Difference in Fi vs Ti in the conclusion of a god

[Salomé]

Antonio Damasio has written that emotion underpins every action and belief, and that it is a critical factor in all decision making. If this hypothesis is true (and I believe it is), then the distraction distinction between Fi and Ti is a misleading [one].

You think that because your Ti is weak.

This is a good example of a Ti-Dom and a Fi-Dom reflecting on the same material, (I assume you refer to "Descartes Error") finding much to agree with, yet extrapolating very different conclusions therefrom.

 

[Standuble]

Antonio Damasio has written that emotion underpins every action and belief, and that it is a critical factor in all decision making. If this hypothesis is true (and I believe it is), then the distraction between Fi and Ti is a misleading.

This doesn't seem to make sense to me. It only seems to work if you assert that Fi = emotion but Fi is a different entity to emotion. At best emotion is only one of numerous influencers.

 

[Aesthete]

On a related topic, an INTP friend and I had a discussion on the existence of the soul. We basically reached the same conclusion (though I think mine was more independent musing while he read quite a bit of Kant and expanded on his own), but how we delivered it was different - he gave a scientific report while I gave it a somewhat mystical value.

As for myself, I don't believe in a creator god - that is, a being beyond nature that I worship because he/she/it created nature - but that doesn't mean I think such a god (vague term) doesn't exist. Rather, my beliefs are similar to those of the Gnostics. In either case, I've stopped debating with myself over the existence of a god or gods, and am now trying to figure out whether there is such a thing as an individuals or if the only thing separating us is time and space.

 

[sleuthiness]

In response to Aesthete, mods- merge this into the telepathy thread. One body.

 

[Mole]

On a related topic, an INTP friend and I had a discussion on the existence of the soul.

'Does the soul exist?' is the same kind of question as 'does information exist?'.

At first we thought information was immaterial, quite like the soul. But now we know information is part of the movement to greater entropy and so is material. And so we suspect the soul is material as well.

 

[INTP]

i think that god is old undifferentiated concept which basically puts together causality in the external world and unconscious parts of the self. i dont think its no coincidence that some primitive people think they see god when they take hallucinogenic mushroom, that angels tend to speak to prophets in dreams and that when you die basically all your neurons activate(basically overloading the conscious parts and causing things like losing sense of time that comes along with it) and religions tells you that you go to either hell or heaven or something in between.

 

[INTP]

On a related topic, an INTP friend and I had a discussion on the existence of the soul. We basically reached the same conclusion (though I think mine was more independent musing while he read quite a bit of Kant and expanded on his own), but how we delivered it was different - he gave a scientific report while I gave it a somewhat mystical value.

As for myself, I don't believe in a creator god - that is, a being beyond nature that I worship because he/she/it created nature - but that doesn't mean I think such a god (vague term) doesn't exist. Rather, my beliefs are similar to those of the Gnostics. In either case, I've stopped debating with myself over the existence of a god or gods, and am now trying to figure out whether there is such a thing as an individuals or if the only thing separating us is time and space.

so you worship quantum fluctuation that happened during the big bang?

 

[greenfairy]

On a related topic, an INTP friend and I had a discussion on the existence of the soul. We basically reached the same conclusion (though I think mine was more independent musing while he read quite a bit of Kant and expanded on his own), but how we delivered it was different - he gave a scientific report while I gave it a somewhat mystical value.

As for myself, I don't believe in a creator god - that is, a being beyond nature that I worship because he/she/it created nature - but that doesn't mean I think such a god (vague term) doesn't exist. Rather, my beliefs are similar to those of the Gnostics. In either case, I've stopped debating with myself over the existence of a god or gods, and am now trying to figure out whether there is such a thing as an individuals or if the only thing separating us is time and space.

I love Kant. I think his justification for (the traditional version of a transcendent) God is the best yet, as in it's the only way I would accept such a notion. So I can't rule it out because it would be impossible to do so.

Also you should look into monism.

so you worship quantum fluctuation that happened during the big bang?

That's probably how it happened!

