User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 52

  1. #21
    half mystic, half skeksis jenocyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    6,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick View Post
    First, at the basis of any rational thought lies assumptions which cannot be demontrasted. A rational thinking based on invalid assumptions may be perfectly logical but still invalid. As such, there is no such thing as perfectly rational thinking, but at best "logical" thinking that is more or less rational depending on the subjective evaluation of the basic assumptions.

    Philosophers such as Kant arrived at views of moral behavior that state that people should treat others as they would like to be treated and act with others in such a way that their actions could become a universal law. Following this view, it is logical to want to help those people because that is treating others in a way in which you would like to be treated and that could be made into a universal law at the benefit of all.

    Correct me if I'm wrong and if you would prefer not being helped if you were in Gaza.
    That has nothing to do with anything... And really, I'm not debating Israel/Gaza - helping one group may mean that the other group is hurt. The whole thing is circular.


    The issue is why he's not allowed to have an opinion on the matter without having his morality judged.

  2. #22
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Always do what you think makes you happy. If you dont know what it is, find out step by step. But never listen to other peoples advice or this will be your first step to irrationality.
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  3. #23
    I'm a star. Kangirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,470

    Default

    The issue is why he's not allowed to have an opinion on the matter without having his morality judged.
    Anyone claiming to be an 'amoralist' probably needs to be prepared to have their morality questioned.
    "Only an irrational dumbass, would burn Jews." - Jaguar

    "please give concise answers in plain English" - request from Provoker

  4. #24
    Luctor et emergo Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8w7 sp/sx
    Socionics
    SLE Ti
    Posts
    534

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    What are you actually afraid of here?
    I specified what I was afraid of. Sacrificing my intellectual integrity.

    What perception are you trying to foster in the eyes of others about yourself that you are trying to publicly preserve?
    I don't care about perceptions. I care about personal consistency.

    And what things about yourself that you don't want to accept are you running from?
    As far as I'm concerned, nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by blanclait View Post
    your not going to become any less logical or lose part of your intellect b/c you can associate with people's feelings.

    rather you become more intelligent as you develop your interpersonal skills.


    if its hard, just pretend you care.
    What you say has made me rethink something. Although I disagree with your claim about "pretending I care", I was about to answer that the reason I disagree is that I value honesty. Then I realised that I can't possibly "value" something without being moralistically inclined, and since morals are based the irrational self, there must be a part of me that is irrational.

    Nonetheless, this does not give me a reason to be more compassionate. It merely reveals that I have some irrational inclinations which I evidently accept.

    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    [...]suddenly you'll actually become more rational[...]
    How, and why will this be the case?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kangirl View Post
    Wtf?! How is being compassionate = to being irrational? I dunno, but when I first joined this place it used to annoy me that so many used to assume that NT types were cold somehow, but posts like this one seem to be a hint as to why they do. Seriously, spell this out for me, how is feeling compassion for the suffering of others somehow a *compromise* of intellectuality?
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Compassion is a profound human emotion prompted by the pain of others. More vigorous than empathy, the feeling commonly gives rise to an active desire to alleviate another's suffering.
    The emotional side of us is non-intellectual, and thus irrational by definition. The only way we can discuss emotions in an intellectual way is through use of the analytic method.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    USA is a great player in the free market. USA has NOT been 'rationally' neutral to the Gaza conflict, vis a vis, their support (indirect, and, much so) of Israel. So, before you make a judgement on a topic by saying that it has reached its ceiling of rationality, you may want to be better informed. It helps to actually prove your case for rationality that you think you seem to have so much of in spades.
    Okay, but that's besides the point.

    So, you can take either side, neither side, or, sit on the fence. Just prove it - accordingly. Be it logic or value-based.
    Pray tell, how can you possibly make any kind of judgement about the Gaza conflict without appealing to emotion?

    Fence-sitting is the only rational option in this case.

    For me, it came down to, if it is not logical, I cannot do it/commit. So, one time, I challenged them, can you find 'logic' within values? Show me.
    I agree. This is the pinpoint of my argument about fence-sitting.

    And, I have been given many an example that finally showed me the limitations of 'cold', objective logic. And, thus, the merits of value-based 'logic'.
    I don't see "value-based 'logic'" as genuine logic at all; logic does not consider feelings. Take Kant. His entire system is apparently 'rational', but it's based on irrational 'should' claims about the world (how we 'should' act towards one another), which he cannot possibly justify.

    Anecdote: Our driveway is long and narrow, and we got 3 cars parked there. Middle one, the person is not home yet so no key. Front car (my dad's). Last car, blocked in by the rest is mine. I needed to leave ASAP. So, I asked my dad to borrow his car, and when he goes out later, he could use mine. Makes logical sense. His is the in line. However...he refused, asking me to wait to get my car out. I was livid. It didn't make logical sense. Relay story to my F-disposed friend. Her response: Your dad knows you smoke and hates it, and he probably doesn't want to face it/inhale it, when he goes to sit in your car. Simple. Logical still. And, triumped me. That's value-based as you get. But, for some reason, it beats my logical reasoning. With a greater 'internal logic' of its own.[/quote]

    That isn't logic. That's value-based reasoning or thinking. Logic, as you say, is a process of thought. This might look incredibly pedantic , but as a philosophy undergrad, it's incredibly important to me. Hahaha, how sad does
    that make me sound.

    Having said that, your talk of 'internal logic' reminds me of Carnap's linguistic frameworks, and I tend to appreciate Carnap as being valid. I don't know if you've heard of Carnap, or, if you have, if you've heard of his linguistic framework theory. Look it up; it's better an encylopaedia explain it to you than myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCat View Post
    Maybe deep down you're afraid of showing some sort of weakness, and maybe you unconsciously think that showing tenderness and consideration shows weakness?
    Certainly a possibility. With regards the second part of your question, I actually think anything that is illogical is weak. Perhaps it's not a case of changing my actual character, but rather what I consider to be weak.

    Quote Originally Posted by groovejet02 View Post
    I think so too (Ezra, correct us if we're mistaken). I think it probably has to do with her /him being an ENTJ 8w7.
    Him. The original Ezra:



    I notice this with my ENTJ friend too: the failure to care about suffering -- especially in the wider world --- and pointing to it with statements "That's stupid!" and "I am too tired to care", though I'm sure there are also ENTJs who are compassionate.
    That's certainly not like me, before you start drawing conclusions. It's not a failure to care; it's a recognition of the irrationality of caring, and a refusal to accept this as a character flaw. I've thought deep, long and hard about issues like human suffering - a damn sight more than most people - and I've reached these conclusions via logical means.

    I realise that my disposition makes it sound like I have some kind of obsessive concern with logic and rationality; like a neuroses or something, but I honestly can't see any other way to counter what I think is, quite frankly... illogical!

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatsWhatHeSaid View Post
    What you call rationality is really getting lost in your personal value system, labeling everything as proper and improper, and trying to come up with something that sounds consistent.
    Fair point.

    But while doing so, you completely forget the fact that real people are suffering. Suffering gets reduced to a mere variable in an equation and you do lose your humanity. To me, this isn't really rationality. Rationality involves how you see patterns in the world. But you need to be open to seeing and experiencing what's real on a personal, intimate basis, not just as a philosophical game you play with your college friends.
    When I see a tramp on the street, who is evidently suffering, I do not offer him help, even when he's going "spare change, please". That's personal, that's real, and I'm pretty fucking sure it has nothing to do with philosophy.

    Quote Originally Posted by jenocyde View Post
    I get what you're saying, Ezra. It's not that you don't know that there's suffering, you just know that some suffering has to happen for anything to change. Compassion has nothing to do with sensitivity.
    While I do agree, this isn't my point. My point is more like "it's not that I don't know that there's suffering, more that I cannot possibly care as a rational human being. Is there something wrong with me?"

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Is there an observer/participant distinction to draw?

    Compassion in an observer is one thing. It might well motive that observer to begin seeking better solutions across the board. If you see what I mean. They'd vote for different candidates based on those kinds of preferences, influence others over some beers, possibly promote different outcomes by exercise of their consumer choices.

    ENTJ might find more it compelling to be compassionate as a participant. Either by considering the emo-pleas of other observers and taking some actions they suggest, or by joining the UN or the military or the government, or by using their own likely position in business.

    Compassion is a fine thing, but perhaps disabling if there are no actions attached. And for something as big as, say, Gaza, perhaps the deal is not how much you can feel for the suffering of others, but how many meaningful actions you can attach to the emo-pleas of people you know.

    To reach a decision about which action will be meaningful, you'll need to exercise both rationality and compassion.

