Jesus Christ, REGARDLESS of the language it is gramatically correct to use he in English to encompass people of both genders. Good God, Detail is correct.Originally Posted by detail
Jesus Christ, REGARDLESS of the language it is gramatically correct to use he in English to encompass people of both genders. Good God, Detail is correct.Originally Posted by detail
It makes sense to me.Originally Posted by Logos
asd
He can imagine that he's gone to the bathrom without actually goingOriginally Posted by Logos
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Eh, that works tooOriginally Posted by FDG
asd
Much of the discussion about INTp/ENTp here is about the definition of reality. An INTp is likely to view reality as concrete, in a black/white, right/wrong perspective. As if in a particular situation there is a definite right and wrong without the influence of the observer's perspective.
I think of reality as being not what is here or there, in concrete terms, but what is perceived to be there. The difference is that someone who thinks that reality is concrete(definite in terms of this is right and that is wrong) is going to be likely view his opinions/views as being the truth, supporting them with observations and data that he thinks make this view proven to be correct. While someone else knows he is spouting lunacy because he doesn’t know what he doesn’t know. But, in fact the real truth is that they both are right, and they both are wrong. What determines this is perspective and data, so that they are both right from their perspective of what they view to be real.
Yes, you are right about this ...An INTp is likely to view reality as concrete, in a black/white, right/wrong perspective. As if in a particular situation there is a definite right and wrong without the influence of the observer's perspective.
... but you are wrong about that. You are not thinking of reality, you are thinking of the word "reality".I think of reality as being not what is here or there, in concrete terms, but what is perceived to be there.
Now you made a true statement again. But maybe you don't realize that everyone (including you) who has any opinion of any kind what so ever views his opinions/views as being true (correct).The difference is that someone who thinks that reality is concrete(definite in terms of this is right and that is wrong) is going to be likely view his opinions/views as being the truth, supporting them with observations and data that he thinks make this view proven to be correct.
So, he is spouting lunacy because of ... a truism?While someone else knows he is spouting lunacy because he doesn’t know what he doesn’t know.
About what? To talk about "real truth" is to talk about objective reality, and in that sense only the INTp is right as you describe it. But of course you can you use words like "reality" any way you like, even though that doesn't help you one bit if you want to refer to reality.But, in fact the real truth is that they both are right, and they both are wrong.
To "be right from your own perspective" is nothing but a play with words. If two perspectives contradict each other only one of them can be correct, or right, or true. That is simple logic. To be right has nothing to do with perspectives. The truth can be seen from every perspective that is right (= not wrong, or false). Or one could put it the way Thomas Nagel does when he talks about objective reality as "the view from nowhere".What determines this is perspective and data, so that they are both right from their perspective of what they view to be real.
No, that is a false dilemna. If there are two perspectives, at least one of them is necessarily not the "view from nowhere" so from each perspective's view point, there might be a positive truth value if the view point is considered as a property. Misapplied simple logic.Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Objective reality and truth are not the same thing, because objective reality refers to the absence of the view point property, while truth is forced to consider it by default in the equation. The problem arises from the expression of truths that comes in a form that is often identical to an objective reality assessment, thus making it seem false because of the domain's interpretation. Whether it's the person who makes the assessment (Of no objective value), the person(Or people) who receives it or both who are convinced of the objective value (Or objective value intention) of the assessment doesn't matter, the error is to consider it's objective value when it shouldn't be considered. Of course the interpretation people have of the assessment doesn't affect the truth value of the assessment itself in it's own circumstances, as it doesn't affect it's objectivity.Originally Posted by Phaedrus
I guess it depends on what one means by "perspective" and "contradict." If "perspective" means statement, and "contradict" means that one of the statements being true implies that the other is false, then Phaedrus is right.Originally Posted by detail
But "perspective" may mean something much more complex than an individual statement, and in that sense, perspectives may conflict in ways that aren't equivalent to a simple logical contradiction.
You have a very interesting thing to say here. Could you take each of your key words and give it a definition (each on its own line, not in paragraph form)? I think that would help a lot of people to understand what seems to be a valuable point.Objective reality and truth are not the same thing, because objective reality refers to the absence of the view point property, while truth is forced to consider it by default in the equation. The problem arises from the expression of truths that comes in a form that is often identical to an objective reality assessment, thus making it seem false because of the domain's interpretation. Whether it's the person who makes the assessment (Of no objective value), the person(Or people) who receives it or both who are convinced of the objective value (Or objective value intention) of the assessment doesn't matter, the error is to consider it's objective value when it shouldn't be considered. Of course the interpretation people have of the assessment doesn't affect the truth value of the assessment itself in it's own circumstances, as it doesn't affect it's objectivity.