Bluewing thinks Feeling has cooties

[SolitaryWalker]

ah, gotcha.

but yeah, i don't think banning is the best course of action in this case. bluewing does have redeeming qualities. his more abrasive qualities i suppose are just part and parcel and can be curbed by say, moving threads like this to a section labeled "flame bait" or "useless but funny." his threads having prime space in the main sections of the site are in effect partially legitimizing what he has to say. that combined with his unusually elloquent style sort of reinforce how much weight people give to what he says. if, however, this type of his stuff were explicitly labeled as "trash" or "flame bait" then i don't think people would find his ramblings so offensive or take him so seriously.

that's what i think at least.

I think the arguments are indeed substantial. The emotional reaction (flame bait) was not relevant to the arguments made. It is a problem with the reader, and not what is read. (Namely their propensity to make value judgments where they do not belong, hence reinforces my argument concerning the need to avoid the use of 'Feeling' in rational discourse)

So far those who have said my claims were unsound have not backed this claim up with argument, and the few who have attempted to, misunderstood the text. Just like you did last time. I invite you to try again, this time after a more careful reading of the text.

full of non sequiturs, false dichotimites and the like. just an overall feeling i have regarding his arguments

This is likely the reason why you keep on misinterpreting, as you go by an 'overall feeling' and not careful analysis of what is written.

I don't see any dichotomies or non-sequitars, as Samuel earlier mentioned, you're providing anecdotal support for my claims by relying on 'Feeling' when dealing with my posts and in effect making errors that I argue are results of the use of Feeling in rational discourse.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

So far those who have said my claims were unsound have not backed this claim up with argument, and the few who have attempted to, misunderstood the text. Just like you did last time. I invite you to try again, this time after a more careful reading of the text.

Well this is a total lie. Counter arguments have been made against you, and your own arguments have been scanned for logical and factual errors many times.

Anyway, you never answered the highly vital question of why anyone should think you have a superior understanding of objective truth.

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

I am confused.

Summarize in 3 sentences what 'moderate' means and how Plato's view is more moderate than mine.

Plato is the one who robs them out of the right of voice because they are plain stupid, despite that he involves them in his plans that you mention. I insist that they should not be left out, but as prerequisite for this, they must learn to think for themselves.

I'll do two better.... Plato's more moderate because his upheaval of society as we know it is less drastic than yours.

You're not advocating democracy, where all voices are heard... at best, you're advocating a meritocracy where the criteria of what is meritorious are strictly defined by your idea of how people should be and think, which is actually pretty totalitarian, insofar as the only 'in' people are those who subscribe to your line of thinking.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I'll do two better.... Plato's more moderate because his upheaval of society as we know it is less drastic than yours.

You're not advocating democracy, where all voices are heard... at best, you're advocating a meritocracy where the criteria of what is meritorious are strictly defined by your idea of how people should be and think, which is actually pretty totalitarian, insofar as the only 'in' people are those who subscribe to your line of thinking.

Its not my line of thinking. Language of reason holds the same relationship to all.

Meritocracy in the regard that only those who have merit (able to reason clearly) have the right of voice. But unlike Plato's system, this does not involve a hierarchy of classes. Everyone is granted an opportunity to have a right of voice.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Its not my line of thinking. Language of reason holds the same relationship to all.

You say it is not your line of thinking, but you are the one postulating and putting forward all of these ideas in this thread. And while you say it is not your line of thinking, it would have to be your subjective opinion to assert that this line of thinking is the only right one.

Haven't you consdidered that you may not fully know what the universal, unbiased, language of reason is?

Isn't it possible that you are putting forward a subjectively developed brand of thought unique to you?

 

[Little Linguist]

Haven't you consdidered that you may not fully know what this universal, unbiased, language of reason is?

Hmmm...I wonder how anyone can claim to have total knowledge, total wisdom, and total understanding. I mean anyone.



And if you have a situation where you have people define what is rational and what isn't, I still think human beings would abuse their power and end up with a totally different result.

If we were talking about machines, I would pat BW on the back and say what a smart guy he is. But we are not. We're talking about human beings.

Sure, more "logic" should go into decision making. Take a look at all the awful decisions made on some kind of ideological pretense. Or FDR's New Deal that went totally awry and had to go through some serious, SERIOUS reform. Take a look at America's DISASTEROUS foreign policy. Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and (good heavens) GWB. Take a look at the crazy so-called American Dream. Take a look at Manifest Destiny. Take a look at a lot of crazy policies based on idealistic pie-in-the-sky crap. Sure, BW, I agree.

But we need to be very careful, and I do not think you can just cop out by saying "We do not need to define "logic" and "thought" because these are universal terms that people know - provided that they are "enlightened" enough." No, I do not think so. And it's not because of us crazy NFs, SJs, or SPs, either. I think even NTs would all disagree.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I think even NTs would all disagree.

BlueWing seems convinced that he has some reasoning that, if followed, will eventually become clearly correct to everyone. And if it never appears correct to a particular NT, BlueWing's solution to that is calling the dissenter something other than an NT.

