Yes
No
I am not LII (I am a retard - I don't even know why I'm answering this poll to be honest)
And everything you say in that quote is a very good example of total bullshit. What you say is so nonsensical that it is not even worth a comment. You brain is incorrectly wired so that you are unable to process a correct logical reasoning.Originally Posted by hitta
It is a proven fact that what you say is false, and yet you continue to produce nonsense. That is really hard to understand. Have you no intelligence at all?
Actually Phaedrus, Einstein and Hitta would have gotten along well had they lived in the same time. Hitta's is a strict Einsteinian relativism, which stems from his individualist nature.
On the MBTT thing, I'm thinking that there is a lot of subjective truth in it, and not much objective truth. Does INTP = ILI? Not withstanding Isabel Meier, at least.
But if you were to look at it from Jung's perspective, then yes, Phaedrus is correct. Jungian irrationality/rationality = socionics irrationality/rationality. But MBTT as posed by Meiers-Briggs diverges from Jung on that point, and the Meiers-Briggs labels the ILI phenomenon INTJ.
"Proven"? What exactly is there to prove? Where is this stuff proven at? I find the word "nonsensical" to be funny. It implies that there are rules of logic. Hmm what does it mean? Non------Sense, or no "sense". The word sense implies an objective reality. Eyes, ears, touch, smell, taste; these are our "sensory information" supposedly. Our thoughts are all based upon our sensory information. "Objective" reality is a conformist ideology. You are one of the people (most people trust the instincts that they've been taught), that follows what they've been taught to believe. You are a social conformist. You logic is based upon the norms. You trust your senses. You trust reality or what you've been taught. To believe in an objective reality is to believe in everything that is taught to you, its to believe in morality as a unit of society. You are nothing more than a religious nut that is set in his ways unwilling to open up his mind to the possibilities. And I'm not saying that there isn't truth, I mean you can't prove that your beliefs are wrong. You can't prove that they are right either.
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
No way. I'm sorry, tcaudilllg, but you are so completely wrong about what you say here. Einstein was not a relativist -- not in any sense of that word. Einstein believed in the existence of an external world with a structure independent of our perception of it, he was convinced that there are objective eternal truths, and he was opposed to everything that hitta stands for. There is no Einsteinian relativism and there has never been any. That is a complete misunderstanding of Einsteins views.
Cut the crap, will you. You are wrong about that too.
At least you got that one right.
Argue for it -- without reference to functions. I am sick and tired of hearing such bullshit. The ILI is totally different from an INTJ. Totally different. So how can you believe what you say here? You haven't studied the subject, and yet you claim to be an expert. Prove it then!
I'll agree with you there, neither the INTP or the INTJ description describes a INTp. The whole concept of types among a bunch of socionics people is fucked up because of people like you that want to say that INTjs and INTps are similar because they are both NT. Those groups, the NT NF SJ SP groups need to burn. I mean yes there are similarities because of the NT alikeness, but its a lot different than how they act or believe. Its more about the essence surrounding the types, and not the actually composition of how the types act. INTps are not "intuitive" in the same way that people use the word on this forum.
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
That a lot of your statements are false. And I have proven exactly that -- by demonstrating clearly and distinctly that you contradict your own statements. You make logical contradictions, and every logical contradiction is false. Necessarily false according to the laws of logic. There is no room for argument here. You are proven to be wrong, and if you don't admit it you are an idiot.
There are rules of logic.
Yes.
If your words have no sense, then you can't make any assertions, and you can't be right.
No. That's another false statement.
That ridiculous statement is not even laughable. You are a social conformist, because relativistic bullshit doctrines are extremely popular nowadays. My views are the opposite of social conformism, but that's not the reason I have them. The reason I have them is because they are true.
Total crap again. I hate your ignorance and stupidity.
I have proven, with 100 % certainty, that your views are false.You are nothing more than a religious nut that is set in his ways unwilling to open up his mind to the possibilities. And I'm not saying that there isn't truth, I mean you can't prove that your beliefs are wrong. You can't prove that they are right either.
Jeez, I hate calling people dumb, but you fit the description. You have a life full of categorical assumptions, without looking at the world with an open mind. Its like you are an assembly line. You can predict your statements; a total disregard for originality. A limited amount of responses, you only have a certain amount of buttons to press. Its always the same. You are stuck in a dimension, you are locked in the box. It appears that there is no key.
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
Separate note: Do you still not believe that Einstein was an ILE?
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
I don't think thats necessarily the case. I'm no philosophy expert but I think a lot of what you say, and Phaedrus responses would come under empiricism, see works of Locke, Hume and Berkley for instance.
That is actually true, and that's why Alpha NTs, like Sergei Ganin and others, have such a hard time seeing INTps as intuitive. They only understand, and that's why they usually suggest other types for real INTps, often some S type. They make ridiculous mistypings of people.
Yes, it will remain the same. I repeat the same statements until people realize that they are true and accept them as facts. I am completely right, and you are completely wrong. And that's just the way it is.
By the way, Phaedrus, in case you missed it amongst all the TC and hitta stuff, I did reply to your comments on the previous page.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Yeah, I saw it but forgot about it.
Well, I know you probably haven't read on Locke and Hume a lot(though I'm noting mostly about Locke in my following statements), but they were sort of "subjective" empiricists in a way. Locke believed in the concepts of proof as a naturalistic philosophy. He believed strongly in the scientific method. In todays society these are looked at as objective philosophies. They weren't really objective to people like Locke though. Locke had more of a live as you learn philosophy on things. He believed that everything that a person was or knew was a learned thing. That people were born with Tabula Rasa or in a blank state. He kind of had this like acceptance that everything was relative or subjective but he was gonna treat it as objective for his benefit.
