User Tag List

First 91718192021 Last

Results 181 to 190 of 216

  1. #181
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel De Mazarin View Post
    For instance, how can one achieve value-less appraisals of the death penalty, or jail terms, or criminal rehabilitation?
    What is the problem? The existence of our values does not imply the need to be ruled by them. Simply analyze the situation and see what choice leads to the greatest possible utility. Value-less thinking is neither possible nor desirable, our aim is to interpose rational analysis between our values and our actions.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  2. #182
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel De Mazarin View Post
    Vagueness in wording may have led to your reading my saying that use of non-monotonic logic implies use of the Feeling function. This is absolutely not what I meant and I must accept responsibility for poor phrasing.

    However, I'll point out two sentences of mine:

    "With the assertion that cutting out all Feeling functioning from debates regarding human affairs, one is faced with the fact that we can't reason monotonically and in our world Feeling is a way of dealing with non-monotonic situations on a case by case basis as new information comes in."

    I never said non-monotonicity implies the use of Feeling function. I said that Feeling is a way of dealing with non-monotonic situations --- in our world.

    Also, I did not say that abductive thinking means we must use Feeling functioning. However, when it comes to abductive thinking in moral realms, Feeling function is a sine qua non, as I like to say.

    So, what I meant by my post about monotonic-versus-non-monotonic logics is that when people contrast firm logical thinking with rational thinking that involves the feeling function, it seems to me that they associate rational thinking with classic monotonic logic, with simple inferential chains that do not account for the exigencies of imperfect knowledge bases and limitations in obtaining accurate knowledge about various situations.

    If we acknowledge that non-monotonic logic is far more representative of how we deal with real-world situations, then the role of Feeling in rational decision-making is made far easier to swallow by hardcore Thinking types like Bluewing. This was my aim in raising this admittedly esoteric subject.

    ______________

    I think we're on the same page, frankly... to summarize as succinctly as possible my point:

    When someone says, 'you're not being logical because you're letting your emotions get involved', it's not always because he/she has a valid point about emotion running riot. He/she may be thinking of classic monotonic arguments and cutting the possibility of using the Feeling function out of the decision-making process. If people prejudiced against use of affect in rational thinking were to make a more concentrated study of different but equally justifiable systems of logic, they would probably be less willing to condemn outright the use of the Feeling function in decision-making. Hence my raising of the issue of non-monotonicity as a logic which can accommodate Feeling function (but which, Orangey, as you pointed out, doesn't in anyway entail the use of Feeling function).
    Ah okay...I seem to have misinterpreted your posts. I pretty much agree with what you've said, then. Thanks for clearing that up.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  3. #183
    Wonderer Samuel De Mazarin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,026

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    What is the problem? The existence of our values does not imply the need to be ruled by them. Simply analyze the situation and see what choice leads to the greatest possible utility. Value-less thinking is neither possible nor desirable, our aim is to interpose rational analysis between our values and our actions.
    If one were speaking about utility, and abjuring arguably arbitrary value-standards, then all prisoners with life-terms sans chance of parole should be summarily executed, thereby saving the state millions upon millions of dollars of taxpayer money. These people are criminals who have militated against the peaceful cohesion of society and, to boot, are to unnecessarily drain its resources, given the fact that they're not even going to re-enter society? But such a solution, though promising great utility, would probably be unpalatable for most people.

    I don't know whether my example works or not, either as a defeater or as evidence that can be viewed as supporting your contentions. But I'm intrigued as to why you aren't addressing any case-examples... if you feel your approach is applicable, then why not, even in sandbox fashion, apply it? License is of course extended if your attempt must be ad hoc. But at least we can get a true flavor of how you might actually go about this scheme, which has remained a scheme and not crossed into even a mock-demonstration.
    Madman's azure lie: a zen miasma ruled.

    Realize us, Madman!

    I razed a slum, Amen.

    ...............................................

  4. #184
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel De Mazarin View Post
    I can't imagine the second person really existing... I mean, what would be his/her method of making decisions? She/he would be a robot which merely takes inputs... the only human beings I could think who would act like this are completely demoralized slaves or wage-laborers...

    well... I guess that means I can imagine some like that.

    My unasked-for guess is that Bluewing would probably be forced to choose the first one (the logically-tempered temperamental fellow) unless the second one (the automaton) was supervised by one of his philosopher-kings.
    Well, supposing the second one is now granted the ability to undestand logic, but is merely totally uninterested in addressing it, and has as a result also not trained their abilities with it beyond a minimal human level, then the person would no longer be an automoton.

    While I said he has no logic, I didn't say the person was lacking in other considerations. I think a problem here is the assumption that we are either looking at logic or passion. Perhaps BlueWing's idea of "passion" includes the most benign, tranquil, and self-contained of non-logical thoughts, but I'd consider that a really unreasonable definition.

