[INFJ] INFJ and divorce from reality?

[SuperFob]

Dude you have no idea what you're getting into here. BW understands the functions better than anyone on this site.

He is totally off base, but that's another matter. His INFJ is a possibility, certainly, but not the norm -- not even close.

Believe me, he does not misunderstand the functions. He just misunderstands the way the average INFJ's function interaction works.

It seems you misunderstand the functions, actually.

I like to think that I understand the functions INFJ's use and how they specifically use them, considering the fact that I'm an INFJ myself. I don't care how long someone studies those functions, it's hard to say that they'll still understand them better than me, a person who has been experiencing those functions his whole life.

It's like reading a bunch of books on how to act on a date without actually having ever gone on one yourself, and telling someone who has been dating for 5 years that you know more than them about relationships. It just doesn't work that way.

Yea, I get it. I only have like 10 posts on this site (too lazy to check right now), so that means that my opinion is worthless, right? That's too bad if people are going to look at things that way here. I supported my argument, and I also happen to be an INFJ- I hope that at least gives me enough credibility to point it out when someone completely misses the mark in describing the type that I belong to

 

[redacted]

I'm not doubting your type, and I'm not making conclusions based on the number of posts you have. Also, you probably understand INFJs just fine. It's just that you seem to have Ni defined wrong -- attributing traits to Ni that don't actually fit the definition, and actually lie in other active functions of the INFJ.

Intuition is unconscious abstract thought. Introverted Intuition goes along the path of the internal standard, so like, current thought processes, etc. Whereas Extroverted Intuition goes along with the external standard, as in, things going on around the person.

Ni will neglect to generate ideas about the environment in favor of generating ideas about current thoughts. Ne will neglect to generate ideas about current thoughts in favor of generating ideas about the environment.

So it makes sense that Ni dominants would be "divorced from reality" because their primary function isn't oriented to whats going on around them. Same is true for all introverted functions, but Intuition itself seems to be the most divorced from reality of the four anyway. That was BW's point. Then he ran from there in a pretty random direction, but that part at least made perfect sense.

 

[sleepless]

Spending more time with his T would have allowed Dostoevsky to break free from religion. Ti would have allowed him to see the world for what it is, irrespectively of whether or not everyone was religious around him.

Secondly, logical thinking would have pruned away many superstitions within his worldview.

I don't know what superstitions he might have held, but on religion: you seem to think that if "God" exists, then someone will have to prove it; if it can't be proved, then we should leave it behind altogether. Right? The thing is, you're missing out on the essence of religion, which is nothing to be scientifically (dis)proved, as reason/thinking cannot fully grasp it. Many people simply start with experiencing "God", and that is all the proof they need.

Let's say you're a convinced atheist, and that somehow, one day you start to experience a presence. A constant underlying presence unlike anything you have ever sensed before, something that calmly seeks your attention, yet remains in the background. Some kind of "force" or "power" that seems to transcend the personal, the wordly, something that seems almost... supernatural. As an atheist you'll of course try to ignore whatever-it-is, reasoning with yourself that now you're obviously going mad. So you dig deeper into the distractions of the material world, and to some extent succeed in forgetting about the presence. For now.

Suppose that years go by and that you keep living your life as usual, and suppose that you are becoming more and more unhappy, as nothing seems to remain any longer that is of any value. The presence comes back and visits you regularly, and you always avoid it, arguing that you are, indeed, going mad. Then imagine something happens, perhaps a close friend dies, something that makes you feel like there is nothing to live for anymore, and you actually consider killing yourself. The only thing that seems to remain is the presence, waiting patiently, and you know that you are going mad but you don't care anymore so you give up yourself and surrender to it, bowing before it, begging it to help you. Your heart breaks as you do this, you give up all fear and resistance, and the following days you feel more sensitive and more alive than ever. People comment that something has changed with you. In time you will probably name this thing, "The presence", "The force" or even "God". And the following years your life changes dramatically, you are not afraid anymore as "God" is always with you, beneath everything else, the one thing that is constant in your life, guiding you, comforting you.

This is the essence of spirituality/religion as I see it - surrendering oneself to something beyond the worldly/the personal. Now, how could MBTI Thinking let you "break free" from this? You have tried to understand it logically, but you can't. You might have talked to your atheist friends about it, hoping they would "enlighten" you. Surely you have tried to argue with yourself that this is some advanced form of self-deception, a psychological construct, but nevertheless you can't get rid of it. Thinking can in this case only work as a resistance to that which it cannot grasp; it can never "see through" it, as it is itself of the personal, while "God" transcends the personal.