    Something like that, maybe.
    A good distinction, Kalach, but, again, in this context it's irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    I think you need to get over yourself a little bit (not trying to be mean, but just saying). I mean, "sacrificing your intellectual integrity?" Are you saying it's impossible for an F type to be rational / intellectual?
    See my point above about the irrationality of emotion by definition of the word.

    I consider myself both of those things. Being rational and being compassionate are two different spheres, but not necessarily opposites, and they can be blended together without sacrificing the integrity of each.
    I agree that they're two different spheres, but I do think they're opposites, and thus cannot be blended.

    You are a human, and humans are, regardless of what you may believe, inherently subjective. We ain't machines. Even your fear of losing your "intellectual integrity" is based off of feelings. You can't run away from them, they're always gonna be there.

    [...]

    Being too "objective" often leads to people believe that there is actually a "right" answer to every question, and there just isn't. No one has sufficiently proven to me yet that 2+2=4. And your opinions are valid, regardless of whether they're based on feelings or facts (or, as is most likely the case, both), because both of those things are taken internally and processed based on how they make sense to you. Don't run away from either of them - embrace them both, and be who you want to be!
    You're probably right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick View Post
    First, at the basis of any rational thought lies assumptions which cannot be demontrasted. A rational thinking based on invalid assumptions may be perfectly logical but still invalid. As such, there is no such thing as perfectly rational thinking, but at best "logical" thinking that is more or less rational depending on the subjective evaluation of the basic assumptions.

    Philosophers such as Kant arrived at views of moral behavior that state that people should treat others as they would like to be treated and act with others in such a way that their actions could become a universal law. Following this view, it is logical to want to help those people because that is treating others in a way in which you would like to be treated and that could be made into a universal law at the benefit of all.

    Correct me if I'm wrong and if you would prefer not being helped if you were in Gaza.
    Although I agree with your main point, I have some criticisms against Kant which you may be interested in hearing (please tell me if you are).

    In terms of being in Gaza, I'd probably say "no". I value self-reliance and independence. I would only resort to help were it the case that I was completely incapacitated to help myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by jenocyde View Post
    The issue is why he's not allowed to have an opinion on the matter without having his morality judged.
    No, it isn't. I don't care about what others 'allow' me to have - I will have an opinion on whatever the hell I want, period. The issue is (ir)rational action, and how it relates to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kangirl View Post
    Anyone claiming to be an 'amoralist' probably needs to be prepared to have their morality questioned.
    Anyone claiming to be a 'womaniser' probably needs to be prepared to have their virginity questioned.

    Yeah, it doesn't make sense, does it? Likewise.

    But ignoring the contradiction of your comment, I'm an amoralist in that I refuse to believe in the objectivity of morals. If morality exists, it is personal, and intersubjective.

  5. #25
    I'm a star. Kangirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,470

    Default

    Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Compassion is a profound human emotion prompted by the pain of others. More vigorous than empathy, the feeling commonly gives rise to an active desire to alleviate another's suffering.
    The emotional side of us is non-intellectual, and thus irrational by definition. The only way we can discuss emotions in an intellectual way is through use of the analytic method...See my point above about the irrationality of emotion by definition of the word.
    Your Wiki quote establishes nothing about the rationality of emotion - it merely describes compassion as an emotion. It's you who has assumed that anything emotional is by definition irrational.

    Anyone claiming to be a 'womaniser' probably needs to be prepared to have their virginity questioned.

    Yeah, it doesn't make sense, does it? Likewise
    I don't understand how that doesn't make sense to you. If one claims to be an amoralist, then one should be prepared for others to claim that one has no morality, no??

    While I do agree, this isn't my point. My point is more like "it's not that I don't know that there's suffering, more that I cannot possibly care as a rational human being. Is there something wrong with me?"
    Why are you asking if anyone thinks something is "wrong" with you? You've clearly stated that you believe compassion is irrational. What more do you need? If it's your opinion that compassion is by definition irrational, then it follows that not feeling compassion is...rational. Which is how you've stated you want to live your life. Now, I completely disagree with you that compassion is always necessarily irrational (that's a separate conversation) but given your stated beliefs, I'm not seeing what your problem is.

    If you really do want someone to answer the "do you think something is wrong with me" I'll say that my personal response is "yes, you don't sound entirely 'human' - it's possible you are telling the truth when you say suffering causes you to feel nothing, and in that case, I am unaware of any successful way to change one's feelings."

    I would also ask you to flesh out the "I feel nothing when others suffer" stance. Do you *always* feel nothing? Do you feel nothing regardless of who it is suffering (eg. a stranger vs a parent)? Have you always felt nothing, even as small child?

    Is there honestly no one else reading this thread who doesn't see a problem with the basic idea that anyone choosing to lead a rational life must not feel compassion in order to do so? Anyone? Are we all a bunch of irrational emotionalists if we happen to feel compassion in a given situation? Does anyone want to defend themselves against that claim?
    "Only an irrational dumbass, would burn Jews." - Jaguar

    "please give concise answers in plain English" - request from Provoker

  6. #26
    rawr Costrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kangirl View Post
    Is there honestly no one else reading this thread who doesn't see a problem with the basic idea that anyone choosing to lead a rational life must not feel compassion in order to do so? Anyone? Are we all a bunch of irrational emotionalists if we happen to feel compassion in a given situation? Does anyone want to defend themselves against that claim?
    What is a rational life anyway? How is it defined? I don't think it exists, even in theory, because any action, taken for any reason, to accomplish any goal, is entirely subjective. For example:

    Anecdote: Our driveway is long and narrow, and we got 3 cars parked there. Middle one, the person is not home yet so no key. Front car (my dad's). Last car, blocked in by the rest is mine. I needed to leave ASAP. So, I asked my dad to borrow his car, and when he goes out later, he could use mine. Makes logical sense. His is the in line. However...he refused, asking me to wait to get my car out. I was livid. It didn't make logical sense. Relay story to my F-disposed friend. Her response: Your dad knows you smoke and hates it, and he probably doesn't want to face it/inhale it, when he goes to sit in your car. Simple. Logical still. And, triumped me. That's value-based as you get. But, for some reason, it beats my logical reasoning. With a greater 'internal logic' of its own.
    That supposed logical reasoning, actually wasn't any more logical the supposed value-based reasoning. They are actually both value-based reasoning, with different, but still subjective goals. The quoted person had the goal of being able to leave in his car quickly, while the dad had the goal of avoiding the smoke in the car. Which is logically superior? Neither.

    As applies to compassion, it is alogical. It's entirely neutral to the question of logic or rationality. If you gain from feeling compassion, then it is logical to do so, if you don't then it wouldn't be (though not necessarily illogical, unless feeling compassion effected you negatively). Emotions clearly have a use, they allow people to connect and work together, they give life a purpose, a goal. For this reason it can be rational to indulge in them. To say that they aren't rational though, is an irrational claim in itself, as emotions are inherently neither rational or irrational. It depends entirely on your goals.

    imo
    "All humour has a foundation of truth."
    - Costrin

  7. #27
    I'm a star. Kangirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,470

    Default

    What is a rational life anyway? How is it defined? I don't think it exists, even in theory, because any action, taken for any reason, to accomplish any goal, is entirely subjective.
    That's what I'm getting at, Costrin.

    That supposed logical reasoning, actually wasn't any more logical the supposed value-based reasoning. They are actually both value-based reasoning, with different, but still subjective goals. The quoted person had the goal of being able to leave in his car quickly, while the dad had the goal of avoiding the smoke in the car. Which is logically superior? Neither.
    My thoughts on the situation exactly. Someone wanted his car right away and acted rationally based on that. Someone else didn't want smoke in his car, and acted equally rationally, based on that.
    "Only an irrational dumbass, would burn Jews." - Jaguar

    "please give concise answers in plain English" - request from Provoker

  8. #28
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    What is a rational life anyway? How is it defined? I don't think it exists, even in theory, because any action, taken for any reason, to accomplish any goal, is entirely subjective. For example:


    That supposed logical reasoning, actually wasn't any more logical the supposed value-based reasoning. They are actually both value-based reasoning, with different, but still subjective goals. The quoted person had the goal of being able to leave in his car quickly, while the dad had the goal of avoiding the smoke in the car. Which is logically superior? Neither.

    imo
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangirl View Post
    That's what I'm getting at, Costrin.



    My thoughts on the situation exactly. Someone wanted his car right away and acted rationally based on that. Someone else didn't want smoke in his car, and acted equally rationally, based on that.
    There may be a very good reason why it's so hard to pin down a succint yet comprehensive definition to logic. But, it still adheres to some basic formula of argument. At its core, it is the principles of correct reasoning. Not right reasoning. It is a thought-process, not a thought - this logic. It is where the conclusion can be accurately predicted by its stated opening assumptions/rules/facts/principles/premise/condition(s). It doesn't matter how far-fetched the assumptions can be. Logic is not the thought, but, the thought-process.

