an example of Ti vs Te

[Exodus]

And Adam explicitly referred to doing whatever it takes for a group to survive in the long run, not in the present moment.

That's true, he did say that. But it's still Se, just long-term Se.

But even then, your argument makes no sense. Si or no Si, if you are convinced that your life (or that of someone you cared about) depends on doing something you find unpleasant, chances are you are going to do it anyway.

Depends on how immediate the result is compared to the magnitude of the unpleasantness. Of course if someone's life is in immediate danger most people would do something in that situation, because everyone has Se.

[Bertrand]

petition to rename Ni as "long-term Se"

[Aramas]

The problem with utilitarianism is epistemology. There's no way of knowing what actions will bring about the greatest good for the greatest number of people. So much for that.

I don't really adhere to any kind of moral philosophy myself. I don't really think there is any correct morality, either. People do what people do. They try to justify it. Sometimes people believe them, mostly depending on current mores.

If I'm not mistaken, Kant thought that we should treat people as if they are rational agents. Problem is that people are not essentially rational. For him, the only other option was objects. That doesn't seem accurate to me, either.

Does my lack of moral philosophy mean I exist outside the Socion?

[Bertrand]

Its a pretty common objection to morality, that because people disagree on morality there is no morality. I think you could find morality in precisely that option. That morality is in some sense a free choice you make in setting up your own relationship to yourself and to the world and to God, that it can't be standardized is a feature not a bug so to speak. Socionics-wise, I think people would say your objection is rooted in +Ti valuing, which aims at a uniform structure, so doesn't like that solution--finds the answer "there is no morality" to be better in lieu of not being able to find a unified one. Another way to come at the problem is to say that over time "God as judge" reconciles what it is people do, which is his sole domain. You might say in him is the ultimate uniform structure, and the mystery from our point of view is an expression of finitude. So you can find faith in precisely this difficulty, because otherwise man could usurp God, so there must be some residual difficulty if he/she exists and is really sovereign. In essence the solution lies in his sole discretion and that's what makes him God, whereas our weak attempts to mimic that are what make us man. We are made in his image so to speak, but fallen, so disintegration across the moral plane is to be expected

[WVBRY]

God is a number you cannot count to.

[Aramas]

Its a pretty common objection to morality, that because people disagree on morality there is no morality. I think you could find morality in precisely that option. That morality is in some sense a free choice you make in setting up your own relationship to yourself and to the world and to God, that it can't be standardized is a feature not a bug so to speak. Socionics-wise, I think people would say your objection is rooted in +Ti valuing, which aims at a uniform structure, so doesn't like that solution--finds the answer "there is no morality" to be better in lieu of not being able to find a unified one. Another way to come at the problem is to say that over time "God as judge" reconciles what it is people do, which is his sole domain. You might say in him is the ultimate uniform structure, and the mystery from our point of view is an expression of finitude. So you can find faith in precisely this difficulty, because otherwise man could usurp God, so there must be some residual difficulty if he/she exists and is really sovereign. In essence the solution lies in his sole discretion and that's what makes him God, whereas our weak attempts to mimic that are what make us man. We are made in his image so to speak, but fallen, so disintegration across the moral plane is to be expected

How did we go from morality to deity? I'm confused! What about Zeus? You didn't mention him. Or Diana. You forgot her too.

Why all the he and him? What about the she and her?

[Bertrand]

oh right, I think of morality as a relationship to a higher power and call it God, but its not God in the standard guy in the sky with a beard sense. basically what I'm saying is your trouble with morality presupposes a comparison which implies God and morality in principle. this implied comparison or standard is your God, its just unconscious because it controls your output but you don't acknowledge it as such. in other words everyone acts as if God exists, they just have faith in different moral principles whereby they act, even if that takes the form of a negation of everyone elses principle's, i.e.: egoism and denial of all morality as products of other people's egos. in essence one even has to negotiate with one's own ego, so even the egoist has a relationship to himself, and its in hashing out that relationship that God exists. people experience that process as a form of self development and that's all the Jesus and God symbols metaphorically represent. It doesn't really matter what you call it, and if all religions have been referring to what can also be understood as a psychological process it doesn't really dislodge what has always been there, it just calls it something else, i.e.: develops the symbol. in essence no one can truly do away with morality they can only deny it in the same way anyone represses any other genuine possibility

the idea that zeus ruled the the greek pantheon and Jesus ruled a different one is not a knock against God in principle its more a commentary on man's superstitious faith in the names themselves. in other words, a change of name effects very little in actuality, like how the monsanto name is going away as of the recent court ruling, but it will exist in exactly the same capacity as it did before under a new name given by its parent corporation and continue to do business in exactly the same way as before. only a person who puts their faith in words thinks a denial of words alone amounts to a denial of faith, but it never touches the underlying reality. thus these criticisms of there being multiple Gods are similar to there being multiple moralities, they miss the point, because it has to be so and it proves there is such a thing somewhere underneath it all that people are detecting. a universally shared delusion is indistinguishable from a real force. like Jung says, one man has a fantasy and another man loses his life. to think we can do away with fantasies is the biggest fantasy of all. its a fantasy so strong it undergirds an entire life of action that follows and at the cost of who knows how many lives. it simply becomes the God of John Lennon or Richard Dawkins, which is to say a God and morality so thoroughly ingrained one loses sight of it, but its still there, implied in every act

