[INTJ] I want to learn something deep or profound

[ygolo]

I use "deep" and "profound" for lack of better words.

I know I know very little of what there is to know. The more I learn, the more true I know the last statement to be.

However, I hunger for something profound. Something so broadly applicable that it penetrates all of life, and presented as so clearly true, that it is not simply held as "may be true."

Tautologies are general, and context free, but lack the power of application. But they are the closest to profound truth that I have found.

Everything to me now just seems like another things that "may be true" or are "simple facets" of thing that I believe are "likely true" along with tautologies.

I would like toe learn "likely true" things that are broadly and generally applicable.

As a kid, it seemed like I could learn new stuff like that...

• Using the speed of sound plus delay to measure the distance of things (a jet, a storm, fireworks whatever you could both see and hear). When I learned this as a kid, I would go to hill tops to see and hear vehicles whizzing by, and to this day, I have a habit of counting the time between lightning and thunder, and the delay between sight and sound of fireworks.
  
• That acceleration*momentum=power, was kind of like that too. Less directly applicable (nonetheless still applicable), and extremely general. I had already a common sense notion of the components involved, but the relationship seemed profound when I derived it as a kid.

But this sort of thing just doesn't seem to come around much these days.

 

[Owl]

Clarity

Buy it. Read it.

 

[thisGuy]

self-realization

 

[ygolo]

Clarity

Buy it. Read it.

Are you sure this won't land in the "may be true" category. Proofs in philosophy about the existence of God have a track record that is not particularly good.

self-realization

What about it?

 

[Colors]

As a kid, it seemed like I could learn new stuff like that...

• Using the speed of sound plus delay to measure the distance of things (a jet, a storm, fireworks whatever you could both see and hear). When I learned this as a kid, I would go to hill tops to see and hear vehicles whizzing by, and to this day, I have a habit of counting the time between lightning and thunder, and the delay between sight and sound of fireworks.
  
• That acceleration*momentum=power, was kind of like that too. Less directly applicable (nonetheless still applicable), and extremely general. I had already a common sense notion of the components involved, but the relationship seemed profound when I derived it as a kid.

But this sort of thing just doesn't seem to come around much these days.

See, those two examples to me (well, I did the lighting/thunder thing too, but otherwise) sound relatively inapplicable to me- but that's because I haven't really applied it! I think there are tons of things you already know that you could still see in new and exciting ("profound") ways... it just hasn't happened yet.

 

[thisGuy]

What about it?

its deep, all you gotta do is dive in

 

[entropie]

You could try with me to calculate an injector that injects a fluid into the exhaust fluid of an industrial process. The exhaust will be below the temperature to be used to propell a turbine with it, therefore the injector shall propell the medium that way it gains pressure. Behind the turbine the injected fluid must be divorced from the exhaust again and come again into circulation.

We basically need to concern with the enthalpy of the fluid and need to find a fluid for the injector that is useable with a wide different enthalpie range.

If we manage to build that prototype, I got some connections to the car industry, aswell as the industrial sector. We can be rich men and then we buy a labroatory in Florentine and concern with projects all day long

 

[Owl]

Are you sure this won't land in the "may be true" category. Proofs in philosophy about the existence of God have a track record that is not particularly good.

Exactly! And this book is about why proofs in philosophy about the existence of God have such a poor track record. It doesn't provide a proof, although it does suggest how one would go about proving the existence of God, if such a proof were possible.

you wrote:

However, I hunger for something profound. Something so broadly applicable that it penetrates all of life, and presented as so clearly true, that it is not simply held as "may be true."

And that's what makes this book profound: it's all about whether anything is so clearly true. If would be profound if anything were, and this book is about the search for clarity and the ethical implications of clarity--or the lack thereof.

What does it mean for something to be clear? How can we know if anything is clear? What are the consequences if something is clear? What are the consequences if nothing is clear?

Christianity and proofs for the existence of God feature prominently in this book because the principle of clarity is required to make sense of redemptive claims of Christianity, and many of the best critiques of clarity have arisen in the the context of discussion concerning natural religion. And it is these critiques, the challenges raised against the possibility of the clarity of the existence of God, (or any metaphysical absolute for that matter), that demand a response in order to show if anything is clear, that determines the range of meaningful responses to these challenges, and so provide the mind with a guide to those concepts that must be in place if anything is going to be said to be clear.

This book is all about what you need to know before you can even recognize whether something is profound.

 

[ygolo]

See, those two examples to me (well, I did the lighting/thunder thing too, but otherwise) sound relatively inapplicable to me- but that's because I haven't really applied it! I think there are tons of things you already know that you could still see in new and exciting ("profound") ways... it just hasn't happened yet.

I have already have a habbit of looking at things in different ways. The types of things that would have seemed profound to me as a kid, so far, now just seems hum-drum to me. Because I've already kind of thought about it.

its deep, all you gotta do is dive in

I dove into self-actualization ages ago. There may be deep parts, but I haven't run into them yet.

You could try with me to calculate an injector that injects a fluid into the exhaust fluid of an industrial process. The exhaust will be below the temperature to be used to propell a turbine with it, therefore the injector shall propell the medium that way it gains pressure. Behind the turbine the injected fluid must be divorced from the exhaust again and come again into circulation.

We basically need to concern with the enthalpy of the fluid and need to find a fluid for the injector that is useable with a wide different enthalpie range.

If we manage to build that prototype, I got some connections to the car industry, aswell as the industrial sector. We can be rich men and then we buy a labroatory in Florentine and concern with projects all day long

This does sound fun. I'll admit. If you're serious, PM me the details. What enthalpies, what pressures, what temperatures, what sort of delivery system, etc.

