Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Intellectual and philosophical confusions created by Jung and Socionics

  1. #1

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,470
    Mentioned
    248 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Intellectual and philosophical confusions created by Jung and Socionics

    Jung defines Te as something like "empiricism" (what is true is what is perceived by the senses):

    1. Thinking

    As a result of the general attitude of extraversion, thinking is orientated by the object and objective data. This orientation of thinking produces a noticeable peculiarity.

    Thinking in general is fed from two sources, firstly from subjective and in the last resort unconscious roots, and secondly from objective data transmitted through sense perceptions.

    Extraverted thinking is conditioned in a larger measure by these latter factors than by the former.
    And Ti as something like Kantian "rationalism" (what is true is what is rational or logical):

    2. The Introverted Thinking Type

    Just as Darwin might possibly represent the normal extraverted thinking type, so we might point to Kant as a counter-example of the normal introverted thinking type. The former speaks with facts; the latter appeals to the subjective factor. Darwin ranges over the wide fields of objective facts, while Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge in general. But suppose a Cuvier be contrasted with a Nietzsche: the antithesis becomes even sharper.
    http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

    But they're both fairly old 18th and 19th century philosophies, and we now know that they're both wrong and are false philosophies.

    "Empiricism" isn't actually objective in that our sensory perceptions are subjective experiences. For example, the whole yanny/laurel debate is kind of a metaphor for the subjectivity of our own perceptions. Also unlike what Jung imagined, there's no such thing as "pure" objective and external data that is untainted by our own subjectivity, our own theorizing and our pre-conceptions that we have about the world. All observation is theory-laden.

    So "rationalism" is a criticism of empiricism of sorts. It says that there's no way that we can have an untainted, pure and unadulterated experience of the world. So it's not that we wait for the nature to reveal her laws and impressions onto us, and we are merely blank canvases to have nature write her knowledge on us, but rather we impose our own laws and expectations onto the nature. And knowledge is "supported" or "justified" by the fact that it's rational and logical. This is what Kant called as the "Copernican revolution (in philosophy)".

    This is all good and all, but rationalism was also false, or at least, it was limited. While we know that when something is inconsistent or incoherent, then it is false, but there's also no way to know that something is true, just because it's consistent and coherent. A beautifully logically consistent system or a theory can still be wrong. There was the danger of arbitrary nature of logic. And hence, there's no way to say that something is "true", just because it's rational and logical. Same for having no ability to say that something is "true", just because it's something that we have observed.

    So the logical progression to this was critical rationalism. Critical rationalism turns this all around on its head, and uses rationalism to criticize a theory, and not support a theory. It uses empirical evidence to criticize a theory, and hence it gets falsified by observations, and not support it. We can never know what is "true", because there is no such thing. And hence we can't ever "justify" a theory.

    I should also say, that both empiricism and rationalism were both reactions to the arbitrary authority of kings and Holy books. It dared to say, "I'm the authority of my own knowledge! Not anybody else!". This was good and all and it sparked a revolution of thought and how we acquire knowledge. But it only meant that it moved the arbitrary authority of kings and Holy books to the arbitrary authority of sensory perceptions and arbitrary logic. So both empiricism and rationalism were limited. It required a new way of thinking, which turns its head around on itself and say that there's no such "authority" of anything.

    So all in all, Jung was simply a victim of the times, when empiricism was still fashionable and was the default epistemology for deciding what is true and objective in the late 19th and early 20th century. But the world has since then largely moved on from that, even though the mainstream culture is still lagging behind. One way for the scientists to know what is objective, is to simply perform a reproducible experiment. When the scientists can reproduce the experiment themselves, then they know that it's objective. Not "sources" or "facts".

  2. #2
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    6,126
    Mentioned
    84 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't take "objective" as meaning "these humans are masters of perceiving reality!" They are no more masters than any of the other humans. From a Socionics perspective, all humans are oriented to certain aspects of reality and they perceive none of these aspects (IMO) the way reality actually is (but that's a question of philosophy). But you could also see these information elements as filters. So if you have a Te filter, you are still filtering all this stuff through it that isn't technically "Te" (in terms of aspects of reality). Your worldview will meanwhile be biased by your filters, and you are in the soup of subjectivity all of humanity and all living things exist in.