if you say "I don't think there is any correct morality" that is itself a thinking statement on the nature of a correct morality because it is a statement that establishes a relationship to oneself, which is double-bind moral statement, either you adhere to it and the foregoing is true or you don't, because feeling overwhelms thinking, and it is doubly true. you're saying in your estimation the most correct morality is the one that acknowledges a variety of perspectives on the issue, which it itself a progressive statement in the mouth of LSI and to be applauded inasmuch as that is the case. it is usually these types of people who are the most conscientious of all, because it is a great self sacrifice to give up dogma in this way. the tendency is to seek clarity and then force it on people, and forbearance from that becomes its own moral stance. there's no getting away from morality, but we can get away from hypocrisy in the name of morality, and that has lead to strange results in this day and age as people try to unwind that knot in various ways, one such way is to deny morality so as to not make oneself a hypocrite, but whence does this urge to consistency come

[Aramas]

oh right, I think of morality as a relationship to a higher power and call it God, but its not God in the standard guy in the sky with a beard sense. basically what I'm saying is your trouble with morality presupposes a comparison which implies God and morality in principle. this implied comparison or standard is your God, its just unconscious because it controls your output but you don't acknowledge it as such. in other words everyone acts as if God exists, they just have faith in different moral principles whereby they act, even if that takes the form of a negation of everyone elses principle's, i.e.: egoism and denial of all morality as products of other people's egos. in essence one even has to negotiate with one's own ego, so even the egoist has a relationship to himself, and its in hashing out that relationship that God exists. people experience that process as a form of self development and that's all the Jesus and God symbols metaphorically represent. It doesn't really matter what you call it, and if all religions have been referring to what can also be understood as a psychological process it doesn't really dislodge what has always been there, it just calls it something else, i.e.: develops the symbol. in essence no one can truly do away with morality they can only deny it in the same way anyone represses any other genuine possibility

the idea that zeus ruled the the greek pantheon and Jesus ruled a different one is not a knock against God in principle its more a commentary on man's superstitious faith in the names themselves. in other words, a change of name effects very little in actuality, like how the monsanto name is going away as of the recent court ruling, but it will exist in exactly the same capacity as it did before under a new name given by its parent corporation and continue to do business in exactly the same way as before. only a person who puts their faith in words thinks a denial of words alone amounts to a denial of faith, but it never touches the underlying reality. thus these criticisms of there being multiple Gods are similar to there being multiple moralities, they miss the point, because it has to be so and it proves there is such a thing somewhere underneath it all that people are detecting. a universally shared delusion is indistinguishable from a real force. like Jung says, one man has a fantasy and another man loses his life. to think we can do away with fantasies is the biggest fantasy of all. its a fantasy so strong it undergirds an entire life of action that follows and at the cost of who knows how many lives. it simply becomes the God of John Lennon or Richard Dawkins, which is to say a God and morality so thoroughly ingrained one loses sight of it, but its still there, implied in every act

if you say "I don't think there is any correct morality" that is itself a thinking statement on the nature of a correct morality because it is a statement that establishes a relationship to oneself, which is double-bind moral statement, either you adhere to it and the foregoing is true or you don't, because feeling overwhelms thinking, and it is doubly true. you're saying in your estimation the most correct morality is the one that acknowledges a variety of perspectives on the issue, which it itself a progressive statement in the mouth of LSI and to be applauded inasmuch as that is the case. it is usually these types of people who are the most conscientious of all, because it is a great self sacrifice to give up dogma in this way. the tendency is to seek clarity and then force it on people, and forbearance from that becomes its own moral stance. there's no getting away from morality, but we can get away from hypocrisy in the name of morality, and that has lead to strange results in this day and age as people try to unwind that knot in various ways, one such way is to deny morality so as to not make oneself a hypocrite, but whence does this urge to consistency come

You still need to work on your verbal clarity.

[Bertrand]

a pattern of moral belief can be inferred by your conduct, statements distancing oneself from morality are fundamentally moral statements, they just advance on the moral plane in a different direction. because morality doesn't inhere in statements but actions anyway, it doesn't matter what you say about morality it matters that you care enough to say anything at all. statements on the topic amount to a philosophy even if they disclaim any such thing

[Aramas]

a pattern of moral belief can be inferred by your conduct, statements distancing oneself from morality are fundamentally moral statements, they just advance on the moral plane in a different direction. because morality doesn't inhere in statements but actions anyway, it doesn't matter what you say about morality it matters that you care enough to say anything at all. statements on the topic amount to a philosophy even if they disclaim any such thing

That's like saying all atheists are theists because they talk about theism. Lol

I don't believe in the existence of objective morality. That's all you need to know.

