It's kind of an arbitrary title used to summarily describe a group of people. It's not an all-encapsulating remark. The same wisdom applies to the notion that not all NFs are "Idealists" or that every SP is an "Artisan".
The heading sounds elitist. Formal MBTI "titles" do more to confuse awareness than offer credible connecting points between types.
This
And this.Originally Posted by Costrin
Why would a T want to explain how stupid it is? Doesn't it make more sense trying to explain how illogical it is? "Stupidity" smells like emotional involvement.Originally Posted by simulatedworld
Now, I might be an F, but I value logic a whole lot. Still, at the end of the day, true/false and good/bad are both subjective dichotomies.
"How am I not rational?" "Expand on your theory." "Use rational thought to explain your argument...as I understand rational thought as second-nature"...perhaps those questions would help them support their argument.
If they didn't support it, I would tell them what they were saying didn't make sense. Therein lies my rational thought.
You can then tell them that, showing you are rational, as a consolation prize for them.
"..And the eight and final rule: If this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight."
'Men are meant to be with women. The rest is perversion and mental illness.'
It's subjective when you try and define "2" and "+" and "=" and "4". Math is arbitrary to a certain extent, and a human construct made to fit our perception of things. Look at how Einstein dismissed Quantum theory. He had a preconceived notion of how theoretical science related to reality. "True" and "false" might be absolutely concrete in the realm of theoretical math, but as soon as you apply that theory to the world, things might not "fit".
If a Neanderthal were to look at "2+2=4", he wouldn't think in terms of true/false. Trueness and falseness are human concepts just like good and evil.
The numeral "2" denotes the number 2; "+" is a symbol, used to indicate that the function is additional; "=" is another symbol, used to express equality. The value of "2+2" is necessarily "4", a numeral denoting the number 4.It's subjective when you try and define "2" and "+" and "=" and "4"
Mathematics is not the extrapolation of empirical observation; we do not conclude that 2+2=4 from observing that, upon gathering two apples, and then gathering another two, we are left with four; indeed, no evidence can possibly be adduced for the proposition.Math is arbitrary to a certain extent, and a human construct made to fit our perception of things.
I find this explanation too nebulous to properly respond to.Look at how Einstein dismissed Quantum theory. He had a preconceived notion of how theoretical science related to reality. "True" and "false" might be absolutely concrete in the realm of theoretical math, but as soon as you apply that theory to the world, things might not "fit".
A "Neanderthal" would be ignorant of our notation.If a Neanderthal were to look at "2+2=4", he wouldn't think in terms of true/false. Trueness and falseness are human concepts just like good and evil.
In the spirit of my former question, is it "subjectively" true that the notions of "true" and "false" are "subjective"; or, to put it another way, is it subjectively true that relativism is true?
Yes, for people who know and accept Math.
My point exactly. Trueness is a concept that exists beyond Mathematics and any other logical system.Mathematics is not the extrapolation of empirical observation; we do not conclude that 2+2=4 from observing that, upon gathering two apples, and then gathering another two, we are left with four; indeed, no evidence can possibly be adduced for the proposition.
True and false are dependent on prior knowledge and intellectual baggage. The rules change every now and then. Like the introduction of the concept of imaginary numbers in mathematics.I find this explanation too nebulous to properly respond to.
Exactly. True or false is subjective because a notation is required to think in such terms. Good and evil works much the same way the notation being the Bible or common sense or any other value system. It's arbitrary. We force the concept into the world. It's like any other dichotomy.A "Neanderthal" would be ignorant of our notation.
I think so. Are you asking me where I draw the line?In the spirit of my former question, is it "subjectively" true that the notions of "true" and "false" are "subjective"; or, to put it another way, is it subjectively true that relativism is true?
Whether or not someone knows or accepts math, if they take a rock in one hand and put it on the ground in front of them, and then take a rock in the other hand and put it next to the first rock, they will have increased the amount of rocks in front of them by a definite amount. They will have, in effect, have performed the numerical operation 1 + 1 = 2.
Regardless of how much math a person knows, they will never be able to take a rock in each hand, place both on the ground in front of them, and end up with more than what we define as "2" rocks. They can call the number of rocks on the ground "3" or "4" or even "one billion," but it won't change the amount. It can't happen. Math is only subjective in what you choose to call the variables.
Example:
+ =
Hands in the air, it's a robbery.