Does your logical/analytical side bother you?

[Ostriker]

I am recently finding that my analytical side is overbearing my emotional side (obviously) to the point where it is destroying my ability to find beauty in the world. When I think less, I can see beauty in many aspects of life. My artistic side usually reawakens and I become inspired to draw or write a song. I think I am in general happier when I analyze things less. But when my analytical side rears its ugly head unexpectedly, all beauty seems lost on me. I just see the world/people as a bunch of turning cogs and gears. It bores me. I feel nothing and my view of the world becomes cold and lifeless. I feel that I need to work on burying my analytical side. Anybody else know what I mean?

 

[Cognisant]

I'm currently imagining a giant underground sphere with you inside, it's a cage that's perfectly dark inside and sitting on silent rollers so no matter which direction you travel the floor unreceptively moves beneath you, giving you the experience of being on an endless flat plane in total darkness.

Watching you slowly go mad... It's my happy place.

 

[Yet]

Hi Ostriker,

Ik can imagine what you're going on about ... I do recognize it. But I do not put it down to my logical/analytical side. It has everything to do with the mental state I am in. Sometimes I just get cynical and nihilistic.

I find that if I am not in that sort of mood my analytical/logical side adds in an amazing way extra's on the beauty I see. I find the way things work itself beautifull. The intricate relationships. So there is the aesthetic side (colord shape whatever) and there is the deep-within how it works-side that amazes me on top of that. Kind of hypnotizing.

When I am in a really relaxed good mood that sort of stuff keeps me in an occupied, thinking, wondering stage for quite a while. Almost everything becomes interesting when you think of the mechanics, correlations and causality. Even a lot of people walking about like an antcollony.

PS excuse my spelling, not native lingo

PS god I sound autistic ... I am not by the way... I think

 

[scorpiomover]

Ti needs to be kept under control, or it can rip everything apart, including itself.

 

[Lydia]

Sometimes it would, but I would say the emotional side somehow gets more domineering. Leaves me feeling uncomfortable and bothered.

I prefer to keep them both separate, if left emotionally driven -- Then so I be it. If numb and emotionally tarnished --- Then I simple myself and stick to logics.

 

[Pyropyro]

You don't need to bury Ti, you need to develop your Fe and Si to balance its influence

My emotional side bothers me more especially if it gets into the driver's seat.

I think the Ti and Ne is actually useful to capture beauty but it takes the Fe and the Si to appreciate it. I like things that I understand or trying to understand more than things that I still yet to study.

For example, I know that "love at first sight" is merely a series of chemical releases (especially dopamine) that messes up your brain but I still treat it as a magical and wonderful thing.

 

[Nibbler]

I just see the world/people as a bunch of turning cogs and gears. It bores me.

I know this. I call it my "soul sucking" feeling. I used to work at a major corporation. I'd pull into the lot, the top level of a complex and sit there surveying all the brick buildings with all the little windows with all the little ants in them.

Sometimes I'd take the Metro (in DC). I'd imagine "MOOOOO!" and cowbell sounds as we all stampeded around the stations getting from one people funnel to the next.

When this occurs, I begin to yearn for more emotion in my life. After I worked at that corporation (I got laid off--dotcom bust) I saw it as an opportunity to find my creative side. I got a gig at a professional theatre.

Talk about one extreme to the next. The people there were so emotionally chaotic, I crashed and burned in a year and a half.

Now I'm in academics. ( breathes in.... "Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh.....")

 

[SpaceYeti]

I am recently finding that my analytical side is overbearing my emotional side (obviously) to the point where it is destroying my ability to find beauty in the world. When I think less, I can see beauty in many aspects of life. My artistic side usually reawakens and I become inspired to draw or write a song. I think I am in general happier when I analyze things less. But when my analytical side rears its ugly head unexpectedly, all beauty seems lost on me. I just see the world/people as a bunch of turning cogs and gears. It bores me. I feel nothing and my view of the world becomes cold and lifeless. I feel that I need to work on burying my analytical side. Anybody else know what I mean?

No. I have no idea what you're on about. It sounds to me like you're simply getting depressed, hence your dislike of the state. If you were truly lacking emotional connection, you'd simply not care. So a psychologist.