    Statement: Twigs is a penguin, and thus he hums.
    Twigs is a pengin.
    Penguins hum.

    * doesn't matter how irrational the premise may be. It is only about the conclusion supporting the premise correctly, not rightly, or wrongly...but correctly.

    End point: My dad and I both *needed* cars to leave.

    I had to leave right away as someone was waiting for me, while he spared the extra 10 minutes to get the car sorted out. Either way, as you've pointed out, either of these situations are value-based. Me needing to leave earlier. Him avoiding smoke vs. time. These are both of our value-based thoughts. I had them, the thoughts of needing to leave early, they were my value-based justification for my side. Just like the smoke was a value-based justification for my dad's side. But, it is not the discord in justification that is a breach in logic. It is the situation irrespective of any value-based justification. I.e., take either side out. Mine or his. What would we do in this siuation? What is the thought-process (not the thought)? That there is logic. Logic has one steadfast rule: it doesn't permit contradiction.

    Thus, when you look at the logic of a situation, just like you apply objectivity to the conclusion, so must you then start with objectivity to the premise/assumption. I.e., does it follow a correct thought-process rising from the premise, regardless of any judgement to the premise, either way?

    Two conditions: A & B

    A
    Statement: Dad & Q will both need to leave in car.
    Car is needed to leave.
    Dad & Q both needed to leave.


    B
    Statement:To use car 2, car 1 will need to be moved from the front.
    Car 1 is in front of car 2.
    Thus, car 2 is blocked.


    Conditional probability (given that humans are involved ): P (A|B)

    Probability of A given B. Probability of Dad & Q both leaving will depend on the sequence of cars.

    I gave my pov, and my dad's in the above anecdote. However, I thought it was pretty apparent what the basic logical process of the situation would be. Thus, if both needs to leave, both uses cars. 2 cars. Person 1 leaves - in car. Person 2 leaves - in car. Car 1 in front of car 2. Now, how/which car one uses, how fast this happens...irrelevant. Car needed to leave. You leave. Take car. Which car each of us use, is a subjective 'why' Q. That was not the inherent logic I was making a case for. It just so happened that my side/reasoning did nothing to disrupt the sequence of the inherent logic of the situation. It would't break any rules of the given A & B. My dad's side would add convolution/break rules in deductive logic of given A & B - as in order to leave, we have to adhere to a given sequence of car, and his position asks me to overlook the sequence of cars (which doesn't gel with situation B). That there is the difference.


    Now, why one needs to adhere to using car 2, and another strictly car 1, even if blocked, or, whether one wants to leave faster or slower is irrelevant to the situation of needing to leave...in cars.

    When you question something as value-based, think first of the premise/assumption from which you start and whether that itself is an objective premise or actually a value-based judgement placed on the situation.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    Although I agree with your main point, I have some criticisms against Kant which you may be interested in hearing (please tell me if you are).

    In terms of being in Gaza, I'd probably say "no". I value self-reliance and independence. I would only resort to help were it the case that I was completely incapacitated to help myself.
    Yes, I would be interested in hearing them - in a dedicated thread as to not derail this topic.

    As for the second part of your answer, if you were prefer not being helped, then your stance is rational and moral from a Kantian perspective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kangirl View Post
    Now, I completely disagree with you that compassion is always necessarily irrational (that's a separate conversation) but given your stated beliefs, I'm not seeing what your problem is.
    Interesting for a seperate conversation, but on a sidenote some theories would consider a feeling such as compassion to follow from a cognitive (i.e. thought based) appraisal of a situation.

    If you really do want someone to answer the "do you think something is wrong with me" I'll say that my personal response is "yes, you don't sound entirely 'human' - it's possible you are telling the truth when you say suffering causes you to feel nothing, and in that case, I am unaware of any successful way to change one's feelings."
    Again for a seperate conversation: define "human" and define "wrong/right" in terms of personality/cognitive orientation. This is a value based judgment.

    I would also ask you to flesh out the "I feel nothing when others suffer" stance. Do you *always* feel nothing? Do you feel nothing regardless of who it is suffering (eg. a stranger vs a parent)? Have you always felt nothing, even as small child?
    See above.

