Fe fakeness vs Fi fakeness

[mikemex]

I do think everyone is fake in some way and manipulate others and such. It might hurt most people's egos to be on the receiving end of this, but it's actually a positive thing if not abused. Meaning, it avoids more direct and disruptive (say, violent) ways of influencing others.

All in all, the most disruptive members of any group will always be those who won't let others influence them, as it provokes the rest to try harder and harder. Things escalate quickly when you perceive others not to be interested in finding a common ground (we're looking at this with Trump).

As an individual with strong convictions and such, I'm pretty guilty of this myself.

[Bertrand]

yeah, but it takes escalation for granted and puts the responsibility on the non-movers. the escalators could likewise choose not to resort to violence. at the end of the day the conflict is an intractable one between values, one of which is a refusal to budge on that which one attaches irreducible worth. you can only compromise on things you believe are worth compromising over, and no further. when both sides reach this point it is useless to point to the finger at one over the other. compromise itself being a value doesn't change anything except add an additional layer to the dynamic. in this way life is ultimately a contest between values, and compromise is a solution with universal applicability in theory only--in reality it will always be decided by power. "compromise" as Fe has its own measure of power, but ultimately cannot stand up to Se Te Fi, when the chips are really down

my only point here is "compromise" is an illusory solution that reaches its limits when the compromisers are forced to either enforce compromise as a value (and in doing so abandon it) or abandon it by giving in

I think Thucydides best described this dynamic when he said "the strong do what they will and the weak bear what they must"--compromise as a persuasive ideal is an end run around this (via Fe), but it is never absolute [1]

in that sense, I think its silly to apologize for strong convictions; rather the real evil is the stupidity that feeds those convictions. convictions in principle are pure and unavoidable--one must stand for something--but a lot of people fail to perform their due diligence (in investigating reality sufficient to properly ground those convictions). in that sense perhaps not having strong convictions is a safety measure that ensures they don't back up their mistakes too forcefully, but it feels like a half measure that hedges ethics for lax thinking

[1] Nietzsche would say it is an attempt via an ideal, i.e.: morality, for the weak to get, at the very least, a piece of what they will while avoiding having to bear the full measure of what they must. Of course this attempt fails as soon as you divorce it from its authority and recognize it as the human affair it is. it is the continuation of war by other means, i.e.: politics

[Singu]

Well, fakeness is such a philosophical concept that we don't even know how to define it.

[Bertrand]

Well, fakeness is such a philosophical concept that we don't even know how to define it.

this is the closest I've seen Fe/Ti just straight up admit "beep boop fakeness does not compute" so kudos on coming as close to authenticity as you're able

[Singu]

this is the closest I've seen Fe/Ti just straight up admit "beep boop fakeness does not compute" so kudos on coming as close to authenticity as you're able

lol dude shut up. Do you type Nietzsche and Kierkegaard as Fi? They're Beta NFs.

[The Reality Denialist]

I can not really fake ethical processes at least consciously.

I have collections systems in my head to juggle with:
If I do this it will lead to this but if I inject something in there it will change it this way etc. There is only preference of the effect. In a way I can say things that sounds "horrible" to others but is actually well crafted to a target in terms of outcome.