Wrong. Feeling can also be a precursor to objective judgment. Trust but verify
Subjective as in, there isn't that MUCH objectivity to it. It's subjective in that you use feeling based on things that happen in the moment, and with thinking it's widely usable and not reliant on people and what they do. Sure there is a subjective factor to thinking and there is a bit of objectivity about feeling, but yeah.
It's subjective in that you use feeling based on things that happen in the moment, and with thinking it's widely usable and not reliant on people and what they do. Sure there is a subjective factor to thinking and there is a bit of objectivity about feeling, but yeah.
Are you sure you're not thinking of FP specifically?
1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible
2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense
3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid
4. endowed with the faculty of reason
And let's examine them one by one:
1. Is Fi and/or Fe as a function agreeable to reason - yes
2. Is using feeling as a function mean you are capable of exercising good sense and judgement - yes
3. If you use your feeling functions, are you still sane - yes
4. Does feeling as a function mean you possess the capacity to use reason - of course
What is subjective in the whole of human existence is ONLY the interpretation of data, the "information in". It does not matter which function (Fi, Fe, Ti, or Te) is the director of analyzing and creating these conclusions or judgements; the potential to err exists in ANY judging function.
Thus, judging functions are, in reality, all subjective, and potentially irrational.
This illustrates a gross misunderstanding of the philosophy of language and words as tools of communication. The OP has a worthy question.
I would've said more of a misunderstanding of the OPs intent. I think this is where the difference in focus between F and T lies. I know the Jungian categories "thinking" and "feeling" probably won't be in my Oxford, I actually saw this problem in a flash when I read the message, but the more interesting thing for me to focus on is the misunderstanding of the OP. ie. communication breakdown because the person's intent was not considered when reading the message, so it was taken in the wrong context.
Freude, schĂ¶ner GĂ¶tterfunken Tochter aus Elysium, Wir betreten feuertrunken, Himmlische, dein Heiligtum! Deine Zauber binden wieder Was die Mode streng geteilt; Alle Menschen werden BrĂĽder, Wo dein sanfter FlĂĽgel weilt.
attributing objectivity versus subjectivity to T or F seems as much of a misnomer as attributing intelligence to or seemingly solely to NT is.
MacGuffin had posted an article from the Boston globe from a few yrs ago about the thinking-feeling-emotions linkage and it might be relevant to the OP in terms of adding lateral input :
Hearts & Minds
As much as you might not expect this answer from me, YES...
Both processes are logical; Feeling bases this logic on interpersonal standards and Thinking relies upon impersonal constructs.
But this makes interpersonal standards the ultimate authority for Feelers, but it's clear that interpersonal standards, (e.g., tradition, ad populum, etc.), are fallible.
It would be irrational to make that which is fallible your ultimate authority. In this case, were a Feeler rational, it'd be the result of epistemic luck (or grace) that the interpersonal standards to which he subscribed were rational, for there are entire worldviews and communities that are subjective, anti-realistic, and consciously illogical.
Feeling and Thinking are both subjective rational decision making processes as they are both processes done by a subject. F takes in account subjective human factors as valid input while T prefers to use only the objective. Yet, F and T are both capable of using both subjective and objective information when forming a decision.