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
Take your time.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Okay, there is a meaning of these words that doesn't imply that they are logically incompatible, and that is when we talk about subjectivism as a theory that says that our knowledge is originated from the subjects own state's of mind. In that sense Hume would be a subjectivist (and of course Descartes and others). Objectivism would thus be the theory that says that knowledge should take something publicly availabe, for example physical objects or the language.
But by subjectivism we can also mean relativism, and in that sense subjectivism is clearly incompatible with objectivism.
This is a rather complex subject, because there are differences among these philsophers when it comes to their ethics, and at the moment I am not sure that we have defined our problem the best way. Maybe we will have reason to come back to this.
One can be fairly objective. I am for example convinced that it is a proven fact that utilititarianism is a superior theory to Rawlsian ethics, and that that becomes obvious if you test both theories in a thought experiment. Rawls assumption that we should always take more care about the poorest group of people in society has unacceptable logical consequences. I am not saying that utilitarianism is the correct theory of ethics, only that it is clearly superior to Rawlsian ethics, which can be dismissed on logical grounds. Nozick's or Rand's libertarian ethics is much superior to Rawl's, because they are at least logically coherent in a sense that Rawl's ethics is not.
Neither would I. An ethical theory can be objectively true without it being objectivly true that you have a right to enforce it on others by the use of violence.
I don't agree that my issues with INTjs are odd. I am not totally convinced that you are an INTj either.
I am not sure which ethical system is the correct one. I hope that it is not utilitarianism, but utilitarianism has a very strong case indeed. The final battle is fought between some version of utilitarianism (probably classical hedonism as it is defended by for example the Swedish philosopher Torbjörn Tännsjö) and some version of a theory of rights (like Ayn Rand's or others similar to hers). I have been an almost convinced utilitarian in the past, but by natural temperament my inclination is to favour individualism and classical individual rights. But whether you are a utilitarian or a defender of natural rights, you have to be a classical liberal, that is a libertarian, or something close to that, because every other theory of economics is false. If some version of utilitarianism is correct, then we will end up with a view on society that is very close to Friedrich von Hayek's. Hayek was only a libertarian (classical liberal) in his views on practical politics. The philosophical foundation for his views is utilitarian.
I don't know. I haven't checked the Internet on that. I have read countless of books on this subject, most of them about 10-15 years ago. If you find anything on the Internet I can tell you if I find it good or not.
He was probably ILE, but it is irritating that he seems to be such a clear example of an objectivist. I am not totally convinced that he was an ILE.
Then why not just say with more precise clarity that relativism is incompatible with objectivism instead of the more muddled subjectivism is incompatible with objectivism, when as you indicate is not necessarily the case?
Perhaps as a separate topic, but I would like to hear your thoughts on ethics and these rationalist thinkers.This is a rather complex subject, because there are differences among these philsophers when it comes to their ethics, and at the moment I am not sure that we have defined our problem the best way. Maybe we will have reason to come back to this.
Ah, but the utilitarian ethics does acknowledge the need for a Rawlsian ethics, since John Stuart Mill wrote in On Liberty that although Utilitarianism should be for the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, that does not mean that the happiness of the few should necessarily be trampled upon by those of the many. There is also the saying that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, which is something that the Rawlsian ethics acknowledges that Utilitarianism does not to the same extent. Who benefits the most in a particular society from a greater sum game of utilitarian happiness? Do the needs of the many give the right or justification to trample the few? How is that utilitarian benefit distributed? Yes utilitarian happiness or prosperity may exceed in the majority, but does that necessarily mean that all amongst this majority necessarily reap equal benefits? Or what about the differences and needs that exist between persons? Should this not be a Democratic Gamma concern for the differences and needs of the individual? Furthermore, should the idea of Rawls of justice as fairness allows for a greater use of objective measure of ethics? Does utilitarian happiness also necessarily equate to a healthier (whether that is politically, physically, or intellectually) society?One can be fairly objective. I am for example convinced that it is a proven fact that utilititarianism is a superior theory to Rawlsian ethics, and that that becomes obvious if you test both theories in a thought experiment. Rawls assumption that we should always take more care about the poorest group of people in society has unacceptable logical consequences. I am not saying that utilitarianism is the correct theory of ethics, only that it is clearly superior to Rawlsian ethics, which can be dismissed on logical grounds. Nozick's or Rand's libertarian ethics is much superior to Rawl's, because they are at least logically coherent in a sense that Rawl's ethics is not.
Good to know.Neither would I. An ethical theory can be objectively true without it being objectivly true that you have a right to enforce it on others by the use of violence.
Yet you have a habit of projecting philosophical stances that are opposed to your own on INTjs? This is what I have the greatest issue with in a great deal of what you write. It seems that for you, LIIs will always have the wrong view because they are not ILIs who have the right view, which is whatever philosophic view that you hold. And whatever philosophic view that you are opposed to, because the primary philosophic view of LIIs.I don't agree that my issues with INTjs are odd.
As I hypothesized: either you would conclude that I am an LII and not an objectivist or that I am not an LII despite my knowledge otherwise. I am now curious though as to your speculations on my type.I am not totally convinced that you are an INTj either.