When I said that there was no correct morality, that was my day of saying that there are really no rules in life. Is that a rule in itself? No. It's just a descriptive statement about the presence or absence of morality in the universe apart from human feeling.

[Rebelondeck]

Te: What's the best way of doing that?
Ti: If I were you, I do this.
Te: Ted says that we should go this way?
Ti: It's been tried and has failed before.
Te: Mary says we should incorporate this?
Ti: If you do, costs will escalate.
Te: We can trim costs here?
Ti: Well, you'll increase your risk.
Te: Why can't you be a team player?
Ti: Someone has to know what they're doing.

a.k.a. I/O

[WVBRY]

^^ Nothing to do with vs , imo.

[Bertrand]

That's like saying all atheists are theists because they talk about theism. Lol

I don't believe in the existence of objective morality. That's all you need to know.

When I said that there was no correct morality, that was my day of saying that there are really no rules in life. Is that a rule in itself? No. It's just a descriptive statement about the presence or absence of morality in the universe apart from human feeling.

not all atheists are theists, but all of the foregoing is consistent with some self styled "atheists" being theists depending on how they act. and this should be obvious unless you think the reverse is true: that calling yourself an (a)theist makes you one. this simply begs the question on the essence of religious belief, that it is nothing more than a label. you could maintain that belief, but it would essentially remove all meaning from that domain, and belief in God or morality would just be totally removed from the atheist/theist distinction, which is in fact what happens to people who think it is something they say and not something they act out. this is how atheism can be more principled than theism in the mouth of a particular individual, and what it means for Jesus to say a relationship is more than a declaration. in the end, atheism/theism is a trivial verbal distinction that tells one almost nothing about the person, which is why its so ironic people fight over it. one gets the feeling the more they suspect its trivial the more they fight over it in order to artificially generate a sense of importance and distract themselves from their lurking real ethical duties. it has become something of a political affiliation and in that sense God never really comes into it, thus its an entirely different set of categories across a different strata running over and under every possible political affiliation. which is to say belief in God is a deeper relationship that underpins all sorts of surface manifestations, manifestations that will be looked past, as Jesus says, in making a final judgement. some theists line up their deeper relationship with their declaration and so do some atheists, but not all, this is why the assumption that everyones statements line up is misleading, as if people always know the status of their relationships. the truth is they don't.. this is obvious enough if you just watch certain infantile men live out their life while declaring God doesn't exist, when the truth is plain as the palm of your hand--that certain moral rules and premises have become so ingrained they can't even see them at work in themselves, and yet they rely on the community's indulgence on this point at every turn. this is the essence of corniness, its precisely what identifies them as infantile

to say the realm of "the should" does not exist, just masks a defiant belief in the fact that it does. stuff that does not exist does not trouble anyone... it has no existence. thus even a negation of what you might say is a misbegotten tradition is a continuation of that phenomenon and is real. moral talk has just been stood on its head, but it hasnt gone away.. what people do is psychologically repress this aspect of themselves, but viewed from the side it is obviously there. you can't actually get rid of that side of humanity.. to do away with ethics in such a way is absurd if you really think about it, on one hand it governs all of humanity and always has, and on the other you say it doesn't exist. what you have done is simply model the world in a way that excludes it, but such a model never touches reality in all its dimensions, it is simply a map that cut out certain strata and features, i.e.: superficial. some maps cut out different things, lest the map be no good as a tool and one should simply refer to reality itself, but this is impractical, so people choose to focus on one thing or another, this is the essence of the psychological condition. a perspective is carved out from a multiplicity of perspectives and one can leave out whatever one wishes, declare it not to exist, but this is repression not reality

people cutting out morality as a practical matter is a concession to the standpoint of a society that has structured itself in such a way that incentivizes such a move. thus it is no surprise some would say morality no longer exists in a society that views morality as an impediment to certain goals, in essence inculcating the individual with a cultural standpoint. this is a product of society itself having become one sided to a certain degree, and people mistaking their social environment as absolute when it is in fact relative, and will change over time. in fact one could say its ultimate success or failure depends entirely on its ability to recognize its own one sidedness in precisely this regard. thus this dynamic pervades the entire structure top to bottom. what is required is strong individuals to change things--to prevent a disaster resulting from this one sidedness. what will the future bring?

[Vespertine]

I'm an atheist 'cause my sister said we were. : 3

Not really.
In the same time I don't know what is fair, what is "more ethical" and how to aply it to all situations, I have certain sense of how it seems "better" to act. Not everyone agrees with my vision. Not everyone agrees on where those possible lines of conduct are from. It is a sense or personal morality, to line my actions with myself helps me feel at peace with the world.
Some may say it comes from god, some science, some just believe in humanity as a whole, some make up their very own thesis as to why they have to act a certain way and not an other, all in search for a meaning that is greater than "I".
At some point, we can go as far as saying that god=science in terms of following a code. The scientific method, the... hmm... whatever morale code theists follow these days... can both be seen as lines of conduct, one is more about skeptism, the other faith. It doesn't matter which one anyone follows.
Having a sense of something being greater than "I", be it science or gods, can help one not be centered on this little individual we all are and think in a broader way... wait this is a Ti vs Te exemple thread... o.o