 

[Little Linguist]

BlueWing seems convinced that he has some reasoning that, if followed, will eventually become clearly correct to everyone. And if it never appears correct to a particular NT, BlueWing's solution to that is calling the dissenter something other than an NT.

Sounds logical, hehehe!

 

[Haphazard]

BlueWing seems convinced that he has some reasoning that, if followed, will eventually become clearly correct to everyone. And if it never appears correct to a particular NT, BlueWing's solution to that is calling the dissenter something other than an NT.

There was something like this, once.

I think it had something to do with the Cold War...

 

[Mondo]

I'll do two better.... Plato's more moderate because his upheaval of society as we know it is less drastic than yours.

You're not advocating democracy, where all voices are heard... at best, you're advocating a meritocracy where the criteria of what is meritorious are strictly defined by your idea of how people should be and think, which is actually pretty totalitarian, insofar as the only 'in' people are those who subscribe to your line of thinking.

I haven't read everything BlueWing wrote but I agree with you. This is not democracy.

There is some irony in what BlueWing proposes. People, in BlueWing's society who would want to ensure their survival, would simply agree with BlueWing and would not form their own opinions and would not think for themselves because if they did... BlueWing might consider their beliefs irrational and stupid and have them executed. I guess it doesn't matter to BlueWing because he doesn't want a democracy but rather a small world where the 'geniuses' can discuss philosophy all day and all the things that are good and bad with the world are eradicated.

I get that BlueWing doesn't think that the typical Feeler does 'think for himself or herself' but it is his or her choice to make decisions based on what other people think!

It is important to add what other people think into the decision-making process- it is important to listen to other people's ideas- however, it is never a good idea to simply submit to a will of another person. I would never do this personally. However, while I can persuade another person that this method of making decisions is wrong- I can't force a person- I wouldn't want a force person to change his or her method. No human being is perfect. Every human being is fallible. We all have different strengths. I think that it is possible to learn something new from anyone- whether the opportunity is to teach another person, learn from him or both.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I haven't read everything BlueWing wrote but I agree with you. This is not democracy.

There is some irony in what BlueWing proposes. People, in BlueWing's society who would want to ensure their survival, would simply agree with BlueWing and would not form their own opinions and would not think for themselves because if they did... BlueWing might consider their beliefs irrational and stupid and have them executed. I guess it doesn't matter to BlueWing because he doesn't want a democracy but rather a small world where the 'geniuses' can discuss philosophy all day and all the things that are good and bad with the world are eradicated.

I get that BlueWing doesn't think that the typical Feeler does 'think for himself or herself' but it is his or her choice to make decisions based on what other people think!

It is important to add what other people think into the decision-making process- it is important to listen to other people's ideas- however, it is never a good idea to simply submit to a will of another person. I would never do this personally. However, while I can persuade another person that this method of making decisions is wrong- I can't force a person- I wouldn't want a force person to change his or her method. No human being is perfect. Every human being is fallible. We all have different strengths. I think that it is possible to learn something new from anyone- whether the opportunity is to teach another person, learn from him or both.

You went off track.

Thinking for yourself is the opposite of submitting to the will of another person. Whether pressuring people to think for themselves will not lead to the end of them becoming successful independent thinkers is a whole another matter, and whether as a result of this they will just submit to the will of another person.

It is also irrelevant if the whole thing about getting people to think for themselves is just a cover up for having a small group of people where they could discuss philosophy, as that is a matter of BlueWing's personal intentions, irrelevant to the idea proposed. An important question to ask is, will this method lead to an intellectual aristocracy? If it succeeds in inspiring people to think for themselves, no. However, there will be an aristocracy in the regard that the people who can reason most clearly will have most power. At first, there will be what one may call an aristocracy. However, as we go further in getting people to think for themselves, the gap between the 'intellectual' and the 'non-intellectual' should diminish.

In any case, people will not submit to the will of another person. We will judge whether they think for themselves or not, not based on the final opinions they hold. But by their reasoning process. Having the 'right' opinions can be achieved through conformity, but knowing how to derive them, does not.

To further the point, it does not matter that people have the 'right' opinions, as we can't truly know what is right conclusively on many issues. However, we can know if their reasoning contains errors. In short, they are free to hold any view they want to have, as long as it is obviously not incoherent.

 

[redacted]

so what happens if you face a hypothetical hannibal lector character?

if you don't start with the premise that human life should be valued, you can rationally explain any actions.

some degree of conformity is necessary.

(i haven't read this whole thread, so this may not be in contradiction with what you said.)

we need to set up SOME laws and law enforcement. even if people disagree with those laws, they still need to be subject to the consequences of not conforming.

or, are you saying that there's an invisible hand that would take care of deviant action?

really, the problem is -- you want people to have the freedom to think and choose for themselves. but one person's choices can easily hinder anyone else's freedom to make their own choice.

everyone thinking for themselves wouldn't work, as people would have plenty of different premises...even if they all have flawless logic, there will still be a great deal of conflict.

so there needs to be some sort of middle ground (governing body? police?) in which people should think for themselves up to a point, but not past the point where they hinder other people's choices.

a hard point to reach.

