[NT] Do NTs care about anything outside of logic?

[Samuel De Mazarin]

I think you and I are going to get on splendidly!

How do I justify essences?

The essence of a thing just is what that thing is particularly. If you'd like, we could substitute talk of essences for what a thing is particularly, based on its specific differences.

But differences are based on what thing is and what it isn

This is a good conversation... free of the animus which often plagues internet discussions...

I agree that differences are based on what a thing is and what it isn't, but my point is that I don't know that we can ever analytically determine what a thing is... it's sort of like asking "what is the thing-in-itself"... essences would fall under noumena in my reading.

Honestly, biology is pretty much the most extensive attempt at classifying essences... what are we? Homo sapiens... what are homo sapiens? primates which can think in indefinitely embedded clauses, have opposable thumbs, walk upright, have sexual relations for pleasure... I think the first two, maybe three (we did have homo erectus), are pretty much unique to us... so what is the essence of humanity or being human?

I think that's a decent springboard...

 

[SquirrelTao]

I find when NTs can't justify their values with reason, they objectify them and claim they exist as natural laws or standards in the objective world. Then they can reason that anyone who doesn't follow them is both immoral and irrational.

Revisiting this out of curiosity, could you give me some examples of this?

Ayn Rand comes to mind. I read her biography, The Passion of Ayn Rand. It's an amazing story of a woman I admire who, sadly, in her old age used her intellect to rationalize her affair with Nathaniel Brandon. It wasn't enough just to want him. It had to be rational to want him. And also rational for him to want her. He had to be an Objectivist hero. This is a very extreme example, though.

I wonder what particular examples have provoked you?

 

[Kiddo]

Revisiting this out of curiosity, could you give me some examples of this?

Ayn Rand comes to mind. I read her biography, The Passion of Ayn Rand. It's an amazing story of a woman I admire who, sadly, in her old age used her intellect to rationalize her affair with Nathaniel Brandon. It wasn't enough just to want him. It had to be rational to want him. And also rational for him to want her. He had to be an Objectivist hero. This is a very extreme example, though.

I wonder what particular examples have provoked you?

More or less the same. Anarcho-capitalists and free market libertarians are great examples of rationalists who tend to radicalize their political and economic philosophies to the point that they objectify them and claim they exist as natural laws or standards in the objective world and anyone who doesn't follow along is both immoral and irrational. It's funny because they utilize human values which are inherently subjunctive to do so. Namely the values of liberty and property, which they then argue are not only essential to one another, but more or less the same thing.

They then make the argument that those who jeopardize their conception of property are directly attacking their liberty, which is natural right to every human being. Hence they can make arguments like, "Oh, the government is holding a gun to my head by making me pay taxes." In essence, they rationalize a value cage in which they cannot escape since they cannot understand the relative/subjective nature of the world, but in which no one can hurt their perception of how the world should be in accordance of their objectified vision. Hence why Objectivism and Neoliberal philosophies are perfect for the less educated NTJs.

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

Mis-posted something here earlier... ::blushing::
_____


In addressing the NT generalizations going on... when I can't justify my viewpoint of the world, say by showing that axiomatic values (e.g. liberty, property) are self-evident, I just plead ignorance. I don't think it's very logically-minded of someone not to admit his/her inability to unassailably prove a point... that's why I'd never go into politics, where one has to at least present an attitude of complete and utter certitude.