Bluewing thinks Feeling has cooties

[SolitaryWalker]

Very often we come across a convocation that one may describe as that between the ruthlessly cold and the omni-compassionate. The sentimental twaddlers and the sound logical thinkers, and so on.

But in essence, I wonder what is going on in such situations?

What we have on one side is a group of people who prefer to make decisions based on principles of objective reality. And on the other side we have a group of people who seek to force their passions and prejudices onto the world and insist that we should do as they say even if what they say does not make sense.

An example of the latter would be religious law. We simply do the ritual and believe in miracles because we value the Bible and not because we have any good reason to do so. Other legal habits similar to this are also rooted in value based judgments. Consider the case of monarchy or family hierarchy, such enterprises are maintained not because there is any good reason to do so, but because of us valuing traditions. Father is the head of the family because this is how we have always done it, the King knows all (just like father Stalin) and his word ought not to be questioned because this is just the way you do it. And ultimately we worship God without question because it is written in the highest law that we VALUE. We VALUE this and thats the bottom line.

Now, why do we value this? Because we were taught to do so. Aristotle wrote in his treatise on Poetry that we all have a drive to be liked. This drive leads us to wish to be liked by those that we like. And when we spend time around those that we like we naturally emulate them or become like them. In addition to this discovery I should point out that we renounce our values to be better liked by them. A striking example of this would be a religious person who changes his ways strictly to be liked by his community, this practice is very well endorsed. Another example to be observed even more frequently is wives submitting to their husbands strictly for the sake of saving the relationship. They of course do not know what they do, or that this is what they have done because they made such a decision not based no rationale but based on a Value judgment. They were carried away by the passions of their unconscious and did not realize that they have prostituted themselves for the vainglory of those who 'matter'.

To connect all the points I have made here, we have at the heart the idea of value based decision making. This leads us to cling with great passion to the values that we have and fear, revile or abandon what does not agree with our values. We have such values again, because of the relentlessly drive to be liked. No matter how vehemently we may stand up for what we value, do not be fooled, it does not at all mean that we (feelers) have a solid core of personal ethic. Should someone get close to us who wishes to change us, just the longing for approval shall be enough for us to abandon the most deeply felt values without even noticing this. Approval to a feeler has the same relationship as gas to a car. This problem can only be solved through cultivation of dispassionate judgment. It does not matter what anybody likes or under what conditions one shall approve of us principles shall exist in their own right by virtue of being consistent with what I value irrspectively of what others feel I ought to value! They shall be matters of fact, not matters of mood.


When we compare the two we get the following. A position akin to the one described below tends to be line with ideas endorsed by value centered perspectives. A politician must be like the father figure to the people, like God to men. The Pope tends to serve this purpose well. Because men are feeble minded and impressionate we need a strong leader to put them on the path of virtue! All should be inculcated to value what the leader does. This position is still taken seriously by many conservative Christians and that is the reason for the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

Yet a more clear-thinking individual would argue that all measurements should be taken to prevent people from being feeble minded and impressionate. Instead of taking care of them like children, we should grant them the liberty to decide how they ought to live their lives. Do not give them a fish, teach them to fish instead. As obviously doing the former leads to a myriad of problems, the most prominent of which is the dependency problem. This leads the ignorant folk to be abused by their political or religious leaders and for wives by their husbands.

We must do all that is necessary in order to arrive at a position where people shall be independently minded. We should start by first deposing individuals and organizations that champion value centered thinking. Accordingly, any politician who makes a decision based on religion, taste, influence of his friends, family or colleagues must be removed from office for flagrant abuse of authority. Organized religion must be banned because it teaches people to embrace ideas on faith, strictly out of will to believe as it makes very little effort to provide a justification for the propounded teaching. All religious philosophers who shall expostulate this statement are forced to concede that the axioms of their religion have been accepted on faith. As even Saint Thomas Aquinas has maintained so. We have no evidence for a belief in the afterlife or belief in the personal god as those things stem outside of our experience.

Verily these sects shall go underground after the ban, but we must go underground with them, as personal values are to be a strictly private matter. The term personal even seems to denote this. Personal implies, a personal preferrence, strictly up to the individual. It has nothing to do with objective reality. To force a personal preferrence upon another individual is the gravest crime against the individual one's mind can conjure.

