Magic Poriferan
^He pronks, too!
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Messages
- 14,081
- MBTI Type
- Yin
- Enneagram
- One
- Instinctual Variant
- sx/sp
I'd say both types of people are pretty awful. Too much so and too complexly for me to say which is generally worse.
What about when people make decisions based on (faulty) thought that harms others in some sort of way?
Having a reason makes the perpetrator of a crime less culpable? Anyone can attempt to logically justify anything... even murder of innocents.
I would probably consider the reason to be wrong and unjustified.
It is true that anything can be logically justified, however that means almost everything dealing with subjective matters can be refuted logically.
Bullshit, anyone?In short, feelers are the most likely to become vindictive or to hurt for the sake of hurting. They are the most likely to effect a situation negatively because of internal interest. They are the most likely to justify their actions to self interest.
In short, feelers are the most likely to become vindictive or to hurt for the sake of hurting. They are the most likely to effect a situation negatively because of internal interest. They are the most likely to justify their actions to self interest.
In short, feelers are the most likely to become vindictive or to hurt for the sake of hurting. They are the most likely to effect a situation negatively because of internal interest.
They are the most likely to justify their actions to self interest
When basing your life on feeling rather than thought you open yourself up to lots of failure and lots of disappointment that you will blame on others.
No one can make everyone happy and if your goal is to be happy it is best to abandon that will from early on.
Sorry if that didn't make sense I am literally typing while people are talking to me through the bathroom door so. I will get back as soon as I can.
In short, feelers are the most likely to become vindictive or to hurt for the sake of hurting. They are the most likely to effect a situation negatively because of internal interest. They are the most likely to justify their actions to self interest.
When basing your life on feeling rather than thought you open yourself up to lots of failure and lots of disappointment that you will blame on others.
"I felt like it" is an SP response, not an F response.
And most will also agree that this statement has great potential for inhumanity. It has also BlueWing's typical vagueness. We can apparently presume that all people suffering in a Thinking society are to blame for their suffering, due to a lack of strength, which seems unreasonably general/presumptuous. Also, what defines this strength, and what degree of it counts as strong enough, is left a total mystery. Nor is there even a hint at how this happens. The statement is basically empty fluff, it could mean almost anything. It's only clear quality is that it states people who suffer are weak, and it's not a problem if weak people suffer. This is an ethically unagreable statement, and most likely an ignorant one as well..
First of all, I've already made it as clear as possible that the definition of rationality concerns all Judgement. It does not have an bias toward Thinking...
We've been over this before. Yes, rationale has to do with reason It is not specified that rationale/rationality has exclusively to do with logical reasoning, it just has to do with some kind of reasoning.
We've been over this before. Yes, rationale has to do with reason.].
First of all, I've already made it as clear as possible that the definition of rationality concerns all Judgement. It does not have an bias toward Thinking...
I once again point out that save a few field specific definitions, reason refers to any form of Judgement, not just Thinking,
1. a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reason for declaring war.
2. a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.
3. the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.
4. sound judgment; good sense.
5. normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.
6. Logic. a premise of an argument.
7. Philosophy. a. the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument.
b. the power of intelligent and dispassionate thought, or of conduct influenced by such thought.
c. Kantianism. the faculty by which the ideas of pure reason are created.
I once again point out that save a few field specific definitions, reason refers to any form of Judgement, not just Thinking,
^ NO logical system to date has been able to capture the wide range of inferential steps that are encompassed by the human thought process.
If it were possible for humans to be purely thinking beings then yes likely you would be right. The problem I was describing is when feeling exists but is either not percieved or not admitted to or it is even feared.
No I didn't overlook anything, I simply pointed that out intentionally as an example of a thinker using "logic" to justify feeling motives. .
Intense Thinking preference is not able to tell whether one's decisions are being affected by feelings because they neglect Feeling,.
I don't read here where she's made the delineation about feelers that you claim she has. She just says F people and F'ers. Since she hasn't, why should I assume she's making any exceptions? .
Without sympathy, the natural course would seem to be towards self interest over the interests of others. Too many mouths to feed in the row boat? Start tossing them overboard, unless you need their mind for something later, otherwise they are dead weight taking away from your own chances of surviving. (to make clear I am saying this is what would happen in the situation without basic human sympathy.)
When I was younger I would react this way often to others. I felt as it was my duty to make people feel good about themselves probably because I was insecure and wanted the affection back..
^ NO logical system to date has been able to capture the wide range of inferential steps that are encompassed by the human thought process.
This does not preclude the possibility of further progress.
We need to keep going. Get as far as we can possibly get.
Then you can't hold forth on this:
"All reasoning is logical reasoning. Logic is the only way that exists to rationalize."
It's just a bald asseveration at this point.
You're saying:
"For all x that is rationalizing, x is logic."
But since we haven't mapped the human thought process to a comprehensive model which proves that, your statement is unjustified.
I am completely lost now.
Do we need to know how all laws of thought operate in order to say that we know how some laws of thought do?
Our model is very comprehensive. There are just a few minor things we have not figured out. For the very least we have our basics down very well.