Read the thread http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=18671 and maybe you will understand a few more things about the differences in perspective between LIIs and ILIs.
Is there any way that you could expand yours? I have thought about almost every possible view you can have for ages. It has taken me some 20 years or so to examine all the arguments on each side, but some day you will arrive at a conclusion on which of all the possible perspectives is the correct one. It has not been an easy path to walk, but now I am finally standing at some sort of secure foundation. I'm not sure it was worth all the effort, but I had no choice. I have always had a pathological need to seek the objective truth no matter what it will cost me in effort or suffering.Originally Posted by Loki
Yes. And that attitude I share with several famous philosophers. If you don't have it, you will probably not persist long enough. You will more likely give up somewhere along the way and never arrive at the truth at the end of the road. Like Ludwig Wittgenstein, I have to understand or die.Originally Posted by Loki
Correct.Originally Posted by Loki
That 2+2=4 is a truth in every possible world is an objective fact that we cannot doubt, but there are other objective truths that can be doubted. But the fact that they can be doubted is no argument against them being objectively true. And even though they may be objective truths, we may not be in a position to know that they are objective truths. There is a crucial and fundamental logical difference between an objective truth and a known objective truth. Truth is not the same thing as knowledge.Originally Posted by Loki
Yes, I have analayzed a lot of similar statements made by others and myself. I have thought a lot about objective beauty. I have spent many years on that specific problem, partly as the result of an intense interest in Robert M. Pirsig's books Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and Lila. I wrote a university paper on the first book in 1992.Originally Posted by Loki
Yes. Assuming that the statement is correctly formed and have a meaning according to the rules of language. Strictly speaking it is propositions that have a truth value, and statements are the "package" through which propositions are expressed.Originally Posted by Loki
Yes, exactly. And in order to do that, we first must determine whether objective truth exists or not.Originally Posted by Loki
No. There are no subjective truths. Either the statement "Nicole Kidman is beautiful" has a truth value or it doesn't have a truth value. If it has a truth value, and if it also happens to be a true statement, then it is objectively true that Nicole Kidman is beautiful. It could of course, hypothetically, be the case that Nicole Kidman is not objectively beautiful. If the statement "Nicole Kidman is beautiful" does not have a truth value, then it does not express a proposition. Some philosophers argue for such a position, often on the grounds that value statements are really nothing but expressions of a feeling or some sort of recommendation on which attitude to adopt towards, in this case, Nicole Kidman. If those philosophers are right, then the statement about Nicole Kidmans beauty would belong to the same group of language expressions as, for example: "Oh!", "Hot!", "Nice!", "Shit!", "Originally Posted by Loki
", "
", "LOOOOOLLLLL!!!!!", etc.
No. What you try to say is that the person likes the look of Nicole Kidman. The person is, in that case, only trying to express a certain attitude towards Nicole Kidman, not stating a fact about an objective quality that Kidman might, or might not, have. If the person is really making a statement about the beauty of Nicole Kidman, then the positive feelings or the the attitude that the person might have towards her are irrelevant. They are irrelevant, because if Nicole Kidman really is beautiful, then nothing you do or nothing you feel can change that fact. Even if you would hate the look of Kidman, she would, in that hypothetical case, be objectively beautiful anyway.Originally Posted by Loki
Totally incorrect. Such criteria have already been established. There is a very clear general pattern in what people find beautiful, and that pattern has been confirmed in many empirical studies. How attractive a person really is, or how attractive people perceive her to be anyway, can literally be measured by a ruler and a calculator. The Golden Ratio is a mathematical relation that can be used to measure the degree of beauty in people to some extent.Originally Posted by Loki
It is very clear from what you say here that you haven't studied this scientific problem at all. You don't know what you are talking about; you are only expressing your own totally undfounded prejudices.Originally Posted by Loki



Reply With Quote