    I mean, what about a lot of the world's ascetics? They seem to be a lot more involved in Feeling type rationalization than Thinking type rationalization, but they hardly come across to me as raging with passions.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  5. #185
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel De Mazarin View Post
    If one were speaking about utility, and abjuring arguably arbitrary value-standards, then all prisoners with life-terms sans chance of parole should be summarily executed, thereby saving the state millions upon millions of dollars of taxpayer money. These people are criminals who have militated against the peaceful cohesion of society and, to boot, are to unnecessarily drain its resources, given the fact that they're not even going to re-enter society? But such a solution, though promising great utility, would probably be unpalatable for most people.

    I don't know whether my example works or not, either as a defeater or as evidence that can be viewed as supporting your contentions. But I'm intrigued as to why you aren't addressing any case-examples... if you feel your approach is applicable, then why not, even in sandbox fashion, apply it? License is of course extended if your attempt must be ad hoc. But at least we can get a true flavor of how you might actually go about this scheme, which has remained a scheme and not crossed into even a mock-demonstration.
    How people will react should be taken within our Utilitarian calculations.

    In other words, we should consider the retributions we would incur as a result of having incurred their wrath. Slowly though, we should do all we can to lead them away from value-centered thinking.

    That way we will have less interferences by way of our pragmatic decisions. Namely we will not have to refrain from making most practically sound decisions because of the retributions we shall incur as a result of us having crossed values of certain people.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  6. #186
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    How people will react should be taken within our Utilitarian calculations.
    I think that's a very simple response to a very complicated situation.

    The reaction for everyone will be based on subjective Feeling values, and the reaction is going to be diverse, and not in agreement between much of the population.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  7. #187
    Wonderer Samuel De Mazarin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,026

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    How people will react should be taken within our Utilitarian calculations.

    In other words, we should consider the retributions we would incur as a result of having incurred their wrath. Slowly though, we should do all we can to lead them away from value-centered thinking.

    That way we will have less interferences by way of our pragmatic decisions. Namely we will not have to refrain from making most practically sound decisions because of the retributions we shall incur as a result of us having crossed values of certain people.
    I think your ideal state is inescapably veering towards being very much like Plato's Republic.
    Madman's azure lie: a zen miasma ruled.

    Realize us, Madman!

    I razed a slum, Amen.

    ...............................................

  8. #188
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel De Mazarin View Post
    I think your ideal state is inescapably veering towards being very much like Plato's Republic.
    Plato's republic was run by philosopher kings. Yes. The vulgar were expected to do as they said without question.

    However, the difference here is. We will do everything our power to encourage all to think autonomously. We will force them to do so if necessary, to whatever degree they are capable of thinking for themselves they will, or starve.

    This is the opposite of Plato's ambitions.

    The strongest principle is that everybody, whether they are male or female, should have a leader. Likewise, no one should get into the habit of doing anything at all on his own initiative-either in earnest or in jest. Both in war and during time of peace, he should respect his leader and follow him faithfully. He should look up to his leader and follow his guidance in even the smallest matters. For example, he should get up, move around, wash, and have his meals.. only at such times as he has been ordered to do so. In other words, he should get into the habit, by a long process of training of never dreaming of acting independently, and thus becoming utterly incapable of such action. In this way the life of all is spent in total community. There is no law, and there never will be one, which is above this. It is the most effective way of achieving salvation and victory in war. And in peacetime, and from earliest childhood, this should remain the highest law- the need to rule others and be ruled by others. All trace of independence or anarchistic spirit must be completely eradicated from the life of all men, and even the wild beasts which are kept by these men.---Plato, Laws

    He gave up on the endeavor to inspire the philistines to think for themselves. Plato decided that it is best that there be a rigid code of behavior imposed upon them in order to ensure that they stay out of our way.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  9. #189
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    We will do everything our power to encourage all to think autonomously. We will force them to do so if necessary, to whatever degree they are capable of thinking for themselves they will, or starve.
    This is the funniest, scariest thing I've ever read.

  10. #190
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Again, there is rational foundation for the value judgments I have. Being married to an idea is a result of subjectivity. Valuing the idea in itself. If you value objectivity, you will be chiefly concerned with the truth, this means coming up with new ideas if necessary to replace the ones you've had for a while.
    You keep saying this as if other people don't also think they have a rational foundation for their value judgments. I think you, like everyone else, may not realize when you are too close to a topic to be truly objective about it. To my eye, one limb of a policy of objectivity is recognizing when you're not capable of it.
    The one who buggers a fire burns his penis
    -anonymous graffiti in the basilica at Pompeii

Similar Threads

  1. Thinking/Feeling and Mercy
    By Asterion in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 12-31-2011, 04:58 PM
  2. What personality type do you think he has?
    By Tish211 in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-05-2011, 06:32 AM
  3. [INTP] I think Feelings are important. And I'm an INTP
    By Cypocalypse in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 02-19-2009, 04:44 PM
  4. Thinking/Feeling game: Same Difference
    By rivercrow in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 05-14-2007, 08:17 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO