Personality Cafe banner

21 - 40 of 81 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
775 Posts
Discussion Starter #21 (Edited)
Lets get one thing straight. I love you INTJs. I seriously do. You're probably one of the smartest types. and I only say that because you (might) jump down my throat for saying "you are the smartest type." That's too definete. See I know you guys. You're legends. You have the most capability and are genuine souls underneath. I like the fact that you see my own blind spots, and do so so effotlessly. This isn't an attack. It really isn't. It's just what my username implies. there was no overarching all encompassing intention and point that I was trying to get across. I just wrote what came off the top of my head. Truth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
775 Posts
Discussion Starter #22
Also, for those wanting to know the context for this post. I commented the initial post in an article on Stellar Maze because the writer was saying that Fe is a squigly line compared with Te which is supposedly straight in 'life.' However I said "you might only have one side of the coin. I think Fe in regards to logical and life matters is the embodiment of the squigly line when reaching the goal. No doubt. However, in ethical and relational matters it is the opposite."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,074 Posts
@Freeflowingthoughts

Every function is important in its own natural context. It's not the issue here. You made a discussion about morality, an intellectual field by its own right, and then made a sour face when we "intellectualized" it. You also can't just try to hammer the same idea over and over like trying to fit a square block into a circular hole and expect it to be received kindly.

When you open an idea to discussion, be prepared to have it challenged. You are welcome to show how morality can be objective in contrast to what others said about morality being subjective, but it doesn't work if you limit yourself to (the current) western culture.

P.S: You said a couple of times something about logic being objective like it's an INTJ thing. Personally I think that something is objective only in the context which treats it as an axiom, be it morality or logic or w/e.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
775 Posts
Discussion Starter #24 (Edited)
Sigh. It wasn't the fact that you intelectualised it. What I meant by that is you're trying to compensate by using Te in place of Fe. You're intelectualising (by using objective thinking) in an objectively ethical (feeling) situation. You can't use Introverted sensing to contemplate the internal possibilities and synthesise abstract concepts and solutions within the mind. That's Ni. They're Polar opposites. Feel me?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,074 Posts
Sigh. It wasn't the fact that you intelectualised it. What I meant by that is you're trying to compensate by using Te in place of Fe. You're intelectualising (by using objective thinking) in an objectively ethical (feeling) situation. You can't use Introverted sensing to contemplate the internal possibilities and synthesise abstract concepts and solutions within the mind. That's Ni. They're Polar opposites. Feel me?
I agree that that's what I'm doing, but how does it make anything I said wrong?
I also don't agree that it's a purely Fe-related subject.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
Lord keep me open to others' ideas, WRONG though they may be.

I accept that you view morality and ethics as an objective field, but most of us simply don't. Perhaps what you are saying could be better communicated with an example? I feel like there's been a miscommunication at some point, and that plunged you headfirst into the hornet's nest.

Either way, you keep using this word, "Objective." I do not think that word means what you think it means. Objective implies, to me, that you can prove empirically that something is true. Objective logic exists, because certain interactions between two objects will always result the same way. E=mc^2, A=S/T, etc. Objective morality is an issue, since, by definition, it is affected by a person's views on the world. Unless you accept a religion as being 100% true, you can't prove that one value or belief will always result in the same outcome.

Unless you can accept that, this thread will remain as two ships passing in the night.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,344 Posts
All it takes to change people's mindset is one person, with enough skill, enough luck and enough time.
Don't see how you're disagreeing with me. That's exactly what I said.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,074 Posts
Don't see how you're disagreeing with me. That's exactly what I said.
How and when did you say that? I never said that person has to oblige to "reason". Even what is considered reasonable is ever-changing.

It's not entirely wrong, it's just not the right tool for the job. They're complete opposites.
If it's partially wrong, then show how.. seriously, I don't see where you're going with this.. you've done everything but actually have a serious discussion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
775 Posts
Discussion Starter #30
Of course I don't view morality solely as objective. That would mean i'd have to EXTP with no Fi. I do have Fi. Just as you have Ti. I just prioritise objective ethics over Subjective ethics. I still have both sides though. I only get frustrated with INTJs that they only have Fi with no flip side of the coin. I said before, that I realised how my friend must feel, and i'm sure how you all feel right now, when I only use Ti with no flipside of Te. It's just a fact of nature. I can't change it. Your Te and demonstrative Ti i It makes you a force when it comes to any matters involving cold logic.

Lmfao the word objective does not have to be 'empirically correct.' Lmfao this is the exact point i'm making when I say you guys use Te in place of Fe. Human beings are not machines and do not conform to cold hard logic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
775 Posts
Discussion Starter #31 (Edited)
Here's your serious discussion:

We don't need religion to be moral. It's common sense. For example. Is killing someone wrong? If we didn't have the commandment would we just go out killing anybody we disagreed with? Of course bloody not. It is objectively wrong. I don't care what internal justifications you have made, whether he was a wife beater, whether he killed someone himself. "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." It is worth noting that "an eye for an eye." Is from the bible. Do I need to say any more on why we don't need religion as a prerequisite for morality?

What if the man was innocent? You've just killed someone who did not do the crime you took into your own hands to punish him for. You've just become a murderer. You have to live with that for the rest of your life. It will undoubtedly make you more cold or at least alter your psyche permanently in some way. Your kids will have to live with the shame of knowing their father is a criminal. Your son might even feel he has a duty to follow in your footsteps because that is how children are hardwired, to follow in the path of the parent of the same sex.

The mans parents will have to bury their own son. His wife will be left a widow. His kids will grow up without a father. This will have huge psychological impacts on them leading the boys to become more aggresive and the girl to become more promiscious. God knows we have enough fatherless children in our world today. All the while the most painful aspect of their loss is that their dad was innocent.

