User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 87

  1. #31
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Bringing order to one's worldview? That's not the point you were making. You were talking about divorce from reality. If you're talking about bringing order to Perceptions, of course Thinking is the correct function.

    Also, Thinking is always active in all types. Its conclusions might not have as much of an affect on the internal or external standard as is neccesary for maturity, which is probably what you're talking about. (Sorry about the nitpicking. Hope I worded that correctly...) Obviously, though, all functions must be properly weighed in order to reach maturity.

  2. #32
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    Bringing order to one's worldview? That's not the point you were making. You were talking about divorce from reality. If you're talking about bringing order to Perceptions, of course Thinking is the correct function.

    .
    Having an orderly worldview is integral to being in tune with reality. Rational analysis of perceptions more than anything else will purge the subjectivity of perception. Far more so than mere direct exposure to the external world. For this reason cultivation of thinking is maxim number one and cultivation of extroverted faculties is maxim number 2.

    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    Also, Thinking is always active in all types. Its conclusions might not have as much of an affect on the internal or external standard as is neccesary for maturity, which is probably what you're talking about..
    I do not understand the remark.
    "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/

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    693

    Default

    Bluewing, it is clear that your ti is highly developed and we are all very proud of you. Now for christsake develop that second function and come down from the tower.

  4. #34
    Member sleepless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing
    Such an attitude is incompatibility with reasonableness. If you have a belief that you cannot support logically, there is no reason to think it true. You must renounce it, or admit you're being unreasonable.
    But this is not about belief, it is about direct experience. The atheist in my example experiences something being there, without being able to explain it through reason. The belief, or faith, essentially goes down to having trust in this "presence", that it will continue to be there, as it has been in the past; to rely on it, even if there's no way to prove that it will continue to manifest itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing
    I may certainly think that this was a wonderful experience, yet I see no reason to think that this had anything to do with the Christian teaching. This would likely be a meritorious addition to my spirituality. As a thorough-going atheist, I can well claim to be spiritual in a sense that many religious people would like to claim.
    No, I didn't mean it would support Christianity either, I'm trying to get down to the essence of religion.

    You wouldn't have a problem with such an experience, then? Wouldn't it collide a little with your atheism or your rational worldview? What is spirituality to you, if I may ask?


    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing
    My second question is, with respect to Dostoevksy, if he truly were reasonable and used his T properly, why would he have to hold any superstition at all? Doing so is anathema to reasonableness itself as being superstitious by definition of the term means believing in ideas that cannot be rationally supported.
    Do you mean that Dostoyevsky's allegiance with Christianity is itself a superstition? I am not a Christian, but due to a Christian background I have known lots of fundamentalist Christians, and they really do have lots of proofs and "rational explanations" for their faith, as have religious people of all times had. I'm sure Dostoyevsky had too. Many of them (books and so) would of course not pass through a scientific examination; some though, are written by scientists, and it seems to me that if you want to find an explanation for something, you will.

    They usually put the highest emphasis on personal experience though, and this is where I give them the most credit. I have heard far more than enough accounts of people being miraculously healed, having their prayers answered over and over again, literally having their lives saved by some great spiritual experience (where they saw Jesus), to be sure that at least some of them must be true (not to talk about such things as near-death-/out-of-the-body-experiences, past-life-regression, ghosts etc). Of course it's also cultural, a muslim would not see Jesus for example, but still... my point is that there are lots of religious people who are T, NT even, who find obvious proof for their faith. Not to mention how many those must have been in the past.


    You think there's a great difference between spirituality and religion, is that right? Religion as a kind of distortion of spirituality? It is a distinction I have made myself, even if I haven't been so careful with it lately.

  5. #35
    Senior Member edcoaching's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    752

    Default

    Ti vs. all other functions...developing a logical world view would be the height of intelligence/development if the world operated logically. It doesn't. No more Captain Dunsels (Star Trek "The Ultimate Computer")
    edcoaching

  6. #36
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Meh. I mean, the world does operate logically. The problem with logic is the set of assumptions the user starts from. How do you get those assumptions? Inductive reasoning. T cannot do that. Only N can do that (which needs to be grounded in S of course).