 

[Philosophyking87]

I am recently finding that my analytical side is overbearing my emotional side (obviously) to the point where it is destroying my ability to find beauty in the world. When I think less, I can see beauty in many aspects of life. My artistic side usually reawakens and I become inspired to draw or write a song. I think I am in general happier when I analyze things less. But when my analytical side rears its ugly head unexpectedly, all beauty seems lost on me. I just see the world/people as a bunch of turning cogs and gears. It bores me. I feel nothing and my view of the world becomes cold and lifeless. I feel that I need to work on burying my analytical side. Anybody else know what I mean?

Yup. It's precisely because of my Introverted Thinking that I am essentially a pessimist. My analytical mind has a very nasty tendency to wear everything down to a nub. In fact, I ultimately logically hold that life itself is not worth living (for many reasons - mostly negative, as my mind tends to always focus on the harshness of reality). And oddly enough, I find that the only reason to live at all is ultimately founded upon some emotional/instinctive/irrational basis (hence, the fact that I am not dead.)

And yes, the only time I ever truly feel happy or content is when my analytical mind turns off and I can actually find some time to admire life rather than reject it. In fact, the only time I've ever truly turned off my analytical mind was when I first fell in love -- everything was pleasant, vibrant, and warm; after a while, however, my cold, ruthless thinking eventually resurfaced and I haven't felt very happy since.

Also, I suffered from a rather severe existential crisis a few years ago that truly rocked the foundations of my mind, as Ti essentially turned on itself and almost sent me into the looney farm.

/realspeak

 

[Jennywocky]

Ti needs to be kept under control, or it can rip everything apart, including itself.

yeah. Definitely for the artists, we have to be able to detach from the Ti thing at least until after the brainstorming stage is down. It's like dissecting a live cat to figure out what a cat is... and we end up with a pile of furry glop... never really figuring out the cat in the process.

I like my thinking side, but sometimes it becomes a burden -- when i wish I could just let go and experience in the moment and feel spontaneous emotion and not aways be subjecting everything to rational scrutiny. I've become freer as I age, but sometimes it still feels confining even while in other situations I really love who I am.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I find that the only reason to live at all is ultimately founded upon some emotional/instinctive/irrational basis.

You know, emotions aren't an innately bad thing. I could see how this stuff would bother people if they thought emotion was bad. Any and all preferences, enjoyment, and happiness is an emotion or based upon emotion.

So what? Thinking and Feeling are not mutually exclusive or enemies or contradictory or anything. Get over your stupid thinking.

 

[Cognisant]

Also, I suffered from a rather severe existential crisis a few years ago that truly rocked the foundations of my mind, as Ti essentially turned on itself and almost sent me into the looney farm.

And you're a better person for it, as contrived as the definition of “better” may be... you know what I mean.

 

[Philosophyking87]

You know, emotions aren't an innately bad thing. I could see how this stuff would bother people if they thought emotion was bad. Any and all preferences, enjoyment, and happiness is an emotion or based upon emotion.

So what? Thinking and Feeling are not mutually exclusive or enemies or contradictory or anything. Get over your stupid thinking.

It's not about whether emotions are "bad." It's about the fact that if life is based on irrational emotional urges, then there is no truly rational, intelligent basis on which we can understand life. Hence, the point is more that emotions merely aren't optimal as answers to questions asked during a rational, logical analysis of life. And a life which cannot be rationally accounted for is ultimately an absurd, logically empty life based on no valid cause or justification - just incidental feelings, urges, and instincts that spring from this relatively frail and petty organic condition. So I suppose one could say it's more a matter of logical/rational standards, and that life cannot ever meet these standards just based on emotion (as of course, emotion is irrational). Or, to put it even more simply, that emotion is not necessarily sufficient (which of course depends upon one's perspective of the matter).

Hence the term, "rational suicide."

Many may disagree, but I do think it's possible to end one's life on a rational basis - to hold that life itself is not rationally worth living, if indeed all we can expect in this life is irrational emotional urges (where no logic can exist) and pain, suffering, aging, and other horrible experiences that even the most glorious and wonderful experiences in the world may not seem to redeem, from a purely rational evaluation of such experiences. I don't believe all suicides inherently indicate some form of depression; I think some are justified.

