• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Difference in Fi vs Ti in the conclusion of a god

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Well, every particle known both is something, has effects on some other things and is effected by some other things. That thing that they are is the physical aspect of it, and the effects on/from them are not physical properties, but(dunno if this relational thing you said is referring to this) is the effect that the physical properties have when interfering with properties of other physical structure. I dont think that consciousness is a physical thing in itself but comes out of physical reactions, so its a cause of physical properties of certain type of neurons not a physical thing in itself. Basically if you take one neuron from the area where for example working memory is formed, its not conscious by itself. But if you add impulses to it that have a specific representation to it and let it send impulses to other neurons which also know what some specific impulse stands for and build a big construct out of these and also add different types of neurons from other areas and get things like conscious decision making to it and let those neurons effect back to working memory and other areas that send signals to working memory, you get a construct that works like consciousness.

I really dont think that quantum physics is required for consciousness, except ofc keeping the physical structures working from which consciousness arises, but the idea which some people have that consciousness is a property of quantum physics is pretty far off imo.
This is pretty much how I think of it; although I think quantum physics can do a good job of helping provide an explanation. And now that you put it this way, I'm thinking monists have it backwards in a way; the intrinsic properties are physical and the relational properties are mental. But each contains the other in a way...interesting stuff. I may write a paper on it.
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I've read books about the practice and found out that it takes years to gain proficiency at it. Also, it sounds like it would be very hard on my knees which hurt bad enough as it is. It also conflicts with the Western view that people don't get enough exercise in their daily lives.
Well you don't have to be in a certain position to meditate, and you can do it for like 5 minutes at a time. And then exercise. Or better yet, exercise and then meditate for about 5 minutes afterward while you're cooling down, preferably while listening to music. That's how I like to do it. Exercising gets you peacefully out of your head, and then meditation further does the trick. If you get good at that you can start doing it while sitting in a chair or lying in bed for just a few minutes at a time, and trying to detach yourself from thought, just letting them flow through your head. Like what you do before you go to sleep, but ideally you won't while meditating. The insight comes when the thoughts which flow through your head become more and more unconscious and intuitive, like a waking dream. Then you use your Ti to make ingenious deductions from them :) Also if you create a foundational feeling of inner peace, that influences your thoughts toward wisdom.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Well you don't have to be in a certain position to meditate, and you can do it for like 5 minutes at a time. And then exercise. Or better yet, exercise and then meditate for about 5 minutes afterward while you're cooling down, preferably while listening to music. That's how I like to do it. Exercising gets you peacefully out of your head, and then meditation further does the trick. If you get good at that you can start doing it while sitting in a chair or lying in bed for just a few minutes at a time, and trying to detach yourself from thought, just letting them flow through your head. Like what you do before you go to sleep, but ideally you won't while meditating. The insight comes when the thoughts which flow through your head become more and more unconscious and intuitive, like a waking dream. Then you use your Ti to make ingenious deductions from them :) Also if you create a foundational feeling of inner peace, that influences your thoughts toward wisdom.

I've had certain limited success with that. I'm not anti-meditation, I'm anti-sitting-around-all-day-in-a-diaper-staring-at-a-candle-flame-and-killing-your-knees-in-the-process.

While meditating in my 20s, I learned my purpose in life. While meditating in my 30s, I made myself forget pain.
 

violet_crown

Active member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
4,959
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
853
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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? In the end, does logic hold any difference over emotion?


I think religiosity is a trait that any type can have. There are tons of examples of INTP theologians, or theologians who have relied upon Ti to create proofs of the existence of God. Aquinas is an example that comes to mind immediately. I think that Ti is going to approach faith with the same probing curiosity with which they explore any other subject, going deeper and deeper into the nature of the universe until they come to a point where they either arrive at some satisfactory conclusion about it.