The act itself has a huge butterfly effect, which is why it is objectively wrong. No matter what. This is what the judicial system was invented for. Innocent until proven guilty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,978 Posts
i still fail to understand the point of this thread, aside from the fact that the op resents her friend for being less interested in fidelity than she wants him to be. instead of just saying so, it's like she's dragged some shaky stepladder of 'justifications' for her own feels into this forum, and climbed up onto it so she can harangue the whole bunch of us from a few inches' elevation about the absolute rightness of her point of view, and the absolute sinfulness of his sins.

edit: oh, and i see now that she is a he. all the same.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,344 Posts
How and when did you say that? I never said that person has to oblige to "reason". Even what is considered reasonable is ever-changing.
Because I said it might get him thinking about it. Didn't say it will.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
Here's your serious discussion:

We don't need religion to be moral. It's common sense. For example: Is killing someone wrong? If we didn't have the commandment, would we just go out killing anybody we disagreed with? Of course bloody not! It is objectively wrong. I don't care what internal justifications you have made, whether he was a wife beater, whether he killed someone himself. "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." It is worth noting that "an eye for an eye" is from the bible. Do I need to say any more on why we don't need religion as a prerequisite for morality?

What if the man was innocent? You've just killed someone who did not do the crime you took into your own hands to punish him for. You've just become a murderer. You have to live with that for the rest of your life. It will undoubtedly make you more cold or at least alter your psyche permanently in some way. Your kids will have to live with the shame of knowing their father is a criminal. Your son might even feel he has a duty to follow in your footsteps because that is how children are hardwired, to follow in the path of the parent of the same sex.

The mans parents will have to bury their own son. His wife will be left a widow. His kids will grow up without a father. This will have huge psychological impacts on them leading the boys to become more aggressive and the girl to become more promiscuous. God knows we have enough fatherless children in our world today. All the while the most painful aspect of their loss is that their dad was innocent.

The act itself has a huge butterfly effect, which is why it is objectively wrong. No matter what. This is what the judicial system was invented for. Innocent until proven guilty.
7 faults. Bag 'em and tag 'em. Probably more, considering I couldn't bold the words/letters I deleted.

Also, "Eye for an Eye" came from the Code of Hammurabi, which originated, based on a stele, in 1754 BCE, as opposed to 832 BCE for Solomon's temple, assuming you believe it exists.

I don't care what internal justifications you have made
I believe we call actively ignoring arguments by the other party ignorance. Prove me wrong.

Furthermore, if we could prove mathematically that the man would cause more damage to society in life than in death (average loss of income etc.) we could say that, objectively, elimination is the best option.

Also, you assume that there is a certainty that the children will become more aggressive and promiscuous as a result of their father's loss. To say nothing of the hate they would receive since their father was believed to be a murderer, even when it comes to this, as most manipulative INTJs know, human nature means that no outcome is certain.

Also, on killing an innocent man: "It's worked before, am I right Christians?" -Daniel Tosh
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
234 Posts
Here's your serious discussion:

We don't need religion to be moral. It's common sense. For example. Is killing someone wrong? If we didn't have the commandment would we just go out killing anybody we disagreed with? Of course bloody not. It is objectively wrong. I don't care what internal justifications you have made, whether he was a wife beater, whether he killed someone himself. "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." It is worth noting that "an eye for an eye." Is from the bible. Do I need to say any more on why we don't need religion as a prerequisite for morality?

What if the man was innocent? You've just killed someone who did not do the crime you took into your own hands to punish him for. You've just become a murderer. You have to live with that for the rest of your life. It will undoubtedly make you more cold or at least alter your psyche permanently in some way. Your kids will have to live with the shame of knowing their father is a criminal. Your son might even feel he has a duty to follow in your footsteps because that is how children are hardwired, to follow in the path of the parent of the same sex.

The mans parents will have to bury their own son. His wife will be left a widow. His kids will grow up without a father. This will have huge psychological impacts on them leading the boys to become more aggresive and the girl to become more promiscious. God knows we have enough fatherless children in our world today. All the while the most painful aspect of their loss is that their dad was innocent.

The act itself has a huge butterfly effect, which is why it is objectively wrong. No matter what. This is what the judicial system was invented for. Innocent until proven guilty.
Actually, research suggests that girls who have lost their fathers due to death are less likely to seek any male attention. Your example would better apply in situations of abandonment or divorce. I do agree that being fatherless under most circumstances creates issues. I gotta ask, though. You use a narrow, subjective situation to exemplify moral objectivity (killing of an innocent man), are you just afraid of a world without basic human decency? I am too, but the solution is not to shove moral "objectivity" at people and telling them there is only one way to be good. What if the person killed was not innocent? What if they were trying to kill you, or your family, or your buddies at war, or defenseless people? You had the ability to protect, and you did what you had to do. That's not immoral, but don't think that person won't still be dealing with having taken a life. Between you and yourself, you are still tortured even when it saves lives, it's hard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
775 Posts
Discussion Starter #40 (Edited)
Also, "Eye for an Eye" came from the Code of Hammurabi, which originated, based on a stele, in 1754 BCE, as opposed to 832 BCE for Solomon's temple, assuming you believe it exists.


I believe we call actively ignoring arguments by the other party ignorance. Prove me wrong.
Weak argument. Most of the people in todays society only know it from the bible. You know the worlds largest religion with 2.1 billion followers.

I believe we call taking one snippet out of a whole persons argument and not adressing the central premise, being nitpicky. :p
 
21 - 40 of 81 Posts
Top