    But that's not the point of this objective vs. subjective distinction in Socionics. Darwin is a great example. He's an XLI (my typing--I've seen people argue SLI and ILI and I frankly don't care which one it is ). Darwin makes "empirical" observations (true). He notices these animals over here look and behave X way and those animals over there look and behave Y way. In everything he considers he is back to the "facts" as observed, grounded in them, and whatever is the truth has to square with all those facts. All scientists do this, and theorists vs. empiricists is also a thing. Theorists are more likely to play with a bunch of ideas and make guesses about what the facts should be (that's more Ti than Te heavy). Empiricists are more likely to test things you can actually test (it's more hands on, but it's also more grounded with how does something actually behave regardless of how we might theorize that it behaves). Science relies on both of these approaches, and they are both necessary. Einstein for instance was a Ti type--good luck to modern physics without people like that. Though I didn't mean to veer into appearing to advocate for um both thinking IEs as that is utterly ridiculous.

    Anyway this doesn't mean that Darwin or Einstein have broken out of the existential subjectivity all of us are in. Perhaps they did a little by seeing outside of what was already known before them. You can touch "real reality" sometimes is my perspective, just for a brief moment before it all goes away again, but if one is looking to have god-vision (omniscience) which is what one needs to be a true objective being, I might imagine the spirituality hamster wheel is the better one to ride. The concept of enlightenment is interesting in this because it is kind of defined as breaking out of the subjectivity trap (samsara) all living beings find themselves in, and it does involve changing one's thinking. Human brains define the incoming information and categorize it and create a completely artificial world (one we can understand as opposed to what the world actually is), and this is part of the trap of samsara.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,470
    Mentioned
    248 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inumbra View Post
    But that's not the point of this objective vs. subjective distinction in Socionics. Darwin is a great example. He's an XLI (my typing--I've seen people argue SLI and ILI and I frankly don't care which one it is ). Darwin makes "empirical" observations (true). He notices these animals over here look and behave X way and those animals over there look and behave Y way. In everything he considers he is back to the "facts" as observed, grounded in them, and whatever is the truth has to square with all those facts. All scientists do this, and theorists vs. empiricists is also a thing. Theorists are more likely to play with a bunch of ideas and make guesses about what the facts should be (that's more Ti than Te heavy). Empiricists are more likely to test things you can actually test (it's more hands on, but it's also more grounded with how does something actually behave regardless of how we might theorize that it behaves). Science relies on both of these approaches, and they are both necessary. Einstein for instance was a Ti type--good luck to modern physics without people like that. Though I didn't mean to veer into appearing to advocate for um both thinking IEs as that is utterly ridiculous.
    Well, I think that's one of the common misconceptions. It's a mistake to think that Darwin just observed a bunch of things, then "derived" the theory of evolution from the observations. Anyone can do that, and that's exactly why biologists at the times were confused because they were overwhelmed by all the disconnected and disjointed facts that didn't explain why all the different animals and the plants were there, and how they got there.

    But what made Darwin so brilliant, and different from all the other biologists at the time, is that he came up with an explanation that connected all the dots in a single brilliant stroke: essentially, a guess at how they all came about, in this famous note of his, which says "I think":



    This is why so many scientists admire Darwin: he came up with a wild guess at how all these animals and plants got there. A kind of guess that seems obvious now, but it was such a bold guess at the time that nobody had even thought of it, in fact he probably would have received a lot of ridicule for it. So I think he hid his finding for a while not because he'd be branded as a heretic, but because he feared that it was such a wild guess that it seemed ridiculous to even himself.

    This approach is in principle no different than how Newton or Einstein came up with their theories, which were all, essentially just guesses at how things might work.
    Quote Originally Posted by A.Augustinavichiute
    The goal of our work is to try to penetrate into the models of the psyche projected by Jung, to show which positions and categories can be considered completely proved and irrefutable.
    https://translate.google.com/transla...t.html&prev=_t

  4. #4
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    6,126
    Mentioned
    84 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Well, I think that's one of the common misconceptions. It's a mistake to think that Darwin just observed a bunch of things, then "derived" the theory of evolution from the observations. Anyone can do that, and that's exactly why biologists at the times were confused because they were overwhelmed by all the disconnected and disjointed facts that didn't explain why all the different animals and the plants were there, and how they got there.

