Re: Do you like being an INTP?
Usually this phrase is an implicit conclusion to the post, with a premise of the whole statements in the post, as in because all the post,you got me wrong.
Actually this phrase is made explicit in alot of live talks,as it gives the talkers amount of time to think about what they're going to say, among other things.
The reason i made it explicit because of the very circumstances of the last post,i was still browsing the forum when I saw your post, so i wrote it to give the impression of live talks.
The problem here is, this is not a live talk. So don't try to make it into one either, you're just wasting your time.
No it's not the objectivity that's influenced, it's the analysis that is affected, which affects how objective you're ,you see again you bind objectivity with absolution.
Again, you're not seeing what I see. If the analysis is not objective, then the conclusion cannot be objective either, right? Thus, the objectivity of the statement itself is questionable.
either you get rid of emotion or you're not objective, what if I took away my emotion partially, wouldn't that make me more objective than someone whose reason is totally emotional?
Now, let me make it clear to you. The dictionaries define "objective" as "not influenced by emotions". In your case, it would be "slightly influenced by emotions". Now, if you take the exact opposite of "not influenced by emotions", you get "influenced by emotions, right? Add something that describes the "quantity", which by the way doesn't exist, you get "slightly influenced by emotions". And since we only added something to describe the exact opposite of "objective", your "slightly influenced by emotions" is equal to saying "slightly inobjective". Do you now see what I mean?
Consider for example someone in a situation where a wild animal hurt –let get this to an extreme- killed her loved partner, she could react by torturing the animal, killing it , hurting it ,leaving it with hatred, or just leaving it, or maybe taking it as a pet !! that'd be new whatever ,you see you can't equalize the reaction of torturing the animal with leaving it with hatred, maybe hating just an animal wouldn't be the absolute objective thing in the situation but it's more objective than other reasoning.
Firstly, I would advice you not to try to prove something via example. It's an inappropriate generalisation, and thus works against your credibility, as you did not take notice of the fallacy.
Secondly, your example in itself is strange. Animals are not directly bound by any law, so I cannot demand anything from the animal. I, however, am bound by law, so I would need to carefully think about what to do in the situation. However, unless the animal had an actual reason for their action, it would count as an accidental death.
And in my case, I couldn't possibly hate the animal. After all, death is the eventual, nonavoidable conclusion of life. Every day has a possibility of taking another life. Whether it's one close to me or not doesn't make it any less of a common occurence. Plus, I like most animals.
No , objectivity is possible, absolute objectivity –in my opinion- is not possible,
The problem is, I'm not arguing whether it's possible or not. I'm saying that there is no other than "absolute" objectivity, which I claim based on several sources that state that objectivity is something that is not influenced by emotion. So basically, you're arguing against facts. Just admit your defeat already and we can move on.
in the broader scope, even if you're certain about your logic, that doesn't exclude the possibility of getting affected by non logical inputs, actually broader than that no one knows what reality is, no one knows if logic is actually that logical.
Logic, in itself, by its own definition, is logical. However, the direct opposite of "logic", "illogic", is obviously not logical and is usually simply said to be "illogical".
And a conclusion can be made to be perfectly logical by careful elimination of each and every illogical factor.
In the narrower scope, the event of assessing our emotion, it's even clearer ,intp are human, all humans have emotional side. saying that intp don't include emotion in his reasoning is a clear contradiction. hence intp maybe objective more than many others, but not the objective.
You're wrong. There are certain psychological conditions where one's emotions are either flawed or simply inexistent completely or in certain fields of interaction. For example, people with Asperger's Syndrome are incapable of considering other people's emotions. And in this case, I'm not proving anything via example. Anything else than the potential existence of malfunctioning of emotions. After all, you cannot say that people with Asperger's don't exist, can you? Thus, you cannot say that there aren't any people whose emotions wouldn't be limited.
And I think you should provide me with the source of this "INTPs are objective" claim. Or actually, your original argument was "INTPs are not capable of objective self-judgment". Provide the source that claims so.
?