Spartacuss
wholly charmed
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2008
- Messages
- 677
- MBTI Type
- INTP
- Enneagram
- 5w4
Tell us about the emotion that drove you to make this demand.
Not irrational, subjective.
Agreed; I didn't like the phrasing of the original statement.
To the OP: can't account for feelings. Can account for resulting behavior.
actually ur both wrong.
Reason is just subjectivity with a higher degree of efficiency and metacognitive conscious control over it.
+1It's either stupid or comparison born in hubris.
In a world where facts are subjective views imposed by our perception of the said world, you cannot get real objectivity. To have objectivity you need things, and things are artificial constructs made up by the mind.
Kant, you rule
Define rational.
Again, emotion can lead us to do stupid things ALL THE TIME. I'm not saying otherwise. I'm not even really advancing a solid belief here (other than the very broad "emotion is a good, useful, and not irrational thing, some of the time"), I'm just questioning this what-seems-to-be-largely-NT phenomenon of somehow viewing emotion or feeling or compassion as a weakness, as 'wrong' somehow.
They're not. Nor is acting on them.
Discuss.
Will expand if this receives no replies.
Cowards, all of you.
If emotions aren't irrational, how exactly can NT "Rationals" contrast themselves with NFs? You're the rationals, we're the irrationals. Being irrational and imaginative is a lot more interesting, though.
NT's like myself only think emotions are bad when they conflict with rational decisions. I believe better results can usually be obtained when we let the brain rule the heart.I see a LOT of NTs dismissing emotion outright, all the time. There seems to be a belief, with some, that emotion is *always* a bad thing, that it needs to be controlled/ignored 100% of the time if one is to remain a 'rational' person. And I just personally completely disagree with this and would hope never to live in a world where emotions are considered second rate, somehow, regardless of context.
Cooperation with others is what allowed us to dominate our world. Nature equipped us with compassion in order to promote cooperation. When we look at the big picture, it is rational to help the victim as long as the risks are reasonable. It increases the likelihood that I will receive help should I become the victim.2. You're walking down the street and witness the above scenario happening to someone else. What's the rational response here? Is compassion a rational response?
From the perspective of self interest, leniency here is not necessarily irrational. If I ended up on trial, allowing the courts to exercise compassion would increase the likelihood that I will get a second chance. It's all based on the cost/benefit analysis.And another one, in the courtroom. Is there anyone who believes that compassion has no place in a courtroom?