Thus, I personally persist on the basis that the pain/emotion isn't too bad (in the sense that the insufficiency of emotion and the general unpleasantness of this harsh animal condition isn't necessarily worth oblivion over). But who knows, things may change. I've been just tolerant enough of this animal life to get this far, but I could easily get to a point (perhaps past the age of 40) where I really do not judge that sort of condition of living (when you are constantly in and out of hospitals, on all kinds of medicines, and hardly capable of utilizing the various five senses) to be worth the ultimate torment.

Rational suicide is the reason-guided decision to end one's life, specifically, when these reasons are the result of an indifferent or temperate weighing of pros and cons. It has been argued that a suicide can be rational and still nonetheless be a mistake.[1] Rational suicide is sometimes viewed as a subjective concept; Jerome Motto writes, "What may be an inconvenience, a source of discomfort, or an embarrassment to one person represents unbearable agony, excruciating pain, or intolerable humiliation to another."[2] One study of mental health counselors found that 80% of respondents were moderately supportive of the idea that people can make well-reasoned decisions that death is their best option.[3] It is believed that in coming years clinicians will increasingly be confronted by patients declaring their intention to exercise their right-to-suicide or to commit what they describe as a rational suicide.[4] The “received orthodoxy” of mental health professionals for more than a century views all suicides as irrational and holds that suicidal persons should always be prevented from ending their own lives.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_suicide


I clearly do not agree with received orthodoxy. As far as I'm concerned, there is no logic for living, such that every person must subjectively weigh the pros and cons of the human condition. Either this emotional, irrational animal life is tolerable and hence deemed as worthy, or it is not. So it ultimately comes down to each individual to assess the state of things for themselves and act accordingly, as far as I'm concerned.

And you're a better person for it, as contrived as the definition of “better” may be... you know what I mean.

I'm not so sure about that.
I merely am a person still.
Once you get the point that you realize there's no logical reason to continue to allow this particular condition of living to persist (from an objective, philosophical, universal perspective), you really just sort of see life as something you're sort of waiting to end... like a mildly entertaining movie you don't entirely care for but don't judge worth walking out on. (Jeez. I'm starting to sound like George Carlin.)

At any rate, my Ti, at that time, destroyed any real reason to see life from an optimistic perspective to such an extent that I basically had to turn it off completely for a while -- avoid ALL philosophical rumination altogether for about a year -- and just takes things as they come. So far, it's been fairly simple. But my Ti is always tempted to start attacking this human condition from the inside out. It gets very annoying trying to keep a remotely positive outlook on life when you have this fiend constantly wanting to devour all of life and everything in sight.

Maybe if I somehow altered my highest function (if it's at all possible) and somehow managed to develop my Fi, I'd then be better. Ti is a self-killing machine.

 

[SpaceYeti]

It's not about whether emotions are "bad." It's about the fact that if life is based on irrational emotional urges, then there is no truly rational, intelligent basis on which we can understand life. Hence, the point is more that emotions merely aren't optimal as answers to questions asked during a rational, logical analysis of life. And a life which cannot be rationally accounted for is ultimately an absurd, logically empty life based on no valid cause or justification - just incidental feelings, urges, and instincts that spring from this relatively frail and petty organic condition. So I suppose one could say it's more a matter of logical/rational standards, and that life cannot ever meet these standards just based on emotion (as of course, emotion is irrational). Or, to put it even more simply, that emotion is not necessarily sufficient (which of course depends upon one's perspective of the matter).

That's just not true. Just because emotion is the cause of values doesn't mean life cannot be understood rationally. Jumping to that conclusion is just plain silly. Logic and reason are nothing more than tools you use to figure out what's true and how the world works. That's all. Saying life is somehow empty because logic provides no innate value is like saying life is somehow empty because hammers provide no innate value. Neither logic nor reason are supposed to provide value. That's not their job. Emotion must be sufficient because providing the value to life is pretty much the only thing it does. There is no objective or rational reason to live. You live because you were incidentally born, and you want to stay alive. It's that simple.