    But what made Darwin so brilliant, and different from all the other biologists at the time, is that he came up with an explanation that connected all the dots in a single brilliant stroke: essentially, a guess at how they all came about, in this famous note of his, which says "I think":



    This is why so many scientists admire Darwin: he came up with a wild guess at how all these animals and plants got there. A kind of guess that seems obvious now, but it was such a bold guess at the time that nobody had even thought of it, in fact he probably would have received a lot of ridicule for it. So I think he hid his finding for a while not because he'd be branded as a heretic, but because he feared that it was such a wild guess that it seemed ridiculous to even himself.

    This approach is in principle no different than how Newton or Einstein came up with their theories, which were all, essentially just guesses at how things might work.
    None of this is contradicting what I said. I think a very important thing to note from what you quoted in the OP (and this is why it's ridiculous to "advocate" for Ti or Te) is that everyone does both. The idea is that the Ti filter is more heavy on the introverted quality of thinking and the Te filter is more heavy on the extroverted quality of thinking. That's it. It's not that Ti leads are apples and Te leads are oranges. It's not that they are different species. There is no stark contrast like that. What there is, is a subtle information preference (*subtle*).

    Socionics is a model and the failure with models is not that they are approximations of reality (they are) but when people start using and applying them as though they ARE reality (they are not). If the model is not applied beyond its natural limits, then it works. If the model is over-applied (e.g. "Ti types are fact blind, they don't notice a single fact!") then the model is utterly useless (it can only be used to the extent it is useful).

    Ti/Te are the functions that help us identify the limits of a model and the types that are supposedly the best at that are logical types. Why? Because they are strong in BOTH Ti and Te. You can't logic with only one T. And that is me over-applying the model.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,470
    Mentioned
    248 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inumbra View Post
    None of this is contradicting what I said. I think a very important thing to note from what you quoted in the OP (and this is why it's ridiculous to "advocate" for Ti or Te) is that everyone does both. The idea is that the Ti filter is more heavy on the introverted quality of thinking and the Te filter is more heavy on the extroverted quality of thinking. That's it. It's not that Ti leads are apples and Te leads are oranges. It's not that they are different species. There is no stark contrast like that. What there is, is a subtle information preference (*subtle*).
    Well I think that my point is, this is more of a philosophical issue, and not that people are necessarily "inherently" empiricist or rationalist or whatever. I mean sure, I've been an empiricist before, I think most people have. But I've changed my mind, and now I'm more of a critical rationalist. So all these things will change over time, because these ideas get criticized, and will eventually get replaced by better ideas. So I think empiricism is just a transient thing, and not that people are inherently empiricist.

    Quote Originally Posted by inumbra View Post
    Socionics is a model and the failure with models is not that they are approximations of reality (they are) but when people start using and applying them as though they ARE reality (they are not). If the model is not applied beyond its natural limits, then it works. If the model is over-applied (e.g. "Ti types are fact blind, they don't notice a single fact!") then the model is utterly useless (it can only be used to the extent it is useful).
    Well yes, and I think the point in my OP is, Socionics/Jung is based on early 1900's observations of Jung, where empiricism was the dominant influential thought at the time. It's limited in that way, in that it's a limited observation at a particular time with particular people. No doubt that the observation is also tainted by Jung's own subjectivity and biases.

  6. #6
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    6,126
    Mentioned
    84 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Well I think that my point is, this is more of a philosophical issue, and not that people are necessarily "inherently" empiricist or rationalist or whatever. I mean sure, I've been an empiricist before, I think most people have. But I've changed my mind, and now I'm more of a critical rationalist. So all these things will change over time, because these ideas get criticized, and will eventually get replaced by better ideas. So I think empiricism is just a transient thing, and not that people are inherently empiricist.
    I think the assumption, using these examples like Darwin or Einstein or Kant or deGrasse Tyson or *whoever* is that they approach reality a certain way and this is reflected in their work among other things. If they identify themselves as a certain philosophical orientation, does this mean that it must match their supposed Ti or Te preference? If a school of philosophy arises that seems to have a high preference for Ti>Te or Te>Ti does this mean that most of those that built this school of philosophy also had that information preference?