Interesting. Why is that? So would you claim that by democratic socialism is in error?I am not sure which ethical system is the correct one. I hope that it is not utilitarianism, but utilitarianism has a very strong case indeed. The final battle is fought between some version of utilitarianism (probably classical hedonism as it is defended by for example the Swedish philosopher Torbjörn Tännsjö) and some version of a theory of rights (like Ayn Rand's or others similar to hers). I have been an almost convinced utilitarian in the past, but by natural temperament my inclination is to favour individualism and classical individual rights. But whether you are a utilitarian or a defender of natural rights, you have to be a classical liberal, that is a libertarian, or something close to that, because every other theory of economics is false. If some version of utilitarianism is correct, then we will end up with a view on society that is very close to Friedrich von Hayek's. Hayek was only a libertarian (classical liberal) in his views on practical politics. The philosophical foundation for his views is utilitarian.
And if you find anything on the Internet in those regards, I would appreciate it if you would send it my way to examine. I do not have all the time in the world to read all that I would like to read and do what I would like to do.I don't know. I haven't checked the Internet on that. I have read countless of books on this subject, most of them about 10-15 years ago. If you find anything on the Internet I can tell you if I find it good or not.
But if an ILE (NeTi) can be an objectivist, why can't an LII? And if Hume (who you have typed as a Gamma-) be a subjectivist, why can't an ILI or other Gammas?
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
This is the worst thread in the history of this section. Damn you, Expat! Keep your shit in Gamma!
JRiddy
—————King of Socionics—————
Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so
According to the Reinin dichotomies Alpha NTs are Subjectivists () and Gamma NTs are Objectivists (
Subjectivists
Are not inclined to deduce 'objective truths' from their own and others' experiences – everything is relative. This relativity is perceived as an extenuation of the differing beliefs, opinions, intentions, etc. of each person. Accordingly, another person's actions are judged as correct or incorrect according to a set of subjective criteria. They attempt to compare others' views to their own, and to explain their own views in order to make sure that all parties understand the concepts being spoken of.
They are inclined to propose (or impose) another conception of the situation ('look at it this way'). If they think something is done incorrectly, they will ask WHY it was done that way. When talking about optimums, they are inclined to do it subjectively ('optimum compared to what?').
The subjectivist, in contrast to the objectivist, is not inclined to deduce/derive "objectively accurate" laws and regularities (Summarizing/generalizing for this purpose their experiences and those of other people). Instead assumes that other people have different criteria, different views, therefore defines/treats another's actions as either accurate or incorrect, necessarily doing it with a "subjective" determining factors – evaluates in accordance to a personal system, "their system", actions, intentions and so on. Subjectivist are inclined to propose (Or to impose) not the "correct way" or some other way to do things – but general concepts on how to perform actions i.e. they do not say "Do it this way!" they say "Look at it this way!". They do not consider, in contrast to the objectivist, that in every situation there exists only one "objectively correct/true" way of doing something – in any situation, in their opinion, there are many ways one can act, approach/view the situation. When they feel something was done in an inappropriate manner they will most likely ask: "What is this?" (In contrast to the objectivist who will most likely ask "Who did this?"). When they speak of optimality they speak of optimality within a framework of the concept, they use a subjective approach (Form the point of view of being more optimal compared to what). Therefore they attempt to contrast other people's views to their own and to explain their position (To verify concepts): "If it is like that them we shall do this, it is different – we'll do something else"
"Verification of concepts" – the general (common) phenomenon for subjectivists, it concerns not only the different was of acting/doing, but also concepts, terminology and so on. Subjectivists are in greater degree "adjusted" to the fact that different people have different meanings/understandings for same concepts, words and so on. The perceive the terminology (As well as actions of people) as a part of the subjective concept of different people – an extenuation of personal opinions, occupied positions, personal intention etc.: "So we have agreed that we shall name it this way". In contrast to he objectivist, who receives terminology as "objective", subjectivists understand the differences of terminologies (This concerns even well established terms) and they attempt to contrast them ("Well you say it is like that but I disagree")
Objectivists
Are inclined to believe there are 'objective truths' – the truth is not always relative. Therefore, they believe that there are two types of actions/perspectives: those which are subjective (connected with personal preferences and motivations) and those which are objective (only one 'correct' or 'best' way of doing something). Whether something is correct or not is judged by comparing it with what they see as 'objectively correct'. In disagreement, they first attempt to make sure that the other person understands the concepts and terms 'correctly'.
They are inclined to offer (or impose) what they see as the 'best' or 'correct' way of doing something ('it should be done like this'). If they think something is done incorrectly, they ask WHO did it that way. When speaking of optimums, they are inclined to do so objectively (the 'absolute' optimum).
In objectivists there is an idea of "objectively known facts", regularities, laws in general (common) experience; they consider that there exist "true in general", "always correct" laws. They suppose that other people can have their views, hold their position, but at the same time do not consider that any action can be viewed true or false depending on their point of view (This allows the existence of "objectively accurate" actions). Therefore from the point of view of the objectivists, actions can be different – subjective, determined by personal preferences and motives, and objective (Where there is only one "correct", "best" way to do something). Objectivists define actions as correct or incorrect contrasting them to their representation of what is "objectively correct". When they think that there is only one optimal solution, they are inclined to propose (Or impose) ways to accomplish an activity (Not propositions on how to accomplish an action like the subjectivist) which they think are the best: "No – you will do it "the correct way"". When speaking of optimality, they speak of optimality in general – "objective optimality" (they consider that they know the "correct", "best" ways of doing something). In joint activities they offer the "most effective" way of doing something. In disagreement they first "verify" concepts used, check whether the other person knows the concepts and terms "correctly".
