I don't intend this to be some criticism of F or asking feelers to justify their thought process. I am genuinely interested in how it works, partly to understand my own F.
As a bit of a background: Although I am a T, I think I have a pretty strong Fi. I tend to make value choices that are different from the norm and often am given a hard time about them. I have often been asked to explain/justify my choices (not usually in a nice way) and am usually at a loss on how to do it.
Why do we choose the values we choose? Is it simply because they "feel right" or is there something more complicated than that going on? How do you evaluate one value over another? If someone asked you to justify one of your values could you do it, using strictly F, not supporting it with T? What would a debate between too Fs with different values look like if they defended it using only F?
For me, when something is decided by my T, I generally feel that I can defend my choices fairly well using logic. However, with my F choices I may feel very strongly about something, but I am hard pressed to defend them. I don't really feel comfortable with not being able to come up with the F equivelent of a "logical defense" to my position. Sometimes a logical explaination will coincide with my F choice and I can back it up using logic, but other times there is no convenient F choice.
I am not sure if this makes a difference or not but I am thinking of both big values (religion, politics, ethics) and little values (taste in music, clothing styles).