[Aramas]

not all atheists are theists, but all of the foregoing is consistent with some self styled "atheists" being theists depending on how they act. and this should be obvious unless you think the reverse is true: that calling yourself an (a)theist makes you one. this simply begs the question on the essence of religious belief, that it is nothing more than a label. you could maintain that belief, but it would essentially remove all meaning from that domain, and belief in God or morality would just be totally removed from the atheist/theist distinction, which is in fact what happens to people who think it is something they say and not something they act out. this is how atheism can be more principled than theism in the mouth of a particular individual, and what it means for Jesus to say a relationship is more than a declaration. in the end, atheism/theism is a trivial verbal distinction that tells one almost nothing about the person, which is why its so ironic people fight over it. one gets the feeling the more they suspect its trivial the more they fight over it in order to artificially generate a sense of importance and distract themselves from their lurking real ethical duties. it has become something of a political affiliation and in that sense God never really comes into it, thus its an entirely different set of categories across a different strata running over and under every possible political affiliation. which is to say belief in God is a deeper relationship that underpins all sorts of surface manifestations, manifestations that will be looked past, as Jesus says, in making a final judgement. some theists line up their deeper relationship with their declaration and so do some atheists, but not all, this is why the assumption that everyone's line up is misleading, as if people always know the status of their relationships. the truth is they don't.. this is obvious enough if you just watch certain infantile men live out their life while declaring God doesn't exist, when the truth is plain as the palm of your hand--that certain moral rules and premises have become so ingrained they can't even see them at work in themselves, and yet they rely on the community's indulgence on this point at every turn. this is the essence of corniness, its precisely what identifies them as infantile

to say the realm of "the should" does not exist, just masks a defiant belief in the fact that it does. stuff that does not exist does not trouble anyone... it has no existence. thus even a negation of what you might say is a misbegotten tradition is a continuation of that phenomenon and is real. moral talk has just been stood on its head, but it hasnt gone away.. what people do is psychologically repress this aspect of themselves, but viewed from the side it is obviously there. you can't actually get rid of that side of humanity.. to do away with ethics in such a way is absurd if you really think about it, on one hand it governs all of humanity and always has, and on the other you say it doesn't exist. what you have done is simply model the world in a way that excludes it, but such a model never touches reality in all its dimensions, it is simply a map that cut out certain strata and features, i.e.: superficial. some maps cut out different things, lest the map be no good as a tool and one should simply refer to reality itself, but this is impractical, so people choose to focus on one thing or another, this is the essence of the psychological condition. a perspective is carved out from a multiplicity of perspectives and one can leave out whatever one wishes, declare it not to exist, but this is repression not reality

people cutting out morality as a practical matter is a concession to the standpoint of a society that has structured itself in such a way that incentivizes such a move. thus it is no surprise some would say morality no longer exists in a society that views morality as an impediment to certain goals, in essence inculcating the individual with a cultural standpoint. this is a product of society itself having itself become one sided to a certain degree, and people mistaking their social environment as absolute when it is in fact relative, and will change over time. in fact one could say its ultimate success or failure depends entirely on its ability to recognize its own one sidedness in precisely this regard. thus this dynamic pervades the entire structure top to bottom. what is required is strong individuals to change things--to prevent a disaster resulting from this one sidedness. what will the future bring?

I think one of the problems we were dealing with earlier was a difference in the definition of a moral philosophy. You seem to define moral philosophy as a set of statements about morality. My definition is a bit different. It's a set of statements about morality, given that morality is real and exists. So utilitarianism and whatever other moral philosophies out there count under that category. But amoralism not so much. It's just a difference in how we both define the term.

I'm not necessarily sure that belief always has a direct consequence in terms of action or behavior like you say. Also, I'm not really sure "belief" is really a thing either. I don't really want to mince words here, though.

I think you're just trying to convince yourself that people are what you want them to be because it gives you a feeling of satisfaction/vindication lol.

Perhaps you're assuming that actions always have to be congruent with beliefs. That's not true in my opinion. It might take the meaning of of things for you if that's not the case, but I mean that's the way things are sometimes, you know? Other people don't always have an issue with believing something without that affecting their behavior.

Let's say I think the sky is blue. I don't have to do anything that indicates that's true for me to believe it. A belief therefore can be completely passive.

And it's possible to think something is true but not care about the truth value of whatever it is.

What you're doing sounds like what some gay guys do when they really want someone to be gay. "Oh, he loves penis, he's just denying it/deeply repressed." It's just wishful thinking.