In contrast to the subjectivists, they are not inclined of "verification of concepts". They assume that the terms, concepts have only one unique interpretation ("correct", "accurate" one) – often they do not think about the fact that the other person may be interpreting them differently within the framework of other concepts. They operate with concepts like "objective reality" like unequivocal facts, in such cases they do not attempt to "verify the concepts": "It refers to this". Thus in those cases they consider that they know a thing correctly, how it "really is" (The view certain pictures of the world as uniquely true): "You say it's like this while in reality is like this".
No, I had observed these differences in attitudes and philosophical outlooks between INTjs and INTps long before I became acquainted with the Reinin dichotomies. That the exact same phenomenon was described in Socionics under the name of Reinin's Subjectivist/Objectivist divide only confirmed what I already knew. It was a sort of "proof" that my real life observations of the types were correct.
And please try to understand that the Subjectivist/Objectivist dichotomy is not the same thing as the Merry/Serious dichotomy, even though Expat will probably claim otherwise. The Merry/Serious dichotomy is the divide betweenand
, whereas the Subjectivist/Objectivist dichotomy is the divide between
Good question.
Only an idiot would question an objective fact. If it really is an objective fact it must be accepted as such. The problem is of course to determine what is an objective fact and what isn't. Beliefs about the world should of course sometimes be questioned, but beliefs are not facts.
That is definitely not what I claim. A proposition is objectively true if it corresponds with a fact. But a fact is not the same thing as a true proposition.
Phaedrus, I only hope that you are happy with your beliefs.According to the Reinin dichotomies Alpha NTs are Subjectivists (
Subjectivists
Are not inclined to deduce 'objective truths' from their own and others' experiences – everything is relative. This relativity is perceived as an extenuation of the differing beliefs, opinions, intentions, etc. of each person. Accordingly, another person's actions are judged as correct or incorrect according to a set of subjective criteria. They attempt to compare others' views to their own, and to explain their own views in order to make sure that all parties understand the concepts being spoken of.
They are inclined to propose (or impose) another conception of the situation ('look at it this way'). If they think something is done incorrectly, they will ask WHY it was done that way. When talking about optimums, they are inclined to do it subjectively ('optimum compared to what?').
The subjectivist, in contrast to the objectivist, is not inclined to deduce/derive "objectively accurate" laws and regularities (Summarizing/generalizing for this purpose their experiences and those of other people). Instead assumes that other people have different criteria, different views, therefore defines/treats another's actions as either accurate or incorrect, necessarily doing it with a "subjective" determining factors – evaluates in accordance to a personal system, "their system", actions, intentions and so on. Subjectivist are inclined to propose (Or to impose) not the "correct way" or some other way to do things – but general concepts on how to perform actions i.e. they do not say "Do it this way!" they say "Look at it this way!". They do not consider, in contrast to the objectivist, that in every situation there exists only one "objectively correct/true" way of doing something – in any situation, in their opinion, there are many ways one can act, approach/view the situation. When they feel something was done in an inappropriate manner they will most likely ask: "What is this?" (In contrast to the objectivist who will most likely ask "Who did this?"). When they speak of optimality they speak of optimality within a framework of the concept, they use a subjective approach (Form the point of view of being more optimal compared to what). Therefore they attempt to contrast other people's views to their own and to explain their position (To verify concepts): "If it is like that them we shall do this, it is different – we'll do something else"
"Verification of concepts" – the general (common) phenomenon for subjectivists, it concerns not only the different was of acting/doing, but also concepts, terminology and so on. Subjectivists are in greater degree "adjusted" to the fact that different people have different meanings/understandings for same concepts, words and so on. The perceive the terminology (As well as actions of people) as a part of the subjective concept of different people – an extenuation of personal opinions, occupied positions, personal intention etc.: "So we have agreed that we shall name it this way". In contrast to he objectivist, who receives terminology as "objective", subjectivists understand the differences of terminologies (This concerns even well established terms) and they attempt to contrast them ("Well you say it is like that but I disagree")
Objectivists
Are inclined to believe there are 'objective truths' – the truth is not always relative. Therefore, they believe that there are two types of actions/perspectives: those which are subjective (connected with personal preferences and motivations) and those which are objective (only one 'correct' or 'best' way of doing something). Whether something is correct or not is judged by comparing it with what they see as 'objectively correct'. In disagreement, they first attempt to make sure that the other person understands the concepts and terms 'correctly'.
They are inclined to offer (or impose) what they see as the 'best' or 'correct' way of doing something ('it should be done like this'). If they think something is done incorrectly, they ask WHO did it that way. When speaking of optimums, they are inclined to do so objectively (the 'absolute' optimum).
In objectivists there is an idea of "objectively known facts", regularities, laws in general (common) experience; they consider that there exist "true in general", "always correct" laws. They suppose that other people can have their views, hold their position, but at the same time do not consider that any action can be viewed true or false depending on their point of view (This allows the existence of "objectively accurate" actions). Therefore from the point of view of the objectivists, actions can be different – subjective, determined by personal preferences and motives, and objective (Where there is only one "correct", "best" way to do something). Objectivists define actions as correct or incorrect contrasting them to their representation of what is "objectively correct". When they think that there is only one optimal solution, they are inclined to propose (Or impose) ways to accomplish an activity (Not propositions on how to accomplish an action like the subjectivist) which they think are the best: "No – you will do it "the correct way"". When speaking of optimality, they speak of optimality in general – "objective optimality" (they consider that they know the "correct", "best" ways of doing something). In joint activities they offer the "most effective" way of doing something. In disagreement they first "verify" concepts used, check whether the other person knows the concepts and terms "correctly".