 

[Reluctantly]

It's not about whether emotions are "bad." It's about the fact that if life is based on irrational emotional urges, then there is no truly rational, intelligent basis on which we can understand life. Hence, the point is more that emotions merely aren't optimal as answers to questions asked during a rational, logical analysis of life. And a life which cannot be rationally accounted for is ultimately an absurd, logically empty life based on no valid cause or justification - just incidental feelings, urges, and instincts that spring from this relatively frail and petty organic condition. So I suppose one could say it's more a matter of logical/rational standards, and that life cannot ever meet these standards just based on emotion (as of course, emotion is irrational). Or, to put it even more simply, that emotion is not necessarily sufficient (which of course depends upon one's perspective of the matter).

You have no idea what you're talking about. Emotions aren't necessarily irrational. It's arguable whether or not thinking itself in its many forms should even be separated from emotion; being alive is arguably an emotion.

PhilosophyKing? How ironic...

Yup. It's precisely because of my Introverted Thinking that I am essentially a pessimist.

If you think emotions are irrational and that Jung's feeling component is about unintelligent irrational feelings and thinking about intelligent rational understanding, your understanding of the functions is highly suspect, but even more importantly, your investigation and knowledge of philosophy is incredibly limited.

That's just not true. Just because emotion is the cause of values doesn't mean life cannot be understood rationally. Jumping to that conclusion is just plain silly. Logic and reason are nothing more than tools you use to figure out what's true and how the world works. That's all. Saying life is somehow empty because logic provides no innate value is like saying life is somehow empty because hammers provide no innate value. Neither logic nor reason are supposed to provide value. That's not their job. Emotion must be sufficient because providing the value to life is pretty much the only thing it does. There is no objective or rational reason to live. You live because you were incidentally born, and you want to stay alive. It's that simple.

Emotion is the cause of values? And being rational isn't?
Ugh, the entire premise of this post is an assumption. You're not even considering the alternative.

 

[MichiganJFrog]

So is Ti the function that causes you to rip yourself a new one periodically?

 

[Pyropyro]

So is Ti the function that causes you to rip yourself a new one periodically?

Nope, an unhealthy Ti does that to you.

 

[MichiganJFrog]

Nope, an unhealthy Ti does that to you.

Tough to hear, but probably useful. Thanks.

 

[Philosophyking87]

Just because emotion is the cause of values doesn't mean life cannot be understood rationally.

Okay. I will allow you to attempt to demonstrate this claim.

If we have irrational urges, instincts, and emotional values (for life) at our core that innately drive us all each and every day, then there is inherently no rational or logical operation which drives us. Foundationally, our core is irrational and can break down no further past that point.

Now, if indeed our core is irrational, explain how life can be understood from a rational perspective.

Logic and reason are nothing more than tools you use to figure out what's true and how the world works... Saying life is somehow empty because logic provides no innate value is like saying life is somehow empty because hammers provide no innate value.

This is a straw man. My argument is not that logic and reason do not provide value, and that therefore life is empty, absurd, and devoid of any real intelligent foundation. My argument is instead that there is no true logical or rational basis to life beyond our irrational values, urges, and instincts which compel us to live, such that life is devoid of any real intelligent, substantive foundation which we could actually analyze rather than passively accept at face value (which I believe every human inherently does). There is no logic or rationality behind our living and in our acceptance of living itself. It all rests upon an irrational foundation.

Neither logic nor reason are supposed to provide value. That's not their job.

Straw man. This claim was never made.

Emotion must be sufficient because providing the value to life is pretty much the only thing it does.

Notice here that you are presuming the notion that life is something to be taken for granted at the very beginning of your reasoning process. Your reasoning is essentially that a) we need to live and b) that emotion provides value to life, therefore, c) emotion must be sufficient to that end. However, my argument is essentially that there is no logic or reason behind your very first premise (i.e., the need to live).

Also notice that this is a profoundly circular type of reasoning. If I ask, "Why do we live," one might answer, "Because we are inherently driven by emotion, urges, and instinctive impulses." Then I can ask, "What's so special about emotion?" One might answer, "Because emotions essentially provide necessary value to life." Thus, one is essentially saying that we live because we need to live (since emotions essentially provide value necessary to live, and that emotions are why we live).