[Bertrand]

science is just an extension of the logos which is God anyway

I think you're just trying to convince yourself that people are what you want them to be because it gives you a feeling of satisfaction/vindication lol.

yeah but this flows both ways, the trick is to account for it in a way that makes things better. in other words, our notion of what is really going on and what people amount to can either be shaped in a way that improves things or not. ultimately if you we import nihilism under the banner of realism the consequence is self annihilation and, since the structure follows the individual, eventually nihilism becomes a physical reality following from what the mind set in motion. it is thus a form of decay amounting to murder when it spreads. there's something socially beneficial about exploding morality in terms of its political affiliation, as if a party had a monopoly on the truth, but there is nothing socially beneficial about doing away with morality in principle and the same goes for God. the problem is one of a disjunction in time, we don't really disagree, we are just arguing for different phases of the same process. the thing is the battle to erode the corrupt establishment's hold on morality is over, and it is time to develop a meaningful successor. people are so run down they don't even dare to dream this is possible and that is the real danger facing the world and everyone in it, today. instead they fill their lives with cheap substitutes in order to distract themselves from all that is missing. they pursue the appearance of a full life and rationalize what is missing as unreal in principle or having been achieved by implication from the outer appearance. eventually life becomes what we initially conceptualized it as, a series of meaningless physical interactions signifying nothing followed by death

[Aramas]

science is just an extension of the logos which is God anyway



yeah but this flows both ways, the trick is to account for it in a way that makes things better. in other words, our notion of what is really going on and what people amount to can either be shaped in a way that improves things or not. ultimately if you we import nihilism under the banner of realism the consequence is self annihilation and, since the structure follows the individual, eventually nihilism becomes a physical reality following from what the mind set in motion. it is thus a form of decay amounting to murder when it spreads. there's something socially beneficial about exploding morality in terms of its political affiliation, as if a party had a monopoly on the truth, but there is nothing socially beneficial about doing away with morality in principle and the same goes for God. the problem is one of a disjunction in time, we don't really disagree, we are just arguing for different phases of the same process. the thing is the battle to erode the corrupt establishment's hold on morality is over, and it is time to develop a meaningful successor. people are so run down they don't even dare to dream this is possible and that is the real danger facing the world and everyone in it, today. instead they fill their lives with cheap substitutes in order to distract themselves from all that is missing. they pursue the appearance of a full life and rationalize what is missing as unreal in principle or having been achieved by implication from the outer appearance. eventually life becomes what we initially conceptualized it as, a series of meaningless physical interactions signifying nothing followed by death

"Yeah but..." But yeah . So we got it.

Why can't we just import nihilism straight up? It's not necessarily a bad thing lol. Maybe the consequence isn't annihilation but apotheosis.

[Bertrand]

nihilism is just a flattening out of human experience, it by definition is something less than a full life... in other words it is an attack on human well-being itself. in the past it had developed out of good intentions, in order to promote well being by knocking down certain structures that had grown corrupt, but to hang onto it is like allowing oneself to become attached to a method that has outlived its usefulness to the point of self injury. its nothing more than just another harmful addiction at this point. a dependency has developed on it because it pervades our culture and subverts children in the womb before they can even begin to resist. society is filled with children born sick living out their disease they inherited. its not even up for debate, this much is obvious

[Aramas]

nihilism is just a flattening out of human experience, it by definition is something less than a full life... in other words it is an attack on human well-being itself. in the past it had developed out of good intentions, in order to promote well being by knocking down certain structures that had grown corrupt, but to hang onto it is like allowing oneself to become attached to a method that has outlived its usefulness to the point of self injury

No it's not. Nihilism is accepting the nothingness of the universe. Probably all the greatest ills ever created in the history of mankind all came about because someone tried to impose meaning and an ideal. You want death? Look at the war between capitalism and communism, or the war between religions. All the death that comes from people who try to say their meanings are the right ones, all the shoulds and oughts, all the made-up bullshit that people try to push. Choose nihilism and you take away the justification for all that crap.

[Bertrand]

i agree that at a certain point nihilism was a cure but now we're suffering the side effects, and you don't keep taking medication with drawbacks once the disease has been cured. if the idea is but the disease could come back, its just a form of killing the patient to cure the disease at that point. its the situation where man accepts 10 years left because the medication is slowly killing him rather than quitting the medication and risk the disease coming back and killing him sooner, but theres also a chance it wont come back at all, so is it worth living 10 years in a state of mediocrity, or risking the fact you could live longer and, regardless of how long it ends up being, most importantly in a state of vibrancy until whenever the end does in fact come. nihilism is just surrender, and exhaustion in the face of resistance, its consequence is a bargain for a debilitating certainty over an uncertain hope and leads to nothing but a grey existence that hardly justifies itself. nihilism clings to the ass end of life and declares it a triumph when it is nothing less than abject cowardice and capitulation in the face of the enemy. its a negotiated death, and the life that fills that borrowed time is hardly life at all. its the life of a slave, a collaborator, that to save his own hide, sells out all values

[WVBRY]

i agree that at a certain point nihilism was a cure but now we're suffering the side effects, and you don't keep taking medication with drawbacks once the disease has been cured. if the idea is but the disease could come back, its just a form of killing the patient to cure the disease at that point. its the situation where man accepts 10 years left because the medication is slowly killing him rather than risk the disease coming back and killing him sooner, but theres also a chance it wont come back at all, so is it worth living 10 years in a state of mediocrity, or risking the fact you could live longer and forever how long live in a state of vibrance until whenever the end does in fact come. nihilism is just surrender, and exhaustion in the face of resistance, its consequence is a bargain for a debilitating certainty over an uncertain hope and leads to nothing but a grey existence that hardly justifies itself

Yeah, if you take away all meaning you take away all the bad stuff produced by man, as well as all the good stuff, mainly because you take away responsibility.