Arts and literature are not to be taught at public schools in a fashion they currently are because matters of taste and personal value are central to such curriculums. It is fine to teach these subjects from a strictly objective standpoint without discussing matters of taste or preferrence in depth. For example, author A wrote such a story, his plot is as follows, (quoting the author as much as possible, to ensure that the teacher imposes as little of his personal tastes and biases onto the student as possible). Same is to be done with art, or even religion. Stick strictly to the facts, not values.

Marital ceremonies and private religious schools are acceptable, as individuals who do not wilfully share the values endorsed at those congregations can choose not to attend.

The purpose of education should be to teach people to think for themselves, not to inculcate a set of values upon them. If we have any respect for the truth we shall make decisions based on logical and dispassionate thinking, as this is what leads to discovery of how the world works. When we express our values we merely produce a reflection of self. This is far less reliable of a method to making sound decisions in life.

When a Thinker delivers his opinion what he states is not easily influencable by his moods, the moods of his observers or any other strange personal factor. When a Feeler delivers, that of course depends first and foremost on how it will be received, and secondly on his private moods. So, if I came out to deliver the message that the sky is blue and I suddenly realize that the congregation prefers it red, my answer shall be changed to red accordingly. If there is noone around to direct me how I ought to feel and what I ought to do, it will be based on my subjective predilections. I look at a white wall and say its red. Of course I cannot go on living like this for long as such attitudes do not give me the knowledge I need to get by in life. To rectify the problem I shall find someone to tell me what to do and what to value.

It is not at all surprising that archaic societies, which modern day religions are a representation of adhered to a value centered worldview. Traditional ways of thinking. (God being the center of my life, the pope his successor and secondly the father of the family. God delivers instructions on how we are to live to the Book of dogma at the supervision of the pope who then passes down the instructions to the father whom we obey without question.)

This too is now silly and outdated, and has become outdated only because we have embraced science and philosophy instead, or dispassionate ways of thinking. We now make decisions based on what makes sense, and not based on what we value and why we value we know not. A child often starts out as reverent of both mother and father and observer of all the family rites and rituals, yet as soon as he attends University, he not only looses his faith but also sees no reason to engage in such practices as he no longer depends on them and his family for establishment of his identity. This is a classical case in point of Thinking coming to the rescue. The child now values things not because he is supposed to, or because of some strange feeling, but because he sees them as desirable in their own right. Another case, closer to home for me is my ENFP former preacher friend. I met him at a philosophy class one year ago when he was a devout Christian and Pentacoste preacher. His life revolved around his church community and his family, as he even said 'I used to live for the people'. Every time he thought of leaving the church his consternation was the strange suffocating feeling he received in the back of his head which he took to be the voice of God as well as the reproof of his pastor, family and those in church who admire him. As he read more philosophy and approached finishing his degree in philosophy he confidently moved on. The remonstrates of his religiously zealous friends and family did not stop him because his agenda had nothing to do with the values of others. It is also no surprise that the more educated people are less likely to act out on the spur of a moment or a heat of passion, or even go so far as wholly commiting themselves to a value. We rarely hear of university professors as suicide bombers, champions of religions, Hitlers, or Mother Theresas. All of those things have been inspired by passion, and not because there has been any good reason to do any of those things.

How would a Feeler respond to this! I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THIS! IT IS OFFENSIVE TO ME! FGHSIHFODSOHFISDOFIDSHFSDOIHFDSOIOSFIHSOFIDHFDSOIH FDSOIHFDSOIHFDSOIHFDSOHIFDSOIHOFDSIHFDSOHIFSDOIHSF DOIHFDS

I can easily say you are OFFENSIVE TO ME in response! As after all, there is no need to justify the value, its offensive to me and period. Justification is a strictly Thinking activity.

This is much akin to how two beasts once have come head to head on a field. One said 'ARHGFGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!'

and the other 'ARHGFGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!'

but louder, so the first has yielded.

