How can Fe and Fi be rational?

[Dali]

Please school me.

 

[Valiant]

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.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Because they are ethics systems built up upon past experience. There is always a 'reason' for them; just like T is critical analysis.

 

[Totenkindly]

yes, they're structured responses trying to maintain some internal coherence, rather than purely random/reactive.

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.

As I noted above, I'm not sure that is what is meant by the term "logic" here.

Of course people are inconsistent by nature and aren't required to be consistent all the time; we even have three different "types" of brain overlays.

 

[INTP]

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.

and

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.]

 

[Hopelandic]

Just like anything in psychology, definition matters. The working definitions determined by Jung- "rational", "feeling", "intuition" are very soecific and don't entail the same meanings as the same terms in everyday settings, and dictionary definitions.

Edit: see above

 

[Kimchitasi]

To simplify my response I will consider Fi and Fe dominants as Jung views them.

Fe considers the objective social norms. His values are based on his social sphere of influence, I.E., where he works, where he goes to school, family and friends. In essence, the Fe dominant's values are those of the community.

Fi, on the other hand, is subjective in its orientation. The Fi dominant considers the values of the community in order to integrate them into his own, personal values system. The values of family and friends are compared to his values and then, if necessary, joined with them.

It should be pointed out that preferring 'subjectivity' over 'objectivity' does not mean one is not 'objective.' These are simply value systems used to infer opinions.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

Because they are ethics systems built up upon past experience. There is always a 'reason' for them; just like T is critical analysis.

QFT

 

[Mal12345]

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.

- Carl Jung, Psychological Types

The Fi is rational because it represents to itself "inner psychological facts." These facts may be feeling-values, but they are still facts represented to the consciousness of the Fi as valid data.

 

[redacted]

Feeling is deductive, it's just that the premises are less agreed upon.

 

[OmarFW]

I don't disagree with any of the above posts.

I see it in terms of political correctness. What is "right" and what is "wrong".

Fe looks externally to see what is "right" and "wrong" in order to affect internal perception and Fi creates it internally from external perception.

Logic does not recognize right and wrong or ethics of any kind so there is essentially nothing logical about Fi and Fe but I do think there is plenty of rationality within them as long as they are used appropriately and with moderation.

 

[Rasofy]

Interesting. Seems ''rationals'' is not a proper designation for NTs. Perhaps ''logicals'' would be more precise. I like rationals better though.

 

[Thalassa]

I think we should call them the "theoreticals."

 

[Viridian]

I think we should call them the "theoreticals."

Berens agrees with you, I guess, since she uses the term "Theorists". (NFs are "Catalysts", by the way)

 

[OmarFW]

Interesting. Seems ''rationals'' is not a proper designation for NTs. Perhaps ''logicals'' would be more precise. I like rationals better though.

I agree with the logicals label.

I consider rationality to be the product of balanced and healthy usage of both F and T functions in cooperation.

 

[King sns]

Please school me.

Fe and Fi are not logical/rational and don't have to be. They embody other important human qualities, instead.

/end Fe and Fi logic 101.