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.
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.
[...]suddenly you'll actually become more rational[...]
How, and why will this be the case?
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?
Wikipedia said:
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