My guess would be that an Fi-dom is more likely to approach God from an ethical than material standpoint. If Ti is likely to look for God in the search for a prime mover, then Fi is searching for moral order as exemplified by the Kantian perspective. Fi is searching for some basis for their own innate sense of right and wrong, and a justification for their sense of ethical normativity more universal than their own personal feelings and direct experience. An Fi-user has a feeling they know to be correct, and then is going to use Te to find the grounds and consequence for that. They can, of course, find something inherent in the action itself, and have no need for God. But if they're inclined towards it, an Fi user is more likely to intuit directly that God exists, and then reason backwards from that point to determine what it means if God doesn't and whether we're better off because of it. Blaise Pascal of the famed Pascal's Wager exemplifies this kind of logic when he argued that the wise decision is to wager that God exists, since "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing".

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

I think this is an interesting question. I'm not certain whether reasoning about the existence of God is as compelling to examine as the moral codes that are particular to individual cultures, and those that transcend culture. Isolated tribes living in remote regions can have moral lives as complex as those of highly advanced Western societies, even if the values comprising those moralities differ. People try to explain their world, their place in the world, and how to live well in it to the best of their ability. Logic is transcendent: a careful and analytical mind in the most isolated parts of Amazonia ought to be able to reach the similar conclusions with the same set of assumptions as a philosopher at Cambridge, even if the Cambridge philosopher might reach that conclusion more readily because she has the benefit of formalized convention at her disposal. A less critical mind is going to come to equally unsophisticated conclusions, as evidenced by the shit ton of mindless Fundies living in some of the most technologically advanced societies on the planet.*

I personally am an Fi-user and am of two minds about God. I believe that the inherent good of certain actions makes them objectively better without the need to reference any external source of virtue. There is no moral necessity for God, in other words. At the same time, I feel equally strongly that I have a soul, and that soul connects me to something greater than myself. I don't why I feel this way, don't have anything credible to support it, but know it to be the case. As an Fi-user, I also don't feel like it has to make sense to anybody but myself, because it's such a personal thing. It's why I continue to identify myself as Catholic even though I think a lot of Catholicism is make believe. I want to honor that part of myself that's mine but not entirely me with ways and rituals that make cultural sense to me.

 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I've had certain limited success with that. I'm not anti-meditation, I'm anti-sitting-around-all-day-in-a-diaper-staring-at-a-candle-flame-and-killing-your-knees-in-the-process.

While meditating in my 20s, I learned my purpose in life. While meditating in my 30s, I made myself forget pain.
Ok. I don't think anyone's advocating pointlessly doing whatever it is you're opposed to. But that's great you had success with it.
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
My guess would be that an Fi-dom is more likely to approach God from an ethical than material standpoint. If Ti is likely to look for God in the search for a prime mover, then Fi is searching for moral order as exemplified by the Kantian perspective. Fi is searching for some basis for their own innate sense of right and wrong, and a justification for their sense of ethical normativity more universal than their own personal feelings and direct experience. An Fi-user has a feeling they know to be correct, and then is going to use Te to find the grounds and consequence for that. They can, of course, find something inherent in the action itself, and have no need for God. But if they're inclined towards it, an Fi user is more likely to intuit directly that God exists, and then reason backwards from that point to determine what it means if God doesn't and whether we're better off because of it. Blaise Pascal of the famed Pascal's Wager exemplifies this kind of logic when he argued that the wise decision is to wager that God exists, since "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing".
Hmmm, I think you're half right.

The thing is Pascal's Wager, or any sort of reasoning like that, is meaningless to me when it comes to something like religion. Logic won't make me believe in god, nor does it convince me not to. I just don't believe - it's not even a choice. I've given up trying to prove, defend or rationalise that view because I feel like it's ridiculous to try to - I don't see it as any more valid than the views of a believer, because it's purely incidental. I also think it's just as pointless to use logical reasoning to 'prove' that god does exist*. Some beliefs are simply based on intuition, and logic won't have much effect on it. No one can prove it for sure either way. I think logical reasoning is meaningless in such cases, because it's neither revealing or particularly useful. (I'm firmly in the agnostic atheist category BTW)

In fact you could argue that all beliefs are simply intuitive, and people use Ti or Te to convince themselves and others of it's accuracy. I read an article on psychology suggesting that this may in fact be the case. :shrug:

*although, I think believers should have some counter-arguments in stock for the logical problems of their religious belief, so at least it's not totally contradictory. It has to at least make some sense.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Well, I kind of disagree with this, because you operate under the assumption that the truth you have arrived at is something which they too should value, despite you seeming to come from an atheist point of view. It doesn't mean they are not critical towards their faith but their critical thinking or what they critically ask themselves are not the kind of questions you are interested in. You reject the idea of their faith entirely, they must still accept certain tenets in order to believe.