By doing nothing you bring nothing detrimental to mankind, but nothing good either...

[Aramas]

i agree that at a certain point nihilism was a cure but now we're suffering the side effects, and you don't keep taking medication with drawbacks once the disease has been cured. if the idea is but the disease could come back, its just a form of killing the patient to cure the disease at that point. its the situation where man accepts 10 years left because the medication is slowly killing him rather than quitting the medication and risk the disease coming back and killing him sooner, but theres also a chance it wont come back at all, so is it worth living 10 years in a state of mediocrity, or risking the fact you could live longer and, regardless of how long it ends up being, most importantly in a state of vibrancy until whenever the end does in fact come. nihilism is just surrender, and exhaustion in the face of resistance, its consequence is a bargain for a debilitating certainty over an uncertain hope and leads to nothing but a grey existence that hardly justifies itself. nihilism clings to the ass end of life and declares it a triumph when it is nothing less than abject cowardice and capitulation in the face of the enemy. its a negotiated death, and the life that fills that borrowed time is hardly life at all. its the life of a slave, a collaborator, that to save his own hide, sells out all values

We haven't seen nihilism yet lol. Well, most people haven't. They're still wrapped up in their illusions.

[Myst]

No it's not. Nihilism is accepting the nothingness of the universe. Probably all the greatest ills ever created in the history of mankind all came about because someone tried to impose meaning and an ideal. You want death? Look at the war between capitalism and communism, or the war between religions. All the death that comes from people who try to say their meanings are the right ones, all the shoulds and oughts, all the made-up bullshit that people try to push. Choose nihilism and you take away the justification for all that crap.

So much for that LSI-Se typing in your profile

[Bertrand]

I don't think being LSI means taking sides between capitalism and communism, so much as developing a side in some way shape or form. I think nihilism is the post-modern stance as of right now, so it would make sense for LSIs growing up since the 60s to assume that position. In essence its a 3rd way generated by the universities. Its got elements to a global struggle to it in the negative stance of anti colonialism and so on. I think its attraction is because it entails an element of structural coherence in relegating morality to a properly subordinate position within the hierarchy, which is to say, to be disregarded in lieu of other more primary factors and so forth. in any case like I said, at one time nihilism had a productive role to fill so of course it would have its adherents, the point is people have given up their say because nihilism has turned into apathy, and they're not the same thing. apathy just shrinks in the face of a resurgent neo-colonialism. it declares it illegitimate but does nothing, this form of nihilism is ignoble. it gives up its vote and ensures a negative result. these are the donald trump years as a consequence, nihilism doesn't really make things better so much as let anyone willing to be "worse" triumph. its an illusory high ground, that denies all high grounds and declares itself king, but in the end abdicates its throne in reality to whatever charlatan feels up to it

[Myst]

I don't think being LSI means taking sides between capitalism and communism, so much as developing a side in some way shape or form. I think nihilism is the post-modern stance as of right now, so it would make sense for LSIs growing up since the 60s to assume that position.

I was not referring to communism/capitalism, but referring to taking a firm stance. Postmodern nihilism is hardly that.

[Aramas]

So much for that LSI-Se typing in your profile

Quit being a bitch, Myst. No one cares what you have to say with an attitude like that.

[Myst]

Quit being a bitch, Myst. No one cares what you have to say with an attitude like that.

You don't have to care but it's funny you are trying to speak for all other people at the same time

And yeah, I was serious, that what you wrote really goes against that typing. This has nothing to do with whatever attitudes you imagined into my post - I was being a bit provocative, yes , and a bit ironic, but nothing more than that.

[0i0]

No it's not. Nihilism is accepting the nothingness of the universe. Probably all the greatest ills ever created in the history of mankind all came about because someone tried to impose meaning and an ideal. You want death? Look at the war between capitalism and communism, or the war between religions. All the death that comes from people who try to say their meanings are the right ones, all the shoulds and oughts, all the made-up bullshit that people try to push. Choose nihilism and you take away the justification for all that crap.

I understand the logic behind it, but it makes me feel like murdering my soul as I'm reading these lines and it's telling me this will never end up well. I think this is way too extreme, and if faith leads us to war, maybe it's not the kind of faith we need. But living without any faith in meaning - explain it to me, so I can see it better. What would that be like? How would it look like on a daily level? No faith in people around you, in beauty, or anything in a higher term, only seeing "I like/love this person", or "this is a beautiful piece of art"? Wouldn't feelings an art automatically create meaning in us? Isn't meaning that keeps us driven in hard times? So should we cut it out, because it feels less painful, when we feel and believe nothing? Isn't this what many people do? How are their lives going on, are they happy? Is war something that will only happen if you have meaning, or is it something that can also happen because of the lack of it (money as a master)?
So we should defeat something that's a sign of extremism by doing it's polar opposite that's also extremism, and leads us to the same place (war)?
Or we should just make people weak, depressed and lonely, lacking any meaning so they wouldn't fight?

