View Poll Results: See question in OP

Voters
36. You may not vote on this poll
  • Alpha Irrational and I concur.

    0 0%
  • Alpha Irrational and I disagree.

    3 8.33%
  • Alpha Rational and I concur.

    3 8.33%
  • Alpha Rational and I disagree.

    2 5.56%
  • Beta Irrational and I concur.

    0 0%
  • Beta Irrational and I disagree.

    2 5.56%
  • Beta Rational and I concur.

    1 2.78%
  • Beta Rational and I disagree.

    3 8.33%
  • Gamma Irrational and I concur.

    1 2.78%
  • Gamma Irrational and I disagree.

    3 8.33%
  • Gamma Rational and I concur.

    0 0%
  • Gamma Rational and I disagree.

    3 8.33%
  • Delta Irrational and I concur.

    5 13.89%
  • Delta Irrational and I disagree.

    5 13.89%
  • Delta Rational and I concur.

    1 2.78%
  • Delta Rational and I disagree.

    4 11.11%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 83

Thread: Socionic Realism

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Korpsy Knievel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,231
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Socionic Realism

    "'Ideas exist in nature as patterns or prototypes independent of human minds. The remainder of things only resemble Ideas and exist as their inferior copies.' I am..."

    Answer accordingly in the poll above.

    Debates hinging on this fundamental issue arise regularly. And that's only natural since one's opinion on it shapes attitudes about the nature, development, and application of socionics.

    This matter is of general importance but discussing it usually devolves into another NT slapfest. Because of that I don't think everyone is making themselves heard. However, this survey can shed light on an interesting question and reveal where different values lie. So please, even if you don't care to weigh in with a post or embarrass yourself by moshing with geeks and nerds, be sure to cast your ballot. Thanks!

    EDIT: A tip 'o the hat to BG for fixing a couple typos in the poll. He does things for the forum.

  2. #2
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,961
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What is there of nature besides the perceivable? As reality is only perception, ideas should change the nature of reality as ideas drawn from sensory stimuli are all that there is, the relationship of sensory stimuli and ideas being entwined, "you only see what you want to see" ..yadda yadda.
    Then again one could argue that there is an absolute reality from which the perceptions come from and, intuitively, it seems to be the case.

    I'll vote for that the ideas are not in the theoretical objective nature but in the nature we are in touch with. And I'll vote assuming that I'm alpha. *Votes "Alpha Irational and I disagree."*

    This matter is of general importance but discussing it usually devolves into another NT slapfest.
    QFT
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  3. #3
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,682
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There are both archetypal ideas and archetypal sense impressions. For some people, their psychological-cognitive apparatus emphasizes the former; for others, their apparatus emphasizes the latter.
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  4. #4
    Korpsy Knievel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,231
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    What is there of nature besides the perceivable?
    By way of answering, allow me to quote the American-Iraqi poet Rumsi:

    There are
    known knowns.
    These are things
    we know
    that we know.
    There are
    known unknowns.
    That is to say,
    there are things that we know
    we don't know.
    But
    there are also
    unknown unknowns.
    There are
    things
    we
    don't know
    we don't know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    As reality is only perception, ideas should change the nature of reality as ideas drawn from sensory stimuli are all that there is, the relationship of sensory stimuli and ideas being entwined, "you only see what you want to see" ..yadda yadda.
    Then again one could argue that there is an absolute reality from which the perceptions come from and, intuitively, it seems to be the case.

    I'll vote for that the ideas are not in the theoretical objective nature but in the nature we are in touch with. And I'll vote assuming that I'm alpha. *Votes "Alpha Irational and I disagree."*
    Interesting post, especially in that you appear to have gone with a gut reaction first and then intellectualized your way to a higher plane.

    Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
    There are both archetypal ideas and archetypal sense impressions. For some people, their psychological-cognitive apparatus emphasizes the former; for others, their apparatus emphasizes the latter.
    Rice necapitulation, bomehoy. Care to venture which is ultimately contingent upon the other?

