User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 33

  1. #11
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    Well why not? How can one worldview be determined to be superior to another? Isn't it an arbitrary distinction, or is there some truely objective way to determine if one method of reaching conclusions is superior to another in every context? Even things like "logic" and "science" can be described as myths based on tradition. Isn't "logic" just a tradition handed down from the ancient Greeks? Isn't the scientific tradition simply methods handed down from people like Descartes and Occam?

    It seems like "logic" and "science" are simply methods that are created by NT's and therefore appeal to other NT's. Why should an ESFJ, for example, consider these methods to be superior to things like religious tradition, courteousness, or emotional bonding? Perhaps the ESFJ is closer to knowing "Truth", than an INTP who obsessively studies philosophy? The INTP merely considers logic to be a superior method simply because he can't understand any other method, even though the other methods lead to enlightenment.

    What proof is there that the NT method is superior to the SJ method? A good proof should not have axioms that appeal specifically to NT's such as "Truth is objective and can be discovered through logic" or "It is always wrong for anyone, to believe anything on insufficient evidence".
    Well, I guess the thing is, no one, not even an ESFJ, can deny that logic is valid on some level, but you can explain away emotions, traditions, or hunches. The unique quality of logic is that if it considers all relevant factors, its conclusion always manifests in some way. The difference between myself and BlueWing is that he is mostly concerned with what is valid or true, and I am mostly concerned with experiencing various ideas and connections in terms of what they mean to me, whether they're true or not, although I seem to find myself eventually trying to determine whether they're true or not for some odd reason.

  2. #12
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    Well why not? How can one worldview be determined to be superior to another? Isn't it an arbitrary distinction, or is there some truely objective way to determine if one method of reaching conclusions is superior to another in every context? Even things like "logic" and "science" can be described as myths based on tradition. Isn't "logic" just a tradition handed down from the ancient Greeks? Isn't the scientific tradition simply methods handed down from people like Descartes and Occam?

    It seems like "logic" and "science" are simply methods that are created by NT's and therefore appeal to other NT's. Why should an ESFJ, for example, consider these methods to be superior to things like religious tradition, courteousness, or emotional bonding? Perhaps the ESFJ is closer to knowing "Truth", than an INTP who obsessively studies philosophy? The INTP merely considers logic to be a superior method simply because he can't understand any other method, even though the other methods lead to enlightenment.

    What proof is there that the NT method is superior to the SJ method? A good proof should not have axioms that appeal specifically to NT's such as "Truth is objective and can be discovered through logic" or "It is always wrong for anyone, to believe anything on insufficient evidence".
    Okay, I shall say, take 2 and 2 and you'll get four. Why dont you go see for yourself if thats true. You don't need for an authority to tell you this.

    Why dont you jump off a building and watch yourself fall, that is law of nature just like the one we described using the mathematical method (2 plus 2).

    Now take your grandmas superstition about how if you whistle in the house you'll become broke or for how if you light a candle up at 2 am on a certain and chant a certain incantation the spirit of your great grandfather shall visit you, and test them out!

    We are more likely to find confirmations in abstract reasoning (theoretical mathematics) and in our observations (concrete, empirical evidence) for beliefs that we've acquried through logic than for beliefs that we've acquired through tradition. You can see for yourself what was correct about what Descartes and Occam said and what was not.

    For many beliefs we've acquired through tradition, we could just go out to the real world and see for ourselves how they are false and for the rest we could refute with mathematical logic. Show how they contradict themselves or what we already know about the world. Thats the part where they start talking about bodies rising from the dead and rivers turning into flames. From what I know about the laws of nature in order for this to happen there needs to be an exceedingly intricate process in thos entities to take place which is impossible under the circumstances that they describe water turning into flames and dead bodies reinvigorated. Our theorizing in mathematical logic rules that out.


    We don't need tradition to pass down discoveries we made with logic because we can test them out by ourselves whenever we see fit.
    "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/

  3. #13
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Okay, I shall say, take 2 and 2 and you'll get four. Why dont you go see for yourself if thats true. You don't need for an authority to tell you this.

    Why dont you jump off a building and watch yourself fall, that is law of nature just like the one we described using the mathematical method (2 plus 2).

    Now take your grandmas superstition about how if you whistle in the house you'll become broke or for how if you light a candle up at 2 am on a certain and chant a certain incantation the spirit of your great grandfather shall visit you, and test them out!

