairly clear on this one, however, re the above comment, it appears Expat acknowledges that you are INTp..when it suits him.
Not at all. You force me to explain what I thought was obvious.
The only thing I "acknowledge" is that Phaedrus himself, by his own repeated admission, identifies with that Paul James description. That has nothing to do with my (1) agreeing that that description is good for ILIs generally or (2) agreeing that Phaedrus is ILI.
But, if Phaedrus sees the Paul James description as accurately describing himself, then, I think it makes sense to point out that, in that case, probably Phaedrus is not really certain himself of whether or not he believes what he says.
If Phaedrus disagrees with that quote of the James description, then either (1) the description is wrong or (2) Phaedrus is not an "INTP" as per that description.
Paul James's comment, which Expat is is quoting, refers to the method ILIs are using then trying to get to the objective truth. They often aggressively ask questions, provoke responses, criticizes their opponent's argument, etc, in a way that is clearly different from how LIIs typically act in debates. My recent discussions with tcaudilllg illustrate these differences between ILIs and LIIs very clearly.
This pushiness of INTps is of course also described in socionic ILI type profiles.
If one were to look at it from a 'molecular' level, ie functional- Ni dominant blocked with Te, then the quote from Paul James makes sense to me.
As an INTj's thought processes are built up from the bottom upwards, with their dominant Ti, I would imagine that they are more sure of what they say at it's very roots.
The dominant Ni - especially when blocked with Te - of your type will consider many possibilities of a logical nature, of one particular thing..especially during discussion, esp if one is to contrast your dynamic with INTj static.
The quoted section-from James' description, far more fits the functional mindset of an ILI than an LII.
I see in that description a lot of LII traits.
Consider this passage:
This seems to me very reminescent of +Se vulnerable. In particular, the "pushing" is -Se, which prompts the LII to assert their independence. James' reasoning doesn't seem consistent with socionics... he argues that Ti makes the final call. It would seem to me that the MBTT way of thinking about type is to imagine each function as a personality in-and-of itself. Socionics doesn't do this, I don't think. Jung asserted that the dominant function "calls the shots", and I think socionists just leave it at that. This goes into the dual roles of the functions as both information processors and internal agents. Socionics concentrates on their roles as IM processors, MBTT on their roles as agents.Independence, derived primarily from strongly introverted Thinking, leads to perhaps the most difficult aspect (for others) of the INTP, namely stubbornness. If an INTP is pushed into doing something he will automatically resist. The reason for the resistance is simply that any action must first be filtered by the Ti, guided by the Ne. He must be given the chance to reach an independent decision, approving or rejecting the action. Hence, he must withdraw to allow the analysis process to work. If withdrawal is not allowed then stubborn resistance is the inevitable result. However, others may not always find the INTP excessively stubborn, since the decision-making process can sometimes be rapidly accelerated when intuition takes the upper hand. The best way to get an INTP to do something is to suggest the idea as an option and let him sleep on it. Ultimately, the INTP must always believe that it is his decision. Once he is satisfied that the decision was independently reached, then he is content.
It is clear that James is stretching to make INTPs seem like slow decision makers. In reality, we only make slow decisions when we suspect -Se to be involved, in which case making the right decision is absolutely vital.
But, what discerned that the decision was vital? Who drew that conclusion, and how?
@tcaudliiig, the passage you quote-introverted thinking refers to socionic creative Te. I have already explained in 'what, Phaedrus type' thread how the creative Te function 'functions' - while it is switched on it is producing not accepting, this- by no means a small part, gives the air of stubborness to the INTp. It is producing the information, while it is doing this it is not so much assimilating new information at same time-like the accepting Te would do. This also explains and would also contribute to the INTp having to take time out to consider new informations-the 'in action' creative Te does far more producing than accepting.
I think it is important though to look at things one stage at a time. I think I've already explained the quoted part by Expat-that it is applicable to INTp
(I'm not saying your quoted part would not be somewhat similar to INTj-of course as quasi-identicals there will be some superficial similarities between the two, but my short summary here fits perfectly with what the paragraph is saying, and also that it's fits ILI far more accurately)
Overall, I don't see what the big deal is over James' article being ILI, except maybe somehow to catch Phaedrus out? However- hopefully we can all learn something here and see that it is indeed a decent ILI description, and at least not such a decent LII description, as per the points I for one have put down (and they are valid and knowledgable points- I think)
Ok, well first thing I want to note is that thought in general is assumptive. So the relative is relative is relative is relative thing is an assumptive relative(saying this is an assumption). Everything is assumption, the mind is assumptive, existence is assumptive.