    T can work all it wants, but if you start with the premise that the sky is purple, you're gonna come to some terrible conclusions.

  7. #37
    Senior Member edcoaching's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    752

    Default

    If logic could predict behavior, New Coke wouldn't have failed. I get a lot of business from companies that expect their employees to behave logically, too...
    edcoaching

  8. #38
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Ah, that's what you were saying. Yeah, predicting things is much more of an N thing.

    Induction (N) vs. Deduction (T). Yes, deduction is guaranteed to take us to something true if our premises are true, but we will never get anything new out of it. With induction, you can say something like "Well, the sun has come up every day so far, so I conclude it will come up tomorrow". It could be wrong, but at least it gets you to new ideas/information.

    The best predictors have good N and good T. F is good for predicting people, too, since it points your attention in the direction of values. And of course S is necessary so that your predictions are grounded in reality.

  9. #39
    Senior Member edcoaching's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    752

    Default

    You know, i never did take a philosophy class. Stuck to lit, history, religion, art history...oh, and those business credits so i could get a job...
    edcoaching

  10. #40
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Religious thinkers whose works have led religion to be associated with spirituality behaved in a profoundly irreligious fashion because by doing so they have for the very least questioned the inerrancy of some of their sacred maxims, and have often even subverted them.
    And yet there have been plenty of orthodox Christian thinkers who enriched the spiritual experience as well. Take a look at Dark Night of the Soul by St. John of the Cross or Spiritual Excercises by St. Ignatius of Loyola.

    For this reason the Christianity of many Christian philosophers such as Pelagius, Kierkegaard, Paul Tillich have been branded heretical by fundamentalists.
    Since when are fundamentalists the be-all of Christianity? By almost all objective standards, they're a small fringe of the Christian tradition. They're not looked highly upon within Catholicism for example.

    Or are you misusing the label "fundamentalist" for orthodox Christians?

    BTW, the works of Kierkegaard and Tillich have been influential within conventional Christian traditions. In regards to Catholicism, two influential modern thinkers - von Balthasar and Pope John Paul II - held Kierkegaard in high regard.

    The fundamentalists are the true observes of the religious faith because they insist on scrupulous adherence to what the sacred writings say explicitly, not with what they ought to have said.
    As far as Christianity is concerned that's a difficult position to hold since the faith grew out of the allegorical traditions of Hellenic Judaism. In our other discussion, I've also made mention of the first century Christian text that called literalists dupes of the Devil. Let's not forget that many of the Church Fathers rejected a literalist approach, especially St. Augustine of Hippo.

    Independently thinking individuals who are religious merely contort scripture to justify their quest for truth and autonomy of thought. Invariably they are afflicted with dire internal conflict because of this.
    The life of faith in itself is about overcoming internal conflicts, so I fail to understand your point here.


    1) Ni in itself is pure abstract perception. In order for an Ni dominant mindset to concern oneself with the big questions or 'metaperspective' it needs to be organized with Thinking. Or there needs to be a logical analysis of the abstract perceptions.
    Does that really contradict what I said? Just curious.

    2) What do your claims with respect to Dostoevsky have to do with my treatment of him?
    Well for one thing, providing a little balance and wider context to your treatments, since they seem to be incomplete on many levels.

    I'll also take the oppurtunity to correct your treatment of Kierkegaard. You claimed he was apolitical, when in fact he was a staunch supporter of Denmark's absolutist monarchy. One of his first writings was a pamphlet against female suffrage.

Similar Threads

  1. How far divorced from books, film, TV and media portrayals is society becoming?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-05-2011, 01:21 AM
  2. [INFJ] INFJs and Single-Mindedness
    By Kiddo in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 11-23-2009, 06:39 PM
  3. [INFJ] INFJs and Dating
    By Kiddo in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 109
    Last Post: 02-22-2009, 06:42 AM
  4. [INFJ] INFJ and Compliments
    By chippinchunk in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 01-24-2008, 09:20 AM
  5. [INFJ] INFJ and grief
    By tovlo in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 12-21-2007, 06:49 AM

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