I honestly fail to see why one conclusion must ultimately be better than the other. If believing in Buddha gives them meaning in life who are you to question this meaning that they found as meaningless?

It's interesting that the Buddhists response was similar to your response.

The Buddhists presumed I had a truth to sell like themselves. When in fact I was using the Socratic method to question truth.

The Buddhists presumed I was selling a truth like themselves and even asked me what truth I was selling. They thought I was a tout for another religion, or as you do, a tout for atheism. Neither of which are true.

It was plain that critical thinking was foreign to them.

And critical thinking was foreign to them because it was foreign.

For critical thinking is part of Western culture; critical thinking is not part of Eastern culture.

So for Buddhists, critical thinking is part of a foreign culture: Western culture.
 

Entropic

New member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
1,200
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
8w9
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
It's interesting that the Buddhists response was similar to your response.

The Buddhists presumed I had a truth to sell like themselves. When in fact I was using the Socratic method to question truth.

The Buddhists presumed I was selling a truth like themselves and even asked me what truth I was selling. They thought I was a tout for another religion, or as you do, a tout for atheism. Neither of which are true.

It was plain that critical thinking was foreign to them.

And critical thinking was foreign to them because it was foreign.

For critical thinking is part of Western culture; critical thinking is not part of Eastern culture.

So for Buddhists, critical thinking is part of a foreign culture: Western culture.

Well, what questions DID you ask them?
 

violet_crown

Active member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
4,959
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
853
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Hmmm, I think you're half right.

The thing is Pascal's Wager, or any sort of reasoning like that, is meaningless to me when it comes to something like religion. Logic won't make me believe in god, nor does it convince me not to. I just don't believe - it's not even a choice. I've given up trying to prove, defend or rationalise that view because I feel like it's ridiculous to try to - I don't see it as any more valid than the views of a believer, because it's purely incidental. I also think it's just as pointless to use logical reasoning to 'prove' that god does exist*. Some beliefs are simply based on intuition, and logic won't have much effect on it. No one can prove it for sure either way. I think logical reasoning is meaningless in such cases, because it's neither revealing or particularly useful. (I'm firmly in the agnostic atheist category BTW)

I believe that I did mention that my guess was that an Fi-user was most likely to use an intuitive shortcut when it came to faith, and even pointed out that that is what I do myself even with Fi in the inferior position. My discussion of Fi reasoning was more directed towards what Fi reasoning would look like should they opt for a rationale beyond their own innate sense of knowing.

In fact you could argue that all beliefs are simply intuitive, and people use Ti or Te to convince themselves and others of it's accuracy. I read an article on psychology suggesting that this may in fact be the case. :shrug:

I thought that this was an interesting point because I found even as I was thinking through my post, it was much easier for me to conceptualize Ti reasoning without reference to Fe, than Fi reasoning without pulling in Te. As mentioned in my discussion of my own faith, I have an uneasiness in my own my between being fairly intuitive, and needing to anchor that intuition in logic. It's not always easy for me to let go and give what I know to be the right answer even if it generally turns out to be the correct one most of the time.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
I didnt meant that all religions says that. But just out of curiosity, which ones doesent?

All of them which aren't Abrahamic. There are only 3 Abrahamic religions. In fact, Judaism actually espouses something more like purgatory and less like the Christian idea of hell.

I actually don't even believe that the Christian heaven and hell were meant to be literal places; like most Eastern thought, I think that "heaven" is just like nirvana or samsara, in that the consciousness continues to exist, but is united to the divine or merged with other living forms. Hell is actually just the way they used to burn bodies to dispose of them instead of burying; I think this is why some Christians refuse to be cremated, which in my opinion is supremely silly, because the warning was not against burning the dead body, but that your consciousness would not be united with God.