Exactly! And this book is about why proofs in philosophy about the existence of God have such a poor track record. It doesn't provide a proof, although it does suggest how one would go about proving the existence of God, if such a proof were possible.

you wrote:



And that's what makes this book profound: it's all about whether anything is so clearly true. If would be profound if anything were, and this book is about the search for clarity and the ethical implications of clarity--or the lack thereof.

What does it mean for something to be clear? How can we know if anything is clear? What are the consequences if something is clear? What are the consequences if nothing is clear?

Christianity and proofs for the existence of God feature prominently in this book because the principle of clarity is required to make sense of redemptive claims of Christianity, and many of the best critiques of clarity have arisen in the the context of discussion concerning natural religion. And it is these critiques, the challenges raised against the possibility of the clarity of the existence of God, (or any metaphysical absolute for that matter), that demand a response in order to show if anything is clear, that determines the range of meaningful responses to these challenges, and so provide the mind with a guide to those concepts that must be in place if anything is going to be said to be clear.

This book is all about what you need to know before you can even recognize whether something is profound.

Interesting, I'll take a look. I have thought that there may be no profound truths left for me. But that in itself is in the "may be true category."

 

[INTJ123]

wasn't that socrates' line?(I know so little) he was supposedly intp too, if I remember correctly. If you want to learn more, you should take einstien's (another intp I believe) advise on the most efficient way to research.

 

[ygolo]

wasn't that socrates' line?(I know so little) he was supposedly intp too, if I remember correctly.

I can see him as an INTP.

If you want to learn more, you should take einstien's (another intp I believe) advise on the most efficient way to research.

What was his advice?

 

[violet_crown]

Hi there!

I have a couple things that I would recommend:

1) A Short History of Nearly Everything, Bryson
2) A Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, Dillard
3) The Moral Animal, Wright; The Language Instinct, Pinker
4) Understanding Power, Chomsky
5) Politics among Nations, Morganthau
6) The Prince- Machiavelli
7) Documentary, "Dangerous Knowledge" dangerous knowledge - Google Videos

The first six items, for me at least, were fundamental in some way to my understanding of the world. The last one is about how people go crazy from trying unravel certain questions in the philosophies, mathmatics, sciences, ect. All a good time though.

 

[ygolo]

^Interesting. The books you mentioned are all social studies books. That is an area I know little about. I'll take those book recommendations into consideration.

 

[Gewitter27]

Allow me to put on my Zen Guru mask.

:Rustle:

ygolo, it is not about depth or profoundity of the subject. All subjects are just as deep and profoud as the rest. However, it is not the depth of the pool you swim in that matters at all. It matters how deep you wish to swim and dive. You choose to see something as deep and profound. It is not set or constant.

:Rustle:

That satisfy you?

 

[INTJ123]

I can see him as an INTP.



What was his advice?

I thought you would be curious enough to look on your own, but his famous quote goes, "Play is the highest form of research"

 

[Usehername]

Hi there!

I have a couple things that I would recommend:

1) A Short History of Nearly Everything, Bryson
2) A Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, Dillard
3) The Moral Animal, Wright; The Language Instinct, Pinker
4) Understanding Power, Chomsky
5) Politics among Nations, Morganthau
6) The Prince- Machiavelli
7) Documentary, "Dangerous Knowledge" dangerous knowledge - Google Videos

The first six items, for me at least, were fundamental in some way to my understanding of the world. The last one is about how people go crazy from trying unravel certain questions in the philosophies, mathmatics, sciences, ect. All a good time though.

10 points. winnar. (though tbh I've never seen the video nor read Morganthau, but the others are great, and also fundamental to my worldview!)

 

[violet_crown]

^Interesting. The books you mentioned are all social studies books. That is an area I know little about. I'll take those book recommendations into consideration.

Not fair! The first one is about science history.

But honestly though, I'm absolutely fascinated by people. So while the things you mentioned in the original post are interesting to me as well I'm more intrigued by the mechanisms that make the guy on the bus next to me tick. My love for the social sciences drives my INTJ mother up the wall though: its too "fluffy" for her hehe.

10 points. winnar. (though tbh I've never seen the video nor read Morganthau, but the others are great, and also fundamental to my worldview!)

Yay for great minds and all that! You should definitely consider picking up Morganthau, though. He's another major realist IR theorist. More analytic in his approach, and a lot of his work especially concerning hegemony and balance of power essentially set the tone of discourse for political science in the 20th century. It's catnip for anyone who liked Machiavelli, Hobbs, or has a secret hard-on for Kissinger.

 

[ygolo]

I thought you would be curious enough to look on your own, but his famous quote goes, "Play is the highest form of research"

I googled for it for a little while (very litte), but turned up empty. Though I believe what Einstein said too.

its too "fluffy" for her hehe.

That's my issue with the social sciences, too. I just don't think we can put as much confidence in them as the physical and life sciences.

 

[ygolo]

Allow me to put on my Zen Guru mask.

:Rustle:

ygolo, it is not about depth or profoundity of the subject. All subjects are just as deep and profoud as the rest. However, it is not the depth of the pool you swim in that matters at all. It matters how deep you wish to swim and dive. You choose to see something as deep and profound. It is not set or constant.

:Rustle:

That satisfy you?

I know there is always more information and more investigation you can do, But the new information found is not necessarily deep or profound. Bot all knowledge is created equal.

 

[violet_crown]

That's my issue with the social sciences, too. I just don't think we can put as much confidence in them as the physical and life sciences.

On a certain level I share your concern. But even if social science lack the clinical reproducibility of the hard sciences, it gives people who study that sort of thing a useful way to talk to one another. No more and no less. Humanity has to interact in predictable ways for predictable reasons in order for society to function period. If you take soft sciences to just be a theory of patterns you shouldn't have a problem with it.