Ti comparsions & my perception that Fe users rely on consensus
Would it be fair to say, that just as Ti concerns logical unknowns/the bounds of logic and logic as independent of facts as they present themselves, but of those undergirding principles and mechanisms that produce those facts to begin with, that respectively, Fi concerns embarking on establishing sentiments independently, about matters that people daren't speak about and therefore of matters that Fe users likely seldom contemplate and reckon with (conjecture?) for there being no ready consensus to source how they're suppose to feel (is that too reductionistic and ignorant of me to think, that Fe users always need to know the consensus about something in order to determine how they feel?)
Also, like how Ti is known as being the function of reverse engineering and theoretical deconstruction and reassembly - is it helpful to see Fi as serving such a role, or can this not apply to ethics and the sentiments?
When there is no societal guidance
I'd like to think that, when there is no societal guidance to hand, about either unprecedented ethical matters, or those that people have experienced but are simply too embarrassed to divulge about and serve as potential guides for - that that's when Fe in my opinion is truly handicapped.
And I think that there are instances aplenty, in which matters and affairs being unprecedented at least, could be applicable. Insofar as our world becoming all the more globalised and one in which interaction is increasingly digitised.
Relative to societal guidance and lack thereof, I find that taboos too are often a preoccupation of Fi users. To me, this is akin to how maybe a Ti user would want to work out the logic of something for themselves, rather than just accept the prearrangement of facts at their face value (even if that is to draw the same conclusion). I find that Fi users in kind want to 'do the working out', but about ethical matters that have supposedly been dealt with.
This still desired for, even if they ultimately produce the same conclusions that Fe users have, who have established consensuses about what is taboo and why their statuses as such should not be questioned.
The desire to independently foster and helm this interrogative process is in my opinion because of a lot of Fi users' sneaking suspicion, that few have done the working out themselves as it were, and just accepted the unwritten classifications as constituent to objective ethics.
Fe as a social function & Fi as a function of self expression
Also, I've seen it written that Fi isn't a social function, as that is what Fe is meant to be. So, assuming that to be true, would it be fair to regard Fi as being the function of 'self-expression'?
Now of course, Fi users by no means have a monopoly on artistic endeavours, but surely Fe cannot both simultaneously be a social function and one of expression. Fi surely *has* to have a quality that Fe doesn't!
Given that Fi is an introverted function and therefore cannot outlet itself as extroverted functions can, it makes sense then that Fi users would stereotypically be preoccupied with pursuits relative to self expression or 'finding oneself'. That perhaps, without modes of expression in the form of art to manifest Fi in a perceptual form, Fi would not exist.
So lacking such an impetus, it's more to me that Fe users don't have an existential need to self expression less than an inability for it.