Ah, okay. I rather wondered if I had misunderstood you. There were so many commas. Soooo many commas!
-
OK, it's on.
-
Ah, okay. I rather wondered if I had misunderstood you. There were so many commas. Soooo many commas!
Logike, Philogike, and Nil are my faves but I tend toward shorter names. Portmanteau of philosophia is fun but a little unwieldy. Also, take into account the various ways in which members will shorten your name if you have a long one. Sometimes it's important to take evasive maneuvers.
[BIMG]http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/17500/Giant-Dolphin-17654.jpg[/BIMG]
This was my last avatar.
Lol. Sounds like the usual INTP conundrum.
What do you think society's morality is?
Just for my own reference... words not in quotation marks have some meaning, while a word in quotation marks implies that the word is taken without any associations, purely for the purpose of unbiasedly defining it. I don't know how that will work out. literal string constant vs. variable is a notable comparison.
Since we are getting into "values" and "morality", we are discussing something many regard as "subjective" so, in the end, I will have to define my "morality" and yours too. We can start with questions if you want.
What is justice(morality)?
You make an interesting relationship by mentioning soul. Yes, I think it must relate to the soul.
Now, for the scenario you mentioned:
1. Do B and A play an important role....in the measure of success...
It depends on how one personally defines success. But, based on my own theory which I relate to CF theory, I believe it is intrinsically "success" and valued healthily by a type of people. On the other hand, Perceivers should not even bother with grades, unless having an "A" leads them to a greater situation. If they do act based exclusively on goals, then they would only corrupt the truth of their natural being.
2. Even a tiny disruption, a situation wherein a person is disadvantaged against another, is an issue of negative morality. So, in this sense, it is wrong because you are creating an unfair advantage against all those who worked as hard as you did.
Throughout history, Humans, amongst many other species, have been very different. Perhaps you may find it ethnocentric of me to assume that only humans have this freewill. Still, isn't sentience the mark of freedom?
It is heightened awareness, and who do you think has the most freedom amongst humans? Is it not the most "sentient"?
I seem to be on a roll with the winking smiley!
That's better
I would never have considered myself 'J', nor tested as such. The stereotypes are inadequate. Which isn't to certainly say that you are as well. So many permutations of personality....
The 'road' is so central to the mythic journey, regardless of the culture... the mythic journey is so central to life... I can hardly imagine anything which sums up life so poetically.
Well, actually, there are inumerable poetic metaphors - as many as there are roads. Ahh... the beauty of subjectivity. Such circularity
Thank you, so do I ^^
I must say, they're pretty representative of a non-dualist philosophical perspective... which may be an inclination of the INFJ mind. Or may not
Well this idea reminds me of probability. What have you learned about probability? What about Pascal and the probability theory? YouTube - IFA.com - Probability Machine, Galton Board, Randomness and Fair Price Simulator, Quincunx
I hear that every outcome has a rational cause to it. Well, of course. I just wonder what factors causes each every ball to land on each of their "not-random" result.
Nin. I am also exhausted. It is not like direct talk, where I can lazy off the quality of my speeches without filter. I'd have more freedom in uttering nonsense. The speed of input is faster as well, so chances of input interception is also higher. Eeh, I pray for your safe travels.
I haven't heard from ye. Is there a problem? I noticed I was arrogant with my assumption but I expect you to view it as mere proposition. Expression is easier if you go via a direct route you see. Of course, this idea too is out of my own formulation.
It helps to know what you really want or require, but how much can we know with our limited vision? We are inclined towards the present---a one dimensional POV---and, as a consequence, it becomes difficult for us to accurately evaluate importance. In addition to limited perception, our own habit of assumption bolsters the speed of our own ignorance. In this way, we blind ourselves...unknowingly. We fear not knowing anything, therefore, we make excuses and change reality to calm ourselves down; we fool ourselves into believing that we know, for our own psychological safety. In society, the government tells lies and the multitude believes obediently---not out of analysis, but out of fear for a worse scenario. They control the masses with knowledge of psychology.