Among many other definitions of religion I've heard, one is: "Religion is a language to express things which cannot be expressed." Perhaps not _the_ definition, but an interesting one, and one that fits well with the INFJ type, where Ti serves only as a way of wording the Ni perception (above person doesn't have to be INFJ, though). When Dostoyevsky says "God shall redeem Russia" it is actually his Ti working to put the Ni vision for positive change into culturally specific terms. Had he lived today in the secular west he would have put it otherwise, but religious language wasn't strange at the time, so that is how he expressed himself.

 

[BallentineChen]

I think there is some overreaction to BlueWing over here. Some of the language he uses might seem as overly critical and deriding of INFJs, but he's actually using Jungian language. Just as our understanding of the introvert and extravert need to be replaced with Jung's definitions, so do other terms he uses. I.E. the word "negative" doesn't exactly mean "bad", as I understand it, introverted thinking means it deconstructs, where a positive function such as introverted intuition constructs (for the INFJ).

As for introverted thinking, it isn't a negative process for me. Considering the fact that I'm the most unhealthy INFJ I know, I would say that it isn't negative for most other INFJ's, either. Extraverted sensing may be negative, but introverted thinking isn't. It certainly doesn't have to be negative to the outside world, so that's yet another misinterpretation on your part. After I develop one of my visions of the future, Introverted Thinking adds the rational touch to it. If I meet a girl and we have an amazing romantic connection, introverted intuition will probably map out one possibility of us two dropping out of high school and getting married, introverted thinking will then ask me "Well... that sounds great and all, but how would you guys support yourselves? You two would probably have to wait a while before even considering kids!" It'll do that for every possible future I'll find myself mapping out.

Here, introverted thinking is deconstructing the possibilities and telling you it may not be your in your best long-term interest. In other words, it's critical. However, I still think BlueWing is exaggerating. These problems he describes are all reflective of people that have an imbalanced internal economy.

By the way, I have experienced some sort of a recent "divorce" from reality, but I would describe it as more of a refusal to accept my current circumstance, which is having to settle for a less than ideal job in an ailing economy. Divorce implies a separation, but Jung says that the deleterious effects of repressed functions actually subvert us even more.

 

[Sniffles]

Ni is all about metaperspective, and thus deals with issues that too often are beyond the concerns or grasping of other people.

Here's an interesting example of this plays out in the INFJ's encounters with "reality"

INFJ iNtuition

When people ask me how to set priorities, I ask them a question: At what level do you want to have this conversation? Each of us operates on many different levels at all times. We each have a runway that holds all of the little things that consume our time. At 10,000 feet are the projects. At 20,000 feet, people are deciding on their roles and goals. At 30,000 feet, people are thinking ahead, asking themselves where they want to be in their careers 12 to 18 months down the road. At 40,000 feet, they're thinking 3 to 5 years out and looking at their organizational aspirations. Then, at the top -- at 50,000 feet -- they're asking, "What's my job on this planet?"

A Wall Street executive once complained to me about having to attend too many meetings. I drew a chart and asked, "At what level do you want to have this conversation?" I explained that at 20,000 feet, maybe you need those meetings. But if you go up a level and think about the next 12 to 18 months, maybe you can pass on some of those meetings. And at 50,000 feet, where you think about your heart and your health, you might say, "I don't need to make partner. I've made enough money. From now on, I'm going to leave at 7 PM every day. And if you don't like it, then fire me."

So yes we're more concentrated on the bigger picture, rather than focusing on the minute details of everyday life.

However, I must protest to Bluewing's assestment of Dostoevsky's character. This isn't the first time I've seen him stack the deck against the great writer. Dostoevsky, like anyother INFJ, was a very complex and paradoxical person. Yes he was a rabid Russian nationalist, yet at the time he was also a staunch humanitarian - and the two beliefs went together in his view. In order to love mankind, one must first love ones countrymen.

And Dostoevsky's belief in Christ coming to the Russians was hardly unique to him. This is simply a variation off the old concept of Moscow being the Third Rome, which alone stood for the true Christian faith. Messianic concepts concerning the Russian people were widespread throughout the 19th century. Dostoevsky's friend Vladimir Soloviev even expressed how Russia held a key role in the final ecumenical unification of all the Christian denominations. The Slavophiles talked about Russian culture being the savior of Western decadence.