    Double guns, fellas.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,858
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well there are these things called information elements, of which there are... sixteen, I guess. And they have relationships to each other in specific patterns and ways. So it seems pretty obvious that anything we can think of can be expressed as these elements or their relationships.

  6. #6
    "Information without energy is useless" Nowisthetime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    near Russia
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    1,022
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    First I read "Social realism".
    There's something really fascinating about this style. There was an art exhibition about it in my town some years ago.

    "Roses for Stalin"


  7. #7
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,359
    Mentioned
    215 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "'Ideas exist in nature as patterns or prototypes independent of human minds. The remainder of things only resemble Ideas and exist as their inferior copies.' I am..."
    I would say that...
    Nature is filled with patterns and prototypes, independent of the human mind to grasp.
    And that the patterns and prototypes which the human perceives is but a mere shadow of a shadow, a vastly inferior copy of nature's.

    You may place this on the survey wherever you believe it fits.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  8. #8
    Perpetual Confusion Machine PistolShrimp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Red Sox and Celtics and Bruins, oh my!
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    504
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm not sure I fully understand; is this like Plato's theory of Forms? I disagree because I don't see how an idea could exist without a human mind producing it. I'm sure there are things we can't understand or perceive, but the mind is what pulls the patterns out of the chaos. The concept of patterns is a product of the mind and couldn't exist otherwise.

    I have no idea what I'm saying.

  9. #9
    redbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9,315
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nowisthetime View Post
    First I read "Social realism".
    There's something really fascinating about this style. There was an art exhibition about it in my town some years ago.

    "Roses for Stalin"

    by all means, let's give Stalin roses.

  10. #10
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,359
    Mentioned
    215 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ekpyrosos View Post
    By way of answering, allow me to quote the American-Iraqi poet Rumsi:

    There are
    known knowns.
    These are things
    we know
    that we know.
    There are
    known unknowns.
    That is to say,
    there are things that we know
    we don't know.
    But
    there are also
    unknown unknowns.
    There are
    things
    we
    don't know
    we don't know.
    I usually include that there are things we think we know, but don't.
    But that falls under things we don't know we don't know, right?
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  11. #11
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,961
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Lyrics reminded me of Doors of Perception by Aldous Huxley; “There are things known and there are things unknown, and in between are the doors of perception.” From that quote The Doors got their name.

    Drugs had nothing to do with the band The Doors or the book Doors of Perception.
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  12. #12
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,685
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    IMO there are obviously things we have yet to learn of; however having any certainty with regards to their nature seems foolish and rather presumptuous to me.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  13. #13
    Korpsy Knievel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,231
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Well there are these things called information elements, of which there are... sixteen, I guess. And they have relationships to each other in specific patterns and ways. So it seems pretty obvious that anything we can think of can be expressed as these elements or their relationships.
    Thanks. I recall you once asserted:
    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    You can't be a monist and a socionist. It just doesn't work, man.
    And when asked as to the reification of EM/IM you stated:
    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Objectified forms. This is not a metaphor.
    So we can safely class you with those who agree with our argument's Realness.

    Also, tcaud, as an aside to help clarify your thoughts, is your working definition of immanence based upon or congruent with the following? "In the context of Kant's theory of knowledge Immanence means to remain in the boundaries of possible experience." Your recent writing suggest the answer is yes but I'd rather hear it from you directly.

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    I would say that...
    Nature is filled with patterns and prototypes, independent of the human mind to grasp.
    And that the patterns and prototypes which the human perceives is but a mere shadow of a shadow, a vastly inferior copy of nature's.

    You may place this on the survey wherever you believe it fits.
    With the assenters!

    Quote Originally Posted by Nowisthetime View Post
    First I read "Social realism".
    There's something really fascinating about this style. There was an art exhibition about it in my town some years ago.
    Sehr interessant. Which brings us to...