What's the argument?

We haven't seen nihilism yet lol. Well, most people haven't. They're still wrapped up in their illusions.

Can you show it to me?

I was not referring to communism/capitalism, but referring to taking a firm stance. Postmodern nihilism is hardly that.

Yep. This statement gave me shivers. It is a "firm stance" with crumbles under your feet, that can collapse any time, since you threw out the baby with the bathwater (traditions, values, beauty, inquisitiveness and humbleness towards the unknow). You can't take a firm stance on something like this, I imagine it would crumble and fall apart, yearning for something more.

Edit: Grammar

[WVBRY]

I was not referring to communism/capitalism, but referring to taking a firm stance. Postmodern nihilism is hardly that.

A person can take a firm stance on the question of nihilism though (I feel Aramas did exactly that).

[squark]

A mislabeled yardstick will never tell you the true measure of a thing.




-Brought to you by squark's fortune cookie wisdom. Enjoy.

[Myst]

A person can take a firm stance on the question of nihilism though (I feel Aramas did exactly that).

This kind of argument is relativizing what is meant by firm stance, sorry.

EDIT: I accidentally added the rest in a new post below. Please read that instead.

[Myst]

A person can take a firm stance on the question of nihilism though (I feel Aramas did exactly that).

This kind of argument is relativizing what is meant by firm stance, sorry.

EDIT: See more below.


@Kara - exactly yeah. I think if you want to live tangibly in the real world then you have to actually focus i.e. choose something.

As for the Socionics angle for my statement here: I think that's the Se/Ni stance... Ne could look at anything and then go around and pick something else in their imagination, remaining noncommittal beyond a point, which isn't conducive to make a firm decision for the matters of tangible reality. And that to Se is really unacceptable.

Then Ni really complements the Se approach well, obviously, by having the abstract meaning for Se. That you spoke of above in detail.

This is overall already quite decisive perceptions compared to Ne/Si perceptions. Updates are possible if something changes in the perception of things but there is an actually decisive direction overall with Se/Ni.

Then if you apply a Ti judgment on top of all the perception, for LSI it makes the perception itself unchangeable too (unless of course there is a really justified reason to update things) so the resulting extra firm stance definitely becomes the complete opposite of what all that postmodern nihilism advertises.


And all this is in line with the Socionics model....

[Aramas]

nihilism doesn't make sense to me - a belief in the lack of beliefs? Like atheism being a faith in an absence, rather than an absence of faith, nihilism seems to be a clinging to a belief in the meaninglessness of having beliefs to begin with. . .

That said, as already pointed out, a person's beliefs aren't type-limited.

Nihilism isn't a belief in lack of beliefs lol. It's a position stating that the universe lacks objective meaning.

You can make up your own subjective meaning if you feel like it. There's nothing stopping you from doing so. But that meaning remains inside yourself.

You could ask, "Well, what's the point?" But there doesn't have to be one.

[Aramas]

This kind of argument is relativizing what is meant by firm stance, sorry.

No, it doesn't.

[Myst]

No, it doesn't.

What you see as being imposed needlessly by some people and what your nihilism tries to ignore is what I'm speaking of here (and no, I do not think it's an all-unhealthy approach, it is very needed for some things, even if it can have unhealthy manifestations that you rightly complain about). Instead you are trying to go for the idea of complete relativism without there being any point to anything. You can say you intend to consistently stick to this overall idea but beyond this idea, what can you do with any firm stance to be applied in the real world? It would contradict your overall idea here.

This is why I said it flies in the face of the typing in your profile. I do know you are not taking that typing too seriously so I didn't assume you would be insulted by me questioning it here, again, I intended no bad attitude about it.

If this post doesn't clarify my pov on all this, then I won't try at communicating it to you again, unless you genuinely want to understand.

[WVBRY]

This kind of argument is relativizing what is meant by firm stance, sorry.

Because you're thinking firm stance in a philosophical sense, for example the law of non-contradiction.

I meant it in the sense of what expressing opinions firmly means from the standpoint of psychology, which is type related. It is not the contents of those opinions which matter, since that is not type related. It is the manner in which it is forumulated and expressed I am talking about.

The form is related to IMs, the content is not.

Philosophy is not type related, since there are philosophies which are more beneficial to mankind and others more detrimental, I have a hard time seeing how you could justify philosophy being type related without saying certian types are more beneificial to mankind and others less. Unless that is exactly what you are arguing, which I can accept, though it seems a little bias given you are associating relativism with not being LSI and you self-type as LSI...

I personally agree that relativism is an untenable stance, but I don't view doms as exempt from logical error, just as doms are not exempt from moral ones, so I don't see the relevance of type to this.

[Myst]

Because you're thinking firm stance in a philosophical sense, for example the law of non-contradiction.

