• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[NT] Do NTs care about anything outside of logic?

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
I find when NTs can't justify their values with reason, they objectify them and claim they exist as natural laws or standards in the objective world. Then they can reason that anyone who doesn't follow them is both immoral and irrational.

:)

The nature of a thing (and thus the laws that govern its nature) is determined by its essence, and its essence is discovered by using reason to make distinctions between what it is and what it is not.

Faith, as a philosophical ideal.

Assembling a system of belief without empirical proof.

I suppose the application of which could be as simple as (to your example) having a reasonable belief that I'll wake up tomorrow. On a larger scale, the concept of faith could be diversified to incorporate an enduring reliance on...of all things, academic empiricism. (Logic)

:vader1:

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" (Heb 11:1, NIV).

This is what I'm not seeing, either...

'Logic' is not a thing left alone by itself. It must be applied to things to exist. It's less of a thing that has an 'inside' and an 'outside,' like the study of music or a building, but rather a worldview.

Even though many people compartmentalize religion and the rest of their lives, there are people with a 'religious worldview.' It's difficult to separate religion from how they perceive the world (for better or for worse). A 'logical' view of the world is most natural for NTs -- as in seeing things in terms of logic is the default. That doesn't mean it's the only way for them to see the world, but it's the most natural way.

Damn Hap! How old are you?

If you don't mind, please unpack what you meant when you said that logic must be applied to things that exist.

Axioms... is the law of noncontradiction universally valid? (this goes back to the first point about 'systems of logic') In other words, if A is true, then not-A must be false, and if not-A is true, then A must be false... well, as someone mentioned, quantum mechanics has turned such notions on their heads! It seems, from what little we're finding out, that certain subatomic particles can both occupy and be absent from the same space at the same time… not-A and A are both true AND false (at the same ‘now’)… so the law of contradiction breaks down… but does it still hold true on the macro scale? How do we determine WHEN/WHERE/---- it breaks down?

Think of all the assumptions our thoughts rely on… I don’t want to keep blabbing… I’ll summarize… this is my main point:

An _NT_ who really uses logic to view the world and understand her/himself is the least logical person in the world if he/she doesn’t realize the limitations of and question her/his logical systems… the inevitable end of logic as a whole is its self-questioning… and beyond all this, just because you’re an NT doesn’t make you some stereotypical lizard-like scientist bah-humbugging art and literature as wishy-washy and illogical… in fact, it may lead you more into art and literature as alternative logics… I may be misreading myself, but that’s how I got into literature and abandoned (as a professional option) physics…

Is the law of non-contradiction not one of the assumptions our thoughts rely on? Should we view or thoughts in light of our experience or should we view or experience in light of our thoughts?

Damn good thread.

I'll be back.
 
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
1,026
MBTI Type
ENTP
The nature of a thing (and thus the laws that govern its nature) is determined by its essence, and its essence is discovered by using reason to make distinctions between what it is and what it is not.

. . . .

Is the law of non-contradiction not one of the assumptions our thoughts rely on? Should we view or thoughts in light of our experience or should we view or experience in light of our thoughts?

The problem with the notion of all things, each and every one, having an essence, is that it inevitably brings us back to form-function and Platonic ideas... does a hammer have the essence of hammerness, or do we imbue it with that? If you chip away at the hammer's handle steadily, bit by bit, when does it stop, if at all, being a hammer? What happens if the whole handle (assuming the handle is made of wood and the head of some kind of metal) is chipped away and you're left with a hammer-head? What is it? A hammer-head or a piece of metal? I might still be able to use it as a hammer...

As for what you said about the law of non-contradiction... it certainly is one of the axiomatic rules of logic most people, at least formally, follow. it certainly is inviolable in courts of law (if the murder took place in San Francisco, and the suspect was in New York at the time of the murder, the suspect gets acquitted... at least as far as being the person who pulled the trigger)... but when it comes to quantum physics, or art, or double-entendres in literature, or faith... the law of non-contradiction is often abandoned, or dropped halfway in...
 

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
The problem with the notion of all things, each and every one, having an essence, is that it inevitably brings us back to form-function and Platonic ideas... does a hammer have the essence of hammerness, or do we imbue it with that? If you chip away at the hammer's handle steadily, bit by bit, when does it stop, if at all, being a hammer? What happens if the whole handle (assuming the handle is made of wood and the head of some kind of metal) is chipped away and you're left with a hammer-head? What is it? A hammer-head or a piece of metal? I might still be able to use it as a hammer...