What happens when a reasonable person comes across the one described above? This conflict has been classically depicted in convocation of science and religion. The first says, this is how the world works, here are OBJECTIVE reasons for this. You can see for yourself if they are sound by thinking it through on your own. The latter had a VALUE of how things should work and because we VALUE this, this is how it is. This is not a way to make reasonable decisions, it is mere prejudice.




The disagreement between Thinking and Feeling approaches to life is not a dispute between two respectable temperaments, but a dispute between the know-alls and know-nothings.

[JustDave]

IMO, when making decisions the keys are balance and flexibility. Feeling should be tempered with logic and logic, with feelings. And, one should always consider the ultimate objective.

[Jeffster]

Wow, I disagree with almost every word of that, BlueWing.

Or was that the point?

[Orangey]

Isn't it a little ironic, Bluewing, that the strong value that you place on logic is your motivation for this invective against values?

[JustDave]

we should do as they say even if what they say does not make sense.

For the record I think this is a very insightful line. As an IT professional I constantly deal with people that vehemently insist that they should be allowed to side step a given rule because they ...

A plethora of illogical reasons is not worth one logical reason.

[JustDave]

Originally Posted by Orangey

Isn't it a little ironic, Bluewing, that the strong value that you place on logic is the motivation for this invective against values?

True. His or her's post is definitely biased. But, IMO it is refreshing to hear from someone who is "pro logic and reason".

[Evan]

it seems way too idealistic to think that we can somehow do away with mob mentality. yes, we should strive for individual thinking... but... it's not a reach-able goal.

and honestly, i don't think thinkers are even that much better than feelers. everyone uses feeling -- you yourself called it the motivator for thinking. feelers are at least in tune with their values -- thinkers have a harder time realizing how their value set comes through in their actions. even your essay above reeks of feeling

plus, look at the upside of feeling -- it's the basis of teamwork -- the basis of collective society. if no one "felt", we wouldn't have kin selection; we would have no reason to care about our children, etc.

as cliche as it sounds, it's all about finding a balance.

[edcoaching]

Looking back at Bluewing's post, this Feeling type would actually say, "On which information sources was this opinion of the role of Feeling in religion made?"

My favorite source is Peter Richardson's Four Spiritualities. Richardson is a Unitarian minister and scholar and presents examples of ST, SF, NF and NT religious traditions and leaders.

Many many great theologians were Thinking types. At its best, the Thinking function looks at universal principles that lead to better lives. At its worst, the Thinking function can isolate texts and prove through logic that slavery is endorsed by the Bible since not only are slaves taken but instructions are given on how to treat slaves, etc. (these were some of the actual arguments...)

At its best the Feeling function carries out the tenants of the Golden Rule, or the versions found in cultures around the world. At its worst it is just as Bluewing describes, stuck in positions that it will not change. But that's the same as Thinking stuck in its positions.

As Chesterton said, "It isn't that Christianity has been tried and found wanting. It's that it hasn't been tried."

[SolitaryWalker]

Such statement we will find in Jung's psychological types and most authors who have explored the phenomenon, both popularizers and scholars.

What exactly do they mean when they call Feeling a rational function.

The most typical explanation that we find is that the distinction between rational and non-rational is that the former is consicous and the latter is unconscious. Many have criticized Jung for a careless use of terminology in this. The unconscious functions are not irrational or pathology, they are simply non-rational.

Jung seems to have also established a rather low requirement for a thought process to be called rational as all it requires is that it be a merely conscious assessment.

In this regard Feeling is indeed a rational function. However, we should ask, to what degree?

First of all, we should clearly define Feeling.

Feeling is an emotive relation to things of the external world. In the case of the Extrovert, direct emotive relation to the things of the world. In the case of the Introvert the impressions of the external world.

The attitude is either positive or negative. Thus, in short Feeling tells us whether objects are agreeable to us or not. However, without Thinking or impersonal logical analysis, Feeling cannot tell us anything about the nature of the object.

Does this suffice to call Feeling a rational function?

http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...=newthread&f=2

Appears not, as telling us whether something is agreeable or not has little to do with exercising sound judgment, or coming up with sensible notions.

In my Essence of Feeling thread I have maintained that Feeling only exudes approbation towards things it values.