Yet, as I have argued, there is clearly no rational basis behind the notion that we need to live. No satisfactory answer can be given to the question, "Why live?" if our basis for living is always irrational in nature. This very point then must mean that we presume the very value of life before we begin to ask ourselves why we live at all.

Living, then, is baseless, unjustified, and unfounded.
We carry on for no reason whatsoever.

It's the harsh, brutal truth.

There is no objective or rational reason to live. You live because you were incidentally born, and you want to stay alive. It's that simple.

Precisely. The "want to stay alive" is essentially why we live, and it's a highly irrational desire which makes no sense in the very first place. Hence, as I said, life is rationally empty and absurd in sum. As organisms, we must confront the fact that our existence is without a rational/intelligent foundation.

As a result, we face two possibilities:

One, reject life on the basis that it makes no sense (which is called "rational suicide"). Or, we can just continue to take life for granted on the basis that we are just so incredibly compelled by emotion, urges, and instincts to live that life essentially forces itself upon us. In other words, we can either reject life or embrace emotion.

My personal position is that emotion isn't entirely insufficient (from my personal perspective), but I must rationally acknowledge the inherent absurdity of life in the very first place - whether I want to admit it or not. The logic is there which says, "Life is without rational warrant."

Also, I think it's obvious that it takes a lot more strength and courage of conviction and rational capacity to overcome the incredibly strong urge to live just based on brute logic. So any individuals who have (if it's possible) committed "rational suicide" have my respect. Life is inherently stupid (from a purely logical perspective) and really grips us tight and prevents us from going loose. The person so rational that they can essentially overcome this existential grip and follow the logic to its ultimate conclusion is essentially remarkable.

I just personally don't have the ability to overcome this grip, and that's my existential position/situation.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Characteristics of this statement:

* Non-rational discourse
* Mere assertion
* Ad hominem

Advice:

* Make actual arguments
* Support your claims
* Stick to the argument (not the person making it)

Emotions aren't necessarily irrational.

Please elaborate. Again, this is mere assertion.

It's arguable whether or not thinking itself in its many forms should even be separated from emotion.

It would be prudent to elaborate. Why is it arguable? Just stating the notion that it's arguable isn't really relevant to the discussion, as you are providing no substance or support. Thus, this point only makes sense if we are going to actually discuss to what extent thinking is perhaps to be separated from emotion. But until then...

being alive is arguably an emotion

Explain.

PhilosophyKing? How ironic...

Horrible ad hominem. Again, stick to the argument (not the person).

If you think emotions are irrational and that Jung's feeling component is about unintelligent irrational feelings and thinking about intelligent rational understanding, your understanding of the functions is highly suspect, but even more importantly, your investigation and knowledge of philosophy is incredibly limited.

This far too comprised of ad hominems, mere assertions, and baseless suspicions (i.e., too many ifs, yours, and blanket statements). Clean it up, and it might be worth a decent response.

Emotion is the cause of values? And being rational isn't?
Ugh, the entire premise of this post is an assumption. You're not even considering the alternative.

He likely meant "emotion is the cause of basic existential values."
There's a difference.

 

[Words]

It doesn't dim reality for me. In fact, it illuminates it. That is, what is more truthful is more meaningful. yes that it lessens the appreciation of many specific things but yes, too, that it strengthens the appreciation of a few broad things.

 

[snafupants]

Good description of Will, buddy.

I basically view humans as parasites devoid of effable reason for enduring.

Most mages throughout history should/have concluded life is fruitless.

You're right, there is absolutely no need to live. The universe will continue unaltered in any case.

I am starting to find even idealistic entelechy inane.

The funniest phenomenon to me is folks who cling on beyond reason to their deathbed.

They tend paradoxically to be Christian.

Well, considering the average intelligence of humans, the inept societal outcomes are unsurprising.

Near the end you discuss the inability to overcome the grip. My response: drugs.

 

[Philosophyking87]

Indeed. Very nice response, Snafupants.
It seems you and I are both on a similar pessimistic, Schopenhauer-like basis.
I'll have to definitely start reading his work (especially "The World as Will and Representation").

At least one other person can see the obvious. =| lol

 

[Reluctantly]

@Philosophyking87

You've decided that emotion, whatever that means to you, which is arguably the experience of life itself, is irrational without considering how it can be rational.

I'm not the one being illogical here. You're the one with the assertion and I'm asking you to actually support it without circular reasoning. You're the one making the claim, so you're the one that has to support. Right now, your claim is unsubstantiated without proving that emotion isn't at all rational.

 

[Reluctantly]

Good description of Will, buddy.

I basically view humans as parasites devoid of effable reason for enduring.

Most mages throughout history should/have concluded life is fruitless.

You're right, there is absolutely no need to live. The universe will continue unaltered in any case.

I am starting to find even idealistic entelechy inane.

The funniest phenomenon to me is folks who cling on beyond reason to their deathbed.

They tend paradoxically to be Christian.

Well, considering the average intelligence of humans, the inept societal outcomes are unsurprising.

Near the end you discuss the inability to overcome the grip. My response: drugs.

Why is it that when people have their lives defined for them they complain that they can't find their own purpose, that they do not have freedom, but when they can find and follow their own purpose, suddenly everything is meaningless as well?

You're right, there is absolutely no need to live. The universe will continue unaltered in any case.

I hate absolutes, they are right or wrong, depending on perspective; that kind of truth is misleading to those that wish to understand beyond that.

 

[snafupants]

Why is it that when people have their lives defined for them they complain that they can't find their own purpose, that they do not have freedom, but when they can find and follow their own purpose, suddenly everything is meaningless as well?



I hate absolutes, they are right or wrong, depending on perspective; that kind of truth is misleading to those that wish to understand beyond that.

For my entire adult life I have contended life is beguilingly rudderless.

To answer your question straightaway, the reason that both shunting/appointment of meaning leads to disappointment/frustration is that life is devoid of any compelling raison d'être.

I would postulate that there is an inverse relationship between interior complexity and the ease with which one claims meaning.

Often ontological debates are artificially construed as moot in nature, partly because there is nothing tangible one can point to as proof. This is expected. But I also view it as an impetus for the other side to provide some evidence.

Beyond that? That's the entire point. Any meaning is synthetic and phony.

 

[Reluctantly]

To answer your question straightaway, the reason that both shunting/appointment of meaning leads to disappointment/frustration is that life is devoid of any compelling raison d'être.

Does it always lead to disappointment/frustration?

Personally speaking, I find the awareness of that very empowering; I no longer view disappointment/frustration as something that is to be simply avoided or something that is to be negative, rather I have no concept of it anymore. Simply existing is enough to provide meaning, anything else that happens or I do colors that freedom and enriches it; disappointment/frustration can be enriching.

There can be meaning in what one considers meaningless; you may see reason to think that because life involves logical paradoxes that it must have no meaning. But reason is separate from logic; and logic does not necessarily define meaning.

I would postulate that there is an inverse relationship between interior complexity and the ease with which one claims meaning.

Perhaps, but it all depends on what you expect of that search for meaning that makes it simple or hard to obtain; I'd say that someone who has very high expectations will produce what they seek, and it will be much more rewarding in providing answers, however it will also be much harder to get there.

Often ontological debates are artificially construed as moot in nature, partly because there is nothing tangible one can point to as proof. This is expected. But I also view it as an impetus for the other side to provide some evidence.

Ontological debates are good for understanding forms; to know what something is, one must also know what it is not. But to expect that a meaning of life requires that it be put into an ontology is to put boundaries on what that meaning can entail; it disregards other meaning to do so.

It's analogous to setting boundaries on existence; by creating an ontology, other meaning of existence is invariably lost. It's a paradox in itself, but there is no problem with that really. The problem is with the person that can't accept or consider paradoxes in their thinking.

Beyond that? That's the entire point. Any meaning is synthetic and phony.

Why? Let's put this into another perspective and consider a thought experiment. Let's say you were the only person alive in this entire universe; then you die. Now there is nothing left to have a thought of the universe. Does the universe exist? If no, then what purpose was your life? If yes, then what purpose was your life?

 

[snafupants]

I stay alive for intellectual discovery and peak emotional experiences and psychic expansion and uplifting hearts and the dissemination of wisdom. That is all.

 

[BigApplePi]

I am recently finding that my analytical side is overbearing my emotional side (obviously) to the point where it is destroying my ability to find beauty in the world. When I think less, I can see beauty in many aspects of life. My artistic side usually reawakens and I become inspired to draw or write a song. I think I am in general happier when I analyze things less. But when my analytical side rears its ugly head unexpectedly, all beauty seems lost on me. I just see the world/people as a bunch of turning cogs and gears. It bores me. I feel nothing and my view of the world becomes cold and lifeless. I feel that I need to work on burying my analytical side. Anybody else know what I mean?

I'm just the opposite. I love my thinking analytical side. That is where my emotions go. It's what I value. Let me give you an analogy:

It's like riding a bike (I do ride one ... a lot in Manhattan.) I'm in control of the bike, but have to be careful as danger is all around me. Fear is my protector. Riding a bike is reason. Where I go is feeling (desire really). Riding (reason) is control and gets me there. Desire to get there is what I want. All other feelings I don't care about.

Beauty? That's when the path gets complicated. When everything fits well into place, I'm pleased and that is beauty. When things go wrong, I'm unhappy. Then my emotions go bloowie. Cogs and gears? That's when the path goes in circles or leads nowhere. That is not life. When that happens to me I feel the same way you say.

Of course I may be speaking as an INTP. An INFP might put feelings first. I do anything but. So what are you? Questions?

 

[BigApplePi]

Indeed. Very nice response, Snafupants.
It seems you and I are both on a similar pessimistic, Schopenhauer-like basis.
I'll have to definitely start reading his work (especially "The World as Will and Representation").

At least one other person can see the obvious. =| lol

PK87 I would LOVE to take you up on all that stuff (I find it provocative) you're saying but am trying to watch a movie. Damn I wish I could do everything. I buy almost nothing you are saying so far ... and that is not intended to be a rational statement.

 

[Architect]

Most INTP types might suffer from an overbearing Ti, especially early in life. For me it was opposite, I was an 'artist' (musician) early in life, which led to an overbearing Fe, Si and Ne. I've spent much of my life since then working on a truer balance, with Ti in control, balanced against Ne. Having achieved that recently, more or less, I'm now working on keeping Si and Fe in the mix (via photography mostly).

It's tough being human ...

 

[snafupants]

PK87 I would LOVE to take you up on all that stuff (I find it provocative) you're saying but am trying to watch a movie. Damn I wish I could do everything. I buy almost nothing you are saying so far ... and that is not intended to be a rational statement.

The theory could be totally correct and you could, theoretically, still denigrate it as all wrong. That wouldn't make it so. You can exercise your prerogative basically however you deem fit though.

 

[Words]

I stay alive for intellectual discovery and peak emotional experiences and psychic expansion and uplifting hearts and the dissemination of wisdom. That is all.

which is "synthetic and phony"? What is "synthetic and phony"? Is it the "self-deception of one being driven by a particular meaning where one actually is not"? If it is, then it simply refers to the person and hir attitude towards meanings, and not the meaning per se.

Does "synthetic, phony meaning" mean "unreal-ness"? and you think other things are more "real"? how so? and how is "real-ness" more meaningful?

Does "synthetic, phony meaning" point to the fact that all meaning is not set in stone and is changeable? So? Why put meaning in staticity?

Again snaf, relative. your perceived quality of meaning itself is your personal meaning.

Meaning is whatever you truly want it to be. Rather than "empty" you, doesn't that "open" you?

 

[snafupants]

which is "synthetic and phony"? What is "synthetic and phony"? Is it the "self-deception of one being driven by a particular meaning where one actually is not"? If it is, then it simply refers to the person and hir attitude towards meanings, and not the meaning per se.

Does "synthetic, phony meaning" mean "unreal-ness"? and you think other things are more "real"? how so? and how is "real-ness" more meaningful?

Does "synthetic, phony meaning" point to the fact that all meaning is not set in stone and is changeable? So? Why put meaning in staticity?

Again snaf, relative. your perceived quality of meaning itself is your personal meaning.

Meaning is whatever you truly want it to be. Rather than "empty" you, doesn't that "open" you?

I admit that life is innately meaningless; this is, however, my irrational raison d'être so to speak.

I believe the foregoing is eminently logically consistent. The delineation denotes personal reasons for staying alive; the list was not intended to demonstrate that life is inherently meaningful.

Every human being is irrational to some degree.

 

[Words]

I admit that life is innately meaningless; this is, however, my irrational raison d'être so to speak.

I think the idea of "innate meaning" is a blatant contradiction, as much as it is also contradictory to ascribe the trait of "rational" to "meaning." In other words, "Rational Meaning" is irrational. On the other more interesting hand, "Irrational Meaning" is rational.

Every human being is irrational to some degree.

How is it "irrational" to be driven?

 

[snafupants]

I think the idea of "innate meaning" is a blatant contradiction, as much as it is also contradictory to ascribe the trait of "rational" to "meaning." In other words, "Rational Meaning" is irrational. On the other more interesting hand, "Irrational Meaning" is rational.



How is it "irrational" to be driven?

I agree, and I represented it as such in my preceding comments.

 

[Words]

I agree, and I represented it as such in my preceding comments.

Just to make sure, I'm not talking about there being no inherent meaning or that "life is meaningless", I'm saying that the property of "inherent" cannot be ascribed to meaning. Meaning is devoid of the state of inherence. The statement that "Life is meaningless" doesn't make sense.

 

[snafupants]

Just to make sure, I'm not talking about there being no inherent meaning or that "life is meaningless", I'm saying that the property of "inherent" cannot be ascribed to meaning. Meaning is devoid of the state of inherence. The statement that "Life is meaningless" doesn't make sense.

Are you genuinely confused? Looking for a semantic battle?

How does the clause life is devoid of meaning based on irrational inborn motives grab you brother?

What's so complex about the dichotomy between artificially ascribed meaning and naturally granted meaning? You're smart enough to grasp these concepts, come on.

 

[Words]

Are you genuinely confused? Looking for a semantic battle?

How does the clause life is devoid of meaning based on irrational inborn motives grab you brother?

You really should refrain from focusing on one sentence when it's within a paragraph. "Life is meaningless" implies a reaction to the idea that there is inherent meaning within life. This is illogical because, again, meaning is not related to inherence.[It's just that, for some reason, we place value on inherence.] Meaning is created by agents, therefore the correct statement should be "life could have meaning or no meaning depending on the agent." Or "Life's meaning, meaningfulness, or meaninglessness is relative to the agent." The word "meaning" should always be paired with "to or relative to."

I'm not sure what that clause means, but it's pretty clear that nature tries to effect the arbitrary value of life on us, through the other arbitrary value of discomfort or pain. The sentence that "motives are irrational" is also erroneous because motives exist, therefore they cannot be "irrational." They're just "are", a matter of fact and are, therefore, "rational." The only way I can think of existing objects labeled as rational or irrational is whether they are explainable or not, which isn't quite "rational" to me.

What's so complex about the dichotomy between artificially ascribed meaning and naturally granted meaning?

There is no dichotomy, the latter doesn't exist therefore it isn't worth the consideration you're giving it.

 

[snafupants]

You really should refrain from focusing on one sentence when it's within a paragraph. "Life is meaningless" implies a reaction to the idea that there is inherent meaning within life. This is illogical because, again, meaning is not related to inherence.[It's just that, for some reason, we place value on inherence.] Meaning is created by agents, therefore the correct statement should be "life could have meaning or no meaning depending on the agent." Or "Life's meaning, meaningfulness, or meaninglessness is relative to the agent." The word "meaning" should always be paired with "to or relative to."

I'm not sure what that clause means, but it's pretty clear that nature tries to effect the arbitrary value of life on us, through the other arbitrary value of discomfort or pain. The sentence that "motives are irrational" is also erroneous because motives exist, therefore they cannot be "irrational." They're just "are", a matter of fact and are, therefore, "rational." The only way I can think of existing objects labeled as rational or irrational is whether they are explainable or not, which isn't quite "rational" to me.


There is no dichotomy, the latter doesn't exist therefore it isn't worth the consideration you're giving it.

Agreed.

 

[Zionoxis]

If my logical/analytical side were RIGHT and able to prove it to others more often, I may like it more. Many times, the flaw was not in my thinking, but it was based on pieces of evidence which themselves....were flawed. Why can't the information I learn on the internet just be accurate?