In contrast to the subjectivists, they are not inclined of "verification of concepts". They assume that the terms, concepts have only one unique interpretation ("correct", "accurate" one) – often they do not think about the fact that the other person may be interpreting them differently within the framework of other concepts. They operate with concepts like "objective reality" like unequivocal facts, in such cases they do not attempt to "verify the concepts": "It refers to this". Thus in those cases they consider that they know a thing correctly, how it "really is" (The view certain pictures of the world as uniquely true): "You say it's like this while in reality is like this".
No, I had observed these differences in attitudes and philosophical outlooks between INTjs and INTps long before I became acquainted with the Reinin dichotomies. That the exact same phenomenon was described in Socionics under the name of Reinin's Subjectivist/Objectivist divide only confirmed what I already knew. It was a sort of "proof" that my real life observations of the types were correct.
And please try to understand that the Subjectivist/Objectivist dichotomy is not the same thing as the Merry/Serious dichotomy, even though Expat will probably claim otherwise. The Merry/Serious dichotomy is the divide between
Good question.
Only an idiot would question an objective fact. If it really is an objective fact it must be accepted as such. The problem is of course to determine what is an objective fact and what isn't. Beliefs about the world should of course sometimes be questioned, but beliefs are not facts.
That is definitely not what I claim. A proposition is objectively true if it corresponds with a fact. But a fact is not the same thing as a true proposition.
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
I would be much more happy if you were more intelligent.
So your happiness is dependent on me?
On another note, this statement gives the impression that you are actually debating your own ideologies. You are pissed off at people because they disagree with you. This makes you feel less confident, and probably actually hurts your feelings. Phaedrus, I don't hold any discontent towards you because I disagree with you. You have a right to have your opinions just as I have a right to disagree with you. If you feel you are right, continue to explore it; though I actually have doubts that you truly think you are right. There are too many signs to this.
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
Of course if it is an objective fact it must be accepted as such, but it may be uncertain as to whether it is an objective fact and how it was derived as such. What is questioned is whether or not what is being called a fact is truly a fact.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Because Subjectivism is equated with relativism in the Reinin dichotomies.
Maybe later.
No, but if a greater happiness (or "well-being" which is a better word to use) overall is achieved by sacrificing a few people's happiness, then that is what should be done according to utilitarianism. And of course it is not the happiness for the greatest number of people that is relevant (Mill was wrong about that) but instead the greatest sum of happiness overall. The number of people is irrelevant, because people are only containers of happiness and pain. Mill's version of utilitarianism is a false theory of ethics.
And that's exactly why utilitarianism is superior to Rawlsian ethics, because it is absurd to claim that the weakest link in the chain is of such importance as Rawls claims that it is. Rawls basic assumption leads to unacceptable consequences.
That question is totally irrelevant in a (correct) utilitarian perspective. People are irrelevant, only the collective counts. Utilitarianism is a pure collectivist ethics. People are nothing but instruments, they are containers of well-being and pain, and as such they are only tools. They have no intrinsic value in themselves.
Yes, of course -- according to utilitarianism, that is.
Totally irrelevant question.
No. But equality has no intrinsic value. Only well-being has intrinsic value according to classical hedonistic utilitarianism, which is the most reasonable of all versions of utilitarianism.
They are irrelevant.
Not according to utilitarianism.
No.
Yes, but that's just the way it is. That is a general and very obvious pattern that can't be ignored. The interesting problem is how to explain it in the most accurate way possible.
You don't understand the J/P dichotomy, and you identify with P in MBTT. That is a very good reason to not be convinced that you are correctly typed. And besides that, you don't reason like a very typical INTj like tcaudilllg, to whom every "INTj" on this forum should compare themselves. You writing style is also not the most typical for an LII.
Yes, definitely. Democratic socialism is gravely in error. It is a huge mistake and an immoral political view, based on a naďve an totally false view on human nature and a complete misunderstanding of the basic laws of economics. Democratic socialists don't understand the mechanisms of a free market.
Very good question. Unfortunately I don't know the answer to it, but maybe there is one. Either it is possible for an ILE to have philosophical views that are remarkably similar to those of an objectivist, or both Einstein and a lot of famous people that Rick has typed as ILEs (Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins) are mistyped.
Hume was not a Subjectivist in Reinin's sense.And if Hume (who you have typed as a Gamma-
Didn't you understand what I just said? You are abusing language here. A fact is a fact, and a truth is a truth. They are both always final, and they are both always eternal. You can never change a fact, and you can never change a truth. Only beliefs about objective reality are not final.
Learn to understand these things correctly, please. Right now you don't know what you are talking about. You confuse the key concepts. Take another look at how I have explained the correct use of terms like "truth", "fact", and "objective".
What is considered a fact is irrelevant, because beliefs are irrelevant. Only objective truth counts.
http://www.intp.org/intprofile.html
Then should we not consider this an error of interpretation on the part of Reinin?
So if a few people have a greater sum of happiness than an unhappy majority of people, that is ethically sound?No, but if a greater happiness (or "well-being" which is a better word to use) overall is achieved by sacrificing a few people's happiness, then that is what should be done according to utilitarianism. And of course it is not the happiness for the greatest number of people that is relevant (Mill was wrong about that) but instead the greatest sum of happiness overall. The number of people is irrelevant, because people are only containers of happiness and pain. Mill's version of utilitarianism is a false theory of ethics.