    One thing that comes to mind is if the builders are ethical or logical. Ethical types in the Socionics model should be somewhat (subtly?) less adaptable to the unvalued logic and should rely more heavily on the valued logic. Another consideration is if logic is the leading function. In the Socionics model, the leading function tends to shun its counterpart to some extent (Ti leads may highly prefer Ti to Te; Te leads may highly prefer Te to Ti). The most logically flexible ones should be the creative Ti/Te types I would think. Although they value the one they value, the unvalued one is actually stronger than the valued one, and I think that creative Ti/Te types may be more commonly found applying both Ti and Te. Also, I might expect rational ethicals to be more flexible with both logics than irrational ethicals. I think the dual-seeking/role combo is better than the PoLR/HA combo for this. The PoLR is like THE least adaptable function. And the role function, though weak, is at least conscious.

    ETA: Another thing that comes to mind is sensing vs. intuition. Empiricism is really nice for STs IMO, especially for Delta ST. Logic is not the only consideration.

    Anyway, I don't have any answers I guess, only questions. And none of this really is applying well to what you are stating above and I don't have any thoughts on that. I find that forming a personal philosophy is a lifelong project for me and I am not one to bond with one school of thought only or any school at all.


    Well yes, and I think the point in my OP is, Socionics/Jung is based on early 1900's observations of Jung, where empiricism was the dominant influential thought at the time. It's limited in that way, in that it's a limited observation at a particular time with particular people. No doubt that the observation is also tainted by Jung's own subjectivity and biases.
    But Jung was noting the different kinds of thinking *at the time* and it wasn't all empiricism. Jung himself typed as Ti lead in his own model IIRC. He's not defining *himself* as an empiricist in his own model. And IIRC, his Te descriptors seem a bit wonky (could it be because his biases are towards the one he understands more innately - Ti?)
    Last edited by inumbra; 06-05-2018 at 05:35 PM.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,470
    Mentioned
    248 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inumbra View Post
    I think the assumption, using these examples like Darwin or Einstein or Kant or deGrasse Tyson or *whoever* is that they approach reality a certain way and this is reflected in their work among other things. If they identify themselves as a certain philosophical orientation, does this mean that it must match their supposed Ti or Te preference? If a school of philosophy arises that seems to have a high preference for Ti>Te or Te>Ti does this mean that most of those that built this school of philosophy also had that information preference?
    Well I'm not so sure, since anyone can freely adopt or discard those philosophies, so I don't necessarily think that it has to do with some innate preferences (and it's also a kind of a progression). And you can clearly see the reasons for adopting those philosophies, even if you think that they're wrong. You don't really think, "wow, I just can't imagine myself adopting this philosophy". It's not as if they're impossible to understand.

    So just to summarize, these are the most common epistemological philosophies that are still being discussed today (logical positivism is probably the most defunct one).

    1) Rationalism (What is true is what is rational and logical. What is not true is what is irrational and illogical).
    2) Empiricism (What is true is what could be perceived by the senses. What is not true is what could not be perceived by the senses).
    3) Positivism and Logical positivism (Anything that can't be perceived by the senses, and anything that can't be analyzed by logic, is meaningless. Intuition and metaphysics should be discarded).
    4) Pragmatism and Instrumentalism (What is true is what is useful, or theories should merely be used as an "instrument" for predicting events. Its contents are not important).
    5) Critical rationalism (Since you can't ever know what is "true", you should use reason and rationality to criticize a theory, and not support it. You should use empirical observations to criticize a theory (falsify), and not support it).

    How *science* is actually practiced, is most like the (5). Of course, philosophies are just discussions about knowledge, it doesn't necessarily mean that those things are what we actually do in reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by inumbra View Post
    One thing that comes to mind is if the builders are ethical or logical. Ethical types in the Socionics model should be somewhat (subtly?) less adaptable to the unvalued logic and should rely more heavily on the valued logic. Another consideration is if logic is the leading function. In the Socionics model, the leading function tends to shun its counterpart to some extent (Ti leads may highly prefer Ti to Te; Te leads may highly prefer Te to Ti). The most logically flexible ones should be the creative Ti/Te types I would think. Although they value the one they value, the unvalued one is actually stronger than the valued one, and I think that creative Ti/Te types may be more commonly found applying both Ti and Te. Also, I might expect rational ethicals to be more flexible with both logics than irrational ethicals. I think the dual-seeking/role combo is better than the PoLR/HA combo for this. The PoLR is like THE least adaptable function. And the role function, though weak, is at least conscious.
    Well I would like to know the reasons and the rationale for all of those things. Without it, then there's no reason for thinking this over that.
    Quote Originally Posted by A.Augustinavichiute
    The goal of our work is to try to penetrate into the models of the psyche projected by Jung, to show which positions and categories can be considered completely proved and irrefutable.
    https://translate.google.com/transla...t.html&prev=_t

  8. #8
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    6,126
    Mentioned
    84 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Well I'm not so sure, since anyone can freely adopt or discard those philosophies, so I don't necessarily think that it has to do with some innate preferences (and it's also a kind of a progression). And you can clearly see the reasons for adopting those philosophies, even if you think that they're wrong. You don't really think, "wow, I just can't imagine myself adopting this philosophy". It's not as if they're impossible to understand.

