[INFP] INFP's - Help me clarify something?

[Thalassa]

i fully understand and agree, but there's still a lot of gray area in that, because everyone has their own ideas of who's innocent and who's guilty.

i'm not questioning this kind of stuff with every value judgement i make, but it keeps me from being preachy (sometimes) because i know that i could be potentially be wrong about everything.

That's true - who is innocent or guilty can be a matter of perspective.

Caution: Long-Winded Diatribe of How Taoism Appeals to Me for Fi Reasoning (and how this relates to what you just said...).

One of the teachings of Taoism is to look a singular event from varying viewpoints. For example, let's cut down a tree. This is bad for the tree. This is bad for the small animals living in the tree. This is bad for the environmentalist. However, this is good for the logger, the furniture maker and the paper factory...and perhaps even the neighbor who wanted that tree out of the way of his view. Taoism pretty much asks us to look at varying situations in this manner.

That isn't to say that Taoism teaches no good or bad. To the contrary, there are principles of Taoism - oneness with nature and respect for nature; Wu-Wei ...or flowing like water, adapting and sometimes taking action by being inactive, listening to The Way; Love (or Charity or Compassion); Simplicity (or Moderation or Economy); and Modesty (or Humility or simply not putting one's self first and/or above others).

Taoism strikes me as being rather ISFP - it could just be my own interpretation. Fi is in the love/compassion and not trying to overpower others with one's own belief system....actually Taoism is supposed to shared by being it, not by trying to "convert" others or "preach" like some other religions. Se is in the connection of spirituality strongly with nature, and also in the fact that Taoism doesn't teach asceticism...rather, it teaches us to accept that physical needs and pleasures are a part of life to be accepted and enjoyed, not rejected, but simply to be taken in Moderation (or Economy, which I think may be the "reasonable" Te underlying, inferior organization in Taoism though on the surface it simply "flows"); and the Ni is in the perspective shifting, of looking at situations as "good" or "bad" depending on perspective and context and consequence; how could this same issue be viewed differently or be handled differently? Could we simply go AROUND the tree instead of cutting it down? Et al.

The stereotypical ISFP thing about Taoism outside of the functions is the emphasis on Wu-Wei. This is put humorously in both The Tao of Pooh and The Tao of Meow. Pooh is Wu-Wei by appreciating the simple pleasures in life, like friends and breakfast. He also represents Pu: Simplicity, Modesty ...the "uncarved block."

It's put in an even wittier way in The Tao of Meow. This interpretation of the Tao suggests the world would be a much better place if people would simply act like cats and take more naps. If people would just go to sleep instead of always trying to "do good" then REAL goodness might be done, lol.

 

[Octarine]

heres another question- if we say that no moral objective truth can ever be known.. is not the existance of this concept attempting to be a moral objective truth in and of itself? *brain hurts* I don't understand how it can proven, how can it be fact?

Ah, the Tu Quoque (you, also) argument.

There is a (more recent) philosophy that attempts to deal with this.
But on a personal level, someone can believe a particular set of moral truths without assuming that they are universal/fundamental. It is sufficient to accept that there is a chance those truths could be revisable.

The perfect way knows no difficulties
Except that it refuses to make preferences;
Only when freed from hate and love
It reveals itself fully and without disguise;
A tenth of an inch's difference,
And heaven and earth are set apart.
If you wish to see it before your own eyes
Have no fixed thoughts either for or against it.

To set up what you like against what you dislike -
That is the disease of the mind:
When the deep meaning (of the Way) is not understood,
Peace of mind is disturbed to no purpose.

The Way is perfect like unto vast space,
It is indeed due to making choice
That its Suchness is lost sight of.

Pursue not the outer entanglements,
Dwell not in the inner Void;
Be serene in the oneness of things,
And dualism vanishes by itself.

When you strive to gain quiescence by stopping motion,
The quiescence thus gained is ever in motion;
As long as you tarry in dualism,
How can you realize oneness?

And when oneness is not thoroughly understood,
In two ways loss is sustained:
The denying of reality is the asserting of it,
And the asserting of emptiness is the denying of it.

Wordliness and intellection -
The more with them, the farther astray we go:
Away, therefore, with wordliness and intellection,
and there is no place where we cannot pass freely.

When we return to the root, we gain the meaning;
When we pursue external objects we lose the reason.
The moment we are enlightened within,
We go beyond the voidness of a world confronting us.

