• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

How non-philosophical Ns think

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
My ex took a philosophy class and all I wanted to do was argue about the philosphy and show how onesided alot of the stuff is and add my own philosophy to the mix :doh: Philosophy is a part of my life, I dont really study it, I just live it. I couldnt take a philosophy class because its like taking a class thats telling me how to think philosophically, I would like to argue the whole time just to argue.
 

Ism

New member
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
1,097
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w1
My ex took a philosophy class and all I wanted to do was argue about the philosphy and show how onesided alot of the stuff is and add my own philosophy to the mix :doh: Philosophy is a part of my life, I dont really study it, I just live it. I couldnt take a philosophy class because its like taking a class thats telling me how to think philosophically, I would like to argue the whole time just to argue.

I'm the opposite.

My contribution isn't going to be too great, since I'm . . . studying philosophy, but I think it's interesting to see reasons why certain people approach the subject. For me, I take all these philosophy courses because I want an answer, or at least an opinion on how I could live my life. It's kind of against what the pursuit of philosophy is all about, but I want to accrue as much knowledge as I can to understand what has been said, and my come up with my own thoughts on the matter. I guess it's okay in so far as my want to understand how God and life and morals works, but I also want an answer I'm certain about for things I'm uncertain of.

But, uhhhhhhh, in my experience, it's not just ''N'' biased, it's also heavily populated by men. That goes for a lot of fields, but the amount of females who are into studying philosophy (who aren't assholes) is alarmingly low. I'm not surprised, but it's one thing to know that something is heavily populated by males, and another to actually be one of the few people that aren't dudes. :shock:

That reminds me, though. I think N's favor is because it's an attempt to understand the circuitry of what we can say about our existence. That's not a lot of people's cup of tea, especially since it's a few steps removed from any direct application. That's not a big problem, though. I think the problem is that the desire to learn more about something like philosophy is mistaken for a greater capacity to understand philosophical concepts. To an extent it is true, but I also think what a lot of people do is assume that those who don't necessarily grasp philosophical ideas are less intelligent. While I do think the ability to understand philosophy has implications for your ability to think critically, and reflects an above average intelligence in the general sense, it does not exclusively represent what it can mean to be intelligent, or competent.
 

Vilku

New member
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
406
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Most descriptions of Ns, from my reading of them, seem to imply that they are always engrossed in the process of reading deeper into things, forming connections, thinking on what some philosophers might describe as a "higher plane" than that of the practical world. Whereas Ss are portrayed as the opposite: perpetually focused on this plane, as it is the only plane in which practical things -- their specialty -- can be done.

But the thing is, not all Ns are into that sort of thought process. Just as some Ss are indeed drawn towards philosophical thought, some Ns think that philosophical musings are pointless, pretentious, and annoying (and I've met some of those Ns, so that's my anecdotal evidence).

So I'd be interested in hearing more about this: Ns who aren't philosophers, who focus more on the here and now, what their thought processes are, what their interests are and why they're interested in them. I'd be interested in re-framing the S/N dialogue so it doesn't involve "higher" and "lower" planes of thought, and de-bunking this myth -- and replacing it with actual facts -- might be a good way to get that re-framing started.

"forming connections" ahem, is it necessarily a negative thing to combine all knowledge into one structure to prevent such sensor phenomenas as "supernatural" from existing?

I prefer my knowledge consister rather than as inconsistently separate branches.

Without my kind of people, your realitys norm would be "supernatural".
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
Not all of us do it always - most probably do not. But I think we achieve it more readily when we decide to.
 

Doctor Cringelord

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
20,567
MBTI Type
I
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I am not a philosopher by today's standards, but would have been considered a natural philosopher in an earlier era.

Same.

A lot of things and dilemmas I pondered and ruminated on in my lifetime, to me seemed novel and pressing and original, until I learned that people had already considered, debated, and/or attempted to define these same things and dilemmas hundreds to thousands of years before my birth.

For instance, I came to an understanding of monism well before I was aware it was a theory originated by ancient Greeks like Anaximander. Yet for all intents and purposes, 11 year old me was a monist. I considered ideas that would be defined as stoicism before I was aware of and had read Aurelius. I considered layers of perception and reality from a fairly young age and assumed no one was thinking about this, then was pleasantly surprised to discover Plato’s cave allegory. And so on.

So while I don’t really consider myself a highly philosophical person, I suppose there has always been a strong underlying interest and drive to understand and determine meaning (or the lack thereof). I don’t consider myself a scientific person either, although I do have a strong curiosity balanced by a strong skepticism.

I was born in the wrong millennium.
 

Peter Deadpan

phallus impudicus
Joined
Dec 14, 2016
Messages
8,883
Intuitives are always going to be reading into, in-between, behind, or beyond what's readily perceived by the five senses. Any intuitive who says that they do not do this is either not an intuitive or does not know what it is that they are actually doing this. This process doesn't necessarily have to involve philosophizing by nature.

Also, do not inject a message of N>S superiority into my comments. It isn't there, and if you see it, that's your own projection.
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I am the exact opposite of this thread title. The main thing about being a philosophical S is that I'm clear about the distinction between demonstrated, observable facts and speculation. I often find other people get confused about the distinction. I think both types of information are important, but also important to not confuse the two. It doesn't even mean that one is less valid, but the data has to be treated differently. I get frustrated when people have no sense that there is different types of data that should use different reasoning tool and processed differently.
 
Top