And the Russians weren't alone. The Poles also had their concept of messianism, where Poland was the "Christ of nations" who suffers for the salvation of mankind. This concept was found within Ukrainian circles, which referred to Kiev as the "new Jerusalem".

Yet this isn't even restricted to the Slavs even. Heck, Shakespeare upheld that the English people was specially blessed by God. In fact messianism or the notion of being a chosen people is found quite frequently within the Anglo world. The Boers of southern Africa also made references to themselves as latter-day Israelites.

It was from the Bible and religious precepts that our modern concepts of national identities derive from.

So I really don't know what exact point you were trying to make there. But on many levels, it was a very unfair one.

BTW, Dostoevsky was an atheist for a time, especially around the time of his arrest. It was only in prison did he revert back.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

No. Introverted intuition doesn't distort the external environment at all, nor does it fail to 'define the external environment in its own right'. It allows us INFJ's to perceive things in the same way someone would if they were using extroverted intuition,

The difference between Extroverted Intuition and Introverted is that the latter involves an internal filter of perception you mentioned that generates implications. Because this is a wholly unconscious process, it is necessarily imbued in the biases and fancies of the unconscious mind. Unlike this internal filtered of Introverted Thinking, it is not based on objective criteria (E.G logic), but on subjective (hunches). For this reason, Introverted Intuition does distort the environment. The subjetive perception is applied to the overview of the environment that the perceiving function by definition is focused at.

I'm sorry that your misinterpretation of introverted intuition has led you to believe that.,

Try to keep the value judgments in this thread to a minimum, thank you very much.

You're saying that individuals like MLK and Mother Teresa demonstrated
'madness' with their worldviews? We could use a lot more of it, then..,

I do not see the relevance. I dont know if these individuals had 'mad' worldviews because they never wrote about them. MLK is likely an ENFP.

Yes, that happens sometimes. During those rare periods of high stress or intensely negative emotion, I have a very negative "screw the whole world" attitude going on in my head. To say that typical INFJ's are like that all the time, though? Nah, that's just another gross misinterpretation...,

Where does it say that a typical INFJ is like this?

I didn't think it was possible, but I think you misinterpreted this facet of the INFJ's even worse than the others. INFJ's (along with INFP's) are considered to be more in tune with the problems of the world than any other type....,

One may say this because of the unusual high level of empathy these types exhibit. However, lack of proper Thinking faculties often precludes these types from carefully analyzing the problems of the world in order to understand what they truly are. The INFJ has less of this problem than the INFP, however it is afflicted by a rather different malady. The aforementioned problem concerning the subjectivity of perception.

As for introverted thinking, it isn't a negative process for me.....,

Generally the negativity towards our lower faculties is unconscious because those functions tend to be primarily unconscious due to the lack of our conscious use of them.

Considering the fact that I'm the most unhealthy INFJ I know, I would say that it isn't negative for most other INFJ's, either. Extraverted sensing may be negative, but introverted thinking isn't. It certainly doesn't have to be negative to the outside world, so that's yet another misinterpretation on your part. After I develop one of my visions of the future, Introverted Thinking adds the rational touch to it. If I meet a girl and we have an amazing romantic connection, introverted intuition will probably map out one possibility of us two dropping out of high school and getting married, introverted thinking will then ask me "Well... that sounds great and all, but how would you guys support yourselves? You two would probably have to wait a while before even considering kids!" It'll do that for every possible future I'll find myself mapping out. .....,

Introverted Thinking can work well for the INFJ when it does the bidding of Ni or Fe. Our lower functions are activated after our higher functions have been. This is however, irrelevant to the typological principle concerning the negativity of our lower functions.

According to you, then, INFJ's are the only insane people in the world?.....,

Where did I say this? And where did I compare the INFJs to other types, even less other people?

Please, let's at least be somewhat reasonable. Insanity can happen to any type, and it will manifest itself differently based on that type. An INFJ may come up with crazy worldviews. An INTP might start looking for excuses and biases that'll paint INFJ's as divorcees from reality ?.....,

Relevance?

Let's not try and take two crazy individuals and act like they represent the whole INFJ population, though.?.....,

Where does the talk of the whole INFJ population come from?