I explained in my posts above (both to you and to Aramas) what I mean by it, if anything in those posts is unclear, feel free to ask.

I meant it in the sense of what expressing opinions firmly means from the standpoint of psychology, which is type related. It is not the contents of those opinions which matter, since that is not type related. It is the manner in which it is forumulated and expressed I am talking about.

The form is related to IMs, the content is not.

The content can be related when it expresses fundamental things about views that are directly pertinent to information processing. A lot of content isn't like that, sure, I agree there, but some do show such stuff too.

Philosophy is not type related, since there are philosophies which are more beneficial to mankind and others more detrimental, I have a hard time seeing how you could justify philosophy being type related without saying certian types are more beneificial to mankind and others less. Unless that is exactly what you are arguing, which I can accept, though it seems a little bias given you are associating relativism with not being LSI and you self-type as LSI...

You did not fully read my post to you above where I clearly noted that all this is in line with the theory.

It has nothing to do with my self-typing, delusions about my attitude regarding that don't interest me.

And, I did not say philosophy and type have a 1:1 correspondence, so the rest is strawman here.

And I most definitely did not claim that some types are more beneficial... WTF, how did you even get this far from what I did actually say?

I personally agree that relativism is an untenable stance, but I don't view doms as exempt from logical error, just as doms are not exempt from moral ones, so I don't see the relevance of type to this.

This isn't really about being free of logical errors or not. It's more about what kind of viewing the world is required to take this stance. (Ofc some non-type related factors may be required too, but this as above is a prerequisite imo.) And again I fleshed it out above. Like I said if anything is unclear, please ask, instead of strawmanning.


PS: Nothing personal against you btw.

[WVBRY]

PS: Nothing personal against you btw.

Alright, I don't feel like continuing this debate though, I don't really see the point, since it started over a comment that was only semi-serious and so I don't think my being right here or your being right here is worth fighting for, lol.

Btw, I am not sure why you say I had misundertsood your argument in your response to Kara. Is not what you meant that Se/Ni is not going to be relativist because Se chooses to focus on something and Ni is likely to give that focus meaning? If yes, all I'm saying in my initial response to you is that you can still focus on objects while being a nihilist. The "meaning", the Ni in other words, is likely to be there anyways, just that it is not given a formal philosophical structure. In other words, the person will adopt nihilism, but will still value and give meaning to certain things, and will still be decisive in personal matters. Not everyone has a philosophy that reflects their nature, some people adopt philosophies for some quite personal reasons.

Btw I have 666 posts, lol.

[Myst]

Alright, I don't feel like continuing this debate though, I don't really see the point, since it started over a comment that was only semi-serious and so I don't think my being right here or your being right here is worth fighting for, lol.

Btw, I am not sure why you say I had misundertsood your argument in your response to Kara. Is not what you meant that Se/Ni is not going to be relativist because Se chooses to focus on something and Ni is likely to give that focus meaning? If yes, all I'm saying in my initial response to you is that you can still focus on objects while being a nihilist. The "meaning", the Ni in other words, is likely to be there anyways, just that it is not given a formal philosophical structure. In other words, the person will adopt nihilism, but will still value and give meaning to certain things, and will still be decisive in personal matters. Not everyone has a philosophy that reflects their nature, some people adopt philosophies for some quite personal reasons.

Ok. Btw I said that because you seemed to have a very different line of reasoning. That I never had in mind. And yeah you summed up that ok though there was also the role of Ti judgment too about making that focus definite and far from not prioritizing anything at all.

And yah people can pick philosophies for just personal reasons but Aramas already fleshed out his views and they were not simply personal reasons but in full agreement with the idea itself philosophically and that's where it becomes related to type. And of course I'm not saying there can't be more than one way to agree with a philosophical idea directly but in this case it's imo quite clear how the reasoning shows information processing preferences.

Btw I have 666 posts, lol.

[0i0]

A person can take a firm stance on the question of nihilism though (I feel Aramas did exactly that).

I didn't get into the debate you and Myst had, but there was something that bothered me with this statement, so I'll try to figure it out what it was.

I understand what you mean in the sentence above, but without, the convictions one would need to take a firm stance (since we are against any convictions, when we lose faith), would it be a firm stance?

I might started to mix faith and meaning somewhere above, and use it here incorrectly, but let me try. I guess it all boils down to the question how faith and convictions are connected to meaning.

So a stance needs either faith or convictions. Faith I think is a form of search for meaning. One can say convictions doesn't need faith, only facts, but I think accepting facts as facts needs a kind of faith (for example accepting certain reality as reality).

I didn't want to derail your debate though, sorry, I just wanted to add this question/comment.

Because you're thinking firm stance in a philosophical sense, for example the law of non-contradiction.
I meant it in the sense of what expressing opinions firmly means from the standpoint of psychology, which is type related. It is not the contents of those opinions which matter, since that is not type related. It is the manner in which it is forumulated and expressed I am talking about.

I can't add much to the type and function debate that's been going on, but this sentence really reminds me for some reason a Ti and Te viewpoint of difference. And also this picture: