Bluewing thinks Feeling has cooties

[Carebear]

My main problem with your policy, BW is that it contains a multitude of shoulds and oughts that seem to me to stem from your personal value judgements.

To attempt to force our values onto others means to have them become more like ourselves.

This is a crime against the individual. The biggest crime there could be. As that robs the individual of the voice of what he should be like.

All people must be true to themselves and personal values should not be a reflection of the views of others they have taken upon themselves but reflections of their true selves.

Those who seem unwilling to think objectively no matter what will just have to adjust or die out.

 

[SuperFob]

I've been reading some of these anti-feeling posts, and I'm not planning on starting any major debates on them, because the original poster is obviously heavily biased towards T. I'll just make it pretty simple. Feeling is something that someone on the extreme end of the T-F spectrum can't understand. Some may look down on it because it doesn't fit in with their personal model of the world, and that's just arrogance. If you don't understand what it's like to have your life driven by strong emotional attachment to causes and generosity for others, don't try and make up for it by attempting to simplify us feelers to hopeless romantics who don't understand what we're fighting for.

Obviously, the original poster won't accept what I just said and will try to continue and analyze what can't be analyzed, because failure and seeing things beyond their understanding is something that such people can't handle. That's his/her problem and not mine, but I still feel a need to get my personal values put out there.

 

[Little Linguist]

My main problem with your policy, BW is that it contains a multitude of shoulds and oughts that seem to me to stem from your personal value judgements.

Seriously - 90% of the time this guy sounds like a seriously repressed NF.

I wouldn't be surprised if in 10 years' time this guy signs on with a name like LoveTheWorld and talk about how he loved to camp out in the NT section and ramble about how Fs <beeeeeep>. Yeah...

If this man had some policies he wanted to implement other than throwing everyone who wasn't rational in a trash can (seems very NF to me, btw) I might even take this guy a bit seriously and totally rebuke his argument. But COME ON!!!! What kind of a statement is that?!

It totally does not sound like any rational argument I have ever heard. This guy's Fi is totally taking him over, methinks.

And Bluey, don't (please don't) try and tell me that all NTs are like that. Do you think Gore would have won the Nobel Peace Prize (isn't he an NT as well) if he just said, "It is rational to protect the environment, and if you don't, I'll put you in the Mississippi gas chamber"? Nooo, he had a rational argument, sure, but then he had POLICIES he wanted to implement. He had IDEAS and PLANS. Otherwise people would have shaken their heads, called him an intellectual that no one can take seriously at BEST.

I have no problems with people who attack government as it currently "works". But c'mon, hon, give this thing some more thought....Really. :rolli:

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

Sure. Whatever rocks your boat, just don't ask me to have any part of it. Moving logic isn't my kind of thing.

"moving logic" I said nothing about "moving logic". I was using an analogy. And "primitive values" are a reality in human thought.

There are many problems here and many causes of confusion. This is not one of them, or at least it wasn't until wrote a message about it.

I do think this is a problem.

From wikipedia:

"Monotonicity of entailment is a property of many logic systems that states that the hypotheses of any derived fact may be freely extended with additional assumptions. Any true statement in a logic with this property, will continue to be true even after adding any new axioms. Logics with this property may be called monotonic in order to differentiate them from non-monotonic logic."

But in moral situations, we are faced non-monotonic issues. For instance:

"Thou shalt not kill" --> "It is wrong to kill."

This is a universal statement. In monotonic logic, no matter what new statements are added to the argument following that premise, the first axiom "It is wrong to kill" remains true. But we think differently. Imagine if we add in another proposition, like "If we killed Hitler in 1939, we'd save the lives of 10 million or more people." Suddenly the initial statement is (for many people) no longer true. We have no self-evident truths off of which to base everything else, or very few, and very few of these have been totally proven to be such.

With the assertion that cutting out all Feeling functioning from debates regarding human affairs, one is faced with the fact that we can't reason monotonically and in our world Feeling is a way of dealing with non-monotonic situations on a case by case basis as new information comes in.

Why would non-monotonic logic involve the feeling function any more than monotonic logic? The fact that gaining new information can reduce the set of what is known in a non-monotonic logic system doesn't really have anything to do with judgments of value, which to my knowledge is the domain of the feeling function.

Because when we're dealing with real-world situations with moral values feeling kicks in. IMO it's easier to account for Feeling in a non-monotonic logic.

In abductive reasoning we seek the best possible answers based on our current state of knowledge, and this involves a non-monotonic logic. But this perfectly describes our current predicaments with, say, abortion. Lacking a rigorously sound argument to determine whether abortion is 'right' before 20 weeks or after, or right at all, we have to 'feel' our way to a best-possible answer.

Also, in non-monotonic logic, there exists a place for statements about what we do not know. In the case of real world issues, the Feeling function would be our only recourse for providing an explanation where no solid self-evident truths are available to sponsor the validity of our actions.

I brought this all up because it seems to me that this clarifies somewhat the place of Feeling in a rational debate about human affairs. If we rely on a monotonic logic, like the classical first-degree and subject-predicate logics, it's more difficult to rationally include Feelings as determiners of best-fit solutions.

But I'm not a PhD so I'm sure someone who's got more knowledge in this can refute me. I'll work on the point further.