    Quote Originally Posted by PistolShrimp View Post
    I'm not sure I fully understand; is this like Plato's theory of Forms?
    ...why I paraphrased a paraphrase of Plato to make this thread's central argument: though this forum is brimming with intelligent people, it's also chock-a-block with different kinds of intelligence, as demonstrated, for instance, by Nowisthetime's associative-aesthetic answer. So, anticipating that not everyone is interested in academic philosophy, and wanting the greatest representation of opinions on a general question, I tweaked the phrase as it was received to focus its meaning without the uninitiated having to read a bunch of boring or tricksy crap. But since you spotted the platonism in the woodpile, here's the quote as I received it in its pre-jiggerered state:

    Plato ideas in natura velut exemplaria dixit subsistere; cetera his esse similia, ad istarum similitudinem consistencia.

    Plato teaches that the Ideas exist in nature, so to speak, as patterns or prototypes, and that the remainder of things only resemble them, and exist as their copies.

    - Diogenes Laërtius, Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers

    Quote Originally Posted by PistolShrimp View Post
    I disagree because I don't see how an idea could exist without a human mind producing it. I'm sure there are things we can't understand or perceive, but the mind is what pulls the patterns out of the chaos. The concept of patterns is a product of the mind and couldn't exist otherwise.
    As nil would say, very well. u r a dissenter and belong with the Nominalists.

    I have no idea what I'm saying.
    Rest assured that I'm only a half step ahead of you, which is part of why I invoked this convocation.

    Quote Originally Posted by kassie View Post
    i wasn't totally sure if i understood the question correctly because i thought wouldn't anyone disagree? but reading tcauds answer i think i did understand it - i think the opposite of what he said, more or less.

    ideas are in the mind, obviously.
    Obviously you have joined the Nominalists and rejected the Realists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Dew View Post
    I like the statement because it implies there are bigger and better ideas yet to be discovered... it implies there are depths beyond the human mind, which I find exciting, considering the potential. I do not like the statement implying that any idea humans discover, however, is inferior to the 'idea' or principal in nature.
    Understood since it limits human potential, but what if we call the Supreme Idea the full-blazin' Glory, Grace, and Spirit of the Creator? Does that manifestation of the ineffable then become potentially effed? I smell blasphemy...

    Quote Originally Posted by labocat View Post
    i think if you want to be perfectly puritan in denying* there is anything real about abstract entities, you would have to stop talking about even simple everyday things such as humans, since a person is just an abstract configuration of type cells of which the tokens are in constant circulation.
    HAAAARDCOOOOOORE

    Quote Originally Posted by labocat View Post
    this being said i regard the whole "Ne exists" mantra as more of a linguistic aide than as anything indicative of a deeper philosophical bent. any bickerings as to how expedient the use of these is seems to me to seed division where there needs to be none.
    In fact much of this thread's raison d'être stems from how frequently arguments are expediently both made and discarded stating that supervenience of type upon token occurs in a direct and real fashion that goes beyond what is alluded to via rational-linguistic constructions. As originally stated, hypostatization of universals is a fundamental determinant of worldview, though its professed disbelief can conveniently donned as a disguise in the company of inifidels. However, that general comment aside...

    Quote Originally Posted by labocat View Post
    to me "Ne exists" means something along the lines of "if you try to conceptualize your experiences using a concept of Ne, you get meaningful results", which incidentally it also means when applied to any other concept. perhaps just not always in quite as roundabout a way (though the extent to which the application is roundabout in cases of everyday usage can easily be underestimated; a human is a very, very complex thing when you try to spell it's identity out).
    I'm glad to see you're espousing a more nuanced and self-sufficient view that exists as a synthesis of its extremes rather than dwelling upon either of them. Even within the cruciform binarism of socionics not everything boils down to exclusive answers. Your stated stance here accords with that in recent conversation as well, so I'll assume it's your default position when reading your posts in the future.

    no vote; i don't care one way or the other.
    So noted.

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    I usually include that there are things we think we know, but don't.
    But that falls under things we don't know we don't know, right?
    That can fall under a special reading of "things that we know we don't know."

    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post
    You can never truly know something, you just use your brain and senses to make guesses nevertheless how certain of them you act.
    In the year 2000 I will reveal how you helped inspire this thread.