    So just to summarize, these are the most common epistemological philosophies that are still being discussed today (logical positivism is probably the most defunct one).

    1) Rationalism (What is true is what is rational and logical. What is not true is what is irrational and illogical).
    2) Empiricism (What is true is what could be perceived by the senses. What is not true is what could not be perceived by the senses).
    3) Positivism and Logical positivism (Anything that can't be perceived by the senses, and anything that can't be analyzed by logic, is meaningless. Intuition and metaphysics should be discarded).
    4) Pragmatism and Instrumentalism (What is true is what is useful, or theories should merely be used as an "instrument" for predicting events. Its contents are not important).
    5) Critical rationalism (Since you can't ever know what is "true", you should use reason and rationality to criticize a theory, and not support it. You should use empirical observations to criticize a theory (falsify), and not support it).

    How *science* is actually practiced, is most like the (5). Of course, philosophies are just discussions about knowledge, it doesn't necessarily mean that those things are what we actually do in reality.
    But part of your argument was it's dated--but empiricism is still right there on your list for modern times. And I also don't understand this idea of adopting only one of them or any of them? I see them as tools in the shed to use when they work best. I should find some online tests and see if I can get some results for myself.

    But anyway, without carefully studying individual philosophers and deciding their types, I can't comment on this. Here's an IEI and I know he went through evolutions in his philosophy (just as an artist goes through evolutions in their art; or a writer in their writing; or a thinker in their thinking). I think Nietzsche is IEI from reading about him and from what I've read of his work, not because I'm philosophy-matching but because my NiTi and Beta NF flags go off big time. However, just jumping to Perspectivism ("knowledge is contingent and conditional"), I'm like uh huh, Ti > Te preference. Nietzsche is also "emotional" from my point of view. He's sick and he's suffering a lot and as is characteristic in my understanding of many intellectual IEIs, they often turn their pain into an intellectual journey in some manner. Nihilism and God is dead--very dramatic coming from a dying man who's in a lot of pain. There's a personal element to this--his suffering and how to deal with it. His philosophy is adapting to his own suffering; it's being used to nourish his "soul" so to speak (a form of spiritual self-care). I also feel there's some Se DS going on as well (IEI may retreat to their dual for strength when they are broken, even if that's only to their dual in their imagination).

    And that's the other thing. I know some type him as ILI, but what he feels emanates from his work, at least when I've read it. Fe can be very expressive in this way--unlike Fe PoLR that tries to block a lot of that from the outside, it's flowing naturally from Nietzsche. You can *feel* it reading his writing.

    All this said, ILI is still on the table for me.
    Last edited by inumbra; 06-06-2018 at 07:46 PM.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,470
    Mentioned
    248 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inumbra View Post
    But part of your argument was it's dated--but empiricism is still right there on your list for modern times. And I also don't understand this idea of adopting only one of them or any of them? I see them as tools in the shed to use when they work best. I should find some online tests and see if I can get some results for myself.
    Well yes, unfortunately the mainstream/popular culture tend to lag behind, and there are still some remaining old myths and misconceptions. For instance, nobody could possibly say that Darwin lived through millions of years to "observe" evolution himself. And yet that is what empiricism is advocating, if we were to take empiricism seriously.

    So if we were to critique each of the philosophies, then it would look like this:

    1) Rationalism can't be right, because we can't know what is true from pure logic and reason alone.
    2) Empiricism can't also be right, for the reason that we explain things in the terms of the unobservables, such as evolution or from the dinosaur fossils, which we have never even seen a dinosaur before. Many things such as atoms or molecules like DNAs are simply unobservable.
    3) Positivism and Logical positivism can't be right, because these philosophies become self-refuting for discarding any metaphysics and philosophies as being meaningless.
    4) Pragmatism and Instrumentalism can't be right, because if we were to reduce everything into whether something is "useful" for making predictions, then it would be denying realism, for that it denies any assertions (in terms of explanations) about reality. You also cannot obviously, predict something without explanations, which these philosophies deny as being meaningless.
    5) Critical rationalism I believe this philosophy is the only remaining rational choice for creating new and objective knowledge.

