User Tag List

First 21011121314 Last

Results 111 to 120 of 163

  1. #111
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Yes, Magic, there is absolutely no reason to claim that the definition of rational does not include feeling. Virtually anything can be regarded as rational. Whether it is the barking of a dog, a feeling I get at consuming chocolate. Its whatever you want truly! Remember, most importantly of all, the term rational has noting at all to do with logical reasoning! Whatsoever!
    As usual, good sir.

    There's clearly nothing in my post that implies that. I pointed out, as I believe you can see quite clearly, that if we use conventional definitions (as one generally does when they say something "definitively"), there is no aspect of the definition of rational or the words most related to relation that exclude Feeling.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  2. #112
    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
    As usual, good sir.

    There's clearly nothing in my post that implies that. I pointed out, as I believe you can see quite clearly, that if we use conventional definitions (as one generally does when they say something "definitively"), there is no aspect of the definition of rational or the words most related to relation that exclude Feeling.
    Conventional definition of rational is synonymous with 'logical', which means in tune with the proper ways of reasoning. There is nothing about a Feeling or a simple impulse that forces it to be in tune with the proper ways of reasoning. In short, the definition of rational has nothing at all to do with 'Feeling'. It certainly does not exclude feeling completely, as you may have noticed, or in other words Feeling may be made compatible with 'rational'. For example, some feelings may be rational, as for example an accomplished logician tends to feel good about a statement that is logically justified, and feel negatively about a statement that is not logically justified.

    This however is not relevant. When we deal with Feeling as a function of Jungian typology we deal with the unconscious tendency to process emotion. Such a tendency in itself has no connection at all with the tendency to think rationally.

    In summary, Feeling by itself is not rational because it lacks a tendency towards logical thinking. However, Feeling could be made rational if it is influenced by an entity outside of itself. (Consider the example of a logician forcing his own emotions to interact directly with what is rational.)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The question that we endeavor to solve in this discussion is whether or not Feeling as an entity in itself is rational (just like Thinking is), the answer to that question is no. Whether or not Feeling could be made compatible with what is rational is irrelevant.
    "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. #113
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    I do not know of what convention you speak. The dictionaries I have read show rational and logical to have an inclusive relationship, rather than a synonymous relationship. That is to say, the word rational has a broader definition than the world logical, which includes the world logical. Logical, being a narrower and subsidiary word, is a part of, but does not encompass, rational.

    So, all things logical are rational. But not all things rational are logical.

    However, if you are speaking of what is conventionally defined in thesauri, which specialize in synonyms, I will inform you that you are right, they often do define rational and logical as synonyms. The problem is that they also say rational is synonymous with words like "balanced" and "reflective", as well as a very broad range of other words which obviously do not mean the exact same thing as rational, and certainly do not mean the same thing as logical (which is what we would have to assume if we agreed that all synonymous words mean the same thing).

    So, I say comparing definitions is the only way to truly now how the meaning of the words relate to each other, and I have already elaborated that in all dictionaries I have found, logical is only one possible form of rational.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  4. #114
    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
    I do not know of what convention you speak. The dictionaries I have read show rational and logical to have an inclusive relationship, rather than a synonymous relationship. That is to say, the word rational has a broader definition than the world logical, which includes the world logical. Logical, being a narrower and subsidiary word, is a part of, but does not encompass, rational.

    So, all things logical are rational. But not all things rational are logical.

    However, if you are speaking of what is conventionally defined in thesauri, which specialize in synonyms, I will inform you that you are right, they often do define rational and logical as synonyms. The problem is that they also say rational is synonymous with words like "balanced" and "reflective", as well as a very broad range of other words which obviously do not mean the exact same thing as rational, and certainly do not mean the same thing as logical (which is what we would have to assume if we agreed that all synonymous words mean the same thing).

    So, I say comparing definitions is the only way to truly now how the meaning of the words relate to each other, and I have already elaborated that in all dictionaries I have found, logical is only one possible form of rational.

    Logic is the essence of rationality. Rational, as the dictionary entitites that you have cited show, means in tune with what is sensible, practical or reasonable. How do you do sensible, practical or reasonable things? By knowing what it is that you want to do and doing it efficiently. This requires logical thinking as this is the most reliable way to knowing what you want to do and how you want to do it.

    You certainly can do rational things, or practical, sensible things by non-logical means, for instance, you may have been instructed with regard to what you should do and you can simply do what you were told to do. Or you could somehow guess what the proper thing to do is and because of this do what is sensible.

    However, logical thinking is the essence of rational thinking because it is the primary path to rational thinking.

