NFs and their causes

[SolitaryWalker]

The question I invite you to explore is whether or not NFs truly have fulfilled their causes. Or in other words, are their endeavors truly worthwhile?

First of all we should define the matter of the situation as clearly as possible.

What kind of causes do NFs tend to fight for? In literature they are portrayed as fighters for the happiness of society, the common good, and the welfare of the individual.

Some examples of those would certainly be Buddha, Jesus and Ghandi.

We know for sure that this is what the NFs are portrayed as fighters of. But was this really the case?

In order to truly know this we must psychologize those heroes to see what they were thinking.

A first step to this would be attempting to discover how an NF's mind works, granted of course that the NF is a pure type.

They are first and foremost concerned with collecting abstract perceptions of the environment and then making value judgments about those perceptions.

Both of these are amorphous, as few would find it hard to agree that Feeling is not nearly as neatly organized as thinking. It is moosh.

Intuition is simply pure abstract perception. From this it seems we are in the position to adduce that the NFs are unlikely to have a clear view of the causes they were fighting for.

To answer the earlier question, were the causes they truly stood for as magnanimous as we think they were. We do not know. Neither do they. Unless of course those NFs were exceptionally gifted at the use of their inferior or tertiary Thinking faculty, which is highly doubtful.

What else do we know about Feeling? That it tends to dramatize? Prone to wishful thinking? It seems far more likely that the causes appear magnanimous because NFs and their followers have romanticized them.

The truth is they were confused individuals driven by blind and amorphous forces of passion who made such great noise of their endeavors because they sought approbation from others. Much akin to a typical drama queen. All of us who operate almost exclusively on emotion will obviously seek affirmation for our passions and will clamor at great length to receive the approval we seek. This is clearly descriptive of the NF stereotype. And certainly the heroes of history such as those listed above were very reminiscent of the NF stereotype.

In the end, no they have not fulfilled their causes because they did not know what their causes were. Because their modus operandi and message were highly emotional and had little respect for the truth their life and quest were distorted. As a result we have many stories concerning how they fulfilled this or that romantic mission without having a clear idea of what this mission is, much of which has been fabricated altogether by their followers who eulogize them without respite. They are but prey to urban legend for us to exercise our imagination upon, their statures have degenerated into an empty vessel for us to fill in with whatever may serve our purpose. This is why we have many different sects who profess to be followers of Jesus who all have radically different views of who he was and what he taught. This has gone on until Emperor Constantine exacted pogroms of those who disagreed with his view of that man's teaching. Same could be said for Muhammad, Buddha, Ghandi or any other leader who has been purported to have shown us the path to virtue.

All worldviews founded upon emotion and not clear-cut rationale are bound to degenerate into chicanery. They will later be used as an instrument to promote a political agenda of this or that delegation. The Taliban, the Ku Klux Klan, modern Christianity, are all founded on amorphous values and for political reasons insist on proselytizing to the end of convincing others to embrace their values. They are all mendacious and rapacious and I think will end up destroying civilization. All springing out of the root of NF causes.

We ought to stop trying to turn Earth into heaven, as we have only succeeded in turning it into hell. NFs ought to stop acting out on their Feelings, no matter how strongly they feel they are doing a good thing. Not only will the vision likely be confusing and inapplicable to the real world, but also being driven by emotion will also lead to a confusing mindset. As obviously emotions do not give us a clear perspective, one distinct example of this is the aforementioned need for approbation such a mindset leads to. This alone suggests that such a hero was driven by unworthy motives. Thirdly, this opens the door for charlatans to take advantage of the cause in any way they see fit.

If we truly have serious intentions about making the world a better place we ought to stop and think, organize our mindset into something coherent and then see how this could be implemented to the external world. It should be founded upon a clear-cut rationale concerning making the world a better place, not torrential passions.

[CaptainChick]

Originally Posted by BlueWing

Neither do they. .

How do you know that? On what basis are you founding this on???

We do know what we want, and it seems as if *you* can't or don't understand us, and these things about us, sorry.