Your argument sounds approximate to an interesting (Copenhagen Convention Effect) scientific posit: Does an object exist in superposition to all other objects (and points) until it is classified by a sentient party?

Does said classification reduce the complexity (and subsequent creativity) of the once-unclassified object?
 

mysavior

Permabanned
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
147
MBTI Type
IT
Wrong preconceptions, damn I hate them.

Bad assumptions, god do they suck ass.

Jumping to inaccurate conclusions, what a waste.

Simple.
 

Haphazard

Don't Judge Me!
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
6,704
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Damn Hap! How old are you?

If you don't mind, please unpack what you meant when you said that logic must be applied to things that exist.

Umm. I'm fifteen.

I didn't say that it had to be applied to things that exist, but that it (logic) must be applied to things if it (logic) is to exist. Logic cannot exist on its own. It has to be attached to something else, whether it be physical things, concepts, ideas, or more logic. Reason cannot exist if there's nothing to reason.

That's all I meant.
 

Geoff

Lallygag Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
5,584
MBTI Type
INXP
Are you answering my question with a question?

Indeed. Plus, you know full well why. Question is : do you want to address the implied point, or do you just prefer to argue? I'd rather lose and learn something, myself :)
 
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
1,026
MBTI Type
ENTP
Umm. I'm fifteen.

I didn't say that it had to be applied to things that exist, but that it (logic) must be applied to things if it (logic) is to exist. Logic cannot exist on its own. It has to be attached to something else, whether it be physical things, concepts, ideas, or more logic. Reason cannot exist if there's nothing to reason.

That's all I meant.

I think Haphazard makes a good point. In my reading, he's talking about logical rules as applied to empirical data. The relevance of general rules to particular events. Logic "on its own" is like a long discussion about nothing. But logic is an idealized model of A follows B and this doesn't always work.

Haphazard, even though you're only in high school, I would suggest that you get in touch with some Kant, if you haven't already. Not that I'm saying he's right (I'm not!)... but he investigates issues like this very deeply. Indeed, he raises questions regarding just how far we can apply universal laws of logic to the so-called "real world", citing the divide between us and the world (mediated by the senses, intuition, reason, so forth) as an explanation for why we can never prove the existence or non-existence of God, Immortality, and the Soul. Some would say this extends in to much of human affairs, maybe even all affairs that are distinctively human. I, though, disagree on this last point. A lot to learn about here.
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
The problem with the notion of all things, each and every one, having an essence, is that it inevitably brings us back to form-function and Platonic ideas... does a hammer have the essence of hammerness, or do we imbue it with that? If you chip away at the hammer's handle steadily, bit by bit, when does it stop, if at all, being a hammer? What happens if the whole handle (assuming the handle is made of wood and the head of some kind of metal) is chipped away and you're left with a hammer-head? What is it? A hammer-head or a piece of metal? I might still be able to use it as a hammer...

As for what you said about the law of non-contradiction... it certainly is one of the axiomatic rules of logic most people, at least formally, follow. it certainly is inviolable in courts of law (if the murder took place in San Francisco, and the suspect was in New York at the time of the murder, the suspect gets acquitted... at least as far as being the person who pulled the trigger)... but when it comes to quantum physics, or art, or double-entendres in literature, or faith... the law of non-contradiction is often abandoned, or dropped halfway in...

Every individual has an essence. Form/function? To be is to do, and I learn about your essence based on what you do. The essence of a thing is the set of qualities that thing, and only that thing, always has. Sets of things can also have an essence: the desiderata being the set of qualities that all members and only members always have. We may not have sufficient data to determine what a thing is, and we'll never know everything about anything, but that doesn't mean we can't know something about some things--based on what they do.

:confused: I don't see the problem.

I think Haphazard makes a good point. In my reading, he's talking about logical rules as applied to empirical data. The relevance of general rules to particular events. Logic "on its own" is like a long discussion about nothing. But logic is an idealized model of A follows B and this doesn't always work.

Haphazard, even though you're only in high school, I would suggest that you get in touch with some Kant, if you haven't already. Not that I'm saying he's right (I'm not!)... but he investigates issues like this very deeply. Indeed, he raises questions regarding just how far we can apply universal laws of logic to the so-called "real world", citing the divide between us and the world (mediated by the senses, intuition, reason, so forth) as an explanation for why we can never prove the existence or non-existence of God, Immortality, and the Soul. Some would say this extends in to much of human affairs, maybe even all affairs that are distinctively human. I, though, disagree on this last point. A lot to learn about here.

A fifteen year old reading Kant? nice. I think Hap's ready for him.

As for logic being applied to things, I don't think we disagree, but I may have jumped forward. Logic can't exist on its own; it has to be applied to something, else it is divested of meaning. As you said, "Logic "on its own" is like a long discussion about nothing." Is it possible to have a meaningful conversation about nothing?
 
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
1,026
MBTI Type
ENTP
Every individual has an essence. Form/function? To be is to do, and I learn about your essence based on what you do. The essence of a thing is the set of qualities that thing, and only that thing, always has. Sets of things can also have an essence: the desiderata being the set of qualities that all members and only members always have. We may not have sufficient data to determine what a thing is, and we'll never know everything about anything, but that doesn't mean we can't know something about some things--based on what they do.

:confused: I don't see the problem.

Unfortunately, I'm quite a nominalist (not strong, but still)... I fear that talk of essences tends to project mental categories (NOT in the Kantian sense) onto the world outside, as opposed to acknowledging talk of 'essence' as being just, in my thinking, a way of seeing something, not as a concrete element of what it is. So at this point, we're at a bit of an impasse.
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
Unfortunately, I'm quite a nominalist (not strong, but still)... I fear that talk of essences tends to project mental categories (NOT in the Kantian sense) onto the world outside, as opposed to acknowledging talk of 'essence' as being just, in my thinking, a way of seeing something, not as a concrete element of what it is. So at this point, we're at a bit of an impasse.

Perhaps.

But, it seems, you do find it permissible to speak as if something is. If we are capable of making this distinction, (between being and non-being) then what's to keep us from making more distinctions about what is?
 
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
1,026
MBTI Type
ENTP
Perhaps.

But, it seems, you do find it permissible to speak as if something is. If we are capable of making this distinction, (between being and non-being) then what's to keep us from making more distinctions about what is?

Unless I go all Gayatri Spivak and put the copula "is" under erasure... but yes, I do feel we must assert that things are...

I agree that we are capable of making the distinction between being and non-being... though I'm starting to get scared... what is "non-being" aside from not-being being? Anyway... onwards...

We can make distinctions about what-is more easily than asserting exactly 'what'/'why'/'how' what-is... for instance, this thing presents these sorts of impressions to me... I can attribute certain qualities to it... for instance... this orange object has small, let's call them seeds which when planted in soil tend to grow into trees... there is a yellow object which does not have seeds which are viable, sometimes do not have seeds at all... both the yellow and orange objects share the qualities of having sweet-to-us fleshy insides which we can eat and benefit from nutritionally and come from trees... lets call both of them fruits...

yellow fruit and orange fruit.... banana and orange... modern store-bought bananas often have no viable seeds, orange has seeds... yet both are fruits...

what are the essences of bananas and oranges? Particularly between newer varieties of bananas versus regular oranges? Do they share essences? Or are they all their own, banana-essence and orange-essence... in which case, why are they both called fruits? Are their essences to be possessed of fruitness?

Have we made a mistake?

So... I guess what I'm saying is that.... there could be essences, but I've had no luck finding a really solid proof that essences are what we say they are, or that even one particular object or thing or person has had a properly-described essence... if I can't be shown analytically that even one particular object has an essence, how can I believe that there are essences?

In other words, I just have to have some faith that things have essences...

So, I do distinguish between being and non-being... another long discussion which will take me back to Heidegger, whom I don't understand. But I can't yet accept the notion of essences... which doesn't mean I can't joyfully accept "specific difference"... I am a big fan of "specific difference"...

So, I weakly reject the notion that we can wholly describe the essence of something, but I strongly accept the notion that we can differentiate between existing things.

I hope that made sense.... how would you justify essence?

Edit: P.S. I realize that these posts, particularly the dialogue between Owl and me, are veering quickly off-topic... but they may be instructive... as to the apparently prevalent opinion that NTs are logic-monsters... but I'm getting impatient with this discussion, because I realize that logic's only going to get me so far... and impatience is a sort of feeling, n'est-ce pas?
 

Domino

ENFJ In Chains
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
11,429
MBTI Type
eNFJ
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
People, please. There's no pertinent question here.

Everyone knows that NTs are robots. I mean, seriously. How do you think those puddles of oil and tranny fluid wind up in parking lots? You might say "cars", but you'd be wrong. It's robots. NT robots. And Canadians.
 

sriv

New member
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
418
MBTI Type
JIxT
People, please. There's no pertinent question here.

Everyone knows that NTs are robots. I mean, seriously. How do you think those puddles of oil and tranny fluid wind up in parking lots? You might say "cars", but you'd be wrong. It's robots. NT robots. And Canadians.

I'd rather be made of metal than semi-solid fluid.

To answer the question - I care about things outside of logic, but not as much as much.
 
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
1,026
MBTI Type
ENTP
People, please. There's no pertinent question here.

Everyone knows that NTs are robots. I mean, seriously. How do you think those puddles of oil and tranny fluid wind up in parking lots? You might say "cars", but you'd be wrong. It's robots. NT robots. And Canadians.

"tranny fluid" ... :doh:
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
Unless I go all Gayatri Spivak and put the copula "is" under erasure... but yes, I do feel we must assert that things are...

I agree that we are capable of making the distinction between being and non-being... though I'm starting to get scared... what is "non-being" aside from not-being being? Anyway... onwards...

We can make distinctions about what-is more easily than asserting exactly 'what'/'why'/'how' what-is... for instance, this thing presents these sorts of impressions to me... I can attribute certain qualities to it... for instance... this orange object has small, let's call them seeds which when planted in soil tend to grow into trees... there is a yellow object which does not have seeds which are viable, sometimes do not have seeds at all... both the yellow and orange objects share the qualities of having sweet-to-us fleshy insides which we can eat and benefit from nutritionally and come from trees... lets call both of them fruits...

yellow fruit and orange fruit.... banana and orange... modern store-bought bananas often have no viable seeds, orange has seeds... yet both are fruits...

what are the essences of bananas and oranges? Particularly between newer varieties of bananas versus regular oranges? Do they share essences? Or are they all their own, banana-essence and orange-essence... in which case, why are they both called fruits? Are their essences to be possessed of fruitness?

Have we made a mistake?

So... I guess what I'm saying is that.... there could be essences, but I've had no luck finding a really solid proof that essences are what we say they are, or that even one particular object or thing or person has had a properly-described essence... if I can't be shown analytically that even one particular object has an essence, how can I believe that there are essences?

In other words, I just have to have some faith that things have essences...

So, I do distinguish between being and non-being... another long discussion which will take me back to Heidegger, whom I don't understand. But I can't yet accept the notion of essences... which doesn't mean I can't joyfully accept "specific difference"... I am a big fan of "specific difference"...

So, I weakly reject the notion that we can wholly describe the essence of something, but I strongly accept the notion that we can differentiate between existing things.

I hope that made sense.... how would you justify essence?

Edit: P.S. I realize that these posts, particularly the dialogue between Owl and me, are veering quickly off-topic... but they may be instructive... as to the apparently prevalent opinion that NTs are logic-monsters... but I'm getting impatient with this discussion, because I realize that logic's only going to get me so far... and impatience is a sort of feeling, n'est-ce pas?

I think you and I are going to get on splendidly!

How do I justify essences?

The essence of a thing just is what that thing is particularly. If you'd like, we could substitute talk of essences for what a thing is particularly, based on its specific differences.

But differences are based on what thing is and what it isn
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
The essence of a thing just is what that thing is particularly. If you'd like, we could substitute talk of essences for what a thing is particularly, based on its specific differences.

I would love to xD

Havent read more so far, but I guess the answer is no :)
 

Brendan

Guerilla Urbanist
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
911
MBTI Type
ENFJ
I think "do NTs care about anything independently of logic" would be a bit of a better question.
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
I just noticed that not all of my last post posted. Lame.

Anyway, I hope you find the answers you seek.

I would love to xD

Havent read more so far, but I guess the answer is no :)

What was the question?
 
Top