User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 44

  1. #21
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer View Post
    In accordance of the question asked to the SPs, I'd like to know this truth about NFs. Do you consider yourself a philosopher or do you have philosophical viewpoints like so many descriptions say you do?
    I guess I consider myself to be more NF than any other temperament.

    I was much more philosophical when I was younger. Philosophy just doesn't interest me like it used to. And my views aren't typical for most NFs. I'm not a liberal and I don't write poetry.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  2. #22
    Procrastinating
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    954

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FineLine View Post
    No. In the past, I've enjoyed reading some overviews of philosophy and engaging in some light philosophizing of my own. IOW, I enjoy playing with it at the "pop philosophy" level. But when it gets down to reading the actual writings of philosophers like Spinoza or Descartes or Hegel, I lose interest pretty quickly.

    I'm more interested in things like religion and psychology. They are more oriented toward personal and cultural experience (subjective views on the world and universe), and I do enjoy reading the source texts in those disciplines for the most part.
    I follow your thinking but one thing to consider is that religion and psychology are ruled by philosophies. Example: B. F. Skinner who shook the world of psychololgy and still affects all of us today in homes, schools and work places, created operant conditioning (positive/negative enforcements) based on his philosphical theory of Radical Behaviorism. A philosophy being applied in an area you're interested in might interest you.

  3. #23
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer View Post
    Naturally, I'm just getting a perspective to see if it's really true.

    I would suspect that the only truly philosophical type would be the INTP, because of his/her primary goal is to apply logic to speculative thinking of the unknowns of the outer world. And perhaps the INFP, who would probably be labeled as more religious, since they are also into speculative thinking, but their primary objective is to integrate it with their personal values.

    An N dominant, however, would primarily be interested in the fanciful thinking, regardless if whether or not it's logical or valuable.
    disagree.

    i agree that Ti would be philosophical. but Fe basically has no affect on philosophy...unless you take the narrow view that "everyone should just get along" or something, which seems SFJ anyways.

    i guess i'm not the typical NFJ, but i use Ti a lot. like, at least as much as any of the ExTPs i know. and i'd consider myself MORE into philosophy than anyone else i've ever met (except my INFP friend, but her philosophy isn't really aimed at objective truth anyways). the 2 INTPs i know (my dad and a friend) aren't close to as philosophical as i am. i think Ni plays a huge role in this. the most philosophical person would have to use both Ni and Ti in my opinion.

    blah, that really wasn't my greatest post ever.

    i guess i'm trying to say i'm EXTREMELY philosophical; too much so even.

  4. #24
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    disagree.

    i agree that Ti would be philosophical. but Fe basically has no affect on philosophy...unless you take the narrow view that "everyone should just get along" or something, which seems SFJ anyways.
    Fe is the tool INFJs use in accordance with Ni to understand other people's point of view. INFJs use this ability to understand multiple perceptions of the same thing. Considering that INFJ philosophy is often based upon "perception" rather than "reason", I think that is strong evidence that Fe influences INFJ philosophy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  5. #25
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Fe is the tool INFJs use in accordance with Ni to understand other people's point of view. INFJs use this ability to understand multiple perceptions of the same thing. Considering that INFJ philosophy is often based upon "perception" rather than "reason", I think that is strong evidence that Fe influences INFJ philosophy.
    multiple perceptions of the same thing is just Ni; it has nothing to do with Fe.

    Fe aims Ni towards other people's perspectives, but philosophy shouldn't be aimed towards people, it should be aimed towards pure objectivity.

    and my philosophy totally based on reason. i guess i should really have just used 'I' statements instead of applying this to all INFJs, though. i personally don't use Fe at all in my philosophy, because i think it just gets in the way of objectivity. i use Ni and Ti.

  6. #26
    Mamma said knock you out Mempy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FineLine View Post
    No. In the past, I've enjoyed reading some overviews of philosophy and engaging in some light philosophizing of my own. IOW, I enjoy playing with it at the "pop philosophy" level. But when it gets down to reading the actual writings of philosophers like Spinoza or Descartes or Hegel, I lose interest pretty quickly.

    I'm more interested in things like religion and psychology. They are more oriented toward personal and cultural experience (subjective views on the world and universe), and I do enjoy reading the source texts in those disciplines for the most part.
    I agree completely.

    I follow your thinking but one thing to consider is that religion and psychology are ruled by philosophies. Example: B. F. Skinner who shook the world of psychololgy and still affects all of us today in homes, schools and work places, created operant conditioning (positive/negative enforcements) based on his philosphical theory of Radical Behaviorism. A philosophy being applied in an area you're interested in might interest you.
    Indeed it might, especially because I've never read anything about radical behaviorism, and the word "behavior" indicates that the theory will relate to how people (and perhaps other animals) behave.

    The key here is that I'm only interested in an idea insofar as it enlightens me regarding people's behavior, perceptions, culture, etc. I suspect that's part of being dominated by feeling: my interest can scarcely be separated from people and how things impact people. Psychology and international affairs are two of my main interests.

    I suspect Ti is one of the main, if not the main function geared toward and interested in philosophy. Te would seem to be geared more toward efficiency and organizing the outer world (making charts and schedules) whereas Ti would seem to be more concerned with refining ideas and creating very specific, sharp definitions of those ideas and terms. A person operating from Ti can be as obsessed with one idea as an Fi-dom can be obsessed with a value, and she can refine that idea or principle and refine it again until the end of eternity, or until she realizes that the principle is not productive to her life, not important, or she finds a principle more promising and interesting. In the same way, people operating from Fi can let go of values and stop refining them and basing decisions on them.

