[NT] What I Believe in

[Provoker]

Recently, I have noticed a pattern. The pattern is this: after putting forth some different possibilities a person asks, "what do you believe?" Yet it has become so frequent in recent history that my instinct is to greet this question with an ironical smile. This smile is convoluted to say the least and reflects the frequency with which I am asked that question, my anticipation of the reaction to my answer, and perhaps a sense of shame for having tilted my head up and slightly to the left and having to actually think about what I believe. One may think that strong beliefs would not require deep contemplation, but instead should be immediate. But this is not the case with me. As soon as a person asks what I believe in I get stuck in chess, paralyzed by deep contemplation of logical combinations.

The professor who asked me this question the other day could not have known the meaning behind the mechanical head-tilt to the upper-left followed by a crooked smile. He could not have known that the immediate answer I calculated, and always calculate when asked this question, is that I am an atheist and whenever the question of belief comes up nothing comes to me at all. If anything I have a lack thereof. The smile, the contemplation, all of that is if anything a consideration of how to answer this question in a diplomatic way. For example, I am inclined to say, "I believe in magic," with a slight ring corresponding to the popular song but that would be to mock the person asking the question. So I do not. Part of the pause and contemplation is really a reflection of how I want to go about answering the question so as to not completely condescend from heights unknown to man. They seem to put such high hopes in what I might conjure as if I am a magician or something, that I might churn out some logical combination or insight that will unearth all kinds of new ideas in them that as yet have no names. How cruel would a thinker have to be to give an answer that only mocks them for having asked the question?

Furthermore, I have resigned myself from engaging in ethical debates, except to clarify or contradict the position of others. This followed automatically once I decided that I want to be a logician on the side; and that the business of ethics could be no business of mine for it could only lead to error in thinking. This is based on the supposition that if a logician is on one side of an issue he is on the wrong side; for taking sides inevitably stifles one's ability for sober and dispassionate logical thinking. On that note, logic is what makes it all stick. Logic is to philosopher as telescope is to astronomer: a tool of discovery. It might be said then that I believe logic will lead me to higher truths and that a problem that is invented by the mind can be solved by it.

My entire psychology obeys the laws of mathematics. It is a system built on a set of axioms and with clearly defined rules of inference. As such, it is perfectly predictable, and with enough information could be predicted from start to end. Every day I follow the same routine. I leave nothing in my life to chance; I only follow methods that have proven to work over and over again. I am completely formulaic; my capacity for improvization is low. I am linear in logic; nonlinear with an initial intuition, but then I drive my intuition forward in a linear way through rational thinking. I have difficulty following the thought process of other humans as they often depend on different sets of assumptions. When humans reason incorrectly with confidence it can make it difficult to sort out the information. For example, on a daily basis I hear stories that proceed in the following manner. "Like..either I'm going to the grocery store or I'll go and get gas. I am not going to get gas, so I'll go to the mall and pick up some shoes" Here we have A or B, not B therefore Z. This way of thinking is completely alien to me. Yet, even though people do not always reason in a logically valid manner, they nevertheless follow rules. All things in the entire universe, both animate and inanimate, take place according to rules; nowhere is there to be found any irregularity. Should one try to jump as high as the empire state building or run as fast as the speed of light one will soon discover one is unable. Even when logic proper is wanning, humans follow physical, biological, and psychological rules. Nevertheless, from this we can deduce what I do not believe in:

(1) I do not believe in disorder; for rules entail order. As such, when people say things like "I'm disorganized" they are really referring to their lack of efficiency rather than any objective statement about the organization of the world.

(2) I do not believe in spiritualism or mysticism of any kind. But, I do think it is a reasonable conjecture that there are life forms elsewhere in the galaxy; after all, we were able to form.

 

[Fluffywolf]

Upon reading your post, which follows pretty much the same method of 'belief' I follow by the way. I can't help but notice that the irony is great in your method of formulating belief and logic.

If everything follows a set of rules. Then what we see as the illogical and irrationality is really actual logical, but just beyond our capability of understanding.. And if you think it through, it pans out. Which is ironically funny, because it basicly means it doesn't matter how we think or do, what we belief in, and so on. Because we simply can't go 'wrong', when you look at the grand scheme of things. Because everything you say, do and think, can be logically explained.

