User Tag List

First 5131415161725 Last

Results 141 to 150 of 402

  1. #141
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SquirrelTao View Post
    I agreed with most of what you said, but I see a problem with this statement, namely that thinking is not done in a vacuum and has consequences. It may not be directly concerned with people, but it will still indirectly affect people.

    Now, having pointed that out, I have only ever met one person in my whole life who really seemed close to being a pure thinker, and she was one of the coolest people I have ever known. Because ironically, she had so much acceptance of other people, that she was a good influence on them!
    Thinking will consider people as variables and their feelings as even more variables. They know that their decisions can affect them but they still go about deciding in an impersonal manner. Like one of those rulers in front of roller coasters, you can't exactly declare the ruler malevolent if it declares you too short to ride the roller coaster.
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  2. #142
    Senior Member celesul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    190

    Default

    As I understand it, both Thinking and Feeling are attempts to adhere to a framework, but Thinkers call it logic, and Feelers call it morals. Really, Thinkers try to maintain objectivity, while a healthy Feeler would try to be sympathetic as well. Which makes Thinkers sound like better judges, but also keep in mind that one needs to create a framework.

    Think of a case where a mother stole from a pedestrian so she could feed her toddler. A Feeling judge would probably prefer to allow the mother to get away without punishment, because she broke the law for a morally reasonable cause, while the Thinker will want to punish her to maintain the rule of law, for consistency is necessary, and they want to judge objectively with the framework in mind. Both judges may well declare her guilty or maybe only the Thinker does. Perhaps the Feeler decides to try to remedy the causes of this situation after feeling so conflicted, and they create a charity. Both are very very necessary functions, as consistency is needed in a society, it's what the law is about, but sympathy is as well, or it becomes very oppressive. So, society needs both, and most people have both in them.

    However, if you meet anyone who is only a Thinker or only a Feeler, then run away very very fast ~.^
    "'You scoundrel, you have wronged me,' hissed the philosopher. 'May you live forever!'" - Ambrose Bierce

  3. #143
    Senior Member SquirrelTao's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INXX
    Posts
    198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    Thinking will consider people as variables and their feelings as even more variables. They know that their decisions can affect them but they still go about deciding in an impersonal manner. Like one of those rulers in front of roller coasters, you can't exactly declare the ruler malevolent if it declares you too short to ride the roller coaster.
    Well that's an example in which thinking is obviously the appropriate way to make the decision. Other kinds of examples are more problematic. Somebody experimenting with how to split atoms may be high on solving an exciting problem and not actually want to kill people. But we still had Hiroshima.

  4. #144
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SquirrelTao View Post
    Well that's an example in which thinking is obviously the appropriate way to make the decision. Other kinds of examples are more problematic. Somebody experimenting with how to split atoms may be high on solving an exciting problem and not actually want to kill people. But we still had Hiroshima.
    True.

    What was the question again? Sorry, I have a headache...
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  5. #145
    Senior Member SquirrelTao's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INXX
    Posts
    198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by celesul View Post
    Think of a case where a mother stole from a pedestrian so she could feed her toddler. A Feeling judge would probably prefer to allow the mother to get away without punishment, because she broke the law for a morally reasonable cause, while the Thinker will want to punish her to maintain the rule of law, for consistency is necessary, and they want to judge objectively with the framework in mind.
    But why is consistency necessary? Because it maintains the social order? Why care about that? Because you care about people?

  6. #146
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post

    "not recognizing the implicit needs of humanity? No biggy." .
    It is a no biggie. They should just speak up for their needs. Not that hard. No need for us to go mindreading you. You cant speak up, its your problem, not ours.









    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Analysis based on what imperatives? I agree that a purely Thinking/aFeeling society would not be uncooperative, but that does not satisfy me, since such a society would hardly be anything at all. No Feeling means no drive.

    If you refer to a society that has enough Feeling to posess personal desire, but lacks ethical code or sentimental sensitivty, then you essentially have a society of socipaths. Such a society would not work because sociopaths are cooperative in a parasitic manner. Society could not hold itself together without conduct respectful of emotions and morals..

    There is always enough feeling to have a drive, even in the most hard core of thinkers. Radical T society members would not act like sociopaths. They would accord sympathy on rational grounds. For example, if I see someone who appears as a drama queen, I do not immediately feel sympathy. I would first want to hear out her story. If I discover that it is true that she was profoundly wronged by others, then I will feel sympathetic. Whether I would act on that sympathy or not depends on what would be the most rational way to go about the problem.

