totally true. However. all of us evolved under the same pressure more or less. So to work alongside of the rest of society, to change them, interact with them, convince them and so on, you must recogize those instincts and recognize how each will work with and against you in the projects/tasks that wish to accomplish.
I agree that it is important to carefully evaluate our instincts and our circumstances in order to see how they may serve us. The instincts that we discover are useful to us should be encouraged. Those that are not, we should make an effort to repudiate.
During evolution we have to assume they were beneficial. The argument has be taken for each instinct/behavior-is it still beneficial? It's a line by line evaluation. In spite or our airplanes, vaccines, and space ships we are but a step away from our ancestors 20,000 years ago cognitively and socially. Unitl we change dramatically as a species, those establish rules likely still work quite well.
It is not the case that we have changed dramatically, but our environment has. The fact that we have not changed much is attested by your claim, as you have aptly noted that we have many of the same instincts that our ancestors did. However, our ancestors needed those instincts to fend off wild beasts for example, we no longer need to do this, hence the instinct that they needed is not useful to us.
I think I have confused two issues. The concept of Modus feel-the conclusion is correct in spite of having no premises.
I should have been more clear. Modus Feel is the Theorem that the conclusion is always true, but any premise could be used to derive the conclusion. This means that the intrinsic essence of the premises is not relevant as they all give the same results. However, by the definition of logic, there is always a reasoning process, arguably that is how logic can be defined, simply a reasoning process. This presupposes that there are premises of some kind.
From your perspective as the two the same? Do you have to be able to cognitively follow/understand my premises in order to recognize the validity of the conclusion? .
Your argument is unsupported unless it is shown that it follows from premises. In the case of Modus Feel, the conclusion is asserted to follow from the premises in all cases.
ohh that stings a bit. It says empathy and caring are pure instinctual responses like eating. Yet that reduces Fi/Fe then from being judging functions. Rather than making judgements, rationally, they are just responding to stimuli? So they are not built to solve a problem step by step with defined premises like Ti? .
No, but very often Feeling and Thinking work together. For example, a counselor may have an instinct to help his patients and he will then use Thinking to figure out exactly how he should go about doing so.
Yet I'd say depending upon the nature of the problem they will do a much better, quicker job of solving it then a slower Ti which has to connect the dots in a logical fashion. They are not pure dot to dot logic on the surface, but are they still based upon a system of rules-rules, premises which may not be understandable/observable to you... ? That would make them not instincts but rather different ways of rationlizing..
I would say that what you are describing is a partnership between Feeling and Thinking, though clearly with Feeling being more influential. We were conditioned by evolution to think in a certain way, as this is what we needed to survive. Such ways of thinking are ingrained in our unconscious and as a result manifest when we make value judgments. (Use Feeling) I would agree that many things are easier to do this way, or by simply following our instincts as opposed to evaluating our circumstances.
The neatest thing to watch about a Ti dominant, is how slow the thought process can actually be at times. I work with two brilliant INTPs who will sit for several seconds before speaking the next sentance. I would argue Ti is energetically inefficient for many problems encountered in society due first to the speed and energy involved in the solution and second the fact that it may not cope well with the fuzzies. However every answer they ever give me will be exact and accurate, well thought out. They are utterly brilliant. ..
That is true, the Ti approach to problem solving is very methodical, if not punctilious. Tasks that require an immediate response would be performed by methods other than this. How does Modus Feel tie into this? When doing such tasks, you may be tempted to find out if you truly know what you are doing, to do this you'd want to carefully work out the problem. (Ti)
You just can't be confident in yourself unless you believe you know the truth. But you do not have time to figure out what is true in an intellectually honest way as it just takes too long to get from the premise to the conclusion. Modus Feel is basically your express way to any conclusion you desire. This gives you the belief, mistaken or not that you have the truth which may be empowering enoug to compell you to finish the task in a short notice.
Does it provide the best solution for the problem at hand? That is the question I think that has to be answered. I think it is problem dependent.
I would agree with that.
Bro, you need to lay off Schopenhauer.
I'll echo what I said in your earlier thread that dealt with this topic. This type of thinking ought not to be encouraged.
My thesis is that humans are essentially rational, with the capacity for meaning.
If something is clear to reason, then the only way to fail to believe that which is clear to reason is to fail to use reason, but if a rational being fails to use reason, then that being is acting in a manner that is contrary to its nature, and for a being to act contrary to its nature is to say that that being is harming itself.
Please provide an argument to support the thesis that man is a rational animal. I am certainly deeply interested in how this view could be supported. Although I do not think it is a defensible position, I find it charming and ambitious to say the very least.
So please be brief or thorough, whichever serves you better.
Even if you do prove that man is a rational animal, you need a separate argument to show that acting like a rational animal or pursuing the truth is good. It is a mistake to equate what is good with what is natural, I believe that is now known as the naturalistic fallacy.
Do you deny that a "mystic" is a Feeler?.
The Mystic is a feeler in a very restricted sense, nearly neologistic. He is a feeler strictly in the regard that he uses Modus Feel. I do deny that he has to be a Feeler in a pedestrian sense of the word, or in the typological. With regard to the typological, there were many Feelers, especially those who became scientists, mathematicians or philosophers who tend not to use Modus Feel consistently. Remember, a type is merely a solidified unconscious disposition, it can entail a variety of personalities, some akin to that of the mystic I introduced you to, some otherwise.
It's not as if the leaders can read minds and know for sure that a claimant really feels the same as them. It comes down to the leaders' judgment, and apparently the leaders didn't believe the claimants in those cases.?.
In my story the mystic acknowledges that the other person has that exact feeling he claimed is a hallmark of prophethood, but denies that the person in question is a prophet.
A disingenuous feeling is automatically misleading since disingenuity is by its nature a mask over the truth. So one could very well believe that all feelings are true--true in their pretenses, even--and still accept disengenuity as the explanation for apparent disagreements..?.
Simply the person is confusing a deductively invalid argument for a valid one, and Modus Feel comes in when he establishes the Theorem that all arguments whether valid or not entail true conclusions, granted that the premises are true.
That doesn't follow at all. For me to claim that my feelings lead to truth is an entirely different thing than to claim that yours lead to truth. I have all kinds of convictions that hold true for me simply because they're convictions; that doesn't mean I also support the views of rapists and murderers. ..?.
Truth is absolute and universal. If you say something is true, it is true for all. If you say you know something is true because you have a feeling that it is, I could say that I have a feeling that the exact opposite of what you said is true, thereby refuting the claim to knowledge you're making. By doing so I would merely show that your conclusion does not follow from your premises, not necessarily that it is false.
The concept of Modus Feel is either impossible or used only in rare, extremely peculiar circumstances. What you take for Modus Feel is more commonly people being inconsistent or saying things that they don't literally mean...?.
It is much more common than you think. Devious politicians and theologians make use of it to simply dismiss the criticisms of their dissenters. This is how they justify their hypocrisy. For instance, they could say that you should not sleep around under the circumstances of the Blue Moon, yet they somehow are allowed to do so under the same circumstances. Of course though, they would not state this in such terms, they would cover the true meaning of their statements using sophisms.
A benevolent counselor could use Modus Feel to convince his seemingly hopeless patients to believe in themselves. If he adopts Modus Feel as a theorem and gets his patients to accept it he could get them to believe in a lot of things he otherwise would not be able to. Of course, just like the devious politician, he would not be open and direct about what exactly he is doing.
That's only your opinion, though. For someone else, Modus Feel might be the only reliable guide in all the universe.
Modus Feel can't be a reliable guide to the truth because we cannot use it to prove anything because it engenders contradictions.