    If Ti is the function most compatible with philosophy, then types with more Ti would be more prone to philosophizing.

    INTP, ISTP, ENTP, ESTP, INFJ, ISFJ...

    I'm sure there are a lot of complex factors that interplay to determine how interested someone is in philosophy, but essentially, those with Ti in their top four functions probably have a more philosophical bent than those who don't, regardless of introversion and extroversion, intuition and sensing, thinking and feeling, etc.

    Anyone who is concerned with ideas is not necessarily philosophical, if we are defining philosophy as such:

    philosophy: the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, esp. with a view to improving or reconstituting them: the philosophy of science.

    People operating from Fi are not so much concerned with principles or the truth of being as they are concerned with what they value and what they feel is true and good. Fi is not a function that one would use to logically redefine or build on a principle, but rather it is a function one would use to decide what is worth believing in, based on gut reactions and feelings (the subjective), not principles and facts (the objective).
    They're running just like you
    For you, and I, wooo
    So people, people, need some good ol' love

  7. #27
    `~~Philosoflying~~` SillySapienne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    9,849

    Default

    First, and foremost, I am a philomath. Then secondly, and much to my chagrin, I do consider myself as being somewhat of a philosopher.

    I respect truth.

    I utilize the tools provided by my fluency in logic and my need for critical analysis to enhance a more accurate perception.

    I seek to know what is, and perhaps more significantly, I seek to know why it is what it is.

    So yeah, I am sorta a philosopher, though I'd rather be called and considered a philomathlete!!!
    `
    'Cause you can't handle me...

    "A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it." - David Stevens

    "That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is."

    Veritatem dies aperit

    Ride si sapis

    Intelligentle sparkles

  8. #28
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    multiple perceptions of the same thing is just Ni; it has nothing to do with Fe.
    You might want to look into processes theory. What I stated is exactly as it is theorized. Ni, Ne, Si, and Se by themselves can't do anything, they are utilized by other functions.

    Fe aims Ni towards other people's perspectives, but philosophy shouldn't be aimed towards people, it should be aimed towards pure objectivity.

    and my philosophy totally based on reason. i guess i should really have just used 'I' statements instead of applying this to all INFJs, though. i personally don't use Fe at all in my philosophy, because i think it just gets in the way of objectivity. i use Ni and Ti.
    You might want to read into this thread.

    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...certainty.html

    Here is a quote that I think encompasses Ni influenced by Fe...

    Quote Originally Posted by cafe View Post
    There's just so much that we don't know and there are many things I'm not sure we can know that it seems kind of crazy to be certain your perception of things is absolute truth.
    And here is a quote that encompasses Ni influenced by Te...

    Quote Originally Posted by blueback
    The limitations on our perception process, though they be many and varied, don't matter. Our conception of reality will simply be updated as errors are exposed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  9. #29
    RDF
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seanan View Post
    I follow your thinking but one thing to consider is that religion and psychology are ruled by philosophies. Example: B. F. Skinner who shook the world of psychololgy and still affects all of us today in homes, schools and work places, created operant conditioning (positive/negative enforcements) based on his philosphical theory of Radical Behaviorism. A philosophy being applied in an area you're interested in might interest you.
    I've looked into Skinner a bit. I was more interested in the actual results of his experiments than the philosophy he derived from it.

    But I approve of the gist of your message. That is, I consider psychology, philosophy and religion (and even some other humanities disciplines like sociology, anthropology, and political science) to be related at a number of levels. So I feel obliged to at least be aware of philosophy at the popularized/overview level.

    It's just a question of temperament (which I assume was at the core of Uberfuhrer's question in the OP). I increasingly lose interest in philosophy when it gets into the use of pure logic to derive universal principles. I don't question its validity; it's just that my own interest wanes. There's nothing there for my particular application of Fi/Ne to latch onto. [shrugs shoulders]

    Quote Originally Posted by Mempy View Post
    The key here is that I'm only interested in an idea insofar as it enlightens me regarding people's behavior, perceptions, culture, etc. I suspect that's part of being dominated by feeling: my interest can scarcely be separated from people and how things impact people. Psychology and international affairs are two of my main interests.
    Yep!

  10. #30
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    I was always more into Transcendentalism, Gnosticism and Psychology as far as searching for my answers about the meaning of life and forming my own values about that, which I guess could be also called a personal philosophy. A strong push for this came between 14-15 years of age and then another strong, overwhelming push for it around age 33.

    In college I studied about the history of Philosophy and its effect on history than for its own sake, but reading more Philosophy now, finding many similar messages there in a different tone from the previously mentioned areas.

Similar Threads

  1. [NF] Question for NFPs. (Other NFs are welcome to give their input!)
    By julesiscools in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 12-18-2016, 07:26 PM
  2. [NF] Question for NFs.
    By SolitaryWalker in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 116
    Last Post: 02-09-2009, 01:24 AM
  3. [NF] Question for INFP's or NF's in general...
    By JRT in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 12-29-2008, 11:38 PM
  4. [NF] Question for NFs
    By rainfall in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 03-25-2008, 08:48 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