[INTJ] Ask an INTJ a question. - Page 2409

Ask an INTJ a question.

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 2409 of 2591 FirstFirst ... 1409 1909 2309 2359 2399 2407 2408 2409 2410 2411 2419 2459 2509 ... LastLast
Results 24,081 to 24,090 of 25905
Thank Tree33966Thanks

This is a discussion on Ask an INTJ a question. within the INTJ Forum - The Scientists forums, part of the NT's Temperament Forum- The Intellects category; Originally Posted by Wellsy @ Catwalk Two different things wanted to inquire about you: 1. What is it that you ...

  1. #24081

    Quote Originally Posted by Wellsy View Post
    @Catwalk

    Two different things wanted to inquire about you:

    1. What is it that you find worthwhile in the work/thought of Baruch Spinoza which you've incorporated into your own beliefs and understanding?

    2. What are your thoughts on what the self is or the process of how people perceive themselves/a self?
    I have a vague sense that your answer might resonate with things I've been trying to think about but imagine you might be able to give great detail that I'd find interesting for my own comprehension.
    I hope @Catwalk charges a fee for answering didactic essay questions.
    Wellsy, EyesOpen, Judson Joist and 4 others thanked this post.

  2. #24082

    Quote Originally Posted by BigApplePi View Post
    That is a possibility but I forget the details.

    What you guys think of Romeo and Juliet being in opposite clans who hated each other? "Love conquers all" doesn't work so well here. Any kind of relationship was verboten. Perhaps they were doomed from the start. You see this in the old south where a black man couldn't look at a while woman wo being lynched. Or today should a Palestinian and an Israeli fall in love.
    A young relative of mine told me the other day that his high school essay was to answer the question, “Did Romeo and Juliet do the right thing?”

    Public education is very hit and miss, more often miss when it comes to liberal arts it seems...

  3. #24083
    INTJ - The Scientists

    Quote Originally Posted by BigApplePi View Post
    That is a possibility but I forget the details.

    What you guys think of Romeo and Juliet being in opposite clans who hated each other? "Love conquers all" doesn't work so well here. Any kind of relationship was verboten. Perhaps they were doomed from the start. You see this in the old south where a black man couldn't look at a while woman wo being lynched. Or today should a Palestinian and an Israeli fall in love.
    Yes, the theme of the play is doomed love. But the theme was also that this was stupid - the families had no real reason to hate each other, and they could have treated Romeo and Juliet's romance as a reconciliation between the families. Marriage has often served that purpose, especially in upper class families in the Elizabethan period. The Montagues and Capulets chose hatred instead.

    I have always thought that if the two of them had been smarter about the whole thing it might have worked out.
    BigApplePi, EyesOpen and StarryNiTe thanked this post.

  4. #24084

    Quote Originally Posted by Green Girl View Post
    Yes, the theme of the play is doomed love. But the theme was also that this was stupid - the families had no real reason to hate each other, and they could have treated Romeo and Juliet's romance as a reconciliation between the families. Marriage has often served that purpose, especially in upper class families in the Elizabethan period. The Montagues and Capulets chose hatred instead.

    I have always thought that if the two of them had been smarter about the whole thing it might have worked out.
    As if love would conquer all! The play is very real. It could happen between the Palestinians and the Israelis today. I vaguely heard about a movie where that happened ... or maybe it was Yugoslavian tribes. Not sure.
    Green Girl thanked this post.

  5. #24085
    INTJ - The Scientists

    Quote Originally Posted by BigApplePi View Post
    As if love would conquer all! The play is very real. It could happen between the Palestinians and the Israelis today. I vaguely heard about a movie where that happened ... or maybe it was Yugoslavian tribes. Not sure.
    Romeo and Juliet were trying to run away. If that had worked out, they could have started new lives together somewhere else, somewhere the feud didn't matter. Sure, it would have been difficult, but immigrants do it. You go to a new society, start a new life, and leave the conflict in the past.

    It occurs to me that I am sounding very American here. The above is a concept deeply imbedded in U.S. history and culture.
    Last edited by Green Girl; 04-20-2018 at 08:49 AM.
    Judson Joist thanked this post.

  6. #24086

    Quote Originally Posted by Wellsy View Post
    @Catwalk

    Two different things wanted to inquire about you:
    I did not [receive] this mention. Not sure why—it does not show in my feed, either. I did receive Squirt(s).

    1. What is it that you find worthwhile in the work/thought of Baruch Spinoza which you've incorporated into your own beliefs and understanding?
    His astounding work(s) unfortunately go unrecognized, I reckon because he is too "magical" in his works to stomach for some to grasp (which seem to lie on misinterpretations of Spinoza's works & himself (e.g., his "Blessedness" / natura naturans / et al) - and writing revolving around the divine), - however, Spinoza teaches that a (greater) understanding of reality is the "highest" spirituality one can attain (re: Amor dei intellectualis). Among my leaving of religion (i.e., Christianity --> inexplicit theism --> incoherent agnosticism), he did a great deal of informing my atheism (or instead, reaffirming - (from negative --> positive), via effortlessly demonstrating that the immaterial cannot interact with material (e.g., non-physical/physical), thus "God" being X and ~X at the same is incoherent, which of course, includes substance dualism, the interaction problem, et al (in agreement with Hume).

    In a sense, his intellectual and moral integrity to live dangerously, is something I admire - which, whether instinctive, or otherwise, I tend to gravitate towards. As an ecstatic rationalist, he sets the intellectual standard for myself because he brings to light the "riskiness" of leaping on the 'uncertainty' wagon, because there are not any non-formal certainties; thus, "life is simply living on edge" - thus, ecstatic (making him my favorite philosopher - having the most profound effects on my life). In all this, I attempt to - at least, practice intellectual-hygiene in the light of Spinoza by aiming to eliminating/reducing (divorcing) the 1st-person perspective; (i.e., suspension of egoist/self) via philosophizing. To view things rather than from a 1st person-pespective, Spinoza has taught myself how to analyze "reality" from a 2nd-person perspective (i.e., aiming to reduce/eliminate as many biases as possible), because to Spinoza, a "personal" approach to reality, is an illusion (i.e., unreflective/naive). Recognizing "certainty/totality/absolute "knowledge" - " et al, exposing us to the fact that life is tragic. Regarding my irreligious-ness I touched on, this brings comfort (by the preferences in which I aim to approach life), - in so far as it is my understanding, that in this, this means, rationally, there is nothing to worry about, and any such worries are simply (psychological), and can be overcome.

    2. What are your thoughts on what the self is or the process of how people perceive themselves/a self?

    What is most intriguing, is that those that fixate - or, claim to know themselves, are at best, utilizing the first-person perspective, in this sense, they comprehend themselves to the extent we comprehend the sky - (re: parochialism). There are various ways in which I have observed specimen(s) perceive ["a self"], and seem to make the the same error - the fixation/reliance on the Manifest Image (1-st person intuitions).

    My preference for approach "the self" is both chewed by Spinoza (&) spat out by Metzinger. The "self" is No One/No 'Themselves'. Simply an "avatar" - consisting of neurosystemic brain processes 'generating' itself via the environement it inhabits - molding through memory/experience/sensation, the consciousness of the self, enables all suffering. Humans tend to (first) view themselves 'ego/mind/you/self' --> egocentricity / anthropocentricity - anthropic projections. The self and it's human arrogance is imaginary à la Spinoza, and "no one" at all informing the material around it. There is no "you", nor I.

    In this sense, it fuels my personal repulsion towards "identity". And I wish I could approach ('life') in the way of a faceless. One of the things I remember mentioning to where myself (&) my INFP have the most trouble -- as the approach to life; revolves so much around what is "not alive" in the sense humans often prefer. Most specimen(s) thrive in it to make it alive; And to fixate on it, to obsess over it - is overrated, if not limiting. We are never born, and we it 'never end'. Because of this limiting bias; I aim to be attentive in divorcing the 'unnecessary' aspects of identity, that turns into magical thinking. (e.g., not subject to deaths / 'fixed' personalities / self-defeatism), etc.

    Not sure if these answer your question(s), but I hope the answers were at least a bit helpful.
    Last edited by Catwalk; 04-20-2018 at 10:10 PM.
    Wellsy and Gilfoyle thanked this post.

  7. #24087

    Quote Originally Posted by Catwalk View Post
    I did not [receive] this mention. Not sure why—it does not show in my feed, either. I did receive Squirt(s).
    Thank you for explaining, I was just going to let it hang as you aren't compelled to answer my questions so wasn't bothered if you didn't feel like doing so, but glad you could.


     
    His astounding work(s) unfortunately go unrecognized, I reckon because he is too "magical" in his works to stomach for some to grasp (which seem to lie on misinterpretations of Spinoza's works & himself (e.g., his "Blessedness" / natura naturans / et al) - and writing revolving around the divine), - however, Spinoza teaches that a (greater) understanding of reality is the "highest" spirituality one can attain (re: Amor dei intellectualis). Among my leaving of religion (i.e., Christianity --> inexplicit theism --> incoherent agnosticism), he did a great deal of informing my atheism (or instead, reaffirming - (from negative --> positive), via effortlessly demonstrating that the immaterial cannot interact with material (e.g., non-physical/physical), thus "God" being X and ~X at the same is incoherent, which of course, includes substance dualism, the interaction problem, et al (in agreement with Hume).

    In a sense, his intellectual and moral integrity to live dangerously, is something I admire - which, whether instinctive, or otherwise, I tend to gravitate towards. As an ecstatic rationalist, he sets the intellectual standard for myself because he brings to light the "riskiness" of leaping on the 'uncertainty' wagon, because there are not any non-formal certainties; thus, "life is simply living on edge" - thus, ecstatic (making him my favorite philosopher - having the most profound effects on my life). In all this, I attempt to - at least, practice intellectual-hygiene in the light of Spinoza by aiming to eliminating/reducing (divorcing) the 1st-person perspective; (i.e., suspension of egoist/self) via philosophizing. To view things rather than from a 1st person-pespective, Spinoza has taught myself how to analyze "reality" from a 2nd-person perspective (i.e., aiming to reduce/eliminate as many biases as possible), because to Spinoza, a "personal" approach to reality, is an illusion (i.e., unreflective/naive). Recognizing "certainty/totality/absolute "knowledge" - " et al, exposing us to the fact that life is tragic. Regarding my irreligious-ness I touched on, this brings comfort (by the preferences in which I aim to approach life), - in so far as it is my understanding, that in this, this means, rationally, there is nothing to worry about, and any such worries are simply (psychological), and can be overcome.

    What is most intriguing, is that those that fixate - or, claim to know themselves, are at best, utilizing the first-person perspective, in this sense, they comprehend themselves to the extent we comprehend the sky - (re: parochialism). There are various ways in which I have observed specimen(s) perceive ["a self"], and seem to make the the same error - the fixation/reliance on the Manifest Image (1-st person intuitions).

    My preference for approach "the self" is both chewed by Spinoza (&) spat out by Metzinger. The "self" is No One/No 'Themselves'. Simply an "avatar" - consisting of neurosystemic brain processes 'generating' itself via the environement it inhabits - molding through memory/experience/sensation, the consciousness of the self, enables all suffering. Humans tend to (first) view themselves 'ego/mind/you/self' --> egocentricity / anthropocentricity - anthropic projections. The self and it's human arrogance is imaginary à la Spinoza, and "no one" at all informing the material around it. There is no "you", nor I.

    In this sense, it fuels my personal repulsion towards "identity". And I wish I could approach ('life') in the way of a faceless. One of the things I remember mentioning to where myself (&) my INFP have the most trouble -- as the approach to life; revolves so much around what is "not alive" in the sense humans often prefer. Most specimen(s) thrive in it to make it alive; And to fixate on it, to obsess over it - is overrated, if not limiting. We are never born, and we it 'never end'. Because of this limiting bias; I aim to be attentive in divorcing the 'unnecessary' aspects of identity, that turns into magical thinking. (e.g., not subject to deaths / 'fixed' personalities / self-defeatism), etc.

    Not sure if these answer your question(s), but I hope the answers were at least a bit helpful.
    I'm not sure what you experience writing this, so I think it is probably a projection of what I was feeling as I read the above, but it was rather exciting and moving to read, it's a pleasure to see you express your admiration for him.
    I have a few thoughts that jump around in reaction to the whole of your post, but I think the simple point is though I don't think my beliefs are as refined and explicit as your own, I seem to think in the same area.

    I see great appeal in this talk of 2nd person perspective and what you've written makes my mind explode with spurious associations and thoughts to I assume would amount to largely the same thing as you express though more vaguely.
    Stuff like the mistake with the correspondence theory of truth in which the mind is treated as a reflection/mirror of the reality rather than considering how our consciousness mediates it. Such that we don't directly experience reality but have it incorporated into our symbolic thinking.
    The repulsion to identity I think I can relate to, but I'm not yet able to articulate it for myself and in what ways as might be different to what you've expressed. Feels like a kind of intense subjectivity disconnected from any relation to objective positions, the subject-object relation is absent. Which I think fits into asserted eschewing of introspection on part of Spinoza and instead emphasis on the active person as thinking in how they adapt themselves to shape of objects as distinct from designed automaton.
    I think one time you mentioned the self as an avatar and that hit home as an apt term in representing consciousness in a direct way. That even the way we think of others being the same, I often refer to it as being like a working image that's adapted to feedback from reality. Which is of course how there can be such a sudden shock between the image people thought was reality and the reality that contradicts it and their pain in accomodating it when they're so attached to their idealization.

    I appreciate that you took the time to share that, I'll have to look into Metzinger.
    If you find yourself talking about similar things elsewhere on here, I'd appreciate a mention if you feel up to remembering me.

    I think I am less familiar with the 2nd person perspective though except in my own thought of abstracting from different perspectives and seeing relations between things.
    That to take only one scale is to not allow for movement towards absolute knowledge.
    Your summary speaks of reducing bias which I think what I'm thinking of should presumably do, as it allows for perspective beyond simply the self. It's meant to be conscious use of abstraction to consider how things change in relation to one another through time and at different scales (local to macro).
    I will keep your words in mind should I venture back into stuff about Spinoza and see what leaps out at me.
    Catwalk thanked this post.

  8. #24088

    INTJs that use Pinterest: What are your favorite boards?

    I spent more time than I'd like to admit organizing my dream house board (because now you can have sections ) and I would have to say that's the top one. I'm obsessed with the workspaces section I made.

    I also like my boards for brunch ideas, hair, trips with the boyfriend, and things I relate to.

    I don't think I subscribe to any outside of my friends'.
    Windblownhair thanked this post.

  9. #24089

    I have a question.

    i'm dating an INTJ who i think i will very soon be very deeply in love with, however, He just isnt a personal person in fact hes very impersonal. the opposite to me. Is there a way i can make things personal for him just when it comes to our relationship?
    Plez keep in mind that i dont want to change who he and make him lovey dovey, I just wish i could reach him on a personal level as well as an intellectual.

  10. #24090
    INTJ


    Quote Originally Posted by LillyFlower View Post
    Is there a way i can make things personal for him just when it comes to our relationship?

    I just wish i could reach him on a personal level
    I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you have any examples of what you're thinking of?


     

Similar Threads

  1. Question For INTJ
    By Tkae in forum INTJ Forum - The Scientists
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 08-20-2018, 03:01 PM
  2. [INTJ] Question for INTJ's
    By Globetrekker in forum INTJ Forum - The Scientists
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 10-02-2015, 06:36 PM
  3. [INFJ] Infj and Intj difference question
    By musun69 in forum INFJ Forum - The Protectors
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: 07-15-2015, 07:39 PM
  4. The age old question: INTJ or INTP? Help a new girl out?
    By minavanhelsing in forum What's my personality type?
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 09-04-2012, 10:37 AM
  5. [INTJ] Time sensitive question - best way to thank an INTJ for help?
    By curious0610 in forum INTJ Forum - The Scientists
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 02-23-2011, 01:34 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:24 PM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0