I do not value setting goals but I do think it is universally helpful. That is, in the long run. I do think that you want to do something but, by time, you just don't know it.
So we won't ever be satisfied then? Then why do we still want improvement? Why do we still complain?
------
Execution, in accordance with planning, soothes cogitation in that the raw thought-produced theoretical form is transformed into a more tangible conclusion. It's like Ne to Si, if you understand that. What I think is universally lacking in tge INTP personality is action, and a way to motivate yourself into engagement is by being excited in the concrete formation of your abstract thought. The more efficient you are in the transition of think then act, the more satisfied and stimulated you'll be in the long run. Of course, these are just my own theories.
The laughing is about a highly personal probably boring scenario, so I probably decided to share the laughs instead, which I think are more interesting in comparison. On second thought, I probably just felt like writing it.
---------
It's good to want improvement, but how much improvement is enough?
----------
If you're bored, create a bold plan. Scare your teachers or sumtin.
--------
Hm...yeah, they're pretty attached to their reality. But you can't really live in the hypothetical, can you?
EDIT: What doesn't happen is not what is considered reality and therefore focusing on what's unreal is rather unproductive to many.
What will constitute our transcendence?
Hahahaha (laughs for a few minutes) hahahahah (ends). Why are we always complaining?
hahaha. why is action so tough? hahaha.
What are your plans? You should be scheming something.
slightly ill, my soul has reached a new level of degeneration (by Platonic standards).
And ye?
I guess you hit a good spot. People are sight-creatures; they are visual-oriented. Most cannot see the soul, most only see the body. And most will definitely judge confidently on what is physical, and more than any other standard of judgement. But is it right for you to have intention on controlling people's judgement so significantly?
Dude, I do not think of ideas or thinking as simple in comparison to everything else in reality or in society, therefore, I've never really felt awed by its power. ...or maybe I have once in my life but I do not remember.
All of manmade progress lies on ideas/thinking.
Humans being subjective with the tendency of being irrational relative to their values is logical.
Emotion is a part of humans. It defines goals and wants and so it itself is not necessarily illogical but the relationship between emotion and the means can be irrational. The only problem with emotion is its purpose. "why does it exist?". What function does this part of humanity serve? Why are there emotions? Why should we feel this way? It's origins.
Perhaps science has given an answer in the form that it allows human's to exist and survive, and evolution is the source of emotion. but why is there evolution? why do we need to survive?
----
Well, a problem I see with your argument is that you've already assumed what 'reality' is.
"But perhaps things don't always happen in reality as simply as they could happen."
What do you mean in reality? By what measurement? How is logic an ideal?
I wouldn't say solely. Instead, empiricism places more emphasis on sense experience than logic in the question of where knowledge comes from.
How can a situation be illogical? Can the world exist without proper balance and a standard? How'd you think an illogical world would behave?
How is "empiricism" the exact opposite of philosophy? Isn't empiricism itself a part of epistemological philosophy?
I agree the rationalism makes the most sense as it bases itself purely on reason.
But tell me, what "advantages/disadvantages" you are talking about?Well in terms of targeting motivations and fears I think it's highly accurate. What really interests me are the theories on self-actualization and levels of healthiness. My favorite sites are 9types.com and enneagraminstitute.com
Don't listen to everyone else for Socionics, the only way is to type yourself. Are you easily aware of immoral acts, or acts when someone is treated unfairly? And does that make you want to stand up? In another way when someone gives you sincere personal inspiration do you begin to feel confident to handle matters in the outside world?
Or are you instantly aware of unhealthy things like dirt and grime everywhere and are worrying about germs. Also constantly worrying about not eating right or getting enough exercise? Basically are you usually high strung and do you feel motivated to relax and be happy when someone reassures you of those things?Well yeah, I'm really into Socionics for its inter-type relationship system, but it's highly contradictory as for typing. The Enneagram is pretty interesting, but it's only good for self help. All the others pretty much say the same thing, 'cept Keirsey is advanced MBTI. Idk, I guess it's all unhealthy in the end though.
What I use now is Wikisocion, Socionics.us, Socionics.com, and Socionics.org.