    Is there honestly no one else reading this thread who doesn't see a problem with the basic idea that anyone choosing to lead a rational life must not feel compassion in order to do so? Anyone? Are we all a bunch of irrational emotionalists if we happen to feel compassion in a given situation? Does anyone want to defend themselves against that claim?
    What is being "rational"? Is it having an absence of emotion, or a trigger of emotion which is based on an accurate appraisal of a situation? Is it even possible to be motivated to be rational without emotion? This question is so complex and at the center of many philosophical debates. I don't think we can discuss this here without significantly derailing this thread - hence this is not worth debating any longer here but could be an interesting new topic.

  10. #30
    Luctor et emergo Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8w7 sp/sx
    Socionics
    SLE Ti
    Posts
    534

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kangirl View Post
    Your Wiki quote establishes nothing about the rationality of emotion - it merely describes compassion as an emotion. It's you who has assumed that anything emotional is by definition irrational.
    Okay, just search "emotion" and "irrational" in Google, and you'll have a spate of articles and stories about the kind of thing I'm talking about.

    I don't understand how that doesn't make sense to you. If one claims to be an amoralist, then one should be prepared for others to claim that one has no morality, no??
    Ahhh, but that's not what you said at first. You said "an amoralist should be prepared to have their morality questioned", which is contradictory because an amoralist has no morality. Now you've changed your response slightly, it makes sense.

    Why are you asking if anyone thinks something is "wrong" with you? You've clearly stated that you believe compassion is irrational. What more do you need? If it's your opinion that compassion is by definition irrational, then it follows that not feeling compassion is...rational. Which is how you've stated you want to live your life. Now, I completely disagree with you that compassion is always necessarily irrational (that's a separate conversation) but given your stated beliefs, I'm not seeing what your problem is.

    If you really do want someone to answer the "do you think something is wrong with me" I'll say that my personal response is "yes, you don't sound entirely 'human' - it's possible you are telling the truth when you say suffering causes you to feel nothing, and in that case, I am unaware of any successful way to change one's feelings."

    I would also ask you to flesh out the "I feel nothing when others suffer" stance. Do you *always* feel nothing? Do you feel nothing regardless of who it is suffering (eg. a stranger vs a parent)? Have you always felt nothing, even as small child?

    Is there honestly no one else reading this thread who doesn't see a problem with the basic idea that anyone choosing to lead a rational life must not feel compassion in order to do so? Anyone? Are we all a bunch of irrational emotionalists if we happen to feel compassion in a given situation? Does anyone want to defend themselves against that claim?
    Having thought about it further, I don't think it's the case that I'm impervious to thoughts like "THAT IS WRONG"; simply that I'm a hard bastard and it takes far, far more for me to make those kinds of judgements that it does for many other people; that is, to be moved in such a way as to act to help certain people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    That supposed logical reasoning, actually wasn't any more logical the supposed value-based reasoning. They are actually both value-based reasoning, with different, but still subjective goals. The quoted person had the goal of being able to leave in his car quickly, while the dad had the goal of avoiding the smoke in the car. Which is logically superior? Neither.
    One might argue that it is easier to see logical reasoning than value-based reasoning, even though in the end, both are value-based. For example, his father's reasoning amounted to "I don't like smoke in my car", which you can't attack any further, because it's a belief. In the case of logical reasoning, it would go something like this:

    "I need to get out."
    "Why?"
    "Because it's quicker and more effective."
    "And why is quick and effectiveness better?"
    "Because one can achieve more."
    "And why is achieving more rather than less better?"

    And so on, and so forth, until the logical reasoner came to the conclusion that "I like furthering my own agenda" or "I like praise from others" or something like that, again, a belief which cannot be attacked further.

    To say that they aren't rational though, is an irrational claim in itself, as emotions are inherently neither rational or irrational. It depends entirely on your goals.
    Insofar as logical reasoning is based on the rational part of our claim, emotions being the opposite of logic, they are irrational.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick View Post
    As for the second part of your answer, if you were prefer not being helped, then your stance is rational and moral from a Kantian perspective.
    But even if it wasn't rational on Kant's grounds, that wouldn't make me change my opinion of what I should or shouldn't do.

Similar Threads

  1. [INFP] Helping an INFP to become more brave, confident, self - assured and determined
    By Elaine in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-10-2015, 03:30 PM
  2. [ENFP] NFP how to be more organized at work? Admin Asst.
    By hermeticdancer in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-26-2009, 08:24 PM
  3. Could someone please tell me how to become more "healthy"?
    By Queen Kat in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 07-22-2009, 11:43 AM
  4. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-27-2007, 10:02 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