    Fine thinkinz, everbody. I await the next wave with mounting glee.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    17,948
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I voted very accordingly, that is, ideals with which people have fettered their minds and to which they have shrunk their petty lives. They are for the me as though they were not.

    And no, neurons only produce unicorns not thoughts. In fact, brain owes its magical powers thanks to glial cellls which comprise most of the brain, like dark matter comprises most of space.

  15. #15
    Perpetual Confusion Machine PistolShrimp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Red Sox and Celtics and Bruins, oh my!
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    504
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ekpyrosos View Post
    As nil would say, very well. u r a dissenter and belong with the Nominalists.

  16. #16
    Marxist Ne’er-do-well Red Villain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Evil Lair
    TIM
    Te-SLI/ xNTJ
    Posts
    392
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    What is there of nature besides the perceivable? As reality is only perception, ideas should change the nature of reality as ideas drawn from sensory stimuli are all that there is, the relationship of sensory stimuli and ideas being entwined, "you only see what you want to see" ..yadda yadda.
    Then again one could argue that there is an absolute reality from which the perceptions come from and, intuitively, it seems to be the case.

    I'll vote for that the ideas are not in the theoretical objective nature but in the nature we are in touch with. And I'll vote assuming that I'm alpha. *Votes "Alpha Irational and I disagree."*

    QFT

    Complete bullshit. Here's why!

    Atoms, molecules, single-celled organisms, those tiny parasites that live on your eyelashes- all of these things exist objectively, independent of human perception. Only with the use of telescopes are we able to perceive their existence but that does not negate their existence. To reject that which is not immediately perceivable is to deny that disgusting hambeast who is checking you out at the bar while your attention is focused on that mysterious stranger who challenges every notion of your sexuality. What your position also ignores and is as equally ridiculous is the fact that the brain, the nervous system, sensory organs- are all made of matter. Therefore, thought (the reflection of objective phenomena, registered by our sense organs) too is a product of material processes and exists only as is particular to the special formation of matter in the form of a brain.

    The only "absolute reality" is objective reality and the only relationship between it, perception and thought is their material unity.
    "We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.".

  17. #17
    ■■■■■■ Radio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,571
    Mentioned
    154 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    microscopes*

  18. #18
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,161
    Mentioned
    722 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RedVillain View Post
    Complete bullshit. Here's why!

    Atoms, molecules, single-celled organisms, those tiny parasites that live on your eyelashes- all of these things exist objectively, independent of human perception. Only with the use of telescopes are we able to perceive their existence but that does not negate their existence. To reject that which is not immediately perceivable is to deny that disgusting hambeast who is checking you out at the bar while your attention is focused on that mysterious stranger who challenges every notion of your sexuality. What your position also ignores and is as equally ridiculous is the fact that the brain, the nervous system, sensory organs- are all made of matter. Therefore, thought (the reflection of objective phenomena, registered by our sense organs) too is a product of material processes and exists only as is particular to the special formation of matter in the form of a brain.

    The only "absolute reality" is objective reality and the only relationship between it, perception and thought is their material unity.
    Is there even a disagreement here between you and Aqua?

  19. #19
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,961
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RedVillain View Post
    Atoms, molecules, single-celled organisms, those tiny parasites that live on your eyelashes- all of these things exist objectively, independent of human perception.
    Do they? Has anyone observed them while not observing them?
    Quote Originally Posted by RedVillain View Post
    Therefore, thought (the reflection of objective phenomena, registered by our sense organs) too is a product of material processes and exists only as is particular to the special formation of matter in the form of a brain.
    What can you know for a fact? Nothing. Everything you perceive, might be fallacious, part of an illusion. What if the world is only in your mind? What if there's a trickster god fooling us? This experience may seem consistent (and self-referring behind the lines) but what if your mind was programmed to find patterns in random chaos and programmed so that it filters out signals that contradict the formed patterns?

    Any view that excludes the foremost measuring instrument, the mind, is flawed.