And what are those unacceptable consequences?And that's exactly why utilitarianism is superior to Rawlsian ethics, because it is absurd to claim that the weakest link in the chain is of such importance as Rawls claims that it is. Rawls basic assumption leads to unacceptable consequences.
But is such a (correct) utilitarian perspective even possible realistically? People have no intrinsic value in themselves? How is that ethically sound? Many questions would be irrelevant in correct perspectives societies, so you telling me that my question is irrelevant is meaningless.That question is totally irrelevant in a (correct) utilitarian perspective. People are irrelevant, only the collective counts. Utilitarianism is a pure collectivist ethics. People are nothing but instruments, they are containers of well-being and pain, and as such they are only tools. They have no intrinsic value in themselves.
Then to what extent are they permitted to do so? Are there limitations on that power?Yes, of course -- according to utilitarianism, that is.
No it's not, so answer the question. This is basic politics. Who benefits the most from the distribution of resources and utility?Totally irrelevant question.
No. But equality has no intrinsic value. Only well-being has intrinsic value according to classical hedonistic utilitarianism, which is the most reasonable of all versions of utilitarianism.But those differences create the composition of the aggregate whole. Those differences may also need to address what is needed to achieve utility or happiness amongst individuals.They are irrelevant.
It does not sound much like a Gamma philosophy then.Not according to utilitarianism.
If the utility of the majority does not lead to healthier societies, then of what value does it serve as an ethical principle?No.
No it is not, and the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.Yes, but that's just the way it is. That is a general and very obvious pattern that can't be ignored. The interesting problem is how to explain it in the most accurate way possible.
Incorrect. I know that I am an INTj.You don't understand the J/P dichotomy, and you identify with P in MBTT. That is a very good reason to not be convinced that you are correctly typed. And besides that, you don't reason like a very typical INTj like tcaudilllg, to whom every "INTj" on this forum should compare themselves. You writing style is also not the most typical for an LII.
Why do you assume that democratic socialists do not understand the mechanisms of the free market? Perhaps they understand it but do not value it in favor of other priorities and what they recognize as the logical consequences of the libertarian stance. But how is it immoral? Is the liberterian view not equally as naďve?Yes, definitely. Democratic socialism is gravely in error. It is a huge mistake and an immoral political view, based on a naďve an totally false view on human nature and a complete misunderstanding of the basic laws of economics. Democratic socialists don't understand the mechanisms of a free market.
So you will not allow for the possibility than an LII can be an objectivist?Very good question. Unfortunately I don't know the answer to it, but maybe there is one. Either it is possible for an ILE to have philosophical views that are remarkably similar to those of an objectivist, or both Einstein and a lot of famous people that Rick has typed as ILEs (Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins) are mistyped.
Because Reinin's sense also includes relativism, which we have established prior as being out of place in the dichotomy as it introduces an extra element that should not be included in the subjectivist category.Hume was not a Subjectivist in Reinin's sense.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
If this thread gets to 50 pages, I'm going to buy you all a round.
ILE
No, why? Reinin's interpretation seems to be in line with my own empirical observations, at least when it comes to understanding the differences between INTjs and INTps. That can't be a coincidence.
If the total sum of happiness of the few people is greater than the total sum of happiness of the majority, then the answer is definitely yes according to utilitarianism. But it is theoretically possible that for example 100 billion people, whose lives are just above zero in value on average (meaning that their lives are only minutely preferable to non-existence), represent a greater total sum of happiness than the total sum of, let's say, 10 000 extremely happy people. In that case the world would be a better place with more slightly happy people than fewer extremely happy people -- according to utilitarianism.
One unacceptable consequence is that the happiness of those in the middle would be irrelevant and not taken into count if the most important thing is the well-being of the poorest group. It is also not clear how the group of the poorest people in society should be demarcated.
Utilitarianism is a theory about what makes an action right or wrong. It is irrelevant if it is practically possible to determine which actions are right or wrong in real life.
According to utilitarianism it is ethically sound. If you disagree you have to come up with a better theory. And you will have to defend your position against counter arguments of the utilitarians, which is not an easy task. I don't know how to falsify utilitarianism once and for all. It is a very tough opponent.
Yes.
No. According to utilitarianism there are no human rights. The end result always justifies the means. But to actually have the best consequences for society as a whole, utilitarianism should probably not be taught in school. It would probably lead to better consequences in a utilitarian perspective if people didn't think like utilitarians but were brainwashed to believe in the existence of natural human rights. Because in that case they would more likely act in such a way that it would lead to the greatest sum of happiness overall. If they would think like utilitarians they would make to many mistakes in their decision process, partly because it would take too much time to reach a well-founded and correct decision.
What do you mean? It totally depends on the situation of course. Whatever distribution of resources and utility that leads to the greatest possible total happiness (including the least amount of pain too of course) should be preferred. If that means extreme inequality or complete equality is unimportant.
Why?
I think that utilitarianism is probably more of an Alpha philosophy than a Gamma philosophy, even though it may not be tied to some particular quadra. Hard to tell for sure, but Gamma is more individualistic than Alpha, and philosophical individualism (as in Ayn Rand's philosophy for example) is incompatible with utilitarianism.
How do you know that it has a value as an ethical principle?
My observations indicate that it is true. Until you, I, or someone else can provide sufficient ground to think otherwise my hypothesis stands.
How? Which typing methods have you used? And how do you explain the anomaly that you identify with P in MBTT?