Well, that's pretty logical ofcourse. But that paradox basicly wipes logic of it's value. How can you strive logic, if it's 100% garanteed? Why make an issue out of logic, when it is incapable of being a problem.

Anyhow, I'm just Ti'ing your Te here, so I'll stop.

 

[Moiety]

All things in the entire universe, both animate and inanimate, take place according to rules; nowhere is there to be found any irregularity.

How would one ever arrive to the conclusion something doesn't take place according to rules?


Also, don't you think a rule is bound by it's sphere and context? Don't you think perception plays a part in it all?

 

[Fluffywolf]

How would one ever arrive to the conclusion something doesn't take place according to rules?

Just about everyone that believe in whatever diety or form of God, that existed pre-existance?

Also, don't you think a rule is bound by it's sphere and context? Don't you think perception plays a part in it all?

A rule isn't bound by anything, our interpretation and understanding of the rule however is. I think that is the best way to look at logic.

 

[Moiety]

If everything follows a set of rules. Then what we see as the illogical and irrationality is really actual logical, but just beyond our capability of understanding.. And if you think it through, it pans out. Which is ironically funny, because it basicly means it doesn't matter how we think or do, what we belief in, and so on. Because we simply can't go 'wrong', when you look at the grand scheme of things. Because everything you say, do and think, can be logically explained.

That's the issue I have with the whole concept. There are always axioms on which we base any further assumptions. But isn't scientific evolution a history of proving previous held beliefs wrong? And isn't it all a matter of perception?

Is the world round or is it merely there and we call it round? Is it any more round (in reality) than it is flat as far as walking down the street? Could we look at the world from a perspective so zoomed out that calling it round was no longer true?

All axioms are based on perception. As subjective as their definition and language and meaning,The truth is we are making the rules. So if we assume in advance and believe it is rule-based...i guess it probably becomes so....in our mind anyway.

Rules are shaped by perception. The question isn't whether they hold true or not...it's if we can twist them so that they do....according to our preconceived idea of what is truth i mean...

 

[Night]

Furthermore, I have resigned myself from engaging in ethical debates, except to clarify or contradict the position of others. This followed automatically once I decided that I want to be a logician on the side; and that the business of ethics could be no business of mine for it could only lead to error in thinking. This is based on the supposition that if a logician is on one side of an issue he is on the wrong side; for taking sides inevitably stifles one's ability for sober and dispassionate logical thinking. On that note, logic is what makes it all stick. Logic is to philosopher as telescope is to astronomer: a tool of discovery. It might be said then that I believe logic will lead me to higher truths and that a problem that is invented by the mind can be solved by it.

Eh. Not if you're referring to your online behavior. Offline, I have no basis for discrimination.

My entire psychology obeys the laws of mathematics. It is a system built on a set of axioms and with clearly defined rules of inference. As such, it is perfectly predictable, and with enough information could be predicted from start to end. Every day I follow the same routine. I leave nothing in my life to chance; I only follow methods that have proven to work over and over again. I am completely formulaic; my capacity for improvization is low. I am linear in logic; nonlinear with an initial intuition, but then I drive my intuition forward in a linear way through rational thinking. I have difficulty following the thought process of other humans as they often depend on different sets of assumptions. When humans reason incorrectly with confidence it can make it difficult to sort out the information. For example, on a daily basis I hear stories that proceed in the following manner. "Like..either I'm going to the grocery store or I'll go and get gas. I am not going to get gas, so I'll go to the mall and pick up some shoes" Here we have A or B, not B therefore Z. This way of thinking is completely alien to me.

ISTJ, for your consideration.

Yet, even though people do not always reason in a logically valid manner, they nevertheless follow rules. All things in the entire universe, both animate and inanimate, take place according to rules; nowhere is there to be found any irregularity. Should one try to jump as high as the empire state building or run as fast as the speed of light one will soon discover one is unable. From this, we can deduce what I do not believe in:

(1) I do not believe in disorder; for rules entail order. As such, when people say this they often are referring to their lack of efficiency (i.e. the current arrangement is not such that they can access things in a timely fashion). In this sense, people often say, "I am disorganized" but I remind them that there is an order it is just not arranged in such a way as to maximize efficiency.