As for me: in addition to what I've said before, I think everything exists as some sort of a network of consciousness, and energy can be concentrated in thought forms to create gods, which we can interact with. I don't really believe in them other than that.

Although I think it's funny that the person I seem to agree with most in my philosophy classes is an INTJ Christian, because we're both monists. Currently he's an idealist/monist and I haven't decided what category my version of it falls into, or if I need to create a new one.

 

[greenfairy]

Antonio Damasio has written that emotion underpins every action and belief, and that it is a critical factor in all decision making. If this hypothesis is true (and I believe it is), then the distraction between Fi and Ti is a misleading.

I believe this is true, but I don't think the conclusion necessarily follows. Our actions and beliefs are influenced by emotion on a deeply unconscious level, because we form beliefs and impressions about the world and people from our emotional reactions to experiences, and these accumulate in the unconsciousness as stored memories with associated patterns of feeling. At least this is what I think makes sense. But Fi isn't really about emotion; it's a qualitative evaluation of experience in terms of one's relationship to the environment, whereas Ti is a personally detached evaluation based on the structure of reality. This is why they both form systems- Fi fits the self into a structure of personal relationships and Ti fits the mind into the structure of existence. Both can be emotional (and usually in different ways); it's just that emotions are more relevant to the quality of relationships than they are to logical systems and so Fi pays more attention to them.

You think that because your Ti is weak.

This is a good example of a Ti-Dom and a Fi-Dom reflecting on the same material, (I assume you refer to "Descartes Error") finding much to agree with, yet extrapolating very different conclusions therefrom.

I'm not sure what it is you are referring to which is mistaken and why, but perhaps what I've said above can underline an argument. No doubt Fi and Ti would view material from different perspectives and come to conclusions with different emphases.

If left to themselves in meditation for a very long time, do you think an INTP and an INFP would arrive at a similar conclusion of the existence of god? Or do you think both personalities would veer off in completely different directions?

I think they would veer off in opposite directions but in the end arrive at the same place, because the thing they are exploring is a circle. INTP seeks to model the objective and INFP the subjective. They both want to discover the inner workings of a system, but they focus on different systems, which are complimentary parts of a whole.

They would probably have different semantics for the concepts they use and different motives, and attach different meaning to what they discover, but it's highly likely they would have more on which to agree than disagree.

In the end, does logic hold any difference over emotion?

I don't believe logic and emotion need to be in conflict, and in any case, emotion and Fi are two different creatures.

Are the conclusions of modern thinkers with the backing of math and science any less sophisticated than that of nomads?

In my opinion they are the same, from different perspectives, with different information. Humans are pretty much the same over time. Modern science and thinking and such gives greater illumination of the microcosm because of our increased powers of empirical observation, and greater complexity of thought due to a more complex world.

Also, really great posts [MENTION=6877]Marmotini[/MENTION]! You've raised a lot of points I've been trying to make for awhile. Glad we agree.

 

[INTP]

As for me: in addition to what I've said before, I think everything exists as some sort of a network of consciousness, and energy can be concentrated in thought forms to create gods, which we can interact with. I don't really believe in them other than that.

Why do you think its conscious? I mean consciousness is a physical phenomena(as everything else is) and not just any physical phenomena, but one that happens in brains, when the brains are constructed in very certain way.

 

[Mal12345]

I love Kant.

That's a rare statement to see, no doubt because it comes from a rare kind of individual. Most people, when they become aware of Kant, abhor him and his philosophy. It takes an uncommon and valuable type of mind to see where he's coming from.

 

[Qlip]

I believe in God, after a fashion. I suppose my Fi ties into the conception of God very closely. I believe that ultimately, everyone can be happy, if we all treated each other in accordance to some sort of innate conscience. The 'commandments' change relatively in accordance to the circumstances. I guess this is really just Ne informed Fi.

In know plenty of INTPs who see God as a necessary conclusion, the 'first mover'. That's a very Ti concept.

 

[greenfairy]

Why do you think its conscious? I mean consciousness is a physical phenomena(as everything else is) and not just any physical phenomena, but one that happens in brains, when the brains are constructed in very certain way.