I don't assume anything here. I know that they don't understand the mechanisms of the free market, because I understand them myself, and I have not seen one single example of a democratic socialist that have understood the mechanisms of the free market correctly. If you really understand it, you can't be a democratic socialist. It would be absurd, at least in combination with a utilitarian ethics, which is the only ethical theory that a democratic socialist can adopt. The ethical alternatives are even worse -- unless you become a defender of natural individual rights. But in that case you can no longer be a democratic socialist, because natural individual rights are incompatible with democratic socialism.
No, because libertarianism advocates a free market capitalism, and a free market capitalism is the objectively correct way to organize a society, regardless of whether you are a natural rights ethicist or a utilitarian, which are the only candidates for being the correct ethical theory.
I will not believe in the existence of an objectivist LII until I meat one. So far I have no proof that they really exist.
An extra element? That has certainly not been established. You have not demonstrated why that element should not be included. The burden of proof is on you, because my observations are in accordance with the Reinin dichotomy.
Not unless it runs against my own empirical observations. Why then should we not rename the dichotomy relativist/absolutist?
Do you agree with the outcome of such a scenario? If the happiness of the few (with the vast majority of happiness) could be lowered but a bit to raise the happiness of the unhappy majority by much larger margins, should that not be the preferred outcome irregardless of the total sum happiness in the entire population?If the total sum of happiness of the few people is greater than the total sum of happiness of the majority, then the answer is definitely yes according to utilitarianism. But it is theoretically possible that for example 100 billion people, whose lives are just above zero in value on average (meaning that their lives are only minutely preferable to non-existence), represent a greater total sum of happiness than the total sum of, let's say, 10 000 extremely happy people. In that case the world would be a better place with more slightly happy people than fewer extremely happy people -- according to utilitarianism.
How is the middle made irrelevant? Are you unable to come up with objective criteria as to how the poorest people in society should be demarcated?One unacceptable consequence is that the happiness of those in the middle would be irrelevant and not taken into count if the most important thing is the well-being of the poorest group. It is also not clear how the group of the poorest people in society should be demarcated.
Utilitarianism is a theory about what makes an action right or wrong. It is irrelevant if it is practically possible to determine which actions are right or wrong in real life.Did Rawls not come up with valid criticisms of this problem in utilitarianism? So if you you were in the minority, would you not be ethically opposed to the destruction of your happiness for the sake of the greater happiness?According to utilitarianism it is ethically sound. If you disagree you have to come up with a better theory. And you will have to defend your position against counter arguments of the utilitarians, which is not an easy task. I don't know how to falsify utilitarianism once and for all. It is a very tough opponent.
Is this not unlike Rawls' veil of ignorance from the original position coupled with the overlapping consensus?No. According to utilitarianism there are no human rights. The end result always justifies the means. But to actually have the best consequences for society as a whole, utilitarianism should probably not be taught in school. It would probably lead to better consequences in a utilitarian perspective if people didn't think like utilitarians but were brainwashed to believe in the existence of natural human rights. Because in that case they would more likely act in such a way that it would lead to the greatest sum of happiness overall. If they would think like utilitarians they would make to many mistakes in their decision process, partly because it would take too much time to reach a well-founded and correct decision.
Why is that disparity unimportant? And how is that disparity ethical?What do you mean? It totally depends on the situation of course. Whatever distribution of resources and utility that leads to the greatest possible total happiness (including the least amount of pain too of course) should be preferred. If that means extreme inequality or complete equality is unimportant.
Because the question of differences is part of the problem of how to best and most efficiently distribute the utilitarian happiness within a population such that happiness is maximized.Why?
Mills was most likely a Delta INFj. Utilitarianism is most likely Delta (I think that utilitarianism is probably more of an Alpha philosophy than a Gamma philosophy, even though it may not be tied to some particular quadra. Hard to tell for sure, but Gamma is more individualistic than Alpha, and philosophical individualism (as in Ayn Rand's philosophy for example) is incompatible with utilitarianism.+
How do you know that it does not? But healthier societies will presumably lead to longer-lasting and more stable societies in which certain problems are minimized as a means to more appropriately spend costs elsewhere. Furthermore, the goal of healthier societies should lead to happier and more virtuous outcomes in which there is greater freedom to pursue knowledge for the benefit of the whole.How do you know that it has a value as an ethical principle?
As does mine, apparently.My observations indicate that it is true. Until you, I, or someone else can provide sufficient ground to think otherwise my hypothesis stands.
My own empirical observations of type interactions that have been further verified by others, identification with the characteristics and qualities of the INTj functions, and Alpha Quadra values.How? Which typing methods have you used? And how do you explain the anomaly that you identify with P in MBTT?
How do you know that you understand them? Have you not seen benefits to your own utilitarian happiness as a result of your democratic socialist upbringing in Sweden?I don't assume anything here. I know that they don't understand the mechanisms of the free market, because I understand them myself, and I have not seen one single example of a democratic socialist that have understood the mechanisms of the free market correctly. If you really understand it, you can't be a democratic socialist. It would be absurd, at least in combination with a utilitarian ethics, which is the only ethical theory that a democratic socialist can adopt. The ethical alternatives are even worse -- unless you become a defender of natural individual rights. But in that case you can no longer be a democratic socialist, because natural individual rights are incompatible with democratic socialism.
Why?No, because libertarianism advocates a free market capitalism, and a free market capitalism is the objectively correct way to organize a society, regardless of whether you are a natural rights ethicist or a utilitarian, which are the only candidates for being the correct ethical theory.
Your selective vision in regards to LIIs is irrelevant to the truth in the existence of objectivist LIIs.I will not believe in the existence of an objectivist LII until I meat one. So far I have no proof that they really exist.
