[Fi] Why does everyone hate on Fi?

[Thalassa]

I mean, kind of. My Fi is really selfish. Not to mention, Fi happens to be the source of pretty much all navel gazing. Also, Fi is pretty useless. I find if I neglect my Fi too long, I start to feel unhappy and dysfunctional. It's a shame I'm an NF because I prefer to rely on Ti and Ne for most situations.

How is Fi useless? It's the rational function which provides your personal ethical framework.

Why would an INFP say Fi was useless? Something doesn't add up, unless you're complaining that your lack of Te development hinders you from doing things like earning money.

 

[NegativeZero]

Why is Ti incapable of providing an ethical framework? Also, NFs LOVE to throw around the term "ethics" as if they have a proclivity toward it and I feel this is not the case. I score average use of Te, by the way. I prefer Ti, Fi, and Ne (excellent use of all three).

My biggest problem in regards to making money, functioning in the real world, etc. is that I'm an 88% P and I'm incredibly lazy. Oh yeah, I'm still a junior in high school as well. Just throwing that out there.

 

[Thalassa]

Cuz nobody knows how to "love on Fi". Scientists from around the globe are still trying to figure this out (mainly NT scientists). Experts say we should have a cure for cancer by the year 2020. Some 50 years after that, we may have more insight into Fi and how to properly handle it/give it the love it deserves.

INTJ scientists will figure it out first, and ENTJs will grudgingly agree after the facts are presented.

NTPs will declare it a ridiculous Ni delusion, and go on about their day, smirking to themselves that anyone could believe Fi could be worthy of love. Heck, they'd put it up there with other silly notions like "believing in a god."

 

[Thalassa]

Why is Ti incapable of providing an ethical framework? Also, NFs LOVE to throw around the term "ethics" as if they have a proclivity toward it and I feel this is not the case. I score average use of Te, by the way. I prefer Ti, Fi, and Ne (excellent use of all three).

My biggest problem in regards to making money, functioning in the real world, etc. is that I'm an 88% P and I'm incredibly lazy. Oh yeah, I'm still a junior in high school as well. Just throwing that out there.

Oh, I see. You just don't understand the first thing about function theory. Sweet story, bro.

I didn't understand it at first either. It helps to actually read Jung, just a tip.

But since you're still a junior in high school, you might not even be 100% sure about your type.

 

[NegativeZero]

Oh, I see. You just don't understand the first thing about function theory. Sweet story, bro.

Less dismissive bullshit, more explaining.

To be more clear, I don't understand why you asserted I do not understand function theory. Do you really think ethics is a concept strictly grounded in Fi? Or even best handled by Fi?

 

[Thalassa]

Less dismissive bullshit, more explaining.

To be more clear, I don't understand why you asserted I do not understand function theory. Do you really think ethics is a concept strictly grounded in Fi? Or even best handled by Fi?

Because you don't. If you had, you wouldn't have called Fi "useless" unless you meant it in some subjective context, like you're too ethics or relationship oriented and rejecting of inferior Te to ever have any structure, logic, or get anything done.

Ti and Fi conflict one another by their very natures, and you speak of having them as though they are interchangeable.

I would encourage you to read Jung. All else is quicksand, it's really confusing to attempt to learn function theory on these message boards because so many other people are either confused or misinformed.

 

[NegativeZero]

I'm calling Fi useless in a relative sense. I believe other functions are far better suited for reality. However, Fi seems to be invaluable when it comes to maintaining intimate relationships and friendships. And sorry for misunderstanding your reference to Te as inferior; you mean its position as a function, not the adjective inferior.

Also, your advice to read up on function theory was accepted. I'm currently reading about it and picking up on a few clarifications that I had not previously known (such as feeling not meaning literal feeling of emotions, but rather subjective compartmentalizing and evaluation). I also did not know that Te was essentially applied logic while Ti is analysis and inside-out understanding. Interesting.

I still refuse to deny other judgment functions a place in ethics, however.

 

[Thalassa]

I'm calling Fi useless in a relative sense. I believe other functions are far better suited for the reality. However, Fi seems to be invaluable when it comes to maintaining intimate relationships and friendships. And sorry for misunderstanding your reference to Te as inferior; you mean it's position as a function, not the adjective inferior.

Also, your advice to read up on function theory was accepted. I'm currently reading about it and picking up on a few clarifications that I had not previously known (such as feeling not meaning literal feeling of emotions, but rather subjective compartmentalizing and evaluation). I also did not know that Te was essentially applied logic while Ti is analysis and inside-out understanding. Interesting.

I still refuse to deny other judgment functions a place in ethics, however.

Fe and Fi make value judgements. Te and Ti make logical judgements. Both T and F are rational processes.

Te can support Fi in making a cohesive value system, and Ti can assist Fe. But your basic value-based world views come from Fi or Fe, and it doesn't matter if you're an NT or an NF.

None of the functions work in a "vaccuum" either. While my value judgements and ethics spring from my Fi, Te is what attempts to apply my ethical values to a (theoretical) logical legal system, and questions whether or not these values will "work" in the real world.