Some religions believe the consciousness can be aligned with God before death, and that suffering, maya, hell all of that is simply the conscious choice to be separate from the divine consciousness.

To each their own, though. If people believe they are literally going to a physical place where they will eternally feel like they are being burned alive, or will float around on clouds and be bored when they die then...ok.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
I mean doesn't ANYONE think it's interesting that in Sanskrit "maya" means "illusion" and is associated with human suffering; not that we suffer because of reality, but because of the illusions we project on to it with our consciousness..and that the primary illusion is that we are separate from all that is, or the universe, or God....and that the Christian Satan is often referred to as the Master of Illusion or Lord of Illusion or Prince of Lies, and so forth?

Evil is live spelled backwards.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
All of them which aren't Abrahamic. There are only 3 Abrahamic religions. In fact, Judaism actually espouses something more like purgatory and less like the Christian idea of hell.

I actually don't even believe that the Christian heaven and hell were meant to be literal places; like most Eastern thought, I think that "heaven" is just like nirvana or samsara, in that the consciousness continues to exist, but is united to the divine or merged with other living forms. Hell is actually just the way they used to burn bodies to dispose of them instead of burying; I think this is why some Christians refuse to be cremated, which in my opinion is supremely silly, because the warning was not against burning the dead body, but that your consciousness would not be united with God.

Some religions believe the consciousness can be aligned with God before death, and that suffering, maya, hell all of that is simply the conscious choice to be separate from the divine consciousness.

To each their own, though. If people believe they are literally going to a physical place where they will eternally feel like they are being burned alive, or will float around on clouds and be bored when they die then...ok.

Egyptian book of the dead talks about afterlife, so does tibetan book of the dead(but thats essentially same as egyptians), but for them, its more of a reborn or nirvana(which i count same as heaven, but something inbetween of hell and heaven). Im not talking about heaven as described in christianity, islam etc. Finnish folk mythology says that you go in this place under ground when you die(called tuonela http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuonela )(also its funny that the trip to tuonela is described similarily than to those of egyptians, with a small ferry), which was perverted to be hell by idiot christians who came here to teach their beliefs. Australian aboriginals go to dream world when they die, ethernal life in the place where you go when you see dreams when sleeping. At least some mesoamerican religions believed in tree of life and that you could fool the gods of death and continue living after death. etc etc. so its not just abrahamic religions that have this sort of stuff about eternal life after death.
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Up the Wolves
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
19,444
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
As an INTP, I find the idea of a Spinzoan god or primary mover very appealing, so I actually identify with that. I have a hard time grasping the concept of "existence" without something like that. For me, that provides a "reason" for existence. You can start with the Big Bang, and I believe in all of that, but there's a part of me that's unsatisfied, and can't stop asking "But why?"

I find that most people don't want to go into this detail, so I've just started telling them I'm an atheist.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
You can start with the Big Bang, and I believe in all of that.

And I want to make you a Big Bang Atheist because the Big Bang never happened.

There was no explosion. The galaxies are not exploding away from each other. Rather it is time and space that are accelerating and carrying the galaxies along.
 

The Great One

New member
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
3,439
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
6w7
I'm going to compare INTP's and INFP's for a minute.

In my experience, many INTP's, including Einstein (I've heard he's an ENTP... I don't think it really matters though) have eventually come to the conclusion that there is a god, but not one in the christian biblical sense who takes part in the fates of man.

I find INFP's to be more often than not spiritual people with a belief in a god as well, be it a manlike god or an energy.

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

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

I am an ENTP and I once chatted about this subject with an ENFP professor. I noticed that I, tend to look to data and try to understand God from an objective standpoint. I would myself, look at the facts of Christianity per se, see if they made personal sense to me, and then see if the whole situation made sense to me in general. My ENFP professor's method seemed to be way more feeling based: he said that he came to his religious conclusions through sitting down and really thinking for hours about how he felt about it and what he just personally believed in his heart. The Ti method is much more objective and much more based on data and just pure logic, and the Fi way is much more based on feelings and personal beliefs.
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Up the Wolves
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
19,444
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
And I want to make you a Big Bang Atheist because the Big Bang never happened.