Transformations going on in an empty world which confronts us
Appear real all because of ignorance:
Try not to seek after the true.
Only cease to cherish opinions

Worth quoting again.
It is attributed to Jianzhi Sengcan.

It is impossible to pin down and I think that is the point.

 

[Viridian]

It's put in an even wittier way in The Tao of Meow. This interpretation of the Tao suggests the world would be a much better place if people would simply act like cats and take more naps. If people would just go to sleep instead of always trying to "do good" then REAL goodness might be done, lol.

That sounds like a Type 9 mentality... Prevents zealotry, but also acts as an enabler of sorts.

 

[Thalassa]

That sounds like a Type 9 mentality... Prevents zealotry, but also acts as an enabler of sorts.

Yes, if this were taken in isolation it would be. The Tao is full of paradoxes. Sometimes it's best to just take naps. Sometimes it's best to put forth action. Context is everything and too much of anything is imbalance.

It's extremely important to grasp the Wu-Wei thing, though. Especially in modern Western culture where we've put an overemphasis on "doing" and "busy." Fighting The Way is a waste of energy.

It's something that I'm learning myself but of all of the philosophies I've ever been exposed to this makes sense to me on such a fundamental level, it's just like YES! YES!

 

[Southern Kross]

I'm an INxP that is a moral nihilist/moral skeptic. I am what you would call a first-order moral skeptic; I don't believe that there is such a thing as a "good" or "bad" action because I don't think we have adequate knowledge of what good or bad means, right or wrong means, etc. Meta-ethically speaking, good or bad might mean something, but we don't know what they mean if they do. Being a moral nihilist or moral skeptic doesn't mean you treat people inhumanely or unfairly. After all, we have no problem telling a cruel action from a kind one, a just one from an unjust one, etc.

There are many things human beings don't understand, but full comprehension is not always necessary for us to function in accordance with something. Consciousness, for example, is not scientifically understood at all; we may never be able to properly explain it. However, we don't need to understand what it is or what it means, in order to use it effectively or recognise it when we 'see' it.

Also, let's just avoid using the term nihilist as a world view. It's fucking meaningless.

Pun intended?

I can understand positing morality as a human construction, but when you start saying it's an inherent element of the universe... then we've got problems on our hands.

Oh, I see. You're getting all, "if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

I don't believe that morality is intrinsic to the universe, totally separate to human existence, but I also don't believe it is a human construct. Just because it requires the existence of people, doesn't mean they created it. To go back to the analogy: consciousness, like morality, exists completely independent of our thoughts and desires. In fact, it generates the ability for us to experience things and make decisions, but it exists in a separate and transcendent state. We don't choose to be conscious, nor can we manufacture it; we don't even have to be aware of our own consciousness in order to function; it just is.

 

[Southern Kross]

I'm not sure if I'm welcome here, being an INTP, but I want to clarify that moral nihilism is not the same thing as being amoral. All moral nihilism is really saying is that what we call morality is the same as personal values or opinion, rather than some absolute objective truth. It's not saying that you shouldn't be moral because of that. It simply means you recognize that when you say something is right or wrong, you're stating your own personal belief/opinion.

I'm confused how this can work. Human beings naturally seek to establish moral norms for all. And as humanity has slowly become more interconnected and less driven by religious/ethnic/tribal divides, there has been even greater attempts to judge all people under a universal moral code. How do you account for the Geneva convention?

I am a moral skeptic. I can't say I know what is "right" or "wrong", and I can't say that "right" and "wrong" can ever be known, or that they even exist. But I still strive to be a good person, despite all the not knowing, because I choose to be, not because it is "right", but because I because I value it.

The reason many here react strongly to this is because just how dangerous this can be. If everyone simply acted in accordance with their own values, no one could be held accountable to the values of others. You might believe it to be wrong to be unfaithful to your SO but without moral universalism, they are under no obligation to remain faithful to you.

I think it sounds more like a Fi thing. Objective truth sounds more Te to me than anything else, so I'm kind of surprised that so many Fi users would believe in such a thing. I would have thought they would agree that morality is the same as personal values, and that we can never really know the truth.

Yes, one would think so at first glance. I suppose when Fi is combined with Ne, there is a desire to establish an all encompassing system, within which all patterns and variables can be addressed.