Now on the objective reality thing, you assume that an objective reality exists because you believe that you exist. But the question is how do you know that you exist? Have you ever not existed before? What does it mean to not exist? Not existing is undefinable, it doesn't exist. We assume that we exist, but how do we know that we do? This could be non-existence and existence could be something entirely different.
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
No I think it's a decent LII description. LIIs are absolutely determined to discern truth... they do this by setting test experiments into motion (+Ni) and from that they deduce the truth or falsity of a hypothesis conceived of with -Ti+Ne. LIIs only use subjective truth as a defensive measure, particularly to defend a theory they cannot yet prove.@tcaudliiig, the passage you quote-introverted thinking refers to socionic creative Te. I have already explained in 'what, Phaedrus type' thread how the creative Te function 'functions' - while it is switched on it is producing not accepting, this- by no means a small part, gives the air of stubborness to the INTp. It is producing the information, while it is doing this it is not so much assimilating new information at same time-like the accepting Te would do. This also explains and would also contribute to the INTp having to take time out to consider new informations-the 'in action' creative Te does far more producing than accepting.
I think it is important though to look at things one stage at a time. I think I've already explained the quoted part by Expat-that it is applicable to INTp
(I'm not saying your quoted part would not be somewhat similar to INTj-of course as quasi-identicals there will be some superficial similarities between the two, but my short summary here fits perfectly with what the paragraph is saying, and also that it's fits ILI far more accurately)
Overall, I don't see what the big deal is over James' article being ILI, except maybe somehow to catch Phaedrus out? However- hopefully we can all learn something here and see that it is indeed a decent ILI description, and at least not such a decent LII description, as per the points I for one have put down (and they are valid and knowledgable points- I think
On the issue of criticism, ILIs tend not to be harsh about it, or even if they are it tends not to stick because in that case they have invoked their own sense of idealism which is going to lead them into making controversial statements. LIIs, on the other hand, can get into trouble for using particularly biting, hurtful language. LIIs can usually see through people easily, right into their emotional weaknesses. When they want to hurt someone, they expose that person's own weaknesses to them. The point of the exposure is to either right the errant character of the attacker by exposing their own flaws, or to cause them to emotionally implode and crumple right on the spot. Either way the LII emotionally disarms their attacker, thus robbing them of much of their will to fight.
...It's an unfortunate truth that laws are emerging making it difficult for LIIs to expose internal weaknesses for purposes of forcing self-critique. This is making it difficult for LIIs to feel safe, because other forms of aggression are going unrecognized or unpunished.
Some "assumptions" cannot be doubted. And if an "assumption" cannot be doubte, if it is not treated as an assumption by anyone, including you, is it not misleading to call it an "assumption" then? We take certain things for granted. And some of the things we take for granted are "given", in the sense that they are simply true. To doubt their truth does not make sense, and such "doubt" is therefore excluded as impossible.
That question is irrelevant. It doesn't make sense to ask how I know that I exist. And it doesn't make much sense to say that I know that I exist either. I just exist. And so do you. The question "How do you know that ...?" is only meaningful to ask in a situation where a doubt is possible. In this case you cannot doubt that you exist, because then you could just as well doubt whether you understand the words by which you express your "doubt". Your doubt is no real doubt, it is nothing but a play with words. It loses its meaning. Where you cannot doubt, you cannot ask for evidence.
The mistake you make here, once again, is to demand a proof for everything, even for such things that are in no need of a proof. Some beliefs are given. We (including you) accept them without doubting them. They are impossible to doubt. They are simply true. This is an inevitable consequence of Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems.
Yes.
It means not be falling under the scope of a variable.
There are a lot of things that do not exist (for example unicorns), but they can quite easily be defined anyway. Your statement is clearly false.Not existing is undefinable, it doesn't exist
As I explained earlier, the question is irrelevant. We realize that we exist. It is nonsense to say that we can doubt our own existence, because we simply can't.
I think that bit I quoted (and quote in my signature) is applicable to ILIs; however, it's not applicable to Phaedrus, in fact, people who indeed behave like that quote describes - a good example is Joy (and no, I'm not saying she's ILI or even that she otherwise corresponds to that description), that is, people who sometimes raise an issue for the sake of bringing it to debate, but are not sure themselves that they really agree to the points they making - such people, as I say, actually annoy Phaedrus a lot.
That quote has nothing to do with being stubborn or aggressive -- it has to do with
"[making] controversial, speculative points of argument, often annoying the discussion-partner, and make them in such a way as to leave the impression that he is very serious about what he says. In reality, the INTP is not actually even certain himself whether he really stands by what he is saying.