    Hundreds of people can say they witness the y when x happens and if they repeat x a thousand times, they still witness y, but there is nothing that really tells for sure that repeating x one more time would result in a scenario where y does not occur.
    It's more practical to assume that the Sun rises the next day too but it's still inductive reasoning like all empiricist science is.

    Does the falling tree register a sound if nobody is there to experience it? We make the assumption it does, but that's just us using Occam's razor.

    Please ignore the rhetoric questions but answer this:
    Quote Originally Posted by RedVillain View Post
    The only "absolute reality" is objective reality and the only relationship between it, perception and thought is their material unity.
    What undeniable proof do you have of this absolute reality? What undeniable proof do you have of anything besides the fact that you, alone, are a subject experiencing the world?

    If you fail to see my point of view, please consider watching Maybe Logic.
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  20. #20
    Marxist Ne’er-do-well Red Villain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Evil Lair
    TIM
    Te-SLI/ xNTJ
    Posts
    392
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Do they? Has anyone observed them while not observing them?


    What can you know for a fact? Nothing. Everything you perceive, might be fallacious, part of an illusion. What if the world is only in your mind? What if there's a trickster god fooling us? This experience may seem consistent (and self-referring behind the lines) but what if your mind was programmed to find patterns in random chaos and programmed so that it filters out signals that contradict the formed patterns?

    Any view that excludes the foremost measuring instrument, the mind, is flawed.

    Hundreds of people can say they witness the y when x happens and if they repeat x a thousand times, they still witness y, but there is nothing that really tells for sure that repeating x one more time would result in a scenario where y does not occur.
    It's more practical to assume that the Sun rises the next day too but it's still inductive reasoning like all empiricist science is.

    Does the falling tree register a sound if nobody is there to experience it? We make the assumption it does, but that's just us using Occam's razor.

    Please ignore the rhetoric questions but answer this:

    What undeniable proof do you have of this absolute reality? What undeniable proof do you have of anything besides the fact that you, alone, are a subject experiencing the world?

    If you fail to see my point of view, please consider watching Maybe Logic.

    Once again, just because you can't readily observe it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's this notion that things exist for us that lead people to "God made the universe for us" conclusions.

    The only thing that is readily perceivable, and that which is perceivable through the use of tools (telescopes etc.) is all that we can know for sure exists(this of course is not imply reality begins at perception). If you want to entertain the possibility of a reality standing outside our comprehension you are more than welcome to do so, but until you can furnish such proof, I am the only one between the two of us that is backed by evidence. I know that I'm not the only consciousness in the universe because if I were, there is no way I would allow someone like you to deny me punching them in the face to prove how fallacious subjective idealist notions actually are.
    "We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.".

  21. #21
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,191
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ekpyrosos View Post
    "'Ideas exist in nature as patterns or prototypes independent of human minds. The remainder of things only resemble Ideas and exist as their inferior copies.' I am..."
    "I drink water. I drink soda. I drink pee. I drink beer.":
    (a) I concur.
    (b) I disagree.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  22. #22
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,191
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Epykeremorphus, since most poet-philosophers like you promote false dilemmas (aka "either/or fallacy"), I wonder one thing: do you guys do it intentionally or not?
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    17,948
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Ineffable View Post
    Epykeremorphus, since most poet-philosophers like you promote false dilemmas (aka "either/or fallacy"), I wonder one thing: do you guys do it intentionally or not?
    Better ask what is he talking about in the first place. Besides those fanciful words I can't even find in dictionary I don't have a clue.

  24. #24
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,191
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Absurd View Post
    Better ask what is he talking about in the first place. Besides those fanciful words I can't even find in dictionary I don't have a clue.
    Yeah it's just gibberish, for instance he didn't define the meaning of "inferior" in the context - and I doubt he gives a shit, it just sounds catchy - but considering how many assertion were bulked together, the fallacy is necessary; even more so when the either/or question addresses ambiguous premises.