    We are more likely to find confirmations in abstract reasoning (theoretical mathematics) and in our observations (concrete, empirical evidence) for beliefs that we've acquried through logic than for beliefs that we've acquired through tradition. You can see for yourself what was correct about what Descartes and Occam said and what was not.

    For many beliefs we've acquired through tradition, we could just go out to the real world and see for ourselves how they are false and for the rest we could refute with mathematical logic. Show how they contradict themselves or what we already know about the world. Thats the part where they start talking about bodies rising from the dead and rivers turning into flames.


    We don't need tradition to pass down discoveries we made with logic because we can test them out by ourselves whenever we see fit.
    The problem he referred to is that you are still relying on an authority, a standard. Such as your memory of symbolic meanings, and the test methods you've learned. What he meant wasn't that it couldn't be "tested out," but that the very idea of "testing something out" was based on logic. No other philosophy requires that, all the others can accept things on faith or fear. I wonder if that's what keeps drawing me back to logic in spite of myself and my primary concerns, because I tend to feel that I can "know" on some level if something is logical or not, based on certain criteria, but I can never "know" if faith is justified?

  4. #14
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by athenian200 View Post
    The problem he referred to is that you are still relying on an authority, a standard. Such as your memory of symbolic meanings, and the test methods you've learned. What he meant wasn't that it couldn't be "tested out," but that the very idea of "testing something out" was based on logic. No other philosophy requires that, all the others can accept things on faith or fear. I wonder if that's what keeps drawing me back to logic in spite of myself and my primary concerns, because I tend to feel that I can "know" on some level if something is logical or not, based on certain criteria, but I can never "know" if faith is justified?
    There is no authority here because I've concocted the standard on my own.

    I use the methods that I use because I've discovered for them to work.
    "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/

  5. #15
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    There is no authority here because I've concocted the standard on my own.

    I use the methods that I use because I've discovered for them to work.
    But isn't the very evaluation of whether or not something "worked" based on some kind of logical standard?

  6. #16
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by athenian200 View Post
    But isn't the very evaluation of whether or not something "worked" based on some kind of logical standard?
    Yes, but this does not imply a non-critical acceptance of authority.
    "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/

  7. #17
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Yes, but this does not imply a non-critical acceptance of authority.
    I can agree with that. And I actually think that if you accept your interpretation of your experiences as a measure, you can see something like the rules of logic eventually. But it would take a long time to see.

    Also, I think that emotion is a reasonable tool for evaluating motivations and values in people just as logic is a reasonable tool for evaluating truth and structure in reality.

  8. #18
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Okay, I shall say, take 2 and 2 and you'll get four. Why dont you go see for yourself if thats true. You don't need for an authority to tell you this.

    Why dont you jump off a building and watch yourself fall, that is law of nature just like the one we described using the mathematical method (2 plus 2).

    Now take your grandmas superstition about how if you whistle in the house you'll become broke or for how if you light a candle up at 2 am on a certain and chant a certain incantation the spirit of your great grandfather shall visit you, and test them out!
    Your portrayal of this apparant dichotomy is heavily biased. I could easily reverse your argument and put it this way:

    Tradition and common sense are the only things worth following. These things teach you how to cook meals, tie your shoes, get a job, and all other practical aspects of life. A person who does not have even the most basic life skills will be miserable. It is clear that anyone who follows tradition and common sense will know how to survive in this world and to enjoy what it has to offer.

    On the other hand Ted Kazcynski, the Unabomber, was an extremely logical person. That logic lead him to mail bombs to people through the mail. It's clear that logic is what total lunatics use and we should have no use for it.

    This is the equally biased mirror image of the argument that you are portraying.

    We are more likely to find confirmations in abstract reasoning (theoretical mathematics) and in our observations (concrete, empirical evidence) for beliefs that we've acquried through logic than for beliefs that we've acquired through tradition. You can see for yourself what was correct about what Descartes and Occam said and what was not.
    This assumes that logic and concrete, empirical evidence are superior methods of reaching conclusions in all circumstances. These are totally arbitrary assumptions. For example anecdotal evidence is rejected in a scientific context, but it is placed in the highest regard in the context of a courtroom (i.e. the testimony of the witnesses). You seem to be saying that anecdotal evidence, for example, should always be rejected in favor of logic and empirical evidence in every situation.