(2) I do not believe in spiritualism or mysticism of any kind. But, I do think it is a reasonable conjecture that there are life forms elsewhere in the galaxy; after all, we were able to form.

Brevity, my friend. Brevity.

Not to unfairly critique, but for saying so much, you offered very little.

You don't 'believe' as an ideal, and instead require empiricism to formulate an opinion. You enjoy routine, and depend on it as an accessory to your model of thinking. Defending a position during a debate doesn't make sense to you, as doing so requires you to inject personal bias, which destroys opportunity for advancing personal comprehension.

All of this makes sense. Condensing it into a better format would make you suitably less 'mysterious'. Not sure if that's what you want, though.

Carry on.

 

[Fluffywolf]

That's the issue I have with the whole concept. There are always axioms on which we base any further assumptions. But isn't scientific evolution a history of proving previous held beliefs wrong? And isn't it all a matter of perception?

Is the world round or is it merely there and we call it round? Is it any more round (in reality) than it is flat as far as walking down the street? Could we look at the world from a perspective so zoomed out that calling it round was no longer true?

All axioms are based on perception. The truth is we are making the rules. So if we assume in advance and believe it is rule-based...i guess it probably becomes so....in our mind anyway.

Rules are shaped by perception. The question isn't whether they hold true or not...it's if we can twist them so that they do....according to our preconceived idea of what is truth i mean...

Well, then ask yourself the one important question that you can ask yourself based on all this hypothetical mumbo jumbo.

How do you choose to live your life?

Because, there is no other reason to speculate on 'the ultimate big picture' apart from that one question. And through our choices in life, we sample small bits and pieces of the big picture according to our own perceptions and truths.

The irony is that the 'absolute' has been given so much thought by many a philosopher and person. Whilest it's in execution, unproductive and infinitely useless. Because, like you said. It transcends what is and isn't important to us. And if that can't be sampled, then there is nothing to gain from attempting to explore it.

The pessimistic downside of it all is that you pretty much realize nothing really matters. Everything that seemingly matters, only matters because you believe it to matter. But in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't. So what;s the point of persuing it?

Other than killing time in the short life we have.

 

[Provoker]

Upon reading your post, which follows pretty much the same method of 'belief' I follow by the way. I can't help but notice that the irony is great in your method of formulating belief and logic.

If everything follows a set of rules. Then what we see as the illogical and irrationality is really actual logical.

No, in order for your paradox to work an equivocation fallacy is necessary. Just because humans all follow algorithms and rules does not entail that they reason logically. When I use the word logic, I have in mind Kant's definition of logic as the science of correct reasoning. It does not follow from the fact that a person cannot jump as high as the empire state building (because they follow rules) that they reason in a logically valid manner. They follow rules, yes, but those rules are the business of psychology. Therefore, your paradox implicitly takes logic to mean psychology. But a person can reason in an invalid manner and still follow rules of psychology, which means there is no paradox. The one concerns how correct reasoning should be conducted; the other how humans do make decisions. Therefore, you've merely created an illusion of paradox by substituting how humans should reason (which is the business of logic) with how humans sometimes make decisions (which is the business of psychology). You also mentioned rationality, which is very different than logic and is not to be confused with or conflated with it.

Summarily, we have established that an illusion of paradox depended on a false notion of logic. However, once logic was distinguished from principles of psychology, we learned that there is no paradox whereby some humans do not reason logically but can still be called logical.

 

[Moiety]

Well, then ask yourself the one important question that you can ask yourself based on all this hypothetical mumbo jumbo.

How do you choose to live your life?

Because, there is no other reason to speculate on 'the ultimate big picture' apart from that one question. And through our choices in life, we sample small bits and pieces of the big picture according to our own perceptions and truths.

The irony is that the 'absolute' has been given so much thought by many a philosopher and person. Whilest it's in execution, unproductive and infinitely useless. Because, like you said. It transcends what is and isn't important to us. And if that can't be sampled, then there is nothing to gain from attempting to explore it.

The pessimistic downside of it all is that you pretty much realize nothing really matters. Everything that seemingly matters, only matters because you believe it to matter. But in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't. So what;s the point of persuing it?

Other than killing time in the short life we have.

If you ask me, scientists are rarely interested in bettering theirs or anyone else's lives per se. It's not that they can ever fully control the repercussions of their discoveries anyway. I'd say they are often driven more by sheer curiosity and love/hate of the unknown.

And yeah inherent meaning or "the truth" don't give me as much of a hard on as being happy. So in that sense, I do get choosing to believe in nonsense. Like optimism. Or in this case, rules

 

[Fluffywolf]

No, in order for your paradox to work an equivocation fallacy is necessary. Just because humans all follow algorithms and rules does not entail that they reason logically. When I use the word logic, I have in mind Kant's definition of logic as the science of correct reasoning. It does not follow from the fact that a person cannot jump as high as the empire state building (because they follow rules) that they reason in a logically valid manner. They follow rules, yes, but those rules are the business of psychology. Therefore, your paradox implicitly takes logic to mean psychology. But a person can reason in an invalid manner and still follow rules of psychology, which means there is no paradox. The one concerns how correct reasoning should be conducted; the other how humans do make decisions. Therefore, you've merely created an illusion of paradox by substituting how humans should reason (which is the business of logic) with how humans sometimes make decisions (which is the business of psychology). You also mentioned rationality, which is very different than logic and is not to be confused with or conflated with it.

Summarily, we have established that an illusion of paradox depended on a false notion of logic. However, once logic was distinguished from principles of psychology, we learned that there is no paradox whereby some humans do not reason logically but can still be called logical.

And you don't see the irony in your post?

I am getting where you come from. But in your perspective you've put value to what you deem logical and illogical. In that sense, your belief system is subjective. Which clashes with your 'quest for logic'.

I was trying to place your belief system, in a much broader perspective. Seeing it not through opinionated eyes. But from a universial perspective. In absolutes.

 

[highlander]

The brevity point resonates. Direct,to the point, and concise communication is definitely something that I value as well. It takes effort however and I'm not always as good at as I'd like to be.

 

[Provoker]

But in your perspective you've put value to what you deem logical and illogical. In that sense, your belief system is subjective. Which clashes with your 'quest for logic'.

As noted, logic is merely a tool of discovery. My real quest is for objective truth. Well then your claim is tantamount to the claim, an observer who goes to great measures to be as unbiased as possible is being biased by virtue of their quest to be unbiased. However, if even the most unbiased of us is biased, then it follows that your statement itself is biased and should not be confused with objective truth. Well then if what you mean demerits what you say then why is this relevant at all? Should it not be disregarded as mere child's play? After all, the skill of introspection and correct thinking consists in knowing what to disregard.

It might be argued that a more sportsman-like approach would require that one strengthen another's argument before destroying it. Therefore, let us suppose for the time being that you are correct. According to Godel's incompleteness theorem, in any formal system there is at least one truth the system cannot itself prove, and a formal system cannot prove the consistency of itself. If then it is granted that using logic as a tool of discovery depends on assigning a value to logic, then the one truth the system cannot itself prove is the value of logic. Else if one can use logic to demonstrate the value of logic then this proves the system is completely represented by all axioms in the system and contains the seeds of its own consistency. In other words, can a person be a completely objective system that is perfectly consistent with itself and still be a person? Or will there inevitably be some statement that the system itself cannot prove within itself? The easy answer is to resign to Godel's incompleteness theorem. Yet it is not clear to me a priori that a system as such will inevitably be incomplete. After all, what is self evident to one may require proof to another. Some see 2+1=3 as self-evident; Humpty Dumpty required proof. Thus, Fluffywolf has certainly raised some issues that require extensive and elaborate thinking, an exhaustion of the alternatives, and proof either way before any conclusive position is to be formed.

I was trying to place your belief system, in a much broader perspective. Seeing it not through opinionated eyes. But from a universial perspective. In absolutes.

I can appreciate that.

 

[Provoker]

ISTJ, for your consideration.

One can see how one might draw this conclusion. However, there is nothing in my description that precludes the possibility of an INTJ with a very high T, which is the correct interpretation. For if I was a sensing type, I would be characterized by the other features that go with it, such as living in the moment (which I don't for the most part) and adhering to traditions (which I typically see as a long succession of bad habits). Yet an extra high T can be applied to the passage and not admit these other things that are entailed by ISTJness. In short, that particular block had an ISTJ flavor but from this one cannot induce that that alone makes one an ISTJ.

Brevity, my friend. Brevity.

A person can be concise, yet have a lot to say so as to make it seem nonconcise. Yet, on a closer look one might learn that there are actually a lot of ideas generated in each sentence. Therefore, I do not think brevity is relevant in this discussion the way it is relevant in a timed presentation or paper with a word limit. Therefore, I see no reason to change this. However, if this is something you feel strongly about then no one is preventing you from not reading my posts. I wouldn't say that was untrue.

for saying so much, you offered very little.

Sorry to disappoint.

you...require empiricism to formulate an opinion.

Careful. You do not have epistemic access to my brain. Therefore, you do not know what I require and do not require to formulate an opinion. Rationalists, for instance, are mistrustful of the emprical epistemology and methods. Instead, they rely on a rationalist epistomology that includes logic, mathematics, definitions, and reason as a methods for obtaining knowledge. Thus, we will want to be careful before supposing what another requires.

You enjoy routine, and depend on it as an accessory to your model of thinking.

Agreed.

Defending a position during a debate doesn't make sense to you, as doing so requires you to inject personal bias, which destroys opportunity for advancing personal comprehension.

This is an interesting point. Since everything is oriented around the discovery of truth, should truth be found it is the one position that may be worthy of defense. In any case, in principle I try not to say anything that cannot be defended. That which is defensible requires perception of truth; for I see no merit in defending falsehood. Therefore, I try not to say anything false. Then if one either speaks falsely, or truly, or says nothing, and speaking falsely is not an option, then by disjunction the only options are to speak truthfully or to say nothing at all. Then my position as truth-seeker is clearly defined.

How about yourself Night?

 

[Night]

One can see how one might draw this conclusion. However, there is nothing in my description that precludes the possibility of an INTJ with a very high T, which is the correct interpretation. For if I was a sensing type, I would be characterized by the other features that go with it, such as living in the moment (which I don't for the most part) and adhering to traditions (which I typically see as a long succession of bad habits). Yet an extra high T can be applied to the passage and not admit these other things that are entailed by ISTJness. In short, that particular block had an ISTJ flavor but from this one cannot induce that that alone makes one an ISTJ.

Who said anything about me 'inducing' this particular megastructure of text as my final basis for rationalizing you as an ISTJ?

Along with my global observations of your thinking, your in-thread text wall suggests ISTJ.

A person can be concise, yet have a lot to say so as to make it seem nonconcise. Yet, on a closer look one might learn that there are actually a lot of ideas generated in each sentence. Therefore, I do not think brevity is relevant in this discussion the way it is relevant in a timed presentation or paper with a word limit. Therefore, I see no reason to change this. However, if this is something you feel strongly about then no one is preventing you from not reading my posts. I wouldn't say that was untrue.

You aren't concise. You discuss, at length, elements of thought that generally have marginal connection to your premise. I've highlighted where you do this in the enclosed quote:

Recently, I have noticed a pattern. The pattern is this: after putting forth some different possibilities a person asks, "what do you believe?" Yet it has become so frequent in recent history that my instinct is to greet this question with an ironical smile. This smile is convoluted to say the least and reflects the frequency with which I am asked that question, my anticipation of the reaction to my answer, and perhaps a sense of shame for having tilted my head up and slightly to the left and having to actually think about what I believe. One may think that strong beliefs would not require deep contemplation, but instead should be immediate. But this is not the case with me. As soon as a person asks what I believe in I get stuck in chess, paralyzed by deep contemplation of logical combinations.

The professor who asked me this question the other day could not have known the meaning behind the mechanical head-tilt to the upper-left followed by a crooked smile. He could not have known that the immediate answer I calculated, and always calculate when asked this question, is that I am an atheist and whenever the question of belief comes up nothing comes to me at all. If anything I have a lack thereof. The smile, the contemplation, all of that is if anything a consideration of how to answer this question in a diplomatic way. For example, I am inclined to say, "I believe in magic," with a slight ring corresponding to the popular song but that would be to mock the person asking the question. So I do not. Part of the pause and contemplation is really a reflection of how I want to go about answering the question so as to not completely condescend from heights unknown to man. They seem to put such high hopes in what I might conjure as if I am a magician or something, that I might churn out some logical combination or insight that will unearth all kinds of new ideas in them that as yet have no names. How cruel would a thinker have to be to give an answer that only mocks them for having asked the question?

Sorry to disappoint.

You haven't. I was offering perspective. Why would you presume disappointment?

Careful. You do not have epistemic access to my brain. Therefore, you do not know what I require and do not require to formulate an opinion. Rationalists, for instance, are mistrustful of the emprical epistemology and methods. Instead, they rely on a rationalist epistomology that includes logic, mathematics, definitions, and reason as a methods for obtaining knowledge. Thus, we will want to be careful before supposing what another requires.

No, I don't. I simply have access to what you provide. To that end, rationalist epistemology involves empiricism as a basis for reconciling facts with supposition, Provoker. My guess wasn't far off at all. It would be like saying the Constitution doesn't rely on the Preamble as a model for justification of methodology.

This is an interesting point. Since everything is oriented around the discovery of truth, should truth be found it is the one position that may be worthy of defense. In any case, in principle I try not to say anything that cannot be defended. That which is defensible requires perception of truth; for I see no merit in defending falsehood. Therefore, I try not to say anything false. Then if one either speaks falsely, or truly, or says nothing, and speaking falsely is not an option, then by disjunction the only options are to speak truthfully or to say nothing at all. Then my position as truth-seeker is clearly defined.

"Truth is [...] the one position worthy of defense?"

No. Not by a long shot. As you indicated in your last post, rationalist epistemology uses a constellation of analysis, ranging from mathematics to algorithmic logic.

This is another example of needless explication. I've highlighted where you self-obfuscate. You don't need to repeat yourself as much as you do. If I were to guess, I'd say you like the 'mystery' that your repetition creates in your audience, as it conveys the impression of depth or complexity.

How about yourself Night?

I'm doing alright. Got a good amount of sleep last night. Planning on doing some cardio before work.

 

[Provoker]

Who said anything about me 'inducing' this particular megastructure of text as my final basis for rationalizing you as an ISTJ?

Along with my global observations of your thinking, your in-thread text wall suggests ISTJ.

Whether you are using this "megastructure of text" or that "in-thread text wall" the method of reasoning is inductive, where one begins with observations and then forms generalizations. While induction will never have the strict rigor of deduction, an inductive argument can be better or worse depending on the evidence used to support it. On that note, your argument that I am an ISTJ seems to commit at least two fallacies that make it a weak inductive argument: (1) By not taking into account all of the relevant information you have committed the forgetful induction fallacy. (2) By cherry picking bits and pieces of information that are alleged to support your view, and not considering evidence that contradicts it, you have made a hasty generalization that is based on a biased sample size. Further, it is not clear that this sample itself contributes to your hypothesis; for much of this can be explained perfectly if we suppose the person in question is an INTJ who is rather idiosyncratic and just has a higher T than most INTJs. Thus, one will want to be careful to consider all the evidence before making imprecise generalizations that do not square with reality.

You aren't concise. You discuss, at length, elements of thought that generally have marginal connection to your premise.

This too is based on a set of fallacies. If everything I have ever said was contained in that excerpt, then one might very well conclude that I am not concise. This would again be to commit a forgetful induction fallacy and put forth a rough generalization. On that note, if one were to aggregate all of my posts to see how often I go into nonessential anecdotes, one shall find it is very rare. This one itself was partially prompted by having read Dostoevsky the night before. Therefore, once more information is considered this is better understood as a short-run reversal of a long-run pattern. Still, there is something even more fundamental here. Most of what you put in bold is rather Ni in nature but I suppose that was not as useful for supporting your ISTJ hypothesis.

You haven't. I was offering perspective. Why would you presume disappointment?

Maybe I was testing your capacity for pattern recognition and nothing more. Had you responded with, "no problem, Batman," you may have impressed me.

No, I don't. I simply have access to what you provide. To that end, rationalist epistemology involves empiricism as a basis for reconciling facts with supposition, Provoker. My guess wasn't far off at all. It would be like saying the Constitution doesn't rely on the Preamble as a model for justification of methodology.

For many rationalists, the main criterion of truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive. The hardliners such as Spinoza and Leibniz argued that all knowledge could be gained through reason alone. An example is The Foundations of Arithmetic, where Frege demonstrates that arithmetic is reducible to logic through the use of reason rather than observation. Considering this, and many other cases, it is possible to construct knowledge from reason alone. Therefore, if one can have knowledge without empirical observation than empirical observation is not a necessary requirement for knowledge. Thus, in the strict sense your claim that I require empiricism is false for some things can be known prior to experience. Yet, from a practical point of view you are quite right in saying that empiricism is necessary for considering how facts square with suppositions.

"Truth is [...] the one position worthy of defense?".

Night, why the intellectual dishonesty? I said that the truth "is the one position that may be worthy of defense." It should be noted that the one time you quote me outside of the website's formal quotation tool you misquote me. This is not a coincidence. What has taken place therefore is the construction of a straw man, a dubious device that is based on misrepresenting another's view. Still, even if one grants "is" rather than "may be" for sake of argument, you responded with "No. Not by a long shot." without providing a solid defense.

What followed after that in your post was rather ad homish; therefore, I have no reason to spend time responding to it.

 

[Night]

Whether you are using this "megastructure of text" or that "in-thread text wall" the method of reasoning is inductive, where one begins with observations and then forms generalizations. While induction will never have the strict rigor of deduction, an inductive argument can be better or worse depending on the evidence used to support it. On that note, your argument that I am an ISTJ seems to commit at least two fallacies that make it a weak inductive argument: (1) By not taking into account all of the relevant information you have committed the forgetful induction fallacy.

Don't presume to have a better appraisal than you do of my offered rationale. If anything, my lack of desire in properly defending my perspective would be better classified as an error of 'lazy induction', as I can't be troubled to support my stance better than I have. I have no interest in sifting through your post history to assert a perspective that really means very little more than a passing observation offered for your edification.

As I initially stated, I offered ISTJ 'for your consideration'. I didn't tailor position beyond that simple statement, except when pressed to give additional support to my findings. Your in/compatibility is one of personal reconciliation.

Just make sure you are accurate with your rebuttal. You haven't really produced up to this point, Provoker.

(2) By cherry picking bits and pieces of information that are alleged to support your view, and not considering evidence that contradicts it, you have made a hasty generalization that is based on a biased sample size. Further, it is not clear that this sample itself contributes to your hypothesis; for much of this can be explained perfectly if we suppose the person in question is an INTJ who is rather idiosyncratic and just has a higher T than most INTJs. Thus, one will want to be careful to consider all the evidence before making imprecise generalizations that do not square with reality.

Such is the nature of online interaction, Provoker. My investment in my claim is such that I'm truly unconcerned with how you receive it, to the extent that I'm unwilling to excavate falsifiable findings to support my claim. Develop judgment on that stance how you will.

As an aside, it's clear you're at a hypocritical deficit here. I wonder: have you taken the time to substantiate your claim (sans a cherry-picking approach) to support your flirtatious boasting (see the highlighted phrase) that your T is ostensibly higher than mine?

How coy of you. Next time, be direct. There's no need to retreat behind obfuscation. It's really not all that important what I believe.

This too is based on a set of fallacies. If everything I have ever said was contained in that excerpt, then one might very well conclude that I am not concise. This would again be to commit a forgetful induction fallacy and put forth a rough generalization. On that note, if one were to aggregate all of my posts to see how often I go into nonessential anecdotes, one shall find it is very rare. This one itself was partially prompted by having read Dostoevsky the night before. Therefore, once more information is considered this is better understood as a short-run reversal of a long-run pattern. Still, there is something even more fundamental here. Most of what you put in bold is rather Ni in nature but I suppose that was not as useful for supporting your ISTJ hypothesis.

I think I'm beginning to understand how seriously you take online exchange, Provoker. You submit that, in order to adequately define and defend an offered precept, one should do his due diligent analysis in researching his subject material. How funny.

I've got to be honest, Provoker - I don't take online debates nearly as seriously as you apparently do. I don't have any interest in performing extensive research into the peccadilloes of my subject matter. It's just not that important to me. Were we in a formal setting, my approach would certainly differ. As it stands, I've nothing to gain from outgunning you in a debate. Nothing but wasted time...

As a fun addendum, you aren't as rigorous as you'd like to think. Briefly, it's clear you endeavor to sneak personal opinion on the nature of what you believe constitutes 'concise' vs. 'non-concise' with your personal approach as ostensibly 'concise'. If this isn't the case, you haven't provided substrate to the contrary. Ergo, your distinction forms the basis for what you understand to be 'concise' within the context of our discussion without offering independent variables that could suitably debase your hypothesis.

Bad form, Provoker. Your sample set is marred by observer bias.

Maybe you don't take this as seriously as I thought...

Maybe I was testing your capacity for pattern recognition and nothing more. Had you responded with, "no problem, Batman," you may have impressed me.

No - I'm quite aware that I haven't impressed you. I haven't cited long-dead philosophers or made errors of redundancy or breezy appeals to intellectual authority. What's more, I am direct with my thoughts.

No. Had I impressed you, I would have certainly disappointed myself.

For many rationalists, the main criterion of truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive. The hardliners such as Spinoza and Leibniz argued that all knowledge could be gained through reason alone. An example is The Foundations of Arithmetic, where Frege demonstrates that arithmetic is reducible to logic through the use of reason rather than observation. Considering this, and many other cases, it is possible to construct knowledge from reason alone. Therefore, if one can have knowledge without empirical observation than empirical observation is not a necessary requirement for knowledge. Thus, in the strict sense your claim that I require empiricism is false for some things can be known prior to experience. Yet, from a practical point of view you are quite right in saying that empiricism is necessary for considering how facts square with suppositions.

I've read all this before - just summarized better and with greater fluency of comprehension.

I'm familiar with undergraduate philosophy themes: Do you have any personal thoughts on what constitutes variant forms of knowledge (propositional v. belief v. logical positivism...etc.) as it applies to my initial read that you prefer empiricism?

Night, why the intellectual dishonesty? I said that the truth "is the one position that may be worthy of defense." It should be noted that the one time you quote me outside of the website's formal quotation tool you misquote me. This is not a coincidence. What has taken place therefore is the construction of a straw man, a dubious device that is based on misrepresenting another's view. Still, even if one grants "is" rather than "may be" for sake of argument, you responded with "No. Not by a long shot." without providing a solid defense.

What followed after that in your post was rather ad homish; therefore, I have no reason to spend time responding to it.

Well, my, my - how well the termites have dined. Cherry-picking, for your consideration.

Please - if you opt to respond, do so in a manner that is in fact concise and direct. I don't feel like sifting through another eyesore of text in a failing effort to parse lettered from unlettered thoughts.

If I wanted to read a novel, I'd select a better author.

 

[paintmuffin]

(1) I do not believe in disorder; for rules entail order. As such, when people say things like "I'm disorganized" they are really referring to their lack of efficiency rather than any objective statement about the organization of the world.

(2) I do not believe in spiritualism or mysticism of any kind. But, I do think it is a reasonable conjecture that there are life forms elsewhere in the galaxy; after all, we were able to form.

Wow, I could have WRITTEN this post. I completely agree with everything you've said.
Maybe I'm INTJ after all!

 

[Anastar]

Provoker, have you ever thought of the possibility that you might be an INTP? The way you write and structure your sentences, your sense of routine, it all sounds very Ti, more specifically INTP to me. I have some INTP friends(my brother is also one) and they just sound very similar to you.

I have also noticed a pattern that the INTP's here seem to be able to relate to you, more than likely due to the similar patterns in thinking(Ti).

Anyway, this was just an observation I made based off your post. XD

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

I am loving this thread.

 

[SillySapienne]

Provoker, you honestly think you both speak and write with concision?!?!!?



Really?

Because, from my experiences with you on vent, and through reading *some* of your posts on here, and even listening/watching some of your youtube vids, you tend to, er... I guess, what some would consider as expounding and others as prattling, well, you tend to expound/prattle on.

You kinda remind me of SolitaryWalker, different themes, similar styles.

Kisses,

S.Sapienne