[MBTI General] Meritorious NFs?

[SolitaryWalker]

You can "do" ethics as an NT, but "doing" ethics and making your decisions BASED on ethics are very different things. What NTs and NFs do with ethics are rather different.

We'd have to clearly define what we understand for sentimental to be. As far as I am concerned it just means emotional sensitivity. This does not imply being emotionally demonstrative or an inability to think clearly. It is important to draw a distinction between temperament and personality. Sentimentality is a personality trait, not a temperamental. As far as temperament is concerned, all that we can say is that NFs have more propensities to be in tune with emotions.

Not only is Fi about values, Ti can be as well. All Judging functions are, the difference is that the Extroverted Ones have a collectivist mindset and the Introverted---an individualist. Ti/Fi are concerned with the values of the individual and Fe/Te--societal values.

You are right about how NFs and NTs use ethics differently. NFs tend to apply them more, whereas NTs may use the T to find their values but they would make their decisions based on what they think make senses and not what their values tell them would be right.

 

[Eileen]

It might be a useful exercise for you to demonstrate the process of Fi versus Ti in making a decision. I will think on what an appropriate hypothetical decision might be for such an exercise.

 

[Jasz]

Oprah Winfrey, ENFJ

i c a n ' t s t a n d o p r a h

 

[Eileen]

You are right about how NFs and NTs use ethics differently. NFs tend to apply them more, whereas NTs may use the T to find their values but they would make their decisions based on what they think make senses and not what their values tell them would be right.

And there you have it. NFs apply ethics (what they think is the right thing to do); NTs apply logic, or "what they think makes sense."

 

[SolitaryWalker]

It might be a useful exercise for you to demonstrate the process of Fi versus Ti in making a decision. I will think on what an appropriate hypothetical decision might be for such an exercise.

Fi-Think about values. Decide that for example it would be appropriate for you to tell the truth as you endorse the value of honesty.

Ti-Think the whole situation through and come up with the most reasonable way to handle the situation. In this sense the T has tendencies towards nihilism.

Yet again Ti can endorse some values as vehemently as Fi endorses others. For instance INTPs can be stubborn about preserving their autonomy and doing all they can to maintain it just because they deem for it to be paramount. But again the reason why they are doing this is because they've thought it through and decided that they need autonomy.

Seems to me the only difference between F and T is that Fs tend to be attached more to their values and have more of them than Ts. So the sphere of ethical exploration for the F is much broader than for the T, so no wonder that we could easily think that the T leaves no room for ethics at all, as it is predominantly a Feeling enterprise.

So how do Ts end up getting attached to some ethical maxims? Only after their T based decisions have invoked the Feeling element. Like with the INTP the need for autonomy will be reaffirmed by the Fe, as it is slave to the Ti. This leaves us without a doubt that you were right that passions are the source of all ethics and not dispassioned contemplation.

You can use T to found ethics, but the reason why you are trying to found them is because of your F. If it wasnt for the human passions, ethics would serve no purpose. As their end can be nothing other than maximizing our satisfaction.

 

[Brendan]

i c a n ' t s t a n d o p r a h

I think you might be the only one lol.

 

[Jasz]

I think you might be the only one lol.

i know, i know. she has done so much good but she is soooo full of herself, i can't get beyond that (how she always keep pulling attention back to her, never really letting anyone shine unless it is in relation to her).

 

[cafe]

i know, i know. she has done so much good but she is soooo full of herself, i can't get beyond that (how she always keep pulling attention back to her, never really letting anyone shine unless it is in relation to her).

I don't dislike her, but she scares me. I would not want to be on her bad side or in her way.

 

[Totenkindly]

i c a n ' t s t a n d o p r a h

is that because she makes more money in four minutes as we each make in a year?

 

[Brendan]

I don't dislike her, but she scares me. I would not want to be on her bad side or in her way.

I feel that way about every ENFJ I've ever met.

 

[Littlelostnf]

i know, i know. she has done so much good but she is soooo full of herself, i can't get beyond that (how she always keep pulling attention back to her, never really letting anyone shine unless it is in relation to her).

As much good as she's done I really have to agree. I can't stand when she takes over the discussion from a professional...ALRIGHT ALREADY...let them talk! It makes me only watch the show from time to time. It's really annoying.

 

[Littlelostnf]

I feel that way about every ENFJ I've ever met.

hahahahaha!...even when you were one!

 

[heart]

I think you might be the only one lol.

No, he isn't.

 

[heart]

Does anyone think William Blake was INFP?

Novalis INFP?

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Does anyone think William Blake was INFP?

Novalis INFP?

I have no idea, but I can say this: I can't stand Oprah either, lol.

 

[heart]

I don't like Dr Phil either...

 

[Ivy]

Does anyone think William Blake was INFP?

I can see Blake as either an INFP or an INFJ. Clearly he was intuitive, and I'd say most likely he was F and I. The J/P is up in the air for me but I would say he is more Ni than Fi so if I were forced to choose, I'd probably pick INFJ.

 

[nanook]

meritorious + historic type examples suck big time. people are rarely more deluded, but when they start to compare themselves to historic figures.

that's because these figures exist only from the outside, as described by other people. nobody has even read their stuff, if they have written anything. and people who quote Nietzsche, to appear idiosyncratic, are frequently the last ones, who actually think on their own (which is not a type related treat, btw) or even understand Nietzsche.

but here is a historical NF quote: "Nietzsche was stupid and abnormal" (Leo Tolstoy)

 

[Nonsensical]

I think a lot of people see certain famous figures in history as NFs only because of their good deads and ideal vows- like Jesus. I see his actions are more of that of an INTJ rather than INFJ. He stuck to business the whole time and didn't let anything take him away from what he was trying to do.

I can see Buddha as an NF, though..but I don't know. Someone mentioned INTP, and it sounds understandable, too.

Ghandi might have been INTJ, but INFJ seems pretty right.

 

[nanook]

I can see Buddha as an NF

i am still looking for proof that the experience of full enlightenment (no matter how interpreted) is even possible for S and F types.
by full enlightenment, i don't mean full "insight" into the nature or emptiness or the present moment or something. that may come by accident. enlightenment is about owning it, or having the impression that one owns it, or is one with it, which is backwards compatible.

isn't eckard tolle (the power of now) an enfj?