You should never try to understand a personality type based on definitions and descriptions from research alone. You can only begin to understand such a personality type by getting to know people who belong to it, but even then, you can only know so much. The only reliable fundamentals to typology are those people who understand a type the most-those who belong to that type. .?.....,

Jungian typology is concerned with personality types??? And typology is to be studied through observations of people that you are in direct social interaction with?

If you ARE going to rely on principles of INFJ typology, please do a bit more research next time. I wasn't sure if that first post was a joke, but I can't really find another explanation as to how an argument from an introverted thinker could be so biased and contain so many holes. Maybe it's just that negative extroverted feeling kicking in

You have a lot to learn my friend. You will see all the research in my Principles of Typology this November.

Dude you have no idea what you're getting into here. BW understands the functions better than anyone on this site.

He is totally off base, but that's another matter. His INFJ is a possibility, certainly, but not the norm -- not even close.

Believe me, he does not misunderstand the functions. He just misunderstands the way the average INFJ's function interaction works.

It seems you misunderstand the functions, actually.

It was certainly not my purpose to provide a description of an average individual in the Western Culture that we may correctly type as an INFJ.

I like to think that I understand the functions INFJ's use and how they specifically use them, considering the fact that I'm an INFJ myself. I don't care how long someone studies those functions, it's hard to say that they'll still understand them better than me, a person who has been experiencing those functions his whole life.

It's like reading a bunch of books on how to act on a date without actually having ever gone on one yourself, and telling someone who has been dating for 5 years that you know more than them about relationships. It just doesn't work that way.

Yea, I get it. I only have like 10 posts on this site (too lazy to check right now), so that means that my opinion is worthless, right? That's too bad if people are going to look at things that way here. I supported my argument, and I also happen to be an INFJ- I hope that at least gives me enough credibility to point it out when someone completely misses the mark in describing the type that I belong to

Suppose you have had a disease for your entire life. You have been experiencing it for as long as you could remember. Would you know better what this condition is like or the doctor who specializes in curing such maladies?

Having the experience is not enough, it is much more important to be able to analyze what has been experienced properly.

 

[redacted]

It was certainly not my purpose to provide a description of an average individual in the Western Culture that we may correctly type as an INFJ.

So you're just describing a potential INFJ "gone wrong"? In that case, I have absolutely no problem with your original post.

Seems like not many INFJs are like this, but if that wasn't your point, then whatever. (Seems like a misleading title for the thread, though.)

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I don't know what superstitions he might have held, but on religion: you seem to think that if "God" exists, then someone will have to prove it; if it can't be proved, then we should leave it behind altogether. Right? The thing is, you're missing out on the essence of religion, which is nothing to be scientifically (dis)proved, as reason/thinking cannot fully grasp it. Many people simply start with experiencing "God", and that is all the proof they need.

Such an attitude is incompatibility with reasonableness. If you have a belief that you cannot support logically, there is no reason to think it true. You must renounce it, or admit you're being unreasonable.

My second question is, with respect to Dostoevksy, if he truly were reasonable and used his T properly, why would he have to hold any superstition at all? Doing so is anathema to reasonableness itself as being superstitious by definition of the term means believing in ideas that cannot be rationally supported.

Let's say you're a convinced atheist, and that somehow, one day you start to experience a presence. A constant underlying presence unlike anything you have ever sensed before, something that calmly seeks your attention, yet remains in the background. Some kind of "force" or "power" that seems to transcend the personal, the wordly, something that seems almost... supernatural. As an atheist you'll of course try to ignore whatever-it-is, reasoning with yourself that now you're obviously going mad. So you dig deeper into the distractions of the material world, and to some extent succeed in forgetting about the presence. For now..

I may certainly think that this was a wonderful experience, yet I see no reason to think that this had anything to do with the Christian teaching. This would likely be a meritorious addition to my spirituality. As a thorough-going atheist, I can well claim to be spiritual in a sense that many religious people would like to claim.

This is the essence of spirituality/religion as I see it - surrendering oneself to something beyond the worldly/the personal. Now, how could MBTI Thinking let you "break free" from this? You have tried to understand it logically, but you can't. You might have talked to your atheist friends about it, hoping they would "enlighten" you. Surely you have tried to argue with yourself that this is some advanced form of self-deception, a psychological construct, but nevertheless you can't get rid of it. Thinking can in this case only work as a resistance to that which it cannot grasp; it can never "see through" it, as it is itself of the personal, while "God" transcends the personal...

I can have such spiritual experiences independently of the religious dogma. Rational thinking will allow me to put them in the most benign place possible in my worldview.

Book Store Search Results

You may be interested in this treatise on religion that I have composed.

My working definition of religion is.

A worldview which propounds a system of ethics.

A metaphysical system or an outline of how the world works.

Inquires into eschatology or questions concerning life after death.

Accepts at least certain axioms as incontrovertible.

The last is the hallmark of religiosity. Spirituality is very difficult to reconcile with religion because a paramount aspect of being spiritual is deciding what your life-changing experiences mean to you. Religion strangles such thinking because it insists on scrupulous adherence to the established maxims in the book of dogma. Religious thinkers whose works have led religion to be associated with spirituality behaved in a profoundly irreligious fashion because by doing so they have for the very least questioned the inerrancy of some of their sacred maxims, and have often even subverted them. John Locke is a distinct representative of such a kind of thinkers, he was the Christian philosopher who has denied the dogma of the original sin. For this reason the Christianity of many Christian philosophers such as Pelagius, Kierkegaard, Paul Tillich have been branded heretical by fundamentalists. The fundamentalists are the true observes of the religious faith because they insist on scrupulous adherence to what the sacred writings say explicitly, not with what they ought to have said. Independently thinking individuals who are religious merely contort scripture to justify their quest for truth and autonomy of thought. Invariably they are afflicted with dire internal conflict because of this.

So you're just describing a potential INFJ "gone wrong"? In that case, I have absolutely no problem with your original post.

Seems like not many INFJs are like this, but if that wasn't your point, then whatever. (Seems like a misleading title for the thread, though.)

I am describing the unconscious tendencies of the INFJ from the standpoint of pure typology. Referrences to applied typology were made to better illustrate the point of pure typology.

The point was the essence of intuition and the subjectivity encountered as a result of introversion of this faculty.

Ni is all about metaperspective, and thus deals with issues that too often are beyond the concerns or grasping of other people.

Here's an interesting example of this plays out in the INFJ's encounters with "reality"


So yes we're more concentrated on the bigger picture, rather than focusing on the minute details of everyday life.

However, I must protest to Bluewing's assestment of Dostoevsky's character. This isn't the first time I've seen him stack the deck against the great writer. Dostoevsky, like anyother INFJ, was a very complex and paradoxical person. Yes he was a rabid Russian nationalist, yet at the time he was also a staunch humanitarian - and the two beliefs went together in his view. In order to love mankind, one must first love ones countrymen.

And Dostoevsky's belief in Christ coming to the Russians was hardly unique to him. This is simply a variation off the old concept of Moscow being the Third Rome, which alone stood for the true Christian faith. Messianic concepts concerning the Russian people were widespread throughout the 19th century. Dostoevsky's friend Vladimir Soloviev even expressed how Russia held a key role in the final ecumenical unification of all the Christian denominations. The Slavophiles talked about Russian culture being the savior of Western decadence.

And the Russians weren't alone. The Poles also had their concept of messianism, where Poland was the "Christ of nations" who suffers for the salvation of mankind. This concept was found within Ukrainian circles, which referred to Kiev as the "new Jerusalem".

Yet this isn't even restricted to the Slavs even. Heck, Shakespeare upheld that the English people was specially blessed by God. In fact messianism or the notion of being a chosen people is found quite frequently within the Anglo world. The Boers of southern Africa also made references to themselves as latter-day Israelites.

It was from the Bible and religious precepts that our modern concepts of national identities derive from.

So I really don't know what exact point you were trying to make there. But on many levels, it was a very unfair one.

BTW, Dostoevsky was an atheist for a time, especially around the time of his arrest. It was only in prison did he revert back.

2 remarks.

1) Ni in itself is pure abstract perception. In order for an Ni dominant mindset to concern oneself with the big questions or 'metaperspective' it needs to be organized with Thinking. Or there needs to be a logical analysis of the abstract perceptions.

2) What do your claims with respect to Dostoevsky have to do with my treatment of him?

 

[redacted]

I am describing the unconscious tendencies of the INFJ from the standpoint of pure typology. Referrences to applied typology were made to better illustrate the point of pure typology.

The point was the essence of intuition and the subjectivity encountered as a result of introversion of this faculty.

Well, if you're talking about INFJs, doesn't it seem redundent to say that in order to be effective, they must use thinking? When you're talking about a type, you're talking about interaction between 4 functions, not just one or two. To be effective, everyone has to develop all of their functions. Couldn't you make the same argument about Se? Wouldn't it ground them in reality even more than Ti? Ti can only see what it gets from perceiving functions anyway. A logically valid conclusion can still be untrue if the premises are wrong.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Well, if you're talking about INFJs, doesn't it seem redundent to say that in order to be effective, they must use thinking? .

In order for the INFJ psychic mechanism to function properly Thinking must be active to a certain degree. When I argue that Ti is important, I do not argue that nothing else is important.

When you're talking about a type, you're talking about interaction between 4 functions, not just one or two. To be effective, everyone has to develop all of their functions. Couldn't you make the same argument about Se? Wouldn't it ground them in reality even more than Ti?.

Therefore, this is all irrelevant. As a sidenote, however, Sensing is much less important in bringing order to one's worldview than Thinking because it merely collects the concrete data to be analyzed. Yet thinking does the analysis necessary to organize one's vision.

My claim was that the INFJ should use Thinking soundly for the aforementioned reasons, and secondly cultivate the extroverted faculties in order to combat the problem of subjectivity of perception. The proposition concerning the development of Se is implicit within the latter.

 

[redacted]

Bringing order to one's worldview? That's not the point you were making. You were talking about divorce from reality. If you're talking about bringing order to Perceptions, of course Thinking is the correct function.

Also, Thinking is always active in all types. Its conclusions might not have as much of an affect on the internal or external standard as is neccesary for maturity, which is probably what you're talking about. (Sorry about the nitpicking. Hope I worded that correctly...) Obviously, though, all functions must be properly weighed in order to reach maturity.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Bringing order to one's worldview? That's not the point you were making. You were talking about divorce from reality. If you're talking about bringing order to Perceptions, of course Thinking is the correct function.

.

Having an orderly worldview is integral to being in tune with reality. Rational analysis of perceptions more than anything else will purge the subjectivity of perception. Far more so than mere direct exposure to the external world. For this reason cultivation of thinking is maxim number one and cultivation of extroverted faculties is maxim number 2.

Also, Thinking is always active in all types. Its conclusions might not have as much of an affect on the internal or external standard as is neccesary for maturity, which is probably what you're talking about..

I do not understand the remark.

 

[Frank]

Bluewing, it is clear that your ti is highly developed and we are all very proud of you. Now for christsake develop that second function and come down from the tower.

 

[sleepless]

Such an attitude is incompatibility with reasonableness. If you have a belief that you cannot support logically, there is no reason to think it true. You must renounce it, or admit you're being unreasonable.

But this is not about belief, it is about direct experience. The atheist in my example experiences something being there, without being able to explain it through reason. The belief, or faith, essentially goes down to having trust in this "presence", that it will continue to be there, as it has been in the past; to rely on it, even if there's no way to prove that it will continue to manifest itself.

I may certainly think that this was a wonderful experience, yet I see no reason to think that this had anything to do with the Christian teaching. This would likely be a meritorious addition to my spirituality. As a thorough-going atheist, I can well claim to be spiritual in a sense that many religious people would like to claim.

No, I didn't mean it would support Christianity either, I'm trying to get down to the essence of religion.

You wouldn't have a problem with such an experience, then? Wouldn't it collide a little with your atheism or your rational worldview? What is spirituality to you, if I may ask?

My second question is, with respect to Dostoevksy, if he truly were reasonable and used his T properly, why would he have to hold any superstition at all? Doing so is anathema to reasonableness itself as being superstitious by definition of the term means believing in ideas that cannot be rationally supported.

Do you mean that Dostoyevsky's allegiance with Christianity is itself a superstition? I am not a Christian, but due to a Christian background I have known lots of fundamentalist Christians, and they really do have lots of proofs and "rational explanations" for their faith, as have religious people of all times had. I'm sure Dostoyevsky had too. Many of them (books and so) would of course not pass through a scientific examination; some though, are written by scientists, and it seems to me that if you want to find an explanation for something, you will.

They usually put the highest emphasis on personal experience though, and this is where I give them the most credit. I have heard far more than enough accounts of people being miraculously healed, having their prayers answered over and over again, literally having their lives saved by some great spiritual experience (where they saw Jesus), to be sure that at least some of them must be true (not to talk about such things as near-death-/out-of-the-body-experiences, past-life-regression, ghosts etc). Of course it's also cultural, a muslim would not see Jesus for example, but still... my point is that there are lots of religious people who are T, NT even, who find obvious proof for their faith. Not to mention how many those must have been in the past.


You think there's a great difference between spirituality and religion, is that right? Religion as a kind of distortion of spirituality? It is a distinction I have made myself, even if I haven't been so careful with it lately.

 

[edcoaching]

Ti vs. all other functions...developing a logical world view would be the height of intelligence/development if the world operated logically. It doesn't. No more Captain Dunsels (Star Trek "The Ultimate Computer")

 

[redacted]

Meh. I mean, the world does operate logically. The problem with logic is the set of assumptions the user starts from. How do you get those assumptions? Inductive reasoning. T cannot do that. Only N can do that (which needs to be grounded in S of course).

T can work all it wants, but if you start with the premise that the sky is purple, you're gonna come to some terrible conclusions.

 

[edcoaching]

If logic could predict behavior, New Coke wouldn't have failed. I get a lot of business from companies that expect their employees to behave logically, too...

 

[redacted]

Ah, that's what you were saying. Yeah, predicting things is much more of an N thing.

Induction (N) vs. Deduction (T). Yes, deduction is guaranteed to take us to something true if our premises are true, but we will never get anything new out of it. With induction, you can say something like "Well, the sun has come up every day so far, so I conclude it will come up tomorrow". It could be wrong, but at least it gets you to new ideas/information.

The best predictors have good N and good T. F is good for predicting people, too, since it points your attention in the direction of values. And of course S is necessary so that your predictions are grounded in reality.

 

[edcoaching]

You know, i never did take a philosophy class. Stuck to lit, history, religion, art history...oh, and those business credits so i could get a job...

 

[Sniffles]

Religious thinkers whose works have led religion to be associated with spirituality behaved in a profoundly irreligious fashion because by doing so they have for the very least questioned the inerrancy of some of their sacred maxims, and have often even subverted them.

And yet there have been plenty of orthodox Christian thinkers who enriched the spiritual experience as well. Take a look at Dark Night of the Soul by St. John of the Cross or Spiritual Excercises by St. Ignatius of Loyola.

For this reason the Christianity of many Christian philosophers such as Pelagius, Kierkegaard, Paul Tillich have been branded heretical by fundamentalists.

Since when are fundamentalists the be-all of Christianity? By almost all objective standards, they're a small fringe of the Christian tradition. They're not looked highly upon within Catholicism for example.

Or are you misusing the label "fundamentalist" for orthodox Christians?

BTW, the works of Kierkegaard and Tillich have been influential within conventional Christian traditions. In regards to Catholicism, two influential modern thinkers - von Balthasar and Pope John Paul II - held Kierkegaard in high regard.

The fundamentalists are the true observes of the religious faith because they insist on scrupulous adherence to what the sacred writings say explicitly, not with what they ought to have said.

As far as Christianity is concerned that's a difficult position to hold since the faith grew out of the allegorical traditions of Hellenic Judaism. In our other discussion, I've also made mention of the first century Christian text that called literalists dupes of the Devil. Let's not forget that many of the Church Fathers rejected a literalist approach, especially St. Augustine of Hippo.

Independently thinking individuals who are religious merely contort scripture to justify their quest for truth and autonomy of thought. Invariably they are afflicted with dire internal conflict because of this.

The life of faith in itself is about overcoming internal conflicts, so I fail to understand your point here.

1) Ni in itself is pure abstract perception. In order for an Ni dominant mindset to concern oneself with the big questions or 'metaperspective' it needs to be organized with Thinking. Or there needs to be a logical analysis of the abstract perceptions.

Does that really contradict what I said? Just curious.

2) What do your claims with respect to Dostoevsky have to do with my treatment of him?

Well for one thing, providing a little balance and wider context to your treatments, since they seem to be incomplete on many levels.

I'll also take the oppurtunity to correct your treatment of Kierkegaard. You claimed he was apolitical, when in fact he was a staunch supporter of Denmark's absolutist monarchy. One of his first writings was a pamphlet against female suffrage.