    You're correct that all logical things are rational, but not all rational things are logical. However, almost all rational things are logical and the more logical a thing is, the more likely it is to be rational. Hence, because Feeling is non-logical, in almost all cases it is non-rational.
    "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/

  5. #115
    it's a nuclear device antireconciler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    Intj
    Enneagram
    5w4 so
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    867

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    It is true that Thoughts and Feelings are intimately intertwined, however, from this it does not follow that there is no distinction between Thinking and Feeling.

    Thinking by definition is a tendency towards dispassionate contemplation and Feeling is a tendency towards processing of emotion. We do both when we engage with most activities, though clearly in some cases one of the two aspects is more emphasized than the other. For example, when we play a chess or solve a mathematical problem, Thinking is more emphasized than Feeling. When we read poetry or listen to music, Feeling is more emphasized than Thinking. In the first case, Feeling is part of the procedure because the person derives a positive sentiment from doing the proof. Thinking is part of the procedure in the second case because the person has a clear idea of the work of art he is enjoying. In order for him to enjoy poetry or a painting, he must have an understanding of what the poetry is saying on the basic level or what the painting portrays.
    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    In summary, Feeling by itself is not rational because it lacks a tendency towards logical thinking. However, Feeling could be made rational if it is influenced by an entity outside of itself.

    The question that we endeavor to solve in this discussion is whether or not Feeling as an entity in itself is rational (just like Thinking is), the answer to that question is no. Whether or not Feeling could be made compatible with what is rational is irrelevant.
    Hello, Aleksey! Congratulations on your book!

    I like your distinction between Thinking and Feeling in the first quote, while making their intertwining nature explicit. In the second, you say, "Feeling is not rational because it lacks a tendency toward logical thinking." I wonder if you could explain this more clearly. It would seem logically possible that something, in this case, Feeling, could in itself be rational, even if its object is not clear before the thinking subject. In other words, why jump from discrepancy between the the logical clarity and rigor of Thinking and the less clear Feeling, in the subject's awareness, to an actual discrepancy in their base logic. Obviously Feeling follows a kind of logic of its own. (It is not simply chaotic.) Why then say it is not rational? It does not appear explicitly logical, and for that reason, can fall into error, but to suggest that it does not follow an order isn't plausible. A natural result would be that there are reasonable things to feel and unreasonable things to feel. That appears prima facie quite acceptable. For example, it is unreasonable to become angry if you find another has achieved an award you wanted instead, and quite reasonable to be happy for them. If the intuitions compelling me to such statements are wrong, however, I would welcome their undermining.
    ~ a n t i r e c o n c i l e r
    What is death, dies.
    What is life, lives.

  6. #116
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Well, Evan, you forced me to read Jung. Payback is an opaque quotation.

    What Ni is:

    "Introverted intuition apprehends the images which arise from the a priori, i.e. the inherited foundations of the unconscious mind. These archetypes, whose innermost nature is inaccessible to experience, represent the precipitate of psychic functioning of the whole ancestral line, i.e. the heaped-up, or pooled, experiences of organic existence in general, a million times repeated, and condensed into types. Hence, in these archetypes all experiences are [p. 508] represented which since primeval time have happened on this planet. Their archetypal distinctness is the more marked, the more frequently and intensely they have been experienced. The archetype would be -- to borrow from Kant -- the noumenon of the image which intuition perceives and, in perceiving, creates."

    A more accessible version, kinda:

    "Just as the extraverted intuitive is continually scenting out new [p. 507] possibilities, which he pursues with an equal unconcern both for his own welfare and for that of others, pressing on quite heedless of human considerations, tearing down what has only just been established in his everlasting search for change, so the introverted intuitive moves from image to image, chasing after every possibility in the teeming womb of the unconscious, without establishing any connection between the phenomenon and himself. Just as the world can never become a moral problem for the man who merely senses it, so the world of images is never a moral problem to the intuitive."

    Really doesn't sound like Ni is making decisions about positive evaluation, does it? Ni isn't privileging one possibility over another. It's just shooting them all out there. It's "...chasing after every possibility..."

    So... how does Ni get regulated? Jung says "auxiliaries":

    "In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that such pure types occur at all frequently in actual practice. The are, as it were, only Galtonesque family-portraits, which sum up in a cumulative image the common and therefore typical characters, stressing these disproportionately, while the individual features are just as disproportionately effaced. Accurate investigation of the individual case consistently reveals the fact that, in conjunction with the most differentiated function, another function of secondary importance, and therefore of inferior differentiation in consciousness, is constantly present, and is a -- relatively determining factor."

