D
Dali
Guest
Please school me.
Wait, why the heck would they be? Then again, when it comes down to it I do not understand the hype about logic. Why does everything concerning humans need to be logical?
It's just beating a dead horse, none of us will ever be logical since everything we think, feel, say, perceive or do is filtered through our own subjective systems.
Trying to be logical, is in a way more idealistic than acting on emotion and impulse, since it is impossible. Do you see what I am saying?
So. Why try to bend Fe or Fi into being logical? They aren't, and it's all good.
http://www.nyaap.org/jung-lexicon/r/ said:Rational
Descriptive of thoughts, feelings and actions that accord with reason, an attitude based on objective values established by practical experience. (Compare irrational.)
-The rational attitude which permits us to declare objective values as valid at all is not the work of the individual subject, but the product of human history.
Most objective values-and reason itself-are firmly established complexes of ideas handed down through the ages. Countless generations have laboured at their organization with the same necessity with which the living organism reacts to the average, constantly recurring environmental conditions, confronting them with corresponding functional complexes, as the eye, for instance, perfectly corresponds to the nature of light. . . . Thus the laws of reason are the laws that designate and govern the average, "correct," adapted attitude. Everything is "rational" that accords with these laws, everything that contravenes them is "irrational."["Definitions," ibid., par. 785f.]
Jung described the psychological functions of thinking and feeling as rational because they are decisively influenced by reflection.
http://www.nyaap.org/jung-lexicon/i/#irrational said:Irrational
Not grounded in reason. (Compare rational.)
Jung pointed out that elementary existential facts fall into this category-for instance, that the earth has a moon, that chlorine is an element or that water freezes at a certain temperature and reaches its greatest density at four degrees centigrade-as does chance. They are irrational not because they are illogical, but because they are beyond reason.
In Jung’s model of typology, the psychological functions of intuition and sensation are described as irrational.
-Both intuition and sensation are functions that find fulfilment in the absolute perception of the flux of events. Hence, by their very nature, they will react to every possible occurrence and be attuned to the absolutely contingent, and must therefore lack all rational direction. For this reason I call them irrational functions, as opposed to thinking and feeling, which find fulfilment only when they are in complete harmony with the laws of reason.[Ibid., pars. 776f.]
-Merely because [irrational types] subordinate judgment to perception, it would be quite wrong to regard them as "unreasonable." It wouldbe truer to say that they are in the highest degree empirical. They base themselves entirely on experience. ["General Description of the Types," ibid., par. 616.]
Because they are ethics systems built up upon past experience. There is always a 'reason' for them; just like T is critical analysis.
Please school me.
Rational: The rational is the reasonable, that
which accords with reason. I conceive reason as an
attitude whose principle is to shape thought, feeling, and
action in accordance with objective values. Objective
values are established by the average experience of
external facts on the one hand, and of inner psychological
facts on the other. Such experiences, however, could
represent no objective 'value', if 'valued' as such by the
subject; for this would already amount to an act of reason.
But the reasoning attitude, which permits us to declare as
valid objective values in general, is not the work of the
individual subject, but the product of human history.
I think we should call them the "theoreticals."
Interesting. Seems ''rationals'' is not a proper designation for NTs. Perhaps ''logicals'' would be more precise. I like rationals better though.
Please school me.