 

[Silveresque]

Oh, I see. You're getting all, "if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

I don't believe that morality is intrinsic to the universe, totally separate to human existence, but I also don't believe it is a human construct. Just because it requires the existence of people, doesn't mean they created it. To go back to the analogy: consciousness, like morality, exists completely independent of our thoughts and desires. In fact, it generates the ability for us to experience things and make decisions, but it exists in a separate and transcendent state. We don't choose to be conscious, nor can we manufacture it; we don't even have to be aware of our own consciousness in order to function; it just is.

All concepts are, by definition, the product of human cognition. Morality is no exception. But if what you claim is true, and morality exists in a separate transcendent state, then that would have to mean that morality is an odd exception to what has already been established. Still, no one can say whether the former or the latter is the truth. Since the truth cannot be determined, I'm going to follow Jianzhi Sengcan's advice:

Try not to seek after the true.
Only cease to cherish opinions

 

[Silveresque]

I'm not sure if I'm welcome here, being an INTP, but I want to clarify that moral nihilism is not the same thing as being amoral. All moral nihilism is really saying is that what we call morality is the same as personal values or opinion, rather than some absolute objective truth. It's not saying that you shouldn't be moral because of that. It simply means you recognize that when you say something is right or wrong, you're stating your own personal belief/opinion.

I'm confused how this can work. Human beings naturally seek to establish moral norms for all. And as humanity has slowly become more interconnected and less driven by religious/ethnic/tribal divides, there has been even greater attempts to judge all people under a universal moral code. How do you account for the Geneva convention?

When you talk about what society has agreed upon as being acceptable and moral, you're talking about ethics, which is different from morality. Morality is for the individual, ethics is for society. This is not in conflict with moral nihilism. Moral nihilism can be applied to this if one decides that these ethics are simply
an agreed-upon set of values rather than an absolute moral truth.

I am a moral skeptic. I can't say I know what is "right" or "wrong", and I can't say that "right" and "wrong" can ever be known, or that they even exist. But I still strive to be a good person, despite all the not knowing, because I choose to be, not because it is "right", but because I because I value it.

The reason many here react strongly to this is because just how dangerous this can be. If everyone simply acted in accordance with their own values, no one could be held accountable to the values of others. You might believe it to be wrong to be unfaithful to your SO but without moral universalism, they are under no obligation to remain faithful to you.

This is exactly what ethics are for. Ethics form the guidelines for what values are socially acceptable. If one chooses to follow values that are in direct conflict with ethics, one runs the risk of upsetting the harmony. It is always a choice of the individual whether to accept society's ethics or to oppose them, following instead their own moral beliefs.

 

[Thalassa]

The reason many here react strongly to this is because just how dangerous this can be. If everyone simply acted in accordance with their own values, no one could be held accountable to the values of others. You might believe it to be wrong to be unfaithful to your SO but without moral universalism, they are under no obligation to remain faithful to you.

But we don't have to have a universal morality to have your SO be faithful to you...that's completely dependent upon the morals of the individual. Universal morality has about zero to do with that...some people believe strongly in monogamy and honesty if you do want other partners (it's the lying part of cheating that drives me to want to kill) and it's best if you also pair with another who strongly feels the same. Even with a larger societal ethical system in place, even someone who gives lip service to the societal ethics of marital fidelity could cheat secretly. People did it all the time back in history before people started being more honest about their own personal morals.

I still believe some things are absolute moral truth and I feel it in every part of me. Like people who torture animals and harm the innocent should always be stopped and punished. I won't budge on that, ever.

 

[Santosha]

. Universal morality has about zero to do with that....

Very important statement. Regardless of objective moral truth or the lack their of, our survival solely rests on the subjective morality of the majority. Kill someone and you will be hunted, if not jailed or exterminated.

Again, I wonder.... what purpose does moral nihilism serve? How does this benefit those living in the material world?

 

[Thalassa]

I don't think it does serve a purpose in reality, at all, though honestly some people might think that's just because the question is over my head.

 

[Thalassa]

do not lie for personal gain, self-preservation, or to protect those who have done wrong

You know I didn't notice this before. I would have agreed with everything you said except for "don't lie for self-preservation." I don't think so. I think when it comes down to self-preservation - real self-preservation - lying is totally fine, as well as stealing and possibly violence depending on context. There's nothing wrong with lying if it keeps you out of real danger or something along those lines, there's nothing wrong with stealing food if you're starving, and there's nothing wrong with violence in self-defense.