    Or are you saying that these methods are superior because one can verify them independently. Are you suggesting that it is better to destroy ourselves individually than to save ourselves as a cohesive society?

    For many beliefs we've acquired through tradition, we could just go out to the real world and see for ourselves how they are false and for the rest we could refute with mathematical logic. Show how they contradict themselves or what we already know about the world. Thats the part where they start talking about bodies rising from the dead and rivers turning into flames. From what I know about the laws of nature in order for this to happen there needs to be an exceedingly intricate process in thos entities to take place which is impossible under the circumstances that they describe water turning into flames and dead bodies reinvigorated. Our theorizing in mathematical logic rules that out.

    We don't need tradition to pass down discoveries we made with logic because we can test them out by ourselves whenever we see fit.
    Again you are making the assumptions that logic and independence are superior. You seem to be saying "logic is superior because it uses logic". Your assumptions are totally arbitrary. If you want to convince me that logic is superior to tradition, then you need to only use assumptions that everyone would readily accept. That includes the people that you would consider to hold to superstitious traditions.

    What you have said so far seems to be an extremely wordy version of saying, "I'm right because I said so". Can you show me that the traditionalist view is inferior based on their standards rather than yours? If not then your distinction of what is a superior method is arbitrary.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  9. #19
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    Your portrayal of this apparant dichotomy is heavily biased. I could easily reverse your argument and put it this way:

    Tradition and common sense are the only things worth following. These things teach you how to cook meals, tie your shoes, get a job, and all other practical aspects of life. A person who does not have even the most basic life skills will be miserable. It is clear that anyone who follows tradition and common sense will know how to survive in this world and to enjoy what it has to offer.

    On the other hand Ted Kazcynski, the Unabomber, was an extremely logical person. That logic lead him to mail bombs to people through the mail. It's clear that logic is what total lunatics use and we should have no use for it.
    I agree that BlueWing is a bit biased. He is Ti dominant, after all...

    But I can actually envision a scenario that meets your criteria. Suppose a tribe of people accepts the value of human sacrifice based on tradition. Now suppose there was a famine, and many died, enough so that continuing that tradition would result in the extinction of the tribe. Logic would tell you to discontinue the practice, but tradition would choose to continue it. They continue it, and they become extinct. Most traditions say that one should value the continuity of the people, the carrying on of their way of life. In this case, tradition proved inferior to logic by it's own standards.

  10. #20
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    Again you are making the assumptions that logic and independence are superior. You seem to be saying "logic is superior because it uses logic". Your assumptions are totally arbitrary. If you want to convince me that logic is superior to tradition, then you need to only use assumptions that everyone would readily accept. That includes the people that you would consider to hold to superstitious traditions.
    Logic is arbitrary?

    I believe you are projecting. It may be that logic is unjustifiable, and in fact that all knowledge is unjustifiable, but it hardly follows that the choice to use logic is arbitrary. If you disagree, I suggest that you try and not use logic for a day and see how things work out.

    As for "assumptions that everyone would readily accept", I might ask what this has to do with the truth? I believe they have a name for this logical fallacy, and it betrays an irrelevent concern for what people think, and too little concern for pursuing the truth

    It is most assuredly the case that rational investigation and discussion, cannot proceed without logic, because without logic there would be no deduction of consequences, or retransmission of falsity, which is the backbone of critical discussion.

    It is a choice to be rational, and it is a limit of rational discussion, that those who are not interested, or have chosen to reject rationality, will be beyond any argument we might propose. This, however, does not mean rationalism is mistaken, false, or arbitrary.

    (Incidently, 'arbitrary' is a logical notion)

    (btw, I have no time to Bluewing's attack of tradition, it's just the old contructivist rationality that Hayek wrote so well on, and the same misguided notions.)
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-22-2016, 08:50 PM
  2. Intuitives: Do you hate searching for things in your outer surroundings?
    By The Great One in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 06-26-2012, 08:48 PM
  3. The Search for Better, More Elemental Definitions of the Functions, Esp. Judging
    By Eric B in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-10-2011, 02:44 PM
  4. [sx] sx/sp types, let me save you a lot of trouble in the search for a mate
    By themarlins in forum Instinctual Subtypes
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 07-09-2010, 11:08 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