    If he had asked instead, "we don't know the empirical things in themselves but form internal ideas about reality which do not necessarily represent it accurately" then I could have answered.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  25. #25
    Korpsy Knievel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,231
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Ineffable View Post
    Yeah it's just gibberish, for instance he didn't define the meaning of "inferior" in the context - and I doubt he gives a shit, it just sounds catchy - but considering how many assertion were bulked together, the fallacy is necessary; even more so when the either/or question addresses ambiguous premises.
    An encore performance so soon. It's amazing you'd keep ignorantly reacting to posts you lazily refuse to read that are printed on the exact same page you're typing on. Apparently you really do want to look like a fool. See the portion addressing Pistolshrimp http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post847746

    Quote Originally Posted by The Ineffable View Post
    If he had asked instead, "we don't know the empirical things in themselves but form internal ideas about reality which do not necessarily represent it accurately" then I could have answered.
    25 thoughtful posts were written by adults before your tantrum began. Any problem with comprehension lies entirely with you.

  26. #26
    Korpsy Knievel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,231
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Absurd View Post
    Better ask what is he talking about in the first place. Besides those fanciful words I can't even find in dictionary I don't have a clue.
    Qualified personnel only. Dommage, Mécano.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Ineffable View Post
    Epykeremorphus, since most poet-philosophers like you promote false dilemmas (aka "either/or fallacy"), I wonder one thing: do you guys do it intentionally or not?
    Ah, the strawman cometh. Now if only he had a brain!

    Since excited hope of vengeance against your natural master has led you once again to drop your ratty trousers prematurely, pedal your square-wheeled trike back to the post where I addressed labcoat — him whom you praised just yesterday — and personally recognized the merits of his yet-more subtle view. Observe, too, that all respondents are encouraged to explain their full thoughts on this survey, easily overcoming the predictable limitations the poll format presents.

    Curiosity at your persistently shocking displays of stupidity compels: do you perform regular pratfalls for the pleasure of your audience, or is buffoonery simply intrinsic to your nature? Perhaps in resigned submission to your indelible signature of slop you've elected to showcase this defining handicap, cultivating your fans' endearment to a hapless fool in the bargain. Yes indeed, if you've chosen this middle way it's a wise one, for it amply affords a great boon to your artistic service and again to the ready comfort of your pride.

    Donkey Hodey, Avaunt!

  27. #27
    an object in motion woofwoofl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Southern Arizona
    TIM
    x s x p s p s x
    Posts
    2,112
    Mentioned
    326 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I've been thinking about this lots, and really it depends on where I'm at in time specifically, and if one approach is leaving me stuck or not...

    A few months or so ago, I thought about how concepts, ideas, and the like simply don't exist as would a tangible object, and how these abstractions would likely be meaningless to the trees, the cockroaches, the grass, etc. On average, I have ideas being subservient to the reality that spawned them in the first place, though I'll go off the deep end and get really conceptual and shit; during this rarer time period, I'll start with a sense of order and then work out from there, all the while having in the back of my mind that it won't align perfectly, and that it probably shouldn't...
    p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
    trad metalz | (more coming)

  28. #28
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,685
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woofwoofl View Post
    though I'll go off the deep end and get really conceptual and shit; during this rarer time period, I'll start with a sense of order and then work out from there, all the while having in the back of my mind that it won't align perfectly, and that it probably shouldn't...
    Interesting, I am like this as well but I think I situationally determine whether or not I think things will align, based on the early stages and initial input. Sometimes I let my meanderings really sink in, if I feel like they are worth it, but I try not to have expectations based on them, but rather use them as inspiration.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  29. #29
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,191
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ekpyrosos View Post
    Since excited hope of vengeance against your natural master has led you once again to drop your ratty trousers prematurely, pedal your square-wheeled trike back to the post where I addressed labcoat — him whom you praised just yesterday — and personally recognized the merits of his yet-more subtle view. Observe, too, that all respondents are encouraged to explain their full thoughts on this survey, easily overcoming the predictable limitations the poll format presents.