See I'm not sure about that. I do think consciousness arises from physical components, but a version of monism says that particles have both relational and intrinsic properties and that the relational properties are physical and the intrinsic properties are mental; so perhaps everything is both physical and mental. I'm not sure about it, but if it were true it would do a good job of solving the mind body problem and it's consistent in a roundabout sort of way with the wave particle duality property.

So I think consciousness is a physical substance, indeed everything is- but there are different ways in which we conceptualize the physical which don't include a lot of things and which I think should. History has shown our definitions to be continually changing; in the time of Descartes people would not have thought electromagnetic fields were physical. (I don't know all of the science that existed at the time, but if this is incorrect you could easily pick out something else which illustrates the same principle.)

That's a rare statement to see, no doubt because it comes from a rare kind of individual. Most people, when they become aware of Kant, abhor him and his philosophy. It takes an uncommon and valuable type of mind to see where he's coming from.

Really? I guess they don't understand it then, which is surprising because it seems pretty clear to me. He was a genius. He synthesized everything in a logically consistent way, and then elaborated on it based on sensible deductions, and ended up saying a lot of things I want to say only better. I studied him in my 17th and 18th century philosophy class, and I'm taking a bunch of other philosophy classes so I haven't gotten to read a lot of him, but everything he's said so far has made sense to me. What do you like about his philosophy?

 

[Mal12345]

See I'm not sure about that. I do think consciousness arises from physical components, but a version of monism says that particles have both relational and intrinsic properties and that the relational properties are physical and the intrinsic properties are mental; so perhaps everything is both physical and mental. I'm not sure about it, but if it were true it would do a good job of solving the mind body problem and it's consistent in a roundabout sort of way with the wave particle duality property.

So I think consciousness is a physical substance, indeed everything is- but there are different ways in which we conceptualize the physical which don't include a lot of things and which I think should. History has shown our definitions to be continually changing; in the time of Descartes people would not have thought electromagnetic fields were physical. (I don't know all of the science that existed at the time, but if this is incorrect you could easily pick out something else which illustrates the same principle.)

Really? I guess they don't understand it then, which is surprising because it seems pretty clear to me. He was a genius. He synthesized everything in a logically consistent way, and then elaborated on it based on sensible deductions, and ended up saying a lot of things I want to say only better. I studied him in my 17th and 18th century philosophy class, and I'm taking a bunch of other philosophy classes so I haven't gotten to read a lot of him, but everything he's said so far has made sense to me. What do you like about his philosophy?

Kant will be more relevant to the study of modern philosophy. Kant has a foot in both the Enlightenment and Modern eras, and his influence can even be spotted in post-Modernist writings. Kant must be approached from the viewpoint of his predecessors, but also from contemporaries such as Emanuel Swedenborg.

While Kant's aim was to revive metaphysics as both a science and a discipline, this only produced about five decades of fruitful philosophical pursuit. Kantianism is foundational to modern philosophy, but attempts were made early on to subvert this foundation, primarily Fichte.

I like it because it makes sense.

 

[Thalassa]

'Does the soul exist?' is the same kind of question as 'does information exist?'.

At first we thought information was immaterial, quite like the soul. But now we know information is part of the movement to greater entropy and so is material. And so we suspect the soul is material as well.

I was watching a film where a man was discussing the problem of free will in relation to science, and apparently much like the idea of God knowing our fate but us having free will, our lives are mostly governed by natural laws which are unavoidable, but we still have unique personalities.

I've noticed a lot in my studies that scientists are just starting to "prove" things that certain groups of religious people already knew for centuries.

This is particular impressive in the field of medicine, where even in Western medicine, doctors are going to have to back-track from a purely Western approach, because they're acknowledging the validity more and more of preventative medicine in things like massage and eating the correct foods, which is an ancient idea in the East, as well moving back toward more natural birthing practices for women (with some medical supervision) and the power of emotions and faith and meditation and belief upon the physical health.

