yeah, but focusing on something else is essentially putting a band-aid on the problem (aka repression).
if you spent your thinking energy on the actual emotional problem at hand; if you broke it down into a framework and made perfect sense out of it, you'd be much less likely to be surprised by it later. you wouldn't risk projecting or displacing anger (as much), nor would you find yourself as anxious or annoyed.
you said 3 solid days of study solved the problem. and of course, i'm sure a bunch of emotional processing went on behind the scenes. but what if you spent just a few hours at the beginning doing emotional processing (with your T and F)? you'd have the problem solved instead of hidden, and you'd feel much better, probably making your studying more efficient. you'd probably get more done in the long run anyways.
i guess i can't prove what i'm saying (without running some sort of test), but i think you get what i mean.
thinking does NOT give us a clear perspective of what we should do with our lives. we need to make sure to check with feeling (all the time) to plan effectively. if the point of life is personal happiness maximization (do you agree??), we need F value judgments as the premises for our T conclusions. if we start from a premise that F thinks is "bad", we will certainly not plan effectively.
but consciously getting yourself to focus more on emotion is F by definition. someone who doesn't "have enough interest in emotion to analyze it" must use F more to bring value judgments to consciousness.
Yeah, like I said. I'm trying to give BW the benefit of the doubt here because there is a reasonable point beneath some of that hyperbole. And because he gets a lot of flak here. Not that he doesn't invite it upon himself with said invective, but if it turns out to be his way to blow off steam I don't mind sorting through it for the kernels of truth.
At least, I don't mind it today. I am a fickle F after all, I might mind it tomorrow.
Thoughts can be explained in words, but feelings cannot.
Even if you are the purely logical person as you claim to be, you will experience those 4 emotions at some stage in your life.
Even now, i think logic is subjective, What seems logical to one person may seems illogical to another person.
YOU? An F????
Yeah. Totally. I was thinking about that the other day....like how can you ever be totally objective? I don't think you can.
yeah, but focusing on something else is essentially putting a band-aid on the problem (aka repression)..
but consciously getting yourself to focus more on emotion is F by definition. someone who doesn't "have enough interest in emotion to analyze it" must use F more to bring value judgments to consciousness.
Granted, but this does not mean the true account has been lost, neither does it mean the true account cannot be known. ..
This is not the thread to argue for the clarity of general revelation or the perspicuity of scripture--but I'm willing to discuss these if you are. As for following Jesus blindly, I assure you, that is nowhere in the Bible...
I'm no fideist, and I think you've given some good reasons why no one should be--although I think they could be strengthened. But what about skepticism? Why should I think that being rational will help me lead the good life?
Surprised?
I don't think you can, either, but I think objective truth exists, and we can certainly try to figure out what it is. It is important to remember that we all have our own lenses that distort truth to whatever degree.
Yes, that is correct. Which is why you will never meet NF people as 'out there' as I have described them. Even the craziest of NFs had some kind of Thinking in them and usually enough to avoid running amuck with their Feelings. Yet, unfortunately too many of them had too little Thinking in them and championed very unreasonable values and visions.
That is clearly so. Nothing in the world is random. By random I meant, emotions do not bear a logical relation to each other. For example, an overly emotional person may have emotions of guilt, anxiety, ecstasy, whatever, triggered by a refrigerator. There is no direct logical relationship between the refrigerator and such feelings. But the reason they turn out to have such feelings triggered is because their refrigerator reminded them of some scary event in their lives. They may even consciously assert that the refrigerator is evil. A logical person would see that there is no connection between the two.
Many of the N dominated NFs I have met, especially INFJs seemed practically insane to me. Historical case in point, INFJ Dostoevsky persuades the ignorant Russian peasant folk that their country has been chosen by God to be the new Israel! This is why God put Mother Russian through this much suffering, he is putting her to test only to be rewarded for her faithfulness later on! This led to rabid worship of Russian soil which had almost no bearing upon reality and seemed to be wholly a concoction of his imagination.
Noone thought that he was God's son, however or that whoever rejects his teaching shall be commited to the flames for eternity. There clearly was less passion involved here than with the NF leaders, and his teaching was more clearly presented, so more difficult for charlatans to exploit.
Truth is absolute. Either my car is white or not white. Either John took my shoes or he did not. Our knowledge may not be absolute as we could have made many errors in our attempt to understand what the truth is.
Strawman fallacy would be if I misrepresented my opponent's case.
For example, John says my car runs fast because it has an engine from 2005 by GM.
If I respond, oh your engine is from GM, that is why it runs fast?
That'd be a strawman as I am misrepresenting what he said to make his case seem weaker.
Proof by assertion? That would be if I said this is just the way it is, and I refuse to explain why it is this way.
That is irrelevant bibliographical information.
No, no. Your whole psychological mindset changes as your passions become neutralized. Focus on dispassionate endeavors is therapeutic in this regard. Not all passions will neutralized.
If you were dispassionate for long enough, you will go back to think about the things that have bothered you, but the negative emotive energy will no longer be present as it is focused on something else.
Granted. Thought it is more efficient to analyze your emotions after they were tamed, not before. As you shall meet less resistance this way.
The question I invite you to explore is whether or not NFs truly have fulfilled their causes. Or in other words, are their endeavors truly worthwhile?
I am not talking about my dislike of Feeling. Only objective arguments concerning Feeling.
The argument was about the essence of Feeling, as an element in itself it does not tell us what things are, only how agreeable they are to me.
Take it from there..try to keep it within context next time. Dont read between the lines in attempt to psychologize BlueWing, just respond to what is stated.
I didn't read the whole thread, but I will comment the opening post. You basically say that world would be a better place without NF leaders/inspiration. You say they haven't got a concrete idea, so it cannot work.
I am sure that while Jesus didn't articulate his perfect way perfectly, it still was a concrete example. His life was turned into teaching. You read what he did and you see that there must have been extremely solid foundation for his belief. F does not mean that I go with the tide. I have hierarchy for my values. I respect one rules as long as a big rule is not being challenged. This kind of thinking is not useless. If you only think with T, you'll be smart. But smart people without moral would be even worse than stupid people with morals. Think about "turning the other cheek". How strong you need to be to take voluntarily another punch? This is not some "vague" value that makes you so determined.
You see the NF movements gone bad. They didn't go bad because Jesus or Buddha was wrong. They went bad because they turned into institutions. The institutions started guarding the value that was going out of date. Some religions still mutilate their children for some old rule. At the moment here church is fighting about gay marriages. F-values evolve, as do your T-ideas. If your idols had settled with 2000-year-old formula and kept to it, sure it would be out of date by now. The mistake was not that we have extraordinarily good people to show us example. The mistake was to not allow people to take those values further.
And you know. The absence of a good example makes also a big difference. I see many todays values being messed up, and the reason is because everyone is so tired with the old, out-dated religions that they choose not to believe into anything. I know people who think dog-eat-dog, and this is only beginning. It cant be good to take away moral examples. They just shouldn't be thought to be universal truths, they should be seen as products of their time.
You know, people have a lot more practice of the T-world... this is maybe the biggest reason for the childish use of religion. Nobody teaches you how to really evaluate values, only to accept them. You could say that world has depended so one-sidedly on their logic that their feeling is starving..
Or, how about we put it a bit differently. You have an image of the world, which is probably science based. This image of "everything" cannot be articulated. The same goes for a feeler. You would have to put the picture into smaller pieces that you can articulate, still the big picture is in your mind. It is a reality. In the same way I can say that I have a code that works universally for everything I see. Difference between you and me is in preferences. I would rate moral values higher and they would definitely be big parts of my picture, while you could have some scientific theories up there. This difference does not mean that my pieces are less efficiently organized. They have logic in them, because they are related. Check this, I try to give some example of the relation of my values:
- "People should be respected"
- "Do good things and don't do bad things"
Now, these seem simple. But what if someone is mean to me or to someone else? Should I respect him? For this there has to be another, more specific rule.
- "Stopping bad people is a good deed"
Now the two values do not contradict, but since "bad people" is vague term, it needs more to it. So, I have all kinds of "small principles" for specific situations.
- "People cannot be changed"
- "Good people should be defended"
- "Bad people are to be pitied"
- "Trying is not doing"
- "Forgive"
etc
Now, they start to make sense as a big picture and I have my code for nearly all situations. It does make sense to me and if it doesn't, I will feel bad. When I have failed to obey my code, I feel like shit. And I should add that this code is also based on logic. If there's a theory that I accept as part of my values, it becomes integrated. The thing is, I don't do this if I don't "believe" in it. The logic supports the feeling in my case. All of the rules can be logically defended if needed. Their overall function is to make the world at least a bit more friendly place. If there is a theory that contradicts, it will be abandoned, even if it is "true", since it doesn't have the objective I have. Is this not logical? I can't have my principles taking me to different directions.
Woah. Bluewing coming at us hard. I don't think I complete appreciate it...lol
Of course we could all be NT's and the world would be a miserable bitter place
The_Liquid_Laser;274364[B said:]The whole first post is full of subjectivity. [/B]It operates under the assumption that thinking is the ultimate good, and therefore feeling is the ultimate evil. Since this assumption is so radically subjective, then all "logical" conclusions that come from it are also radically subjective.
The question I invite you to explore is whether or not NFs truly have fulfilled their causes. Or in other words, are their endeavors truly worthwhile?
First of all we should define the matter of the situation as clearly as possible.
What kind of causes do NFs tend to fight for? In literature they are portrayed as fighters for the happiness of society, the common good, and the welfare of the individual.
Some examples of those would certainly be Buddha, Jesus and Ghandi.
We know for sure that this is what the NFs are portrayed as fighters of. But was this really the case?
In order to truly know this we must psychologize those heroes to see what they were thinking.
A first step to this would be attempting to discover how an NF's mind works, granted of course that the NF is a pure type.
They are first and foremost concerned with collecting abstract perceptions of the environment and then making value judgments about those perceptions.
Both of these are amorphous, as few would find it hard to agree that Feeling is not nearly as neatly organized as thinking. It is moosh.
Intuition is simply pure abstract perception. From this it seems we are in the position to adduce that the NFs are unlikely to have a clear view of the causes they were fighting for.
To answer the earlier question, were the causes they truly stood for as magnanimous as we think they were. We do not know. Neither do they. Unless of course those NFs were exceptionally gifted at the use of their inferior or tertiary Thinking faculty, which is highly doubtful.
What else do we know about Feeling? That it tends to dramatize? Prone to wishful thinking? It seems far more likely that the causes appear magnanimous because NFs and their followers have romanticized them.
The truth is they were confused individuals driven by blind and amorphous forces of passion who made such great noise of their endeavors because they sought approbation from others. Much akin to a typical drama queen. All of us who operate almost exclusively on emotion will obviously seek affirmation for our passions and will clamor at great length to receive the approval we seek. This is clearly descriptive of the NF stereotype. And certainly the heroes of history such as those listed above were very reminiscent of the NF stereotype.
In the end, no they have not fulfilled their causes because they did not know what their causes were. Because their modus operandi and message were highly emotional and had little respect for the truth their life and quest were distorted. As a result we have many stories concerning how they fulfilled this or that romantic mission without having a clear idea of what this mission is, much of which has been fabricated altogether by their followers who eulogize them without respite. They are but prey to urban legend for us to exercise our imagination upon, their statures have degenerated into an empty vessel for us to fill in with whatever may serve our purpose. This is why we have many different sects who profess to be followers of Jesus who all have radically different views of who he was and what he taught. This has gone on until Emperor Constantine exacted pogroms of those who disagreed with his view of that man's teaching. Same could be said for Muhammad, Buddha, Ghandi or any other leader who has been purported to have shown us the path to virtue.
All worldviews founded upon emotion and not clear-cut rationale are bound to degenerate into chicanery. They will later be used as an instrument to promote a political agenda of this or that delegation. The Taliban, the Ku Klux Klan, modern Christianity, are all founded on amorphous values and for political reasons insist on proselytizing to the end of convincing others to embrace their values. They are all mendacious and rapacious and I think will end up destroying civilization. All springing out of the root of NF causes.
We ought to stop trying to turn Earth into heaven, as we have only succeeded in turning it into hell. NFs ought to stop acting out on their Feelings, no matter how strongly they feel they are doing a good thing. Not only will the vision likely be confusing and inapplicable to the real world, but also being driven by emotion will also lead to a confusing mindset. As obviously emotions do not give us a clear perspective, one distinct example of this is the aforementioned need for approbation such a mindset leads to. This alone suggests that such a hero was driven by unworthy motives. Thirdly, this opens the door for charlatans to take advantage of the cause in any way they see fit.
If we truly have serious intentions about making the world a better place we ought to stop and think, organize our mindset into something coherent and then see how this could be implemented to the external world. It should be founded upon a clear-cut rationale concerning making the world a better place, not torrential passions.
That is simply false. Most groups of scholars have arrived at an objective conclusions about the teaching of Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Einstein..etc...and in almost all universities you go to, there is a convention for what should be taught to students as ideas of these men.
This is because they stated their views in clear and objective terms and not in random bursts of passion.
And I have further edited my post.
But, that is psychologically impossible, as I stated above. All meaningful claims are either subjective or have underlying subjective assumptions.There would be a lot less of this problem if those people founded their claims on dispassionate, logically consistent reasoning rather than blind, amorphous passions run amuck.
Meh, I'm both an atheist and a "spiritual" person, something that drives both religious people and NT and ST nonbelievers crazy!Haha.
I don't care to get involved in this but let's just say that trying
to understand spirituality and emotion from an INTP standpoint can only fail.
For that you should have at least some Ni or Fi, INTPs lack both.
"Mystics can understand scientists, but scientists can never understand mystics."
DING DING DING DING!!! We have a winner!!!1. being a feeler does not mean you make all your decisions in the heart of emotional turmoil. all it means, is that you make VALUE BASED DECISIONS. THEY CAN STILL BE RATIONAL AND STAND ON THEIR OWN AS MUCH AS 2 + 2 = 4: altruism, nurturing, forgiveness, not trying to fuck everyone over that you deal with in business just because you can. value based decisions can be still rational and/or irrational in the way 2 + 2 can equal 5 and 2 + 2 cannot equal 6.
just because some idiot over in isheeevamedrawewrs islama land has made an irrational use of value based judgements does not mean that feeling is inherently an irrational function. "logic" Te, Se... hell, "any function users" can be just as bad at creating horrible logic to justify some terrible idea or justice.
2.
"All worldviews founded upon emotion and not clear-cut rationale are bound to degenerate into chicanery. They will later be used as an instrument to promote a political agenda of this or that delegation. The Taliban, the Ku Klux Klan, modern Christianity, are all founded on amorphous values and for political reasons insist on proselytizing to the end of convincing others to embrace their values. They are all mendacious and rapacious and I think will end up destroying civilization. All springing out of the root of NF causes."
Just because some OTHER idiot misuses the original texts or drives a cause beyond where its original intent was, does not indict the ORIGINAL MOVEMENT:
example: there is very little biblical basis for most of what the catholic church does administratively and powers of their ritual. Therefore i would say it is wrong to blame jesus for THEIR screw ups. The crusades were fought by mostly non christian and was more of a cultural war. the crusader armies even sacked european cities just for the pilage (indicative of their true motives in joining the crusades). there is a huge and obvious difference between accusing the neighbor widow of killing your cow and actaul demonic happenings (the witch trials are another horrible way to "crucify" christianity).
3. we live in a very dumb world. the average IQ is actually SCARY when you think about what kind of intellect the avg person is working with. I would argue that if everyone were a "T" trying to be "logical" all the time with over half the pop with less than a 100 IQ, we'd actually be more likely to get these crazy ideologies you attribute to F's because they would find scary ways to "logically" justify suppressed feelings.
4. I would argue that more world evils are committed by T people like yourself, who suppress and then justify their weak value judgment faculties with their overly trusted logical rationalizing of what they do....
5.
the real problem is not that people make value judgments. the problem is when people think they can rationalize EVERYTHING. and so rather than analyze how these value judgments affect people, they just spend time devising what sounds the most logical:
example evidence: EUGENICS. eugenics actaully logically makes a TON of LOGICAL sense for the human race. round up every fat perosn, every AIDS patient, every retard, every Bi polar and euthanize them. The best genes will continue on for the best of the human race.
eugenics is my best example for what a world of T's without value judgments would look like....