 

[nolla]

My main problem with your policy, BW is that it contains a multitude of shoulds and oughts that seem to me to stem from your personal value judgements.

Yes, this whole anti-feeling campaign is based on feeling. I would argue, but would probably be ignored as I was last time. Btw, Bluewing, ignoring is also a feeling based decision...

But, if you ever do get to run for president, you should use this as a slogan:

Not everyone is rational? Too bad. We are going to set up a society in a way that they will have to be rational, or starve!

Makes those evil Muslim terrorists seem like Sunday school.

 

[proteanmix]

Merged and moved various threads about stuff I haven't read.

 

[Little Linguist]

Yes, this whole anti-feeling campaign is based on feeling. I would argue, but would probably be ignored as I was last time. Btw, Bluewing, ignoring is also a feeling based decision...

But, if you ever do get to run for president, you should use this as a slogan:


Makes those evil Muslim terrorists seem like Sunday school.

DOH!

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

Merged and moved various threads about stuff I haven't read.

I would request the title of the thread be changed to something less jejune, something which doesn't prejudice viewers against Bluewing's viewpoint without having understood its qualifications and intricacies. Indeed, this is very much what Bluewing was fighting against.

My proposal:

"The Place of Feeling in Rational Debate"

or some such.

 

[reason]

Samuel,

The stuff that you writing is wrong on so many levels that I simply do not have time to argue it with you. Good luck with it though.

 

[nolla]

I would request the title of the thread be changed to something less jejune, something which doesn't prejudice viewers against Bluewing's viewpoint without having understood its qualifications and intricacies. Indeed, this is very much what Bluewing was fighting against.

I guess he shouldn't have named it that way... He wants to be seen as he is seen. You know, all the great thinkers have been persecuted, so I want to be too.

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

I guess he shouldn't have named it that way... He wants to be seen as he is seen. You know, all the great thinkers have been persecuted, so I want to be too.

Uhmmmm.... the thread was merged by an admin (Proteanmix) and the name was changed.

 

[Little Linguist]

I would request the title of the thread be changed to something less jejune, something which doesn't prejudice viewers against Bluewing's viewpoint without having understood its qualifications and intricacies. Indeed, this is very much what Bluewing was fighting against.

My proposal:

"The Place of Feeling in Rational Debate"

or some such.

If he had demonstrated it in a rational way, I would not have had such a problem with it. Really.

 

[nolla]

<plays Die Fahne Hoch in the background - also known as the Horst Wessel Lied (Song)>

 

[nolla]

Uhmmmm.... the thread was merged by an admin (Proteanmix) and the name was changed.

I was talking about the original name. It was a BIT provocative...

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

See... what nolla and Little Linguist are doing right now... this is a prime example of why the Feeling function needs to be curbed when people are involved in debate. It leads to petty jibes and barbs where only a little reasonable discursive thinking would have done. I find Proteanmix to be eminently fair and gracious, but I'm surprised that she would put such a damned-before-the-debate's-even-started title on it.

Instead of carping about how lame something is and essentially comparing Bluewing's stand to that of Nazis, which is in extremely poor taste, Little Linguist, one could have merely went with the flow of debate and made one's point. If you believe your points are so much stronger, then you should demonstrate them and get Bluewing to concede via the strength of your argument rather than making fun of him.

Name-calling and weasel-words... <sigh> the inappropriate expression of spite... it doesn't help anyone understand or grapple with the issue at hand!

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

I was talking about the original name. It was a BIT provocative...

And this title ISN'T?!?!

 

[Little Linguist]

I was talking about the original name. It was a BIT provocative...

Well, Nolla, let's be fair - at least he called it what it was for once: namely, an extreme solution....

Okay, fine...I shouldn't have said that...but DANG...what a statement. All feelers should be taken out of office, denied jobs, and finally be allowed to starve!!!! That's worse than what the Nazis did.

You want to call his argument rational?!?!?! I hardly think so. And if he wants to change government policies, I will rationally argue day and night with no jibes whatsoever with regard to the feasibility of certain policies, but this guy just wants to attack us. And if we ever say a word to an NT, all of a sudden the panzers come out and there's talk of inappropriate conduct.

It's totally unfair, unrealistic, and uncalled for. <takes some deep breaths>

I asked him to be more rational. I asked him to be more specific. I asked him to give me examples and logical and rational policies and all I got was, "LET THEM STARVE"?!?!?!?!

Okay, I agree - this title may also be provocative and immature, but I think some balance needs to be found. This BlueWing character needs to learn to argue in a mature fashion; I should have been more mature as well and not let this <beeep> affect me, but dang!!! He drives folks to drink.

 

[nolla]

If you believe your points are so much stronger, then you should demonstrate them and get Bluewing to concede via the strength of your argument rather than making fun of him.

Well, as I mentioned, last time he made a thread like this, I took it seriously and had no assumptions of him. He ignored me. I don't know if that was because of him not being able to reply or me not being able to make my point. Now, as I see him talking about the same stuff again, do you think that I want to spend an hour making an understandable post as I know that if he feels like not taking my words into consideration, he will just ignore them? He has shown me that he is not interested in debate, he is interested only in his point of view.

 

[Ivy]

Sunshine. Stop deleting all of your posts!

 

[Haight]

Seconded. It's silly.