    Curiosity at your persistently shocking displays of stupidity compels: do you perform regular pratfalls for the pleasure of your audience, or is buffoonery simply intrinsic to your nature? Perhaps in resigned submission to your indelible signature of slop you've elected to showcase this defining handicap, cultivating your fans' endearment to a hapless fool in the bargain. Yes indeed, if you've chosen this middle way it's a wise one, for it amply affords a great boon to your artistic service and again to the ready comfort of your pride.
    Life is dull out here, just for your information. What is that which you snorted?
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  30. #30
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,814
    Mentioned
    286 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ekpyrosos View Post
    "'Ideas exist in nature as patterns or prototypes independent of human minds. The remainder of things only resemble Ideas and exist as their inferior copies.' I am..."
    I disagree. Ideas are a construct of the mind. An idea is a conception of reality, a conception of the patterns etc that exist as your mind has put it together. There are certainly things that have not yet been discovered or formed into ideas that nonetheless do exist, but they are not ideas.

    People observe, measure, test, perceive and interact with the environment around them, and with other people's perceptions and observations as communicated to them, and from their interactions with their world they form ideas of their own, and accept other's ideas as true/false or plausible/implausible or maybe just plain nutty, depending on the idea and their own knowledge/experience. There are yet concepts and ideas that have not been formed, waiting for the right observer to arrange their observations into an idea, well, that we are aware of anyway, as not every idea ever conceived has been recorded or is known to us. But, ideas are not something that is floating around out there outside of a mind. Ideas come only from within a mind.

  31. #31
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    25,960
    Mentioned
    669 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    I disagree with your statement because you need people to interpret ideas; they don't exist independent of people. For example, communism doesn't exist without people.
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
    Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx


    I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

    Best description of functions:
    http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html

  32. #32
    Korpsy Knievel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,231
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa33 View Post
    I disagree with your statement because you need people to interpret ideas; they don't exist independent of people. For example, communism doesn't exist without people.
    Since that particular ideology apotheosizes materialism and its adherents would thus reject platonic and cartesian dualism, in a manner of speaking your comment is very communist-friendly.

  33. #33
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    NF's are about as consistant as the wind. With that said, I disagreed for multple reasons, but mostly because I did not agree -- especially due to the tethering of both statements.

  34. #34
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    25,960
    Mentioned
    669 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jadae View Post
    NF's are about as consistant as the wind. With that said, I disagreed for multple reasons, but mostly because I did not agree -- especially due to the tethering of both statements.
    So you agree with me...how nice of you to say.

    What? I'm very consistent; in fact people who have Ti in their subconscious and ignore it tend to be inconsistent. That's why it's called an ignoring function.

    Wiki on

    "Types that value naturally question the consistency of beliefs that are taken for granted in everyday life."
    Last edited by Beautiful sky; 03-29-2012 at 04:59 PM.
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
    Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx


    I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

    Best description of functions:
    http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html

  35. #35
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa33 View Post
    So you agree with me...how nice of you to say.

    What? I'm very consistent; in fact people who have Ti in their subconscious and ignore it tend to be inconsistent. That's why it's called an ignoring function.

    Wiki on

    "Types that value naturally question the consistency of beliefs that are taken for granted in everyday life."
    No to the power of infinite everything.

  36. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bay Area, Ca.
    TIM
    ISTP Se-LSI 6w5cp sx
    Posts
    687
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by k0rpsy View Post
    "'Ideas exist in nature as patterns or prototypes independent of human minds. The remainder of things only resemble Ideas and exist as their inferior copies.' I am..."
    Ideas cannot exist without human minds. Therefore, untrue.

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    So basically the question is akin to "if a tree falls in the forest, and noone is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"?
    Yes, sortof.

  37. #37

  38. #38
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,961
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This reminded me of the shortcomings of naïve realism.
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  39. #39
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,161
    Mentioned
    722 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    This reminded me of the shortcomings of naïve realism.
    I think this cartoon might actually be for realism.

  40. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bay Area, Ca.
    TIM
    ISTP Se-LSI 6w5cp sx
    Posts
    687
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by k0rpsy View Post
    No, it's asking whether one reifies abstract objects a la Plato.
    Some of both.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •