Fi Ne Si/Te:
Example?
Case study: INFP mama
1) Animals - ethics (with the F-twist)
My INFP mama on why not to leave our pet bird out while her friends may gather in the house.
Me: Is it because it annoys the guests? Because, if it's not a formal get-togther, just your friends dropping by, why would you feel the need to move her?
Mama: It's inhumane, because they don't understand her (the bird)....so when they laugh at her tricks/antics, it's not like us (meaning the family), who have learned and now understand her ways.
Me:
2) Belly button ring
Me: I wanna get it pierced
Mama: If you want to mutilate the symbolic bond/thread between a mother and a child, go right ahead....
Me:
Its difficult to explain without making me sound like a nutter . Its an intrinsic, instinctive unconscious impression that all things have some sort of emotional quality, admittedly, mostly of the imagined, projected kind. [...] As I've said in other threads, INFPs see meaning in everything
Qre:us, it might be that your mum feels sensitive about what is hers to protect and defend. She may see that bird as a part of what defines her, it is something she loves and cares about and for people to laugh and make comments about it would, by extension, be perceived as a indirect attack on her. She wants to keep the bird out of it so she doesn't have to explain or justify the behaviour of the bird, and therefore, herself.
I think morality can be rational, believe me I've taken philosophy and ethics classes. In those classes you hade to provide logical step-by-step argument as to why something is ethical or not.
OMG, I say things like that.
I once said to a pathologist who was being very unco-operative "I guess you'll be explaining to the patient's grieving family why we couldn't issue a particular drug that could have saved thier life."
It was a question of money, you see....The drug costs $500 a gram, and for it to be effective you need about 6grms. It was life and death.
What you rather have; a three thousand dollar debt, or a dead family member?
I know which one I'd have. So I think Qre:us, you have us pegged.
lol. i totally get that type of rational, even if it doesnt seem that logical
However, based on what you provided, it seems like your mom is saying it bothers HER, not the bird. Your mom cares for the bird and it probably hurts her to see it disrespected by people who she feels are ignorant on this subject.
You could have just said, 'I'm decorating it to emphasize it and bring it out, so other people will appreciate our symbolic bond'!
It bothers her, on behalf of the bird, and yes, herself as well. She's all about the underdog, the vulnerable, no stray left behind, type of deal. In these situations, it's hard to cleanly separate her from her cause, maybe an INFP thing? Dunno.
Heh! She would have replied that my tastes are tacky, so I'm mocking the bond more than aesthetically celebrating it. It's never-ending...such walks in rule-less rationalization.
Well, it would be interesting if Q could ask her mother what signals the bird uses to communicate with her. I would be interested in that. It's a lovely topic.
Me: I wanna get it pierced
Mama: If you want to mutilate the symbolic bond/thread between a mother and a child, go right ahead....
I am. You're not.We'reYou're not.
Me: I wanna get it pierced
Mama: If you want to mutilate the symbolic bond/thread between a mother and a child, go right ahead....
Me:
I haven't read any of the other responses, but my first reaction to this is a tongue-in-cheek humour intended to catch you off-guard. At least it would be if I said it ...
I gave tongue-in-cheek funny examples...to kinda stretch the points to obvious 'irrationality'...
(humour is so subjective)
People's behaviors, feelings, perceptions, ideals make up a kind of imprecise data. No one can know with 100% certainty what motivates a behavior or what a particular emotional experience is like through someone else's eyes. If enough time is spent gathering this subjective data, it is possible to make approximations. Because it has these fuzzy boundaries, it requires taking in more nuance information overall before patterns evolve. You have to get a baseline for how an individual or society operates and that requires paying attention to a lot of details. Just because a certain type of data is approximate by its nature, this doesn't mean it cannot be processed in a rational manner.* can morality be rational? Can [subjective] morality be rational?
The problem with subjective morality is that it can more easily conflict with objective morality, or someone else's subjective morality. At least those with objective morality speak a common language: reason.
A few admittedly extreme examples:
Case 1: Stranded on a Desert Island
Subjective morality: We can't eat the only bird on this island! He is stuck here in the same battle for survival as us.
Objective morality: Many people eat birds every day. We will die if we don't eat that bird. It has lost the battle for survival.
Case 2: My Religion is The Truth
Subjective morality: My religion is The Truth. People who do not accept it are evil because they either cannot see the Truth, or reject it. They should die to further the cause of Truth.
Objective morality: Humankind would descend into chaos, and possibly extinction if people were allowed to kill others, therefore, killing someone is immoral.
I thought maybe I was just a bad person.
We'reYou're not.
I am. You're not.
Having faulty data is not going to produce the most rational outcome. If the assumptions are incorrect then the principle of caring for the bird's feeling may be misapplied. The first step is to determine the needs of the bird. The bird does not experience embarrassment in a human context. That is projection. It is false information. The bird could possible experience some kind of anxiety at having a large number of unfamiliar creatures in the house making noise. The guests could pose a threat or seem predatory if they chase the bird or make noise. If this will upset the bird on the birds terms and in a completely bird-like experience, then it is moral to take into consideration the bird's well-being and keep her away from the guests and remain in peace.My INFP mama on why not to leave our pet bird out while her friends may gather in the house.
Me: Is it because it annoys the guests? Because, if it's not a formal get-togther, just your friends dropping by, why would you feel the need to move her?
Mama: It's inhumane, because they don't understand her (the bird)....so when they laugh at her tricks/antics, it's not like us (meaning the family), who have learned and now understand her ways.
Me:
I'm not falling for your distraction tactics. Let's stay focused on the real issue: Give me back my firetruck! Mine!We are in a room filled with various gizmos and gagetry (and TOYS!). I am standing directly in front of you, both in the center, and you see my world behind me, just as I can only see *your* world behind you. ...blah blah blah blah...
Maybe this should be an argument for the necessity of defining an absolute?We may objectively know to give directions by an absolute. Because absolute assumes 1. (Agreed upon) 1. But, in our everyday dealings, it is very rare we can know which way is our North, South, East, West...
They're not moot, just glossed over!And, this room....we encounter everyday in life. Where absolutes are moot, not just ours, but are mine, yours, his, hers, its, theirs, perceptions. Depending on where each of us are standing (and interacting..and how) with others in that room. Time. Change. Constant kinetic motion.
I likely agree with you. I think the objective needs to be defined before there is a basis for the subjective, otherwise nothing has meaning beyond an individual.And, in here comes, imo, the value of subjective morality. If the room was the actual world, and situations got even more muddy than left & right and up and down...with such things as compassion, love, kinship, altruism, friendships.
I think we can still find a common reason for such subjective need for morality.
Well, if we want to optimize survival, without any mushy kinship, religion, or otherwise, subjective shyte kicking in....we should battle out each other, victor eats the loser. Heartier meal. Who cares if you only eat birds every day and humans no day. You will die, man, you will die! Eat the brother!
* Caveat ^: now if the 'we' you speak of, was the other a female...that above eating analogy, would take a...ahem...nose-dive...and, may change the argument...
I concede this mute point.I would try to counter this...but in my head, on repeat: religions are whack. Sorry, no go!
Our mind maybe, but not everyone's. I would say the objective truth is logic and reason. My informal research shows that 98% of minds are not operating in the context of this objective truth.The only thing that affords us this: the theory of objective morality...that there is ONE TRUTH to how the world works. Is. Our. Mind. Without which, we wouldn't have this discussion of objective truths. Nor...morals. Either way.
Wait! If you're the Devil's advocate, then maybe you are a bad person!Damn straight! (you and/or me)