Yet again, this is much more complicated than it seems. Feeling does not have a clear idea of things it values. A Feeler may if he is able to use Thinking soundly, but Feeling in itself has no notion of what an object is, thus never has a clear idea upon what approbation should be bestowed.

I have also argued that harmony is less important than being true to principles. Or that a Feeler is unlikely to be untrue to principles in order to preserve values. I must renounce such a view now. This is only true for a Feeler who has developed Thinking and is able to be tough-minded.

Feeling in itself will not be true to principles because it will not even know what they are to begin with. It just knows what is agreeable and what is not. Obviously we all want to feel good and therefore gravitate towards what puts us in harmony with the environment. Thus because Feeling is characterized by torrential passions, it will unconsciously lead the individual to embrace whatever modus operandi leads to an agreeable feeling. Thus, it is whatever people like that shapes the values of the individual and not the other way around.

Emotion by its nature is fickle (I could provide further argument for this, though doubt it is necessary), in order to give your values any stability you need to have a tough-minded attitude. I have never heard of anyone becoming a successful athlete, scholar, politician, you name it only because they FELT great about it every step of the way and their feelings hardly changed. It took a lot of conscious self-discipline for them to get to where they were. It was not plainly a matter of 'FEEL'.

The few Feelers who stand up for their values have developed their thinking and are giving the rest of us the impression that this how rational feeling is on its best!

What do we derive from this story? We need not try to make sense of the values of Feeling. They are not neatly organized as the principles of a Thinker. First of all, the Feeler will only remain stable if he is subjected to the same external factors, as this is the only way his general Feeling attitude could remain static. (The Feeler with well developed Thinking is exampt from this charge)

Secondly, Feeling can easily embrace incompatible values as it does not go through to analyze what things are but simply proceeds with an emotional reaction. Thus, things do not actually need to be agreeable, they only need to seem agreeable.

In one sentence, if a Feeler values communism, don't assume they hate fascism, as they may value fascism because of the way it was made to seem similar to communism at the presentation, or something wholly irrelevant to the external world and radically subjective, founded entirely on their sentiments, such as, the face of the fascist may have looked pretty. Or they were simply in a good mood when listening to the fascist..Hell knows...

On a scale of 1-10, 1 being pure unconscious perception or the epitome of Jungian irrational, and 10 being highly organized Thinking, Feeling falls at a 6. Not nearly rational enough. Unreliable. I certainly would not want doctors operating on models founded on methodology that scores a 6/10 on assessment of rationality, or aircrafts to be designed in the similar fashion. In short, anything that is truly important, I'd keep out of the hands of Feeling. Feelers may be entrused with such tasks, but they better not be using Feeling to carry through with them as all of us would be put by way of grave danger as a result.

Can we even begin to imagine the results of this? A teacher saying, sorry Ryan you were a bad boy! You got all the answers on the test right, but since you were a jerk I am going to fail you!

Or how about a Judge saying, despite that the jury found you innocent and I see no reason to think you guilty, I am going to pronounce you guilty anyways because you were rude to me!

Besides I have a bad Feeling about this anyways! You remind me of this one dirty little culprit I had last trial. What if our whole legal system was based on 'Feels to me' and 'my mood', or 'more or lesses' and 'kindas'...would we have any order in society at all? And more importantly, what mess would we create in our minds as a result of our attempt to found a worldview on the whims of fleeting passion?

Or how about, in response to this..

YouTube - The most stupid goalkeeper ever

The referees huddle up together, chit-chat for 20 minutes...and then the main referee goes out to the field with a crocodile smile on his face and says 'I am sorry! Myself, the 2 linesemen and the 4th official decided it was a sneaky move on your part! You dont deserve a goal! Plus it just never felt right to me! Must not have been a goal, it just could not have gone in the net! It feels to me so, I tell you! Best believe it! Have a nice day!'

All of this doubtlessly leads to distinctly irrational thought and action. Jung certainly was mistaken to identify rational with conscious and irrational with unconscious, the two combinations are far from synonymous.

[Magic Poriferan]

Feeling is rational because the definition of rational behavior, and certainly any relevance to the concept of rationality, could not exist without Feeling.

I'm not interpreting anyone's words for that. That was my personal understanding.