And that is not Phaedrus at all - in fact, he loathes people who behave like that. And the meaning of that quote is clear if you read the whole description - I am not quoting it out of context.
Thank you Expat... THAT is also what has always bothered me about the whole Pheadrus = INTP thing. Those paragraphs about speculation and uncertainty are in direct conflict with his predominant mode of behavior. And yes, he litterally loathes people who do behave that way.
Then let me get to the essence of what I was trying to say then - where does logic show that the two beliefs are incompatible?
Then how is the objectivist ethics different from the rationalist (presumably moreUnicorns cannot be true, because only propositions (which are abstract entities) can be true or false. Unicorns could exist though (but they don't). Existence is not truth.
There is no empirical evidence (I assume that you mean evidence when you incorrectly talk about "truth" here) for an objectivist ethics, at least not in any strict sense. The ultimate foundation of an objectivist ethics is rationality or logic itself.
And how would you determine the correctness of a person's biological ethics? Even if you were, would you not be subjecting the many to the ethics of the one? Phaedrus, you are essentially setting yourself up as having the true ethical belief.Maybe. But that does not imply that some people's biological programming is not more correct than others. Even though we all might be prisoners in a deterministic universe, some of us could be in possession of the objective truth "by accident". And it is possible that those of us who happen to have objectively true beliefs in addition to that also have objectively valid reasons to believe in what they believe. And in that case they would have not only objectively true beliefs but also objective knowledge. That they may not know that they actually have objective knowledge is another matter. If we have objective knowledge or not is not determined by us, it is determined by reality too -- in a similar way to how truth is determined by reality.
You have a tendency to project philosophical shortcomings on INTjs. I have little problem with the idea that there are external truths and knowledge, but I find ethics to be far too subjective of a field to trust in it to being externalistic and having it imposed on me.This externalist theory of truth and knowledge might be hard to accept for an INTj, because INTjs have an internalist conception of truth and knowledge. INTjs tend to demand proofs for everything, and that's why they confuse the concepts "truth" and "knowledge" and don't really understand the logical distinctions involved.
It would be a mistake, but I am not taking the presence of arrogance as a sign of ignorance but the claim of your lack of ignorance as the sign that you are.That would be a mistake. The presence of arrogance is not an indication of the presence of ignorance. Those two things are logically independent of each other.
At least in this regard.We agree on that. And that's why Kant's thinking was muddled.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Like Expat, you simply misunderstand what kind of behaviour and attitude that quote of James actually refer to. You don't understand the context, which is given in the profile before that passage.
And besides, why do you incorrectly assume that you can determine the strength of my convictions by the strength by which I express them?
These are good points Expat. I think that the quoted part of your signature-someone could interpret that as being aggressive, and in turn even further misinterpret this to some sort of cre-Se function (Phaedrus being a possible example of this)
But on the subject of Phaedrus, from what he says he has spent countless hours studying the subjects that he talks about on this forum-socionics, philosophy (definitely philosophy) so I wonder if he feels in a position to be more sure of himself than maybe he used to be on these subjects, so his critical aspect (and his own knowledge is) is more... self-assured?
At the same time, i'm concious of the element of speculation here (probably on both our parts.)
I do think though that he often shows his Ni (there's something in particular, i've been considering starting a thread over, so to discuss Ni in action.)
What are we talking about here -- two particular beliefs or two incompatible beliefs in general? And what do you mean by "where"?
What kind of ethics are you referring to by the expression "rationalist ethics"? What is it according to you?Then how is the objectivist ethics different from the rationalist (presumably more
By examning the arguments for that person's ethics. I use my reason to evaluate the logical consequences and fundamental premises of the person's ethics.
Of course. And so are you -- if you have any ethical belief.
Yes. That seem to be an almost inevitable consequence of how our minds are structured. You INTjs do the same to us INTps. Our different world outlooks seem to clash at a very fundamental philosophical level.
Perhaps you would change your mind if you started to study ethics in more depth. Most people have prejudices against objectivist ethics and objectivist aesthetics. They don't understand the nature of it. You should study the arguments much more before you make up your mind about it.
And that too is an unwarranted assumption.
Really? I don't see that in Phaedrus, although admittedly I don't follow a lot of these threads in which people might be observing that behavior.
I certainly say a lot of things that are either speculations or critiques of what other people say, which do not reflect any sort of "definite" opinion on my part, but are more intended to see what can be learned from the ongoing debate. Sometimes these posts are misinterpreted by other people either as me going "off the deep end" or as taking a strong stance for or against some point of view. But I don't recall that this behavior of mine has ever bothered Phaedrus much.