    Quote Originally Posted by inumbra View Post
    But anyway, without carefully studying individual philosophers and deciding their types, I can't comment on this. Here's an IEI and I know he went through evolutions in his philosophy (just as an artist goes through evolutions in their art; or a writer in their writing; or a thinker in their thinking). I think Nietzsche is IEI from reading about him and from what I've read of his work, not because I'm philosophy-matching but because my NiTi and Beta NF flags go off big time. However, just jumping to Perspectivism ("knowledge is contingent and conditional"), I'm like uh huh, Ti > Te preference. Nietzsche is also "emotional" from my point of view. He's sick and he's suffering a lot and as is characteristic in my understanding of many intellectual IEIs, they often turn their pain into an intellectual journey in some manner. Nihilism and God is dead--very dramatic coming from a dying man who's in a lot of pain. There's a personal element to this--his suffering and how to deal with it. His philosophy is adapting to his own suffering; it's being used to nourish his "soul" so to speak (a form of spiritual self-care). I also feel there's some Se DS going on as well (IEI may retreat to their dual for strength when they are broken, even if that's only to their dual in their imagination).

    And that's the other thing. I know some type him as ILI, but what he feels emanates from his work, at least when I've read it. Fe can be very expressive in this way--unlike Fe PoLR that tries to block a lot of that from the outside, it's flowing naturally from Nietzsche. You can *feel* it reading his writing.
    Well Nietzsche was one of the Irrationalist (or existentialist, etc) philosophers. They, like many post-Kantian philosophers, believe we can only obtain our knowledge a priori, and yet there's also a limit to our capacity to know things a priori, such as there are limits to pure logic and reason (this was laid out in Kant's book "Critique of Pure Reason"). That, or perhaps we can obtain knowledge through means other than logic and reason, or via irrational means, such as our emotions and intuitions. Only then, by having access to that mystical intuition inside of ourselves, and not things like logic and reason or empiricism, we can know things totally and completely.

    No doubt that Jung was influenced by Nietzsche (who was influenced by Schopenhauer), and Jung carried on this Irrationalist tradition. Which is why he was so fascinated with mysiticism and mystical and irrational experiences and explanations.

    But I believe the danger of this is that it will just turn into solipsism. It's just a dream to know things "completely and totally", when we have failed to give up the hope that we can't ever know things "completely" or have a "direct" access to reality. Though perhaps the dream is that we can through emotion, intuitions and mystical experiences, whether that is via the world of pure logic and mathematics, or something totally irrational, like strong emotional experiences.
    Quote Originally Posted by A.Augustinavichiute
    The goal of our work is to try to penetrate into the models of the psyche projected by Jung, to show which positions and categories can be considered completely proved and irrefutable.
    https://translate.google.com/transla...t.html&prev=_t

  10. #10
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,936
    Mentioned
    484 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    yeah before going off what singu says any sort of philosophy or philosopher stands for I'd at least skim the wikipedia to see if it holds up

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,359
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Only the secret seventeenth type can attain gnosis of the Jungian realm, where it is revealed to the chosen few that 16 types is just a diversion away from the fact that objective truth has to exist to make the claim that there is no objective truth, leaving followers flummoxed. Meanwhile, life's greatest mystery is left unanswered: Do you hear Yanni or Laurel?

  12. #12
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    6,126
    Mentioned
    84 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    For instance, nobody could possibly say that Darwin lived through millions of years to "observe" evolution himself. And yet that is what empiricism is advocating, if we were to take empiricism seriously.
    How is this what "empiricism is advocating"?

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empiricism

    Is it this quack school of medical practice you refer to? haha Feel sorry for those patients.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,470
    Mentioned
    248 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inumbra View Post
    How is this what "empiricism is advocating"?

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical
    Isn't empiricism about basing things on perceptions or observations?