There was no explosion. The galaxies are not exploding away from each other. Rather it is time and space that are accelerating and carrying the galaxies along.

I apologize for using terminology in popular usage, and not explaining the intricacies of physics in something that was only an aside to the broader point I was making.
 
Last edited:

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Up the Wolves
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
19,444
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I am an ENTP and I once chatted about this subject with an ENFP professor. I noticed that I, tend to look to data and try to understand God from an objective standpoint. I would myself, look at the facts of Christianity per se, see if they made personal sense to me, and then see if the whole situation made sense to me in general. My ENFP professor's method seemed to be way more feeling based: he said that he came to his religious conclusions through sitting down and really thinking for hours about how he felt about it and what he just personally believed in his heart. The Ti method is much more objective and much more based on data and just pure logic, and the Fi way is much more based on feelings and personal beliefs.

As I've said elsewhere, type isn't the only factor determining whether someone's an atheist or a Christian, as just one example.

Type is less relevant for what someone believes. It's more relevant for why they believe what they believe, or how they came to believe it.

My interest in typology was actually reawakened when I realized that my initial understanding of what it was wrong. Typology is not a collection of stereotypes. You can't just say NT= nerd, NF = hippy, SP = jock/"cool people''. Not that there isn't significant overlap, but it's not the whole picture. Typology seemed more significant when I realized it had more to do with the way people process information.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
[MENTION=7595]INTP[/MENTION] I was speaking of major world religions, and all the same I believe that these literalist translations are the direct result of Western ideas and modes of thinking, and have nothing to do with the original Eastern concepts, and I do for all intents and purposes that Christianity was actually an Eastern religious idea that was corrupted by literal Greco-Roman thought in the West.

I think the reason why people say "I dont need to go to hell, hell is here on earth" are closer to the truth than they may realize. However its not that Earth is hell, but that hell is a form of consciousness that is experienced both dead and alive by the choice to be separate from All That Is or God.

When we believe in the illusion of separation we act in fear instead of faith and then commit acts (in Christianity called "sin") out of this fear, like stealing from fear of lack, or murder out of the illusion that killing another living thing would somehow benefit you or any other living thing.

Christianity in its purest form is so close to other forms of Eastern thought that now that I see it, it amazes me how badly its been twisted in the West.

Not that Eastern countries aren't capable of twisting Eastern philosophies as well, its just that Western thought implies it through its very mode of being, the divisive, competitive, either/or structure that makes up Western ideas.

Its why I consider Objectivism and anarcho-capitalism to not only be lacking in reason in terms of long-term thinking or big picture thinking, but actual moral evil.

Ayn Rands Objectivism is Satanism in a dress.

Nietzchien existential philosophy may be more lucid in terms of Western philosophy, but its the absolute height of hysterical, illusory Maya in terms of Eastern thought.

I dont think its a coincidence that Ayn Rand died unhappy, sick and alone and that Nietzchie went insane.

The causes of their afflictions were every bit as mental and spiritual as physical.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Oh also I don't want anyone to misunderstand that I am calling Western thought "evil" in any way. Western thought serves an obviously good purpose; I just don't feel that its purpose should in any way be mixed up too much with interpretations of spirituality. It seems like it's done more harm than good to Christianity, and I find the "Westernized" form of Yoga i.e. "Power yoga" to not even be real yoga (more akin to militaristic aerobics) and lacking in the complete mind-body benefits of doing a more authentic vinyasa or hatha or kundalini practice.

I think Nietzsche is a prime example of Western thought too far out of balance with Eastern thought, for example.

The problem is not the East or the West, but the imbalance...and trying to use a trombone as a shoe horn.
 

pinkgraffiti

New member
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
1,482
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
748
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
That's exactly the same thing, just seen from a different perspective.


And I want to make you a Big Bang Atheist because the Big Bang never happened.

There was no explosion. The galaxies are not exploding away from each other. Rather it is time and space that are accelerating and carrying the galaxies along.
 
Top