[findthejake]

Woah. Bluewing coming at us hard. I don't think I complete appreciate it...lol

Of course we could all be NT's and the world would be a miserable bitter place :p

[Magic Poriferan]

Originally Posted by BlueWing

Some examples of those would certainly be Buddha, Jesus and Ghandi.

Just a little comment. Using these figures for your examples was probably not the wisest choice. Didn't you learn anything from that incident with Osama Bin Laden?

Originally Posted by BlueWing

A first step to this would be attempting to discover how an NF's mind works, granted of course that the NF is a pure type.

I presume you mean 100%-F 0%-T, 100%-N 0%-S. Those don't exist, but okay, I'm open to a theoretical model.

Originally Posted by BlueWing

They are first and foremost concerned with collecting abstract perceptions of the environment and then making value judgments about those perceptions.

A little vague. Couldn't we say that a true/false judgement is still a value judgement? You didn't seem to specifiy the nature of Feeling quite a enough.

Originally Posted by BlueWing

Both of these are amorphous, as few would find it hard to agree that Feeling is not nearly as neatly organized as thinking. It is moosh.

I have my values very neatly organized. What does that say? If I'm an F like you say, then that seems to cast doubt on your claim in this thread. The alternative is that I do that because I'm a T, and not an F, which would refute your claim in the mistyped member thread.

Originally Posted by BlueWing

Intuition is simply pure abstract perception. From this it seems we are in the position to adduce that the NFs are unlikely to have a clear view of the causes they were fighting for.

If the person really is all F, then no, they won't have a very clear understanding of their values in so far as any objective application(which is most practically useful stuff).

Originally Posted by BlueWing

To answer the earlier question, were the causes they truly stood for as magnanimous as we think they were. We do not know. Neither do they. Unless of course those NFs were exceptionally gifted at the use of their inferior or tertiary Thinking faculty, which is highly doubtful.

Oh, here we go. T saves the day from the ignoble F.

Originally Posted by BlueWing

What else do we know about Feeling? That it tends to dramatize? Prone to wishful thinking? It seems far more likely that the causes appear magnanimous because NFs and their followers have romanticized them.

Justify this. Why do we conclude that Feelers are only glorified by their followers? Also, in retort to this, why do we not conclude that famous Thinkers have merely been glorified by their followers?

Originally Posted by BlueWing

The truth is they were confused individuals driven by blind and amorphous forces of passion who made such great noise of their endeavors because they sought approbation from others. Much akin to a typical drama queen. All of us who operate almost exclusively on emotion will obviously seek affirmation for our passions and will clamor at great length to receive the approval we seek.

Not necessarily. What if someone did not act much on Fe, but did act mostly on Fi? And suppose that, of the personal good/bad values they have developed, they are all of an individualistic bent, opposed to the idea of social dependance? This Feeler would not seek affirmation.

Originally Posted by BlueWing

This is clearly descriptive of the NF stereotype. And certainly the heroes of history such as those listed above were very reminiscent of the NF stereotype.

Yes, a shallow stereo-type. I don't believe this has much baring on reality though, which makes me question the point.

Originally Posted by BlueWing

In the end, no they have not fulfilled their causes because they did not know what their causes were. Because their modus operandi and message were highly emotional and had little respect for the truth their life and quest were distorted.

You don't know this at all. I simply don't understand how you think you could so effectively crawl into the head of Gandhi or the others. These are some very bold assumptions.

Originally Posted by BlueWing

As a result we have many stories concerning how they fulfilled this or that romantic mission without having a clear idea of what this mission is, much of which has been fabricated altogether by their followers who eulogize them without respite.

Well, in the case of Jesus, being 2000 years old kind of does that. Hard to keep the record of things, you know? But suppose we trust historical accounts, it doens't seem to me that the goals of Jesus, or especially Gandhi, are that hard to comprehend.