  14. #14
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    6,126
    Mentioned
    84 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Isn't empiricism about basing things on perceptions or observations?
    Yes, but it doesn't mean that you must not apply any reasoning at all. That's silly. To illustrate, imagine in your mind a purely empirical being capable of only observation and only determining truth value off of verifiable observation while being incapable of reasoning, and how fucked up that would be. Talk about disturbing and dysfunctional. This creature would not be able to find any truth at all because it can't understand how observations are related or not related. This creature wouldn't even believe its parents were its parents because it was unable to observe itself being born or its parents having sex or the sperm finding the egg and forming into it. Haha. Oh, and it can't repeat the experiment because that sperm and egg and their union was like a one-time occurrence.
    Last edited by inumbra; 06-06-2018 at 11:54 PM.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,470
    Mentioned
    248 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inumbra View Post
    Yes, but it doesn't mean that you must not apply any reasoning at all. That's silly. To illustrate, imagine in your mind a purely empirical being capable of only observation and only determining truth value off of verifiable observation while being incapable of reasoning, and how fucked up that would be. Talk about disturbing.
    That's exactly what empiricism is (although an extreme version of it), and that's why it's wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by A.Augustinavichiute
    The goal of our work is to try to penetrate into the models of the psyche projected by Jung, to show which positions and categories can be considered completely proved and irrefutable.
    https://translate.google.com/transla...t.html&prev=_t

  16. #16
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    6,126
    Mentioned
    84 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    That's exactly what empiricism is (although an extreme version of it), and that's why it's wrong.
    I think it's not empiricism that is going to extremes but perhaps you in your interpretation of it? Most things when taken to the extreme become absurdities.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,470
    Mentioned
    248 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inumbra View Post
    I think it's not empiricism that is going to extremes but perhaps you in your interpretation of it? Most things when taken to the extreme become absurdities.
    Well yes, there are different versions of empiricism, and what you just said would be the most extreme version. But what empiricism essentially boils down to, is that we're supposed to "derive" things from observations, and that's just not going to be possible, since we do explain things in terms of the unobservable.
    Last edited by Singu; 06-07-2018 at 11:58 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by A.Augustinavichiute
    The goal of our work is to try to penetrate into the models of the psyche projected by Jung, to show which positions and categories can be considered completely proved and irrefutable.
    https://translate.google.com/transla...t.html&prev=_t

  18. #18
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    6,126
    Mentioned
    84 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Well yes, there are different versions of empiricism, and what you just said would be the most extreme version. But what empiricism essentially boils down to, is that we're supposed to "derive" things from observations, and that's just not going to be possible, since we do explain things in terms of the unobservable.
    deriving is a logical process involving reasoning. Empiricism is the basis of a lot of science. One makes observations, one derives what those observations mean. One tests and and designs experiments to verify the hypothesis of what the observations mean. Others repeat it and get the same results. If later observations contradict the established theory, it is reexamined.

    When theorists find things that that may be true, empiricists test them to see if they can be proven or disproven.

    On a more basic level, without empiricism of sorts we wouldn't have agriculture, we wouldn't have technology, we wouldn't be able to make fire, we wouldn't be able to make character judgments, our "knowledge" of much of the world would be baseless. And it doesn't matter that this eventually became an established philosophy or mode of thought. Other animals test the world around them too, and form associations about what they find. If they don't do it consciously, evolution does it for them. A lot of animals are inherently afraid of snakes for instance because those that just went and played with them got bitten and died and it happened a lot.
    Last edited by inumbra; 06-07-2018 at 02:09 PM.

  19. #19

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,470
    Mentioned
    248 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inumbra View Post
    deriving is a logical process involving reasoning. Empiricism is the basis of a lot of science. One makes observations, one derives what those observations mean. One tests and and designs experiments to verify the hypothesis of what the observations mean. Others repeat it and get the same results. If later observations contradict the established theory, it is reexamined.
    How does one "derive" what those observations mean?

    Quote Originally Posted by inumbra View Post
    When theorists find things that that may be true, empiricists test them to see if they can be proven or disproven.
    If it's about testing theories and hypotheses, then it would not be about "deriving" from observations.
    Quote Originally Posted by A.Augustinavichiute
    The goal of our work is to try to penetrate into the models of the psyche projected by Jung, to show which positions and categories can be considered completely proved and irrefutable.
    https://translate.google.com/transla...t.html&prev=_t

  20. #20
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    6,126
    Mentioned
    84 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Singu - our conversation has become so nitpicky that I don't know what the point is anymore.

Posting Permissions

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