Just please read Jung. I made a huge mistake of not doing so in the beginning.

 

[Thalassa]

Here's a part of Jung's work on personality theory on-line, describing the personalities, such as Fi dominant, et al.

This is not the complete work, though. It will probably help you a lot, though, if you take the time to even read this.

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

 

[NegativeZero]

I've been to that page before and its prolix nature really scares me. I've been reading this and it seems far more efficient.

Also, the reason I objected to you saying logical functions do not have a place in ethics is because my passion is philosophy and I have a very good understanding of ethics. Logic is a necessary part of ethics and it is how debates over theoretical frameworks of morality are carried out. Also, logic (Ti here, I believe) would help elucidate definitions of morality and make the idea crisp and congruent. Logic is also necessary for forming any moral framework because without it, everything would be overly subjective, convoluted and irrational nonsense.

So while you're right that normative ethics (how ought one act, morally speaking?) would fall under the feeling branch, meta-ethics (what is goodness? how can one tell good from bad? what does it mean to be just? do ethical sentences express propositions?) is more of a Ti realm.

 

[Sniffles]

"Feelings" and Logic are not mutually exclusive when it comes to ethics.

 

[NegativeZero]

Yeah, I was trying to get that across.

 

[Thalassa]

You want to be a philosopher, but you can't even bring yourself to actually read Jung before you attempt to destroy his theory? It's actually not more "efficient" if you're still not comprehending function theory. It might have just helped you get past the point which you started, but moving on to Jung is highly advisable.

I still encourage you to bother to scroll down to at least discern the difference between the Introverted Feeling Type and the Introverted Thinking Type.

Anyway, I agree with you that any moral system has to be placed within the context of a logical framework, which is why I said Te supports Fi and Ti supports Fe.

But Ti supports Fe, not Fi.

Te supports Fi.

You very well could be a young INTP who thinks you're an INFP, or vice versa. I believe you are confused on this point.

Ti is actually subjective objectivity.

And Fe is objective subjectivity.

Fi is subjective subjectivity, and Te is objective objectivity.

I'd also like to point out to you again that neither Fe nor Fi are "irrational." It is actually the perceiving functions - Ne/Ni and Se/Si - which are irrational.

 

[Thalassa]

Yeah, I was trying to get that across.

No he's disagreeing with you.

Fi and Fe aren't the same thing as "emotions."

 

[skylights]

Yeah, Ne doms are pretty mouthy, while the Ni doms are over there being sneakily strategic. I think that's why we're supposed to hook up.

Ni

I mean, kind of. My Fi is really selfish. Not to mention, Fi happens to be the source of pretty much all navel gazing. Also, Fi is pretty useless. I find if I neglect my Fi too long, I start to feel unhappy and dysfunctional. It's a shame I'm an NF because I prefer to rely on Ti and Ne for most situations.

thought while reading your post: "someone's an enneagram 5"

for ExFPs, Fi is really an extremely useful function because it's (at least theoretically) how we connect with other people, which of course is a huge focus in an ExFx's life. tbh i think my INTP 5w4 brother does as much navel gazing with Ti as i do with Fi.

anyway, i also think there are a lot of ways in which Fi and Ti are actually quite alike, and my guess is that, as an INFP 5w4, your Fi processing is going to be a lot closer to Ti processing than for many of us.

i do agree about Ti and ethics. Kant seems rather Ti to me. one of the most astute philosophy majors i've known, i'd put large sums of money down on him being INTP.

 

[Sniffles]

I've heard people claim Kant was INFJ, not that I agree with that.

 

[NegativeZero]

No he's disagreeing with you.

Fi and Fe aren't the same thing as "emotions."

I already conceded this, yeah? I think we're speaking past each other, to be honest. I am not trying to destroy anyone's theory or refute Jung, just noting the importance of logic within ethics. The more I read of function theory, the more it makes sense to me that you could not use thinking to derive values. I said this when I talked about normative ethics. However, logic has an obvious place in meta-ethics.

Also, I used to fancy myself as an INTP and everyone told me I was an INFP. After reading the definition of Fi, I thought that sounded a lot like myself and changed to INFP.

By the way... did Carl Jung really contribute anything to philosophy? I'm sure he influenced many philosophers, but I do not know if I'd consider him a philosopher, per se. All I know is that he was a psychiatrist and his main field was analytical psychology.

 

[Random Ness]

The Fi-users hate on Fe, and the Fe-users hate on Fi. It comes with not fully understanding the other function.

 

[Random Ness]

"Feelings" and Logic are not mutually exclusive when it comes to ethics.

On the NT subforum a while ago I read the thread "What do you really think of feelers?" The most interesting post was someone saying that making a lifestyle out of Feeling and doing everything based on what you feel seemed super selfish to him. An NT, calling NFs selfish! Isn't it "supposed" to be the other way around? Well, so much for the stereotype that thinkers are coldhearted bastards, right?

 

[Random Ness]

I'm still a junior in high school as well.

The #1 way to not be taken seriously on online forums.