 

[Mondo]

To further the point, it does not matter that people have the 'right' opinions, as we can't truly know what is right conclusively on many issues. However, we can know if their reasoning contains errors. In short, they are free to hold any view they want to have, as long as it is obviously not incoherent.

That sounds better than what I thought you were saying originally.
However, how does one ensure that a person begins to hold more coherent views- if the views are considered to be incoherent?
Do you plan to do this through persuasion and hope that your logic and reason will appeal to them and what would you do if that failed?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

so what happens if you face a hypothetical hannibal lector character?

if you don't start with the premise that human life should be valued, you can rationally explain any actions.

some degree of conformity is necessary.

(i haven't read this whole thread, so this may not be in contradiction with what you said.)

we need to set up SOME laws and law enforcement. even if people disagree with those laws, they still need to be subject to the consequences of not conforming.

or, are you saying that there's an invisible hand that would take care of deviant action?

really, the problem is -- you want people to have the freedom to think and choose for themselves. but one person's choices can easily hinder anyone else's freedom to make their own choice.

everyone thinking for themselves wouldn't work, as people would have plenty of different premises...even if they all have flawless logic, there will still be a great deal of conflict.

so there needs to be some sort of middle ground (governing body? police?) in which people should think for themselves up to a point, but not past the point where they hinder other people's choices.

a hard point to reach.

What on Earth are you talking about? Where do you see the implication from my argument that human life ought not to be valued?

We will be able to bend the system around to instill conformity when necessary. As for instance when we get Lectors or Hitlers. However, the head advisors, and hopefully most members of society will be good at objective reasoning. Thus will make more strategically sound political decisions in such cases.

When we do not have the time to reason out our potential actions thoroughly, we can work out our plan of action in advance. For example, it could be for a case akin to the one you described. This is our way to ensure the most rational decision-making possible.

Again, the whole upshot is, get people to learn to think for themselves as much as possible. Reason along shall take over from there. Yes this may lead to a very individualistic temper of mind that shall resist conformity. However, truly rational people would know when it is time to stand up for their right of voice, or when it is best to just go with the flow. Truly rational people are able to be pragmatic as opposed to being strictly tied down to their passions and values.

That sounds better than what I thought you were saying originally.
However, how does one ensure that a person begins to hold more coherent views- if the views are considered to be incoherent?
Do you plan to do this through persuasion and hope that your logic and reason will appeal to them and what would you do if that failed?

A coherent view is one that is logically consistent and is factually accurate. It may contain some subtle logical errors and some subtle factual misrepresentation, as it takes a lot of work to pin those down, we will just let those slide. But the major errors in those two departments shall lead for a view to be deemed incoherent.

 

[redacted]

Again, the whole upshot is, get people to learn to think for themselves as much as possible. Reason along shall take over from there. Yes this may lead to a very individualistic temper of mind that shall resist conformity. However, truly rational people would know when it is time to stand up for their right of voice, or when it is best to just go with the flow. Truly rational people are able to be pragmatic as opposed to being strictly tied down to their passions and values.

hmm. i see where you're going. but i know far too many people that should not be confident in their ability to be rational, and are basically incapable of thinking through things the way you imagine. those people (people that start from shortsighted premises) should not necessarily be encouraged to think for themselves.

 

[Snail]

BlueWing has set up a straw man to knock over, and if the feeling preference meant what he believed, I might be against it, too. Since his arguments are based on false assumptions, he is not dealing with the issue rationally.

Feeling does not automatically turn a person into a blind follower. If anything, my feeling preference makes me more likely to oppose false doctrines of others if their beliefs are not in line with my carefully determined standards, which are subject to a very organized and clearly defined set of rules and processes that are no less objective than the perceptions of T types.

All experience requires sensation, which is subjective, and these sensations that have been filtered through the body must subsequently be filtered through a mental interpretation of whatever exists objectively, which can never be observed free from the potentially flawed influence of our bodies and minds. The value judgment system that I use is based on the theory that there is an objective morality that we can only perceive subjectively, and is not much different from the T externalization of this idea.

It must be carefully and continually refined and analyzed in order to be effective, and requires constant consideration of every action. One must know with absolute certainty how each new experience relates to the core structure of the value system before deciding the proper course. The feeling preference has nothing to do with traditionalism, which would more likely be determined by the J/P distinction in both thinking and feeling individuals.

As an INFP, I am often considered rebellious for my passionate rejection of traditional values that are inconsistent with my internal system of judgment. We do, as BlueWing mentions, care about how others feel and factor it into our decisions as an important variable. It is, however, rare for this variable to override our authenticity when it is incompatible with a larger ideal, because there is often greater complexity to determining the most compassionate long-range universalizable solution that fits into the more inclusive structure of our main value system.

We are not as random as BlueWing believes. If I am offended by his closed-mindedness, it isn't just because I suddenly feel something without a clear reason for doing so. The reasons must always be considered and analyzed against a set of internal laws, and there is always a purpose. He lacks both compassion and objectivity, and may have no sufficiently successful rational process of judgment at all, having an underdeveloped F process and being delusional about the effectiveness of his T process.