In the future, people will recognize the validity of East and West working together, and of science being the what and religion being the why. I sincerely believe this.

Because when everything attempts to become too Westernized something is missing, women were having unnecessary C-sections, doctors weren't acknowledging the validity of natural medicine and the power of the mind at all, and so forth. It's only as we've come more into the 21st century that things are becoming more balanced.

Eastern and Western thought are both necessary for the optimal state of humanity. Focusing too much on Western thought becomes ridiculously literal and black/white, right/wrong, divisive, and what many Easterners refer to as a wild imbalance of too much masculine energy.

 

[Thalassa]

This doesn't seem to make sense to me. It only seems to work if you assert that Fi = emotion but Fi is a different entity to emotion. At best emotion is only one of numerous influencers.

Yeah it's a completely different idea than pure emotion. All types have emotions, and T types can become very emotional about people telling them that they're wrong, or about things suddenly becoming what they see as irrational, etc.

Fi is making value judgments by ethics and aesthetic and relational considerations from an internal judging system rather than something as simple as "emotions." All people have emotions.

And if you always made decisions by raw emotion, that doesn't leave any room for reason. Fi is actually a rational function, it's just not logical.

 

[Thalassa]

and religions tells you that you go to either hell or heaven or something in between.

Actually all religions don't tell you that at all, and it's debatable as to whether even the religions which say it meant it literally (as most Westerners interpret it), or rather a state of consciousness or being.

 

[greenfairy]

I was watching a film where a man was discussing the problem of free will in relation to science, and apparently much like the idea of God knowing our fate but us having free will, our lives are mostly governed by natural laws which are unavoidable, but we still have unique personalities.

I've noticed a lot in my studies that scientists are just starting to "prove" things that certain groups of religious people already knew for centuries.

This is particular impressive in the field of medicine, where even in Western medicine, doctors are going to have to back-track from a purely Western approach, because they're acknowledging the validity more and more of preventative medicine in things like massage and eating the correct foods, which is an ancient idea in the East, as well moving back toward more natural birthing practices for women (with some medical supervision) and the power of emotions and faith and meditation and belief upon the physical health.

In the future, people will recognize the validity of East and West working together, and of science being the what and religion being the why. I sincerely believe this.

Because when everything attempts to become too Westernized something is missing, women were having unnecessary C-sections, doctors weren't acknowledging the validity of natural medicine and the power of the mind at all, and so forth. It's only as we've come more into the 21st century that things are becoming more balanced.

Eastern and Western thought are both necessary for the optimal state of humanity. Focusing too much on Western thought becomes ridiculously literal and black/white, right/wrong, divisive, and what many Easterners refer to as a wild imbalance of too much masculine energy.

This is exactly what I think and have been thinking for years. I intend in my philosophical work to unite Eastern and Western philosophy. I think it's indicative of a problem that classes on Eastern philosophy are listed under the religious studies program. True it hasn't been "proven" by Western standards of proof, but there is a lot of scientific evidence out there which we haven't even bothered to look at, and I am firmly convinced that everything true in Eastern philosophy can be proven through Western means if done in the right way. Western thought needs to release its limitations and Eastern thought needs grounding.

 

[Mal12345]

This is exactly what I think and have been thinking for years. I intend in my philosophical work to unite Eastern and Western philosophy. I think it's indicative of a problem that classes on Eastern philosophy are listed under the religious studies program. True it hasn't been "proven" by Western standards of proof, but there is a lot of scientific evidence out there which we haven't even bothered to look at, and I am firmly convinced that everything true in Eastern philosophy can be proven through Western means if done in the right way. Western thought needs to release its limitations and Eastern thought needs grounding.

Much work in Western thinking has been started by flashes of insight or intuitive modes of understanding. It beats sitting around in a diaper staring at a candle for hours while life passes them by.

 

[greenfairy]

Much work in Western thinking has been started by flashes of insight or intuitive modes of understanding. It beats sitting around in a diaper staring at a candle for hours while life passes them by.

It's the same. Insight comes from all directions, and people do all sorts of things while life passes them by.