Originally Posted by BlueWing

They are but prey to urban legend for us to exercise our imagination upon, their statures have degenerated into an empty vessel for us to fill in with whatever may serve our purpose. This is why we have many different sects who profess to be followers of Jesus who all have radically different views of who he was and what he taught. This has gone on until Emperor Constantine exacted pogroms of those who disagreed with his view of that man's teaching. Same could be said for Muhammad, Buddha, Ghandi or any other leader who has been purported to have shown us the path to virtue.

Actually, this could also be applied to almost every famous Thinker. Those philosophers, and scientists, and generals, and politicans that have acheived great noteriety, have also had their images distorted, and their messags interpreted into tons of different sects. This has nothing to do with whether or not an individual is a Thinker or a Feeler, it doesn't even have to do with the individual. A person's historical image is all in the hands of the future masses. The results is no different for either type.

[SolitaryWalker]

Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan

Actually, this could also be applied to almost every famous Thinker. Those philosophers, and scientists, and generals, and politicans that have acheived great noteriety, have also had their images distorted, and their messags interpreted into tons of different sects. This has nothing to do with whether or not an individual is a Thinker or a Feeler, it doesn't even have to do with the individual. A person's historical image is all in the hands of the future masses. The results is no different for either type.

That is simply false. Most groups of scholars have arrived at an objective conclusions about the teaching of Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Einstein..etc...and in almost all universities you go to, there is a convention for what should be taught to students as ideas of these men.

This is because they stated their views in clear and objective terms and not in random bursts of passion.

And I have further edited my post.

[Thursday]

Originally Posted by BlueWing

........
To answer the earlier question, were the causes they truly stood for as magnanimous as we think they were. We do not know. Neither do they. Unless of course those NFs were exceptionally gifted at the use of their inferior or tertiary Thinking faculty, which is highly doubtful.

What else do we know about Feeling? That it tends to dramatize? Prone to wishful thinking? It seems far more likely that the causes appear magnanimous because NFs and their followers have romanticized them.

The truth is they were confused individuals driven by blind and amorphous forces of passion who made such great noise of their endeavors because they sought approbation from others. Much akin to a typical drama queen. All of us who operate almost exclusively on emotion will obviously seek affirmation for our passions and will clamor at great length to receive the approval we seek. This is clearly descriptive of the NF stereotype. And certainly the heroes of history such as those listed above were very reminiscent of the NF stereotype.

.....

I agree ; just like batman
His parents were murdered before his own eyes,
and now he's a crime fighter

but thats just the human psyche

so Bluewing - what would be this thread's equal for NT's ?

[SolitaryWalker]

Originally Posted by AvereX

I agree ; just like batman
His parents were murdered before his own eyes,
and now he's a crime fighter

but thats just the human psyche

so Bluewing - what would be this thread's equal for NT's ?

Use your N man!

No need for logical structure obviously. It is whatever your imagination shall conjure! FEEL! It is all a matter of FEEL my friend!

As stated in the OP, you can spin it out to be any cause you want, irrespectively of content of the argument! Such is the power of human emotion, I fall on my knees in my humble admiration.

[Magic Poriferan]

Originally Posted by BlueWing

That is simply false. Most groups of scholars have arrived at an objective conclusions about the teaching of Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Einstein..etc...and in almost all universities you go to, there is a convention for what should be taught to students as ideas of these men.

This is because they stated their views in clear and objective terms and not in random bursts of passion.

And I have further edited my post.

I think, among the academic community of schollars, there is comperably consistent understanding of Jesus and Gandhi, not that this means they actually understand. Not only in the case of Feelers, be even in their interpretation of the Thinkers.

Besides, a convention on how to teach is not quite the same as a standard interpretation. When it comes to the facts, people have conventions with Gandhi, too. When it comes to opinion, they all express just as much variation on Plato as they would Gandhi.

[Magic Poriferan]

In response to your additional comments about the impact of Fs on the world:

Do you realize that if the world were dominated by pure Ts, then no one would have the psychological imperative to act on anything?

[Thursday]

Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan

In response to your additional comments about the impact of Fs on the world:

Do you realize that if the world were dominated by pure Ts, then no one would have the psychological imperative to act on anything?

thread derailed from sudden jolt of objectivity