Personality Cafe banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
965 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
What with Ti being linked to philosophy and such, I thought to ask you guys if you study philosophy, and if yes, what have you studied thus far, and what schools of thought or philosopher do you like/agree with most?

I've not read a lot yet, but I find my own worldview to be eerily similar to Aristotle, Wittgenstein, and Kant, mostly Wittgenstein. I am sure I haven't fully understood German metaphysics, with its idiosyncratic terminology, and also because I've completely the Middle Ages.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
I dabble a bit in philosophy and have read bits of Socrates, Plato, Kant, Nietzsche, Camus, and Rand.

The philosophy I like most is the absurdism of Camus. It's quite fitting for an INTP who has assiduously sought out order and justice in the world only to find madness and chaos. Acknowledging the absurdity of it all has allowed me to continue seeking the truth despite understanding its ultimate futility. It has also taught me to laugh in the face of irony instead of descending into cynicism and to be optimistic despite being able to see the flaws in everything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,504 Posts
Yes to all the questions above.

Philosophers I tend to like:

Parmenides, Marcus Aurelius, Frege, Husserl, Wittgenstein (earlier more than later at this juncture), Carnap (selectively), and Quine.

I'm studying mostly analytic philosophy but I also enjoy materials from the so-called continental tradition. For me, the distinction is an unnecessary one.

I'm currently writing a paper on epistemology so I'll have to get back to you. Hopefully we can have some fruitful discussions here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpectrumOfThought

·
Registered
Joined
·
965 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I'm currently writing a paper on epistemology so I'll have to get back to you. Hopefully we can have some fruitful discussions here.
Certainly hope so.

I have just started studying the Presocratics in detail, and Parmenides is one of my favourite ones too, along with Anaxagoras.

Most distinctions aren't called for, but do simplify study and, sadly, denigration of philosophy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,136 Posts
I seemed to have a natural talent for philosophy of language when I was in university. I dropped out 1 year later, because I got bored. Nevertheless I still enjoy philosophy immensely, and I have read many books on the subject. Analytical philosophy is tailor made for my mind. I prefer to read about philosophical pessimism, Buddhism, philosophy of language and of course logic. If I should list all the philosophers I have enjoyed reading the list would be very long, so I am going to list some of the philosophers and books I have enjoyed reading:

Giacomo Leopardi
Arthur Schopenhauer
Albert Camus (The Stranger and The Myth of Sisyphus)
All of E.M. Cioran's books.
Fyodor Dostoyevsky (crime and punishment and notes from underground)
Peter Wessel Zapffe (I have only read den sidste messias, I can't get hold of On the Tragic [I am planning to go to Norway and buying the book in norwegian])
Wittgenstein
W.V Quine

Frege Sense and reference
Russell On Denoting
J.L Mackie Inventing right and wrong
Kant
Isaiah Berlin
(Two Concepts of Liberty and The Hedgehog and the Fox)
The dhammapada
Kripke
Naming and Necessity
The Daodejing of Laozi
Nelson Goodman
Fact, Fiction and Forecast
Leszek Kolakowski
 

·
Spam-I-am
Joined
·
14,077 Posts
lady sophia blessed me 20 years ago
the first book on philosophy i read was plato's republic
eerily i knew what plato was going to say before i read it
my train of thought is classic greek/roman
i have studied every branch from every era
eastern/western
whilst every one talks sports, t.v. reality shows and comic book based movies
i am stuck in the corner for non participation contemplating the existence of the fucktard and their purpose in modern society
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,497 Posts
I'm studying philosophy at university, but it's not what I'm majoring or even minoring in. Philosophy was one of my favourite subjects in high school, but so far I've only read a few introductory books and some philosophy of science. And a little bit of Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Camus and Sartre, but that was mainly 15 years ago. I'm currently getting started on another philosophy of science literature exam and some essays on free will (the latter is just for fun).
 

·
Registered
INTP
Joined
·
630 Posts
I sort of fell into philosophy at university. I took so many philosophy classes as electives I ended up declaring Philosophy as my second major. Upon graduation armed with a smug air of self-assurance and copys of Sein und Zeit and the Nicomachean Ethics tucked under my arm I entered the world to do what philosophers do. I stood by the side of the road with a "Will Philosophize for food" sign around my neck. No one stops, people drive by and yell rude things, they through stuff, and little kids come up and kick you.

"What’s that Nigel?".
"It appears to be a Philosopher. Perhaps some sort of deontologist".
"A deonto .., what? Is that like an Episcopalian?"
"No a deontologist is from the school of thought championed by Kant. It exists in opposition to Utilitarianism"
"Unitarian? I thought you said he was an Episcopalian?"
“No,no. A Utilitarian believes that the only moral good is the amount of happiness it produces. An Episcopalian is some sort of Protestant.
“Protestant? I thought you said he was a philosopher? But what I really what to know is can we kick him?”
“Well of course we can. It’s just a philosopher.”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,260 Posts
Does anyone know how to break down explicitly why philosophy is Ti and math is Te? I believe it, only I think there are cases where math can exemplify Ti and philosophy Te. For example, in math when the proof takes on a particular form of explanation. Perhaps one that starts from one of the most base definitions? I can see the subjectivity of Ti narrowing in on how a belief/assumption of people in general in regard to a particular axiom is responsible for explaining the relationship.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
689 Posts
While I haven't had the privilege to study Philosophy officially so far in life, when I get the chance I will certainly take it. Right now, however, I read books on Philosophy and such on the side.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,504 Posts
Does anyone know how to break down explicitly why philosophy is Ti and math is Te? I believe it, only I think there are cases where math can exemplify Ti and philosophy Te. For example, in math when the proof takes on a particular form of explanation. Perhaps one that starts from one of the most base definitions? I can see the subjectivity of Ti narrowing in on how a belief/assumption of people in general in regard to a particular axiom is responsible for explaining the relationship.
Well, philosophy is not Ti and mathematics is not Te... such a statement doesn't even make sense.

I think what some people think is that philosophical thought is more along the lines of utilizing Ti while mathematics is more along the lines of utilizing Te.

To be honest, I don't even know where to begin with such a distinction. We don't have well-defined terms for philosophy, mathematics, Ti, or Te when speaking in a metaphilosophical and psychological sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
I do ,but not as a degree but possibly I'll take some philosophy classes with my upcoming new studies , I read some and since 1st grade(middle school freshman?)I had philosophy and ethics classes ,I like Aristotle ,Machiavelli,AugustinD'Aquinas,Descartes and Camus,i know some names quoted on previous comments ,but honestly i didn't explore all them as deep and I would like because I lack of time and other names I do not agree .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
965 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Well, philosophy is not Ti and mathematics is not Te... such a statement doesn't even make sense.

I think what some people think is that philosophical thought is more along the lines of utilizing Ti while mathematics is more along the lines of utilizing Te.

To be honest, I don't even know where to begin with such a distinction. We don't have well-defined terms for philosophy, mathematics, Ti, or Te when speaking in a metaphilosophical and psychology sense.
To some extent, philosophy is the synthesis of wisdom from knowledge. Knowledge is gained by sensory and empirical experiences, while wisdom is the product of reason. That, I think, is a simulacrum of how Ti acts on information generated by the senses. I might be stretching it too much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,260 Posts
Well, philosophy is not Ti and mathematics is not Te... such a statement doesn't even make sense.

I think what some people think is that philosophical thought is more along the lines of utilizing Ti while mathematics is more along the lines of utilizing Te.

To be honest, I don't even know where to begin with such a distinction. We don't have well-defined terms for philosophy, mathematics, Ti, or Te when speaking in a metaphilosophical and psychology sense.
I didn't mean so literally. It may be more clear for me to say that I'm trying to see how Ti is different than Te in the same way philosophy is different from mathematics. I'm not trying to give an exact definition for each term because I'm interested in other people's sense of definition for each term, in case I may not have a perfect definition myself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Does anyone know how to break down explicitly why philosophy is Ti and math is Te? I believe it, only I think there are cases where math can exemplify Ti and philosophy Te. For example, in math when the proof takes on a particular form of explanation. Perhaps one that starts from one of the most base definitions? I can see the subjectivity of Ti narrowing in on how a belief/assumption of people in general in regard to a particular axiom is responsible for explaining the relationship.
Ti is much more system focused. Like does everything in the whole system make sense at the same time. So for philosophy it would be searching for a world view that incorporates all available information. Te would be like let's just look at a part of the system and make sure that makes sense. Also for Te the whole system doesn't come under question because of one small ***** in the logic whereas Ti would be obsessing over that small issue and begin to question the whole system.

I actually think this is part of the continental / analytic divide in philosophy. Analytic philosophers are fine with looking at an issue through the lens of 4 different philosophical frameworks and making a decision based on the best one for that scenario. A continental philosopher on the other hand, won't parse out their framework to focus on single issue. An issue will be analyzed while they're explaining their philosophical framework. For example Being and Time by Heidegger isn't just covering the concepts of being and time. It's covering a bunch of issues that stem from the understanding of being and time.

As for the thread question, Yeah I love philosophy. I'm computer science student, but I've taken 6 classes in college and I've really enjoyed all of them. I especially like continental philosophers like Heidegger, Hegel, Marx, Foucault, and Derrida. I haven't read a lot of stuff outside of class, but I checked out a couple books to read over the summer that will hopefully maintain my interest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
319 Posts
I'm double majoring in Philosophy and Psychology. Most of the people in my Philosophy classes are INTPs (or xxTJs that want to go to law school).

Terrible Tamada mentioned something important. There is definitely a distinction between Analytic Philosophy and Continental Philosophy. I much much much prefer Continental Philosophy. It's more abstract and digestible.

Symbolic Logic might as well be math. Many people misunderstand philosophy as being something similar to contemplating the meaning of life. Although that's a small portion of it, many Philosophers have a bias against Existentialism and a lot of the self-contradictory themes. Most Philosophy is not extremely accessible to someone that just wanted to pick up the actual work of the Philosopher and get started on it. I hear a lot of people say things like, "I love Philosophy," and what they really mean is that they like to think a lot. Thinking a lot doesn't necessitate that you like Philosophy or even that you'll be good at it.

Philosophy is extremely rigorous and logic based--methodological. That's why I chose double major--I wanted my mind to be more critical. I think it would be easier for me to study something like logic if I were an INTP though.Maybe it's like you're saying? The Ti? I don't know.
Existentialism, Ethics, etc... come much easier to me. This is why I have a hard time committing to saying I'm good at Philosophy. I feel like there's basically half of the field that is a real struggle for me.

But I love struggling through it.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top