Introduction

[Achilles]

Hello all, apparently introducing yourself is the done thing on this forum so here I go.

Numerous tests have shown me to be INTP, enough such that I gained an interest in the concept, and hence found my way to this forum. I confess that I am somewhat sceptical of the whole notion, firstly because it offends my individualism (death to the notion of "personality types"! Eccentricity before all else!) and secondly because, well, it feels a lot like astrology. However, I can't deny that the description of an INTP fits me to a tee, and if these tests are wrong then they are surprisingly consistent in their error, considering how I uniformly score as INTP. Perhaps I shall be convinced one way or another by my conversations here!

My main interest (as I've said on another thread) is in formal logic, philosophical logic, and anything which can be related to that - such as some parts of maths. I also have an interest in poetry (particularly Romantic - capital R! - poetry) and literary arts in general, and can be relied upon to be opinionated about ethical (or political, or social, etc) matters. (Such matters are obviously very difficult, and so though I am opinionated I assure you I am cautious and, I hope you will see, not obstinate) However, in general I can be relied upon to take interest in anything, providing it seems suitably "philosophical".

My avatar is a picture of G. E. Moore - a very underrated philosopher, and famous for defending the "Common Sense" point of view. There are numerous reasons to like him which I'm happy to go into, but I've always identified with him because (I arrogantly opine) he doesn't come across as so clever as many of his genius contemporaries, but by patient and careful thought (essentially, well marshaled common sense) he managed to keep up with them, and make valuable contributions. I somewhat identify with that!

I probably already summed up my opinion on matters controversial in another post, so I'll just repeat it here:

I'm calling things assumptions because I don't think I could for the life of me provide satisfactory proof of them to anybody who disagreed.

1. There will never be any better reason to believe the world is how it is beyond scientific description.
2. The most rational position to take is radical nominalism; there are only concretes and instances, no abstracts or universals.
3. For those two reasons, I think Set Theory is going to lead us to contradiction.
4. Ethics is probably the most important subject of all, but people shouldn't worry so much about whether it's objective or subjective of things like that. Worry about doing the right thing, everything else is secondary.
5. Despite all of the above, I have a vague feeling that one ought in fact adopt a sort of platonic mystecism, and take that on something like Kierkegaardian faith. (God, what objectionable name dropping on my part, sorry I dont know how better to accept it!) It's important to first accept the above to realise that actually there is good reason to think other things are more important, and you have better reason to believe all them, and good reason not to believe this - *and then* believe it anyway. Consequently, I think in some "deeper" sense, theology is the most important subject of all. And I think the best reason for accepting this, so to speak, is an aesthetic choice about how to view the world, rather than a rational one.

Oh, and I'm not nearly so dull as this introduction should make me appear, although I'm not quite interesting either!

And I think that's quite enough about me. See you in the forums!

 

[Enola.Grey]

Welcome. I hope to have an interesting debate with you to further both our knowledge.

 

[Starfruit M.E.]

lol I will confirm you as an INTP as well, based on your use of language and your interests. The INTP is a rather unique personality in the real world, and none of us particularly like to conform so... lol... you'll fit right in here. Welcome!

 

[Da Blob]

Good God,
I misread Achilles as Anthille!
I need better glasses
Well, I still meant the applause...lol

John

 

[Tyria]

What are the reasons that you like G.E. Moore? Is he your favorite philosopher?

 

[Kuu]

Hmm hi there. Looking forward to lurking in your threads.

 

[Achilles]

Thanks everybody! I am not sure what the policy is here on double posting, so I'll reply to everybody in one. Apologies if this is bad form!

I look forward to conversation with you all as well, and I fully encourage you to post and show me where I am wrong rather than just lurking! I assure you I will give you plenty of opportunity for that.

Funny you should say that melody; what finally tipped me over the edge to take a more serious interest in this stuff, is that a somebody I know from another forum (who self-identifies as INTJ) just one day declared that I was INTP. Since I had never mentioned any such thing, I was impressed by the predictive power and I came here. Apparently, something about me (although she couldn't say what exactly) and the way I write just screams INTP!

With regard to Moore, there are a number of things. Indeed he is my favourite philosopher (although, you know, that's somewhat vague - I get greater aesthetic pleasure out of reading Plato, for instance) - partly for the reasons I gave in the OP. I identify with him, I see myself as not really so intelligent as many of my comrades, but I hope to be able to get along despite that just by being slow and patient enough, and paying attention to detail, and striving after rigour and precision. Also, I think he got a lot right, and was capable of very penetrating insight when he got himself together. He was also the inspiration for some of the best philosophers of the last century (Austin especially, but also Rhyle, Russell, Grice and Wittgenstein) and so, yeah, if being inspired by him puts me in that company I think I'm on the right track! His ethical thought is beautiful and inspiring, but manages to keep that same common sense bent which makes him so lovable. I do like his writing style (meticulous but plain) and think that his dogged defense of common sense is a good antidote to most of the philosophy I read. I tend to think that if one wants to find stuff out, one ought be more scientific (hence: Logic) but if one must proceed in the manner of philosophy, I think one ought do so wholeheartedly. Which is to say, one must remember that what one is doing is marshalling common sense (which philosophers are prone to dressing up as "intuition") and working from that - and one really isn't in a position to cast doubt on it. Finally, he is famous for having a lovable personality, and it shines through in all his writings, and the biography I read of him. It is instructive to see that when one searches for him on the academic journal searches, a large proportion of what you find are touching obituaries to him - it seems like everyone who knew him felt moved to say how charming he was, and what a great help he was to them. ... I do like G. E. Moore.