 

[Southern Kross]

You know I didn't notice this before. I would have agreed with everything you said except for "don't lie for self-preservation." I don't think so. I think when it comes down to self-preservation - real self-preservation - lying is totally fine, as well as stealing and possibly violence depending on context. There's nothing wrong with lying if it keeps you out of real danger or something along those lines, there's nothing wrong with stealing food if you're starving, and there's nothing wrong with violence in self-defense.

Ah. I changed the wording of that sentence at the last minute and the meaning was muddled. I meant more in the context of lying simply to get yourself out of trouble when you've done wrong - and certainly not when you're threatened with violence etc. I intended to make the whole thing about differentiating between lying for the sake of others and lying to weasel your way out of things.

I agree with your other points here too.

 

[NegativeZero]

That's how you feel. I can assure you many would feel quite the opposite: that there are problems on our hands when you start saying there is no inherent element of morality in the universe.
We know gravity exists, even if we don't know what it is. We see & feel the effects of it.

No, that's what I think. There's no gut feelings and intuitions on my behalf — I'll leave those up to you since you seem to be committed to trusting such follies. Could I be wrong? Certainly, but you aren't doing a good job at showing it.

If there is an inherent element of morality in our universe, how come people seem to have skewed and differing perceptions of morality? If morality is an innate element of the cosmos, namely human life on Earth, how come no one has ever been able to agree on moral imperatives? I mean, if there were such objective moral truths, everyone would know what they were and they would be intrinsically motivated to follow them.

This leads me to my next argument. If objective moral values do exist, they would be an incredibly odd sort of entity or relation, unlike anything else in existence. In other words... if morality isn't a human construct, just what the fuck is it? Also, if we were aware of these objective moral values, our acquisition of this knowledge would be very strange indeed. This leads to the question: how are we are of this "authoritative prescriptivity?"

If you argue that natural properties lead to having the exact same set of moral abstractions, then the link between the natural properties and the acquisition of said moral abstractions would be an anomaly, thus unlikely. Not to mention, this seems to be falsifiable — people of varying geography have varying ideas of morality.

The only other answer you could offer is that everyone has metaphysical ties to some intrinsically motivating and objectively normative force of morality, in some way or another, with or without realizing it. This answer isn't helpful or adequate because we don't know what this intrinsically motivating and objectively normative force is, nor do we seem to observe its presence otherwise. To even build an idea of it, we'd have to interview those that claim to have ties to such a force (e.g., God/gods, spirituality). Sure enough, different religions would yield different ideas of morality and ideals and different mystical tenets would yield equally different ideas of morality and ideals.

If we were to ask them how to become aware of these objective morals and ideals, they would tell us to open ourselves to enlightenment, accept Jesus as our savior, worship Allah, follow the Four Noble Truths, meditate, and so on and so forth.

Can you see why the idea of an objective morality just doesn't make a whole lot of sense? I'm sorry for delivering a sermon, but Mackie makes a cogent case against objective morality.

 

[NegativeZero]

There are many things human beings don't understand, but full comprehension is not always necessary for us to function in accordance with something. Consciousness, for example, is not scientifically understood at all; we may never be able to properly explain it. However, we don't need to understand what it is or what it means, in order to use it effectively or recognise it when we 'see' it.

I don't believe that morality is intrinsic to the universe, totally separate to human existence, but I also don't believe it is a human construct. Just because it requires the existence of people, doesn't mean they created it. To go back to the analogy: consciousness, like morality, exists completely independent of our thoughts and desires. In fact, it generates the ability for us to experience things and make decisions, but it exists in a separate and transcendent state. We don't choose to be conscious, nor can we manufacture it; we don't even have to be aware of our own consciousness in order to function; it just is.

To even respond to this post, I have to pick apart the analogy you've offered. Obviously consciousness "exists," or at least, we perceive it to. The difference is that when discussing consciousness, we usually have something to point to: the brain. What do we point to when discussing morality? Now, I'm not saying that consciousness is merely an extension of the brain; I'm not going to commit myself to any personal metaphysic in this discussion.

Also, I'm pretty sure that consciousness does not exist independently of our thoughts and desires... after all, isn't consciousness RESPONSIBLE for thoughts and desires, or at least responsible for processing them/interpreting them to ourselves? If not, what is? Please don't say something like "the brain is, but consciousness is..." I don't want to derail this thread with the mind/body problem.

At this point, why not just bypass the analogy and say morality is a byproduct of consciousness, i.e., it is a human construct? You don't seem to have any sort of evidence or reasoning that morality really "exists" outside of its status as an idea.

What you're doing is making a lot of mysterious, spiritual assertions that are really epistemically unfounded.

 

[OrangeAppled]

No, that's what I think. There's no gut feelings and intuitions on my behalf — I'll leave those up to you since you seem to be committed to trusting such follies. Could I be wrong? Certainly, but you aren't doing a good job at showing it.

Not at all. I'm a reasoning person & trust that first & foremost. You're the one making this personal; I haven't even fully offered what I do or don't believe.

I find your diatribe of arguments poor. They mostly amount to: "we can't figure out X yet, so Y can't exist". Everything else amounts to assumptions on your part steeped in bias & with no foundation or even reasonable argument to back it up.

If objective moral values do exist, they would be an incredibly odd sort of entity or relation, unlike anything else in existence

Because???? How do you claim to know this? Don't even bother to answer though - it is rhetorical.

 

[Silveresque]

No, that's what I think. There's no gut feelings and intuitions on my behalf — I'll leave those up to you since you seem to be committed to trusting such follies. Could I be wrong? Certainly, but you aren't doing a good job at showing it.

Not at all. I'm a reasoning person & trust that first & foremost. You're the one making this personal; I haven't even fully offered what I do or don't believe.

I find your diatribe of arguments poor. They mostly amount to: "we can't figure out X yet, so Y can't exist". Everything else amounts to assumptions on your part steeped in bias & with no foundation or even reasonable argument to back it up.

If objective moral values do exist, they would be an incredibly odd sort of entity or relation, unlike anything else in existence

Because???? How do you claim to know this? Don't even bother to answer though - it is rhetorical.

Your say that his argument is poor and has no reasonable foundation to back it up, but I'm not hearing anything solid in your argument. If you have a reasonable foundation to back up your argument, please explain, because I would like to hear the logical reasoning behind both perspectives rather than just hear people saying the other person is wrong.

 

[BAJ]

When I was a child, I reacted to a big fish being killed. We were in the gulf, and the fish flopped. Blood splattered on the white deck, and the fish made grunting noises. I started crying because the grunting.

My punishment (treatment) for being a sissy was to sit on the ice chest to prevent the fish from flopping back out. Thus, I held down the lid as the flops grew slower and the fish died.

Did something in me die as well? Is this good or bad? Perhaps it is both. I like to eat fish. In my job, I kill hundreds of thousands of fish. Buddhist guilt! My job is based on the notion of making room to allow one fish grow by killing one that is uglier. I am the "god of fish", deciding thousands of times a day between life and death.

Am I moral nihilist? Not sure. Does it matter? Would a "true" nihilist even bother to answer? What would be the point? What would be the point of anything?

I guess there is a part of me that is still alive since I can sense the feeling of the animals and their need, but I still kill many thousands to benefit a few select. Thus, I have crossed the line of fish murder, and now I can turn off my empathy for those that must die.

 

[Elfa]

Well, I'm INFP and I believe that nothing is "neither inherently right nor inherently wrong", morals are human creations, and they depend from one society to another. But just because they were made by humans, it doesn't mean I have to give no value to those morals.... I'm not sure if that is nihilism or not... (I don't know much about philosophy, but my guess is that moral nihilism says that nothing has an intrinsic value, but it doesn't say you can't give the values you want to what you want, and it doesn't say you can't use society's values and morals if you want to... For me, it just gives you the freedom to choose... Correct me if I'm wrong...)

 

[NegativeZero]

Not at all. I'm a reasoning person & trust that first & foremost. You're the one making this personal; I haven't even fully offered what I do or don't believe.

I find your diatribe of arguments poor. They mostly amount to: "we can't figure out X yet, so Y can't exist". Everything else amounts to assumptions on your part steeped in bias & with no foundation or even reasonable argument to back it up.



Because???? How do you claim to know this? Don't even bother to answer though - it is rhetorical.

Anytime you want to address the arguments I presented, just go right ahead... I'll be here waiting. I'm trying to be patient with you, but you're determined to make that difficult.