In fact, I used to think that the reason Phaedrus so vociferously defends his point of view was precisely because he was "testing" a point of view and wanted others to debate him. (That may still be true, but, again, I haven't followed these discussions much, as I haven't really had the time to be on this website much. I can certainly see now why some might have a hard time seeing it that way, though....so I'm not saying that this is actually what he is doing.)
It seems that what bothers him most (in my observation) is people who bring up old arguments that he's already rejected, rather than people who are speculative. In fact, he tends to take a rather neutral stance towards people who bring up speculative or controversial theories, and is more inclined to evaluate them based on whether their conclusions match his own views of reality, rather than judging them for whether they're speculative; for example, I remember one post where he was defending hitta because some of hitta's descriptions agreed with his own views.
This is an extremely informative post. It ties in with my fairly recent thoughts on INTp..I've got some questions, but will leave them for now. It's very interesting, so thanks for posting this.
Phaedrus is just assuming things, and he is holding these assumptions very firm. We believe we exist because we are brought up to believe that we do exist. Phaedrus just wants everyone to assume that we exist, or assume that he is right when nothing he says can be backed up by logic. His argument that we should just assume that we exist holds no water, it is a stereotype. Phaedrus is a stereotyper, an assumer. He is not looking at the big picture.
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
That is an absolutely correct observation. And this response of mine is an example of the behaviour that is described in Jonathan's last sentence.
What amazes me is how Phaedrus contradicts himself. He says he wants truth, but then he asks that people assume things about our existence.
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
Subjectivism and objectivism, which were the two beliefs originally in question.
The sort of ethical systems derived by the Rationalist thinkers (Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant).What kind of ethics are you referring to by the expression "rationalist ethics"? What is it according to you?
Would it not then come down to value judgments as to how favorable the outcome and what constitutes desirable fundamental premises? I agree with your approach of examining the logical consequences that certain ethical premises may have (even at the extremities) in society, but I question how objective one can be in that regard.By examning the arguments for that person's ethics. I use my reason to evaluate the logical consequences and fundamental premises of the person's ethics.
I suppose I would technically, but it is not something which I force upon others and necessarily expect them to adhere to. I would not use some external entity like government to enforce these ethical codes either.Of course. And so are you -- if you have any ethical belief.
I was talking about you as an individual and not INTps, so I find it troubling that even in the response you, Phaedrus, continue to project a sense that INTjs do this to INTps and vice versa, when I am strictly talking about your odd issues with INTjs.Yes. That seem to be an almost inevitable consequence of how our minds are structured. You INTjs do the same to us INTps. Our different world outlooks seem to clash at a very fundamental philosophical level.
I probably should and I may have the opportunity to do so much later, but time does not permit me to do so now. Do you adhere strictly to objectivist ethics yourself or are there other ethical systems that you have incorporated? Is there any aspect of objectivist ethics with which you disagree? Is there any brief guide online that you would recommend so that I could familiarize myself with objectivist ethics? My problem with objectivist ethics so far is that it seems incredibly unrealistic of a goal and doubt that ethics exists as a concrete entity of truth.Perhaps you would change your mind if you started to study ethics in more depth. Most people have prejudices against objectivist ethics and objectivist aesthetics. They don't understand the nature of it. You should study the arguments much more before you make up your mind about it.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
No, it's the other way around. The things that I am holding most firm are the things that cannot be doubted.
No. The fact that we exist is much more certain than the assumption that we believe that we exist becuse with are brought up to believe that wie do exist. It is not an assumption that we exist. It is a given fact. We do exist. Period.
No, I don't want you to assume anything. I can see that you take for granted that you exist. There exists no doubt here, not for anyone of us.
That is definitely not my argument. I am not arguing for the fact that we exist. We just exist. It would be ridiculous to try to argue for it.
You are a dogmatic skeptic, because you have an uncritical stance toward your own skepticism. I am a critical skeptic, because I am critical towards unwarranted uncritical criticism. Some of your doubts are sheer nonsense.
Gotta admit, I'm critical towards uncritical criticism too.
Retired from posting and drawing Social Security. E-mail or PM to contact.
I pity your souls
What you say is debatable because I say it is. The fact that someone can doubt it makes it debatable.
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
If it is a fact that someone can doubt it, then the proposition "Someone can doubt it" is objectivly true. But that contradicts what you say about truth, that there is no objective truth. Therefore your position is logically incoherent. If what you say is true, then what you say is false, and therefore I dismiss what you say as nonsense. What I say is not debatable, and the fact that you are uttering some meaningless words doesn't change that fact one bit.
Thats because thought in general is "logically incoherent". Theres nothing you can say that isn't debatable. Thought is an assumption. Existence in general is nothing but a stereotype.
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
:" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"