Oh thanks. the two avatars I've had seem to draw a lot of attention.
Someone else was asking about it a few days ago and I showed them this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flammarion_woodcut in case you're at all interested.
Lol. I understand and I will not apologize because ultimately you had a choice. I'd just like to thank you for the conversation.
True, empiricism can be a 'subset' of rationalism and vice versa. But my question is based on the original proposition of science; its reliance on sense experience. Where is the proof? Or is a proof unnecessary?
I will not pardon your ignorance. I will sentence you to death. Lol.
Um, how much rational is the physical reality compared to the theistic reality?
Ok, dude. I hope your ready for this, I'm going to question your beliefs on the rationality of relying on empirical proof.
How is empiricism rational?
Ahh, forgive me. You've touched a soft spot of mine. Think of philosophy as math. The standard of math is the logic itself. There is truth in philosophy, as a matter of fact, there is probably more truth to it than any science fact. Granted, only if specified philosophy is logical.
I think the broadest definition for philosophy is the study of something, which means you can include religion but I think there's a separation there somewhere. Probably about which propositions are accepted and which deductions can be made. Which actually makes me think that experimentation and science is a part of philosophy.. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.
Of course not. Type define: philosophy in google. Philosophy relies on reason. Seriously, Empiricism is the irrational one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
Rational is directly connected to the word reason, it's not directly connected to our basic senses.
You can, however, have illogical philosophies, in which case, the math is just wrong.
Awesome. Though (here we go again), why are you sorry? Don't you think it's weird that you apologized and said "sorry for the life rant"? Is it an ethical obligation or something?
Anyways, thanks for the compliment. As much as I hate to say it, they affect me a LOT. Which reminds me, I have this teacher who told me she'd publish my essay on so and so and man, I felt so bad. She clearly overestimated my abilities. Inaccurate praises hurts as much as insults. I'm not saying I think you gauge me wrong; I know I have excellent questions.
I seem to keep pushing towards the topic of "values", if you notice. -might make a thread on that.
So, let's see, what is with science that you like? (related to values again, heh)
Of course. I actually often mention these ways of analyzation in my posts and the socratic method is one of my favorite means of communication delivery as I can make others understand where I'm coming from bit by bit without them losing control of their independence. I have also practiced it without even me being conscious of it, without me defining it. I really think it's a natural "Ti-Ne" way of interaction. Another way that I like to express myself is via blatant assertion. It's the opposite of making a point indirectly and some people understand this form better, though it's a bit vague and less experimental and open compared to 'free-flow' questions.
Did you have anything in mind while mentioning this to me?
Deconstruction is another term for it though I'm not sure about their differences and similarities. I'm fairly familiar with the activity and it's quite peculiar how my 'why' questions would always lead me to values. (and subjectivity but I'm focusing on values for now.)
Ok. Dude.
Oh, I see. You are referring to your perception of 'Art'? Well, I think art isn't always good.
If personal aesthetics can be reasonably construed as something morally, then is aesthetics a moral obligation?
Yes, I think "taste" can be bad. (I'm talking about pedophiles and murdering maniacs.)
Or maybe I'm not understanding something here?
Don't you think it could be worse?
What do you think you'll think when your society intermediately attunes to your own standard?
Why do you think it "sucks"?
It's not obvious to me but I still want to clarify that when I say "mind", I do not mean "care".
I hear the condition in NC is not so well. How is society there?
It's up to you. I don't mind abstract answers as well. In fact, I don't mind if you don't answer.
So where do you live?
You make a good point. How different is our internal standard from the our "perceived" external standard? I used "perceived" since we're not always sure about the external standard(?)
How much do you think external opinions affect you? Compared to your own internal standard?
I have the strange feeling that you are conducting a manipulating experiment on me...
In my opinion, there is innately positive stimulation. Doing things for the sake of doing. Being just for the sake of being just. I got nothing to back my proposition, but someday..I'll think of something.
For now, "everything is neutral". Or am I misunderstanding something here? To what standard are you basing your positive vs. neutral vs. negative? -
Loading…
-
Loading…
-
Loading…