    If Ni has logical properties, if Ni is privileging as "evaluated positive" some possibilities over other possibilities, then Ni is in principle in competition with the auxiliary function, especially if the auxiliary is (also) a judging function. Is this what happens?

    Ni has conceptual properties, I guess. Possibilities are related to each other by concept....

    But, sorry, no, not even that is true. Ni does not function in isolation. It gets its version of conceptual connections from the auxiliary. Ni in an INTJ grooves on external world things because Te is the auxiliary; Ni in an INFJ grooves on people because Fe is the auxiliary.

    (And not just the auxiliaries either. In any INXJ the conceptual structures in Ni are set up by all 8 functions--just with some more privileged than others by relative conscious strength.)



    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    And for that matter, why doesn't an INFJ just explode? [...]
    That's a ludicrous point. If you think for a minute that Fs aren't capable of logical thinking, you need to restructure your understanding of the MBTI. MBTI is about preference, not ability. It's descriptive, not predictive.
    It was a reductio argument: if Ni were making inductive decisions, (and Fe coincidentally adding a value), and if Ti were making deductive decisions about the NiFe product, Ti would fail. It would be able to accept none of the inductive steps. Thus, since INFJs do perform logical thought, Ni doesn't make inductions. (It just lists possibilities.)

    Perhaps some terminology?

    "Induction": a logical maneuver that says Y is "evaluated positive" when X is "evaluated positive" just because if X is "evaluated positive" then Y is probably "evaluated positive".

    The terms induction and deduction--as I have been using them--refer to matters of the transmission of "positive evaluation". Compared to induction, deduction requires a stricter connection between the "positive" of X and the "positive" of Y before it will allow that if X is "evaluated positive" then Y is "evaluated positive".

    So what I want to know is why INXJs sound like induction machines. This is in contrast to INXPs who, as we all know, sound like deduction machines. INXPs require all the detailed evidence to be presented. INXJs appear to operate on thinner evidences.


    I don't know what you're really trying to say. Good/Bad is always going to be subjective, because it always depends on premises. You can say, given these ethical principles, x is wrong or x is right. But you can never call x in and of itself wrong or right.
    Yes, you can.

    What is Fe:
    "In precisely the same way as extraverted thinking strives to rid itself of subjective influences, extraverted feeling has also to undergo a certain process of differentiation, before it is finally denuded of every subjective [p. 447] trimming. The valuations resulting from the act of feeling either correspond directly with objective values or at least chime in with certain traditional and generally known standards of value."

    Besides which, Ti is there to back it up. If T produces true and false at all, INFJs produce properly formatted and well established claims like "It is true that X is good/bad."

    I rule.



    And as for the distinction between Thinking and Feeling... I still like the suggestion that Thinking and Feeling are appropriate labels for times when different conscious approaches are taken to be more controlling:

    Feeling is affective consciousness. Thinking is ... contemplative consciousness?

  7. #117
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Treating Jung's work as heavenly scripture, like so many before you, will not increase anyone's understanding of anything, except Jung's work.

  8. #118
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    No shit.

    Discussing MBTI without a preliminary definition of the relevant concepts is... entertaining?


    (Oh Jeez, now my Fi says I'm being too harsh... see how I'm growing as an INTJ?)

  9. #119
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    No shit.

    Discussing MBTI without a preliminary definition of the relevant concepts is... entertaining?
    They aren't perfectly relevant to MBTI. There are far better ways to get to the heart of the T/F dichotomy than discussing Jung's definition of introverted intuition, which has in any case been misapplied to MBTI types.

  10. #120
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Okay.

    How about, "Discussing MBTI without a preliminary definition of some version of the concepts..."?

    Discussing Ni in this case seems relevant for the discussion seems to be warning that if the functions as conceived by Jung mean anything, it is as abstractions, being that none of the functions make genuine sense if viewed completely in isolation. (In other words, by extension, perhaps yes, "T and F is a false dichotomy". Or at least it's a possibly artificial abstraction.)

    But now I'm interested... what are the better ways of conceiving Thinking and Feeling?

Similar Threads

  1. [MBTItm] Adam-12: GREAT Display Of Thinking Vs. Feeling
    By LauraIngallsWalton in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-21-2017, 04:19 AM
  2. Thinking vs Feeling
    By Eastwood in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-25-2015, 04:07 PM
  3. [MBTItm] Thinking vs Feeling
    By Doomkid in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: 05-12-2014, 06:49 AM
  4. Thinking Vs Feeling
    By oxymoron in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-18-2010, 05:14 PM
  5. Thinking vs. Feeling: What if...
    By Nonsensical in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 06-16-2009, 11:43 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