    Preponderance of Thinking over Feeling does not mean no sympathy at all, but controlled sympathy. Feelings are not to be the deciding factor in our judgment, but part of the bigger picture. Feelings should be honored or dishonored based on how much they conduce to the welfare of the individual and society.



    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    What act of cooperation would qualify as whimsical?.
    Random acts of sympathy described above.



    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    First of all, I've already made it as clear as possible that the definition of rationality concerns all Judgement. It does not have an bias toward Thinking.?.
    Definitions.

    Thinking: Utilization of logic for decision making.

    Feeling: Conscious scrutiny of ideas based on what is favored and disfavored.

    Rational: Plausible, reasonable.

    rational - Definitions from Dictionary.com

    Thinking is in a closer affinity with rationality because logical reasoning allows us to see what is most reasonable. Whilst what is favored or disfavored does not. At best, it only tells us about our preferrences and not about the most rational way to go about the situation.




    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    But in the former case, invdividuals will be lacking in comprehension of good and bad acts. Such a disability would essentially turn society inert. Now, I suppose a subjective debate from here, as to whether society would be worse if it was filled with a bunch of do-nothings or a bunch of know-nothings.
    No, they will not. Logical analysis of sentiments leads to such knowledge.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  7. #147
    Senior Member SquirrelTao's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INXX
    Posts
    198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    But in the former case, invdividuals will be lacking in comprehension of good and bad acts.
    And there would be no meaning at all. Meaning works like this in the simplest form. If you're a deer, and there is a hunter coming at you, the objective fact is that a human is pointing a gun at you. The meaning is that you might die.

  8. #148
    Senior Member SquirrelTao's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INXX
    Posts
    198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    It is a no biggie. They should just speak up for their needs. Not that hard. No need for us to go mindreading you. You cant speak up, its your problem, not ours.
    So then, let's not give anesthesia to babies when we operate on them.

  9. #149
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    It is a no biggie. They should just speak up for their needs. Not that hard. No need for us to go mindreading you. You cant speak up, its your problem, not ours.
    Yes, it's true that other people cannot mindread and we all need to speak up for what we need, but doesn't it take sympathy for others to allow us space to meet our needs? Without sympathy why not just the strong bulldoze over the weak? (Not the meek, the physically, economically or politically weak.)

  10. #150
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    Yes, it's true that other people cannot mindread and we all need to speak up for what we need, but doesn't it take sympathy for others to allow us space to meet our needs? Without sympathy why not just the strong bulldoze over the weak? (Not the meek, the physically, economically or politically weak.)
    The week are to be preserved only to the extent that they make society a better place. If it makes sense to help them get back up to their feet, assistance ought to be provided. If not, then it ought not to be.

    When we assist others, there should be a rational criteria behind it, not pure act of sympathy.

    Quote Originally Posted by celesul View Post
    As I understand it, both Thinking and Feeling are attempts to adhere to a framework, but Thinkers call it logic, and Feelers call it morals. Really, Thinkers try to maintain objectivity, while a healthy Feeler would try to be sympathetic as well. Which makes Thinkers sound like better judges, but also keep in mind that one needs to create a framework.

    Think of a case where a mother stole from a pedestrian so she could feed her toddler. A Feeling judge would probably prefer to allow the mother to get away without punishment, because she broke the law for a morally reasonable cause, while the Thinker will want to punish her to maintain the rule of law, for consistency is necessary, and they want to judge objectively with the framework in mind. Both judges may well declare her guilty or maybe only the Thinker does. Perhaps the Feeler decides to try to remedy the causes of this situation after feeling so conflicted, and they create a charity. Both are very very necessary functions, as consistency is needed in a society, it's what the law is about, but sympathy is as well, or it becomes very oppressive. So, society needs both, and most people have both in them.

    However, if you meet anyone who is only a Thinker or only a Feeler, then run away very very fast ~.^

    Morality is discovered through careful logical analysis of sentiments. This has little to do with Feeling, as feeling is a mere senseless dwelling on the sentiments. You need thinking to put it in something coherent.

    Of course morality is grounded in sentiments, and this is why Feelers are more interested in it. But they are far less likely to put a system of ethics together because they cannot give their feelings a coherent structure.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

Similar Threads

  1. facebook gives me the horrors!
    By Thalassa in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 02-26-2010, 06:49 PM
  2. Someone give me a quick rundown on the Zodiac
    By swordpath in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 155
    Last Post: 10-06-2009, 01:49 AM
  3. Give me ALL of the details on a J person por favor
    By /DG/ in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 07-03-2009, 04:44 PM
  4. it gives me the heebie jeebies
    By ThatGirl in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-03-2009, 03:52 PM
  5. Give me the fall
    By swordpath in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 06-16-2008, 06:22 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