[MBTI General] Idealism

[murkrow]

Describe your idealism, please.

(yes, I will critique it)

 

[Snuggletron]

mine is simply: uncertainty.

 

[bighairything]

All human souls - I use the word metaphorically as I am not religious - are of equal intrinsic value. Society should reflect that. It doesn't.

 

[nanook]

first of all: idealism is not about values. especially not in the context of typology, but also not in the context of 'common sense'. (uhm, bad choice of word)

idealism is a branch of intelligence, that tries to understand the intrinsic nature or character of things (entities or networks, humans or humanity) and derives the way of dealing with those things from this understanding.

in typology (or in keirsey's typology at least) it is primarily associated with intuition, not with values or judgments, albeit social idealism is secondarily associated with feeling-values. (but feeling can't be the significant aspect of it, since idealism is not associated with SF but NF)

any idealism that can be described must be a rather dead process of understanding.

well, actually any branch of intelligence develops in stages, so there might me some period that can naturally appear to be pretty static from a distance.

a critique of a living process of understanding might be a waste of time.
it might be outdated, before you press enter.

the most static idealism is of course unconscious idealism.
if you didn't know that idealism is about understanding nature (character) and adapting to it, you might be to busy with opposing agendas. (like imposing some short sighted situational 'needs' on the whole world)

other than that, i have this to say:

 

[BlueSprout]

Describe your idealism, please.

(yes, I will critique it)

So you came to the Idyllic shoot fish in a barrel today, did you?

 

[Prototype]

Describe your idealism, please.

(yes, I will critique it)

Equanimity is the concept of balance and centeredness which endures through all possible changes in circumstances.

 

[Phantonym]

My idealism, representing things in a perfect form. Regardless of what people do, they are not only considering their own agendas but try to think about others as well so that everybody could have their cake and eat it too. Critique away.

 

[murkrow]

first of all: idealism is not about values. especially not in the context of typology, but also not in the context of 'common sense'. (uhm, bad choice of word)

idealism is a branch of intelligence, that tries to understand the intrinsic nature or character of things (entities or networks, humans or humanity) and derives the way of dealing with those things from this understanding.

in typology (or in keirsey's typology at least) it is primarily associated with intuition, not with values or judgments, albeit social idealism is secondarily associated with feeling-values. (but feeling can't be the significant aspect of it, since idealism is not associated with SF but NF)

any idealism that can be described must be a rather dead process of understanding.

well, actually any branch of intelligence develops in stages, so there might me some period that can naturally appear to be pretty static from a distance.

a critique of a living process of understanding might be a waste of time.
it might be outdated, before you press enter.

the most static idealism is of course unconscious idealism.
if you didn't know that idealism is about understanding nature (character) and adapting to it, you might be to busy with opposing agendas. (like imposing some short sighted situational 'needs' on the whole world)

It's obvious from the responses other than yours that my question wasn't absurd. In common conversation the question "describe your idealism" is understood as "Describe the ways in which you attempt to ground the world as experienced in ideas which you can more easily manage and value. Focusing primarily on those ideas which have allowed you to attach extraordinary value."

Simple reduction to essential/intrinsic characteristics is not idealism as it is generally understood. The use of the term "Ideal" obviously pushes us towards consideration of things which are to be preferred, specifically things which are perfect.

While it is possible to have an essential concept of a negative thing, the only thing which could be considered ideal in that situation would be the idea of the negative thing, as its composition is perfect in relation to that which it tries to express. The negative thing could not in itself be ideal, it is essentially undesirable.

 

[murkrow]

All human souls - I use the word metaphorically as I am not religious - are of equal intrinsic value. Society should reflect that. It doesn't.

Is that value determined or undetermined?

Could it be nil?

 

[nanook]

Simple reduction to essential/intrinsic characteristics is not idealism as it is generally understood. The use of the term "Ideal" obviously pushes us towards consideration of things which are to be preferred, specifically things which are perfect.

yes, this is a common thought: ("nature is not an ideal, but all that is") a thought which is based on bad idealism or ignorance of idealism (as i have defined it). basically an autistic lack of insight into one's own nature and into one's struggle with one's nature, and/or the failure to assume that other natural entities also have both own nature and a struggle with it. it's often those who are in denial about inner conflicts, who are unable to form true idealistic judgments. suddenly "everything is okay just as it is", because it's to painfull to think otherwise.

good idealism knows right away, that intrinsic and essential aka "natural" characteristics are not identical with all semi-intrinsic or somehow inner characteristics, that are apparently coming out of the inside/nature but are not essential (or not archetypal for example - for lack of a batter word and without implying that everything is pre-programmed in static types)

a simple example: psychological health (aka integration) is an ideal (of nature), samsara is reality.

non-idealism parties in samsara, satanism style, idealism tries to find the covered pure potential underneath it all, while separating it from the rest. non-idealism assumes that there is only meaningless struggle and chaois, idealism insists that struggle is the educating difference between ideal and reality.

therefore no person who has any amount of idealistic intelligence would formulate at any stage of his/her development, that "all values are only relative to a culture" (which we hear a lot from ... i dunno ... but i believe lazy introverted thinking with poor extroverted intuition, during a specific stage)

of course values are in part relative to culture and in a more significant part relative to essential characteristics (the nature/brain/etc) of a particular person at a particular moment in growth. (at least blame some of our values on DNA, if you are a materialist/reductionist)

 

[bighairything]

Is that value determined or undetermined?

Why does it matter? I would tentatively answer that it is undetermined, but as I don't yet see the importance of the notion, don't expect me to hold fast to my answer.

Could it be nil?

Perhaps, but then again what is nil? It only exists as a mathematical concept, and I don't see mathematics as a particularly useful prism through which to examine one's ideals.

 

[garbage]

Why does it matter? I would tentatively answer that it is undetermined, but as I don't yet see the importance of the notion, don't expect me to hold fast to my answer.

Yeah, value in terms of 'utility' or 'currency' is much different than the sort of worth that this kind of idealism describes.

Two different languages entirely.

In fact, I'm just going to assume that the TJs are going to come at this from a completely different mindset than the Feelers are, and we're all going to end up confusing each other and missing each others' points entirely. TJs will claim victory through the perception that they've spotted logical holes in a domain where such holes don't particularly matter, where Feelers will have the moral high ground of sticking by their idealism in the face of that sort of adversity.

Looking forward to it.

 

[Glycerine]

People are "noble savages" and have "blank slates". Oh and evolution is just a myth and conspiracy made up by the scientific community in an attempt to disprove God. Those are my central beliefs.... have at them.

 

[bighairything]

Oh and evolution is just a myth and conspiracy made up by the scientific community in an attempt to disprove God.

Why would they do that? And wouldn't such a large conspiracy have been leaked by now? That's not an ideal, it's just stupid.

 

[Glycerine]

Thank you for your kind words!

 

[bighairything]

I'm sorry, please come back and play

Could you have a crack at my two questions?

 

[Sniffles]

(yes, I will critique it)

Kant's Transcendental Idealism

Here, have fun!

 

[Glycerine]

I'm sorry, please come back and play

Could you have a crack at my two questions?

hahahaha, I have no idea because I just made all that up.... I wanted to see Murkrow's reaction.

 

[bighairything]

hahahaha, I have no idea because I just made all that up....

Ooh, you pesky kid you!

 

[Glycerine]

However, I believe that you shouldn't USE people for your own gain and wished others did the same but that's just part of human nature. You tend to lose at life if you don't use other people for your own gain once in awhile. I also wish people could be inherently good but the "noble savage" will never exist. I try to have common sense along w/ my idealism.