Why then does the subjectivist dichotomy include two distinct elements that are not necessarily true in regards toAn extra element? That has certainly not been established. You have not demonstrated why that element should not be included. The burden of proof is on you, because my observations are in accordance with the Reinin dichotomy.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Lol, I find Phaedrus's argument about Libertarianism to be funny. Most Libertarians believe in the philosophy because of a relative viewpoint. Thats where Ayn Rands philosophy of Objectivism differs from Libertarianism.
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
People on the life axis (traditionalists, adaptists) consider their consciousness to be instinctual, the subjective form of which is their ultimate personal truth/reality. People on the consciousness axis believe life itself -- and its preservation -- to reflect the ultimate criterion for truth -- if it is necessary to sustain life, then it is true. Jung says such in his own work, that the true test of contribution is its capacity to inspire the creation of its like.
If Phaedrus is a conservative ILI, then he has selected as personal truth that which is most likely to safeguard the future of his beliefs, because +Te serves -Ni. Phaedrus' paradox is that he believes he must set -Te objective truth against subjective truth, even as he pits his own truth against objective truth.
Thus he is asserting his own truth as objective truth, and then using that "truth" to attack other people's subjective truths. That said, let's not beat around the bush: +Te can be used creatively by ILI to produce -Ni, but in so doing it will no doubt enrage most ILIs by putting -Ni up against their produced +Ni. ILI believes the future must be chosen deliberately, and that it should never be forced upon anyone.
Can we get some ILI insight into Phaedrus, from other ILIs?
EDIT: I just had an important realization: LIIs, while not in transcendence mode, use fact primarily as a means of self-defense against subjective forms of truth. This may be one reason Phaedrus has contempt for LII perspectives of truth, in that it is defensive and "reactive".
I'd like to say that I think Phaedrus' real issue is with MBTT itself. If he wants to MBTT to reflect what he believes, then he needs to work towards making that happen. Could be a good idea, but first he's going to have to debunk all subjective opinions about MBTT as an interpretation of Jung's theory.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 05-13-2008 at 05:26 AM.
Probably not in this thread unless you extend an invitation to known and established ILIs.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Those would be Cone, imfd95, crazedrat... nevermind, I'll just go to Gamma.
One more thing about LIIs and truth: I think we assert it based on its suitability to debunking subjective forms of logic. (if we're not comfortable with subjective logic, that is). -Te is based on -Ti, and thus finds +Ti irrelevant. Perhaps this is the model B correlate to irrelevance.
The important thing about irrelevant concepts, is that they aren't even considered, and are thus undeveloped. -Ti puts -Te over +Ti because it knows that -Te will preclude +Ti from even getting a hearing. Thus weakened, +Ti poses no threat to -Ti from the standpoint of consciousness.
I think this is why model B is arranged as it is: the point of pairing contrary opposites in the same function is to allow the dominant function to deprive the functions depended on by its antithesis (the background set) of energy.
Finally you present your ideas in a form that makes some sense to me and gives me a real hint on what you are getting at. This interesting and potentially very important, actually. I think we should dig deeper into this problem in order to determine whether Gulenko is really right in what he says about the the four different forms of thinking and what types represent each form. There might be some anomalies here, some real contradictions in how the types are described and understood in Socionics. And I mean that this a problem that we should take seriously.
I am now beginning to see more clearly that almost every time you use the expression "subjective truth" you actually mean the same thing as I do when I use the expression "subjective belief".
Ask Jonathan. So far he has been able to explain exactly what I mean better than probably anyone other ILI on this forum. Then there are some other types with pretty good insight in how I think, for example misutii and FDG.
Could be true, but I don't know exactly how to understand it. How do we tell the difference in concrete examples of behaviour?
How do we determine the truth of the initial proposition? :
"A proposition "p" is true if, and only if, p."
?
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
It is Tarski's definition of truth, or rather it is the general form that every kind of correspondence theory of truth must have. As you can see, it is self-evidently correct. Tarski combined Kurt Gödel's two incompleteness theorems with his own theory of truth and could thereby prove that there cannot be any general criteria for truth.
This is an extremely important result that unfortunately is not understood by the members of this forum. Even though I have tried to explain it several times, people just don't grasp it. The consequences of this result (which is exactly proven), are, however, that Expat, hitta, and others, are totally wrong in insisting on criteria for the correct use of concepts like "truth", "type", "meaning", "fact", etc. It is a fundamental mistake to demand a proof that there are objective facts or objective truths.
Gödel and Tarski have proven that there are objective truths that are impossible to determine as objective truths.
There are truths that we don't know are truths, but we can prove that they exist even though we don't know which they are. There is no method by which we can find those objective truths, and it is a proven fact that such a general method cannot exist. And yet we know, because it has been proven by Gödel and Tarski, that objective truths exist. That result is a necessary logical implication of their works.
Is this not a general criteria?
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
I think that's an absurd interpretation, and I wonder how many people who have actually debated with Phaedrus (such as, right now, Logos) would share that interpretation.
So, Phaedrus agrees with those whose conclusions match his own views. Are you actually making a point by stating this? Was anyone saying the opposite?
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Plus, that sounds more like an Ne thing to do...debating to learn. I know I do that and hkkmr does that, and maybe some of the LIIs. But Phaedrus debates to demonstrate his view of truth. He even seems miffed if you suggest that he could learn something a lot of the time.
ILIs really do seem to be "critics" in that they compare everything they see to their own understanding and look for the discrepancies. I hates it, but it what he do.
JRiddy
—————King of Socionics—————
Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
:" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"