Personality Cafe banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Does Te have anything to do with the philosophical concept of empiricism?

Is Ti, being opposed to Te, rationalism?
 

·
Heretic
ESI 5w4 9w8 2w1
Joined
·
10,691 Posts
Does Te have anything to do with the philosophical concept of empiricism?

Is Ti, being opposed to Te, rationalism?
Yes I think Te is the motivating power behind empiricism.
However it is different paired with Si than with Se.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ninjahitsawall

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
Does Te have anything to do with the philosophical concept of empiricism?

Is Ti, being opposed to Te, rationalism?
Shouldn't be equivocating one cognitive function to a whole school of thought. Ti and Te are driving forces for thought, they can be concluded to for whatever. It's how they're coupled that lends the pathways for thoughts and conclusions. How they are driving forces are usually perspectives. One using the self or internal processes, the other, external examples or applying thoughts externally. This is to say the least as to their differences.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Yes I think Te is the motivating power behind empiricism.
However it is different paired with Si than with Se.
So how exactly is Ni-Te/Te-Ni different from Si-Te/Te-Si in terms of empiricism and epistemology? Which school of thought of epistemology would either fall under?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
575 Posts
Your theory makes sense. After all the founder of rationalism was René Descartes; an INTP. Another supporters of rationalism was Baruch Spinoza (INFJ). I was thus about to say: "And if I'm not wrong many of the famous empiricists were Te people" but as I looked up to ground myself on that, I find that many of the empiricists are typed as Ti people as well. E.g. John Locke (INTP), David Hume (ENTP). Source: Celebritytypes. I also have a feeling that George Berkeley, another empiricist, is an ENTP. Though there is a possibility they may be mistyped. As for Immanuel Kant (INTP) I believe he first supported rationalism but then abandoned it for empiricism because Hume influenced him. I could remember wrong though.

At any rate it seems that the Ti people are everywhere when it comes to philosophy. I mean, I think it's more likely for an INTJ to have an interest in ethics or political science than to have an interest in epistemology and the metaphysics like the INTPs (and other Ti people). For this reason the Ti-people likely over represents both rationalism and empiricism.

But on paper, however, I fully agree with your theory. It makes sense to assume that Te people support empiricism and Ti people rationalism. Though interestingly enough my INTP friend is one of the biggest empiricists I know. And I often find myself taking the stance of the rationalist when arguing with him. Though I'm by no means a pure rationalist. I tend to mix the 2 since I see value in both.

Maybe reality isn't as simple as something written on paper?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,055 Posts
isn't empiricism an extension of rationalism?

if your theory is rational, you don't need empiricism unless you want to share your opinion or make something out of it. that is sort of the definition between ti and te, right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
isn't empiricism an extension of rationalism?

if your theory is rational, you don't need empiricism unless you want to share your opinion or make something out of it. that is sort of the definition between ti and te, right?
Not quite, Ti deals with an internal framework of logic. The Ti user is more concerned about what makes sense to them personally, whereas the Te user is more concerned with what objectively makes sense.

How exactly is empiricism an extension of rationalism?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ninjahitsawall

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,055 Posts
Not quite, Ti deals with an internal framework of logic. The Ti user is more concerned about what makes sense to them personally, whereas the Te user is more concerned with what objectively makes sense.

How exactly is empiricism an extension of rationalism?
empiricism relates experiential data via the senses, where as rationalism is entirely conceptual. in the most direct sense, if empiricism is defined as purely experiential, then it's not an extension of anything, but in terms of scientific theory, empiricism generally requires rationalization before it can take precedent

i mean, as a ti user, i can argue that making sense is not objective to begin with, so such a train of thought is totally futile
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Your theory makes sense. After all the founder of rationalism was René Descartes; an INTP. Another supporters of rationalism was Baruch Spinoza (INFJ). I was thus about to say: "And if I'm not wrong many of the famous empiricists were Te people" but as I looked up to ground myself on that, I find that many of the empiricists are typed as Ti people as well. E.g. John Locke (INTP), David Hume (ENTP). Source: Celebritytypes. I also have a feeling that George Berkeley, another empiricist, is an ENTP. Though there is a possibility they may be mistyped. As for Immanuel Kant (INTP) I believe he first supported rationalism but then abandoned it for empiricism because Hume influenced him. I could remember wrong though.

At any rate it seems that the Ti people are everywhere when it comes to philosophy. I mean, I think it's more likely for an INTJ to have an interest in ethics or political science than to have an interest in epistemology and the metaphysics like the INTPs (and other Ti people). For this reason the Ti-people likely over represents both rationalism and empiricism.

But on paper, however, I fully agree with your theory. It makes sense to assume that Te people support empiricism and Ti people rationalism. Though interestingly enough my INTP friend is one of the biggest empiricists I know. And I often find myself taking the stance of the rationalist when arguing with him. Though I'm by no means a pure rationalist. I tend to mix the 2 since I see value in both.

Maybe reality isn't as simple as something written on paper?
Thank you for your reply! I had noticed it myself that many Ti users have contributed some thought to the school of empiricism. I suppose that would make sense if making sense of things based on objective criteria makes sense to the individual who uses Ti and is preferred by them through Si.

I have, however, noticed that many Te users have somewhat contributed to the existentialist schools, such as Nietzsche (INTJ), Heidegger (ISTJ), Sartre (INTJ), Camus (INFP), Kierkegaard (INFP), Hegel (INTJ) Source: Celebrity Types. Many have metaphysical ideas of existence being in a constant state of flux.

Do you believe that Existentialism has much to do with Ni-Fi? Where does Te come in and how does it shape the ideas of these philosophers?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ninjahitsawall

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
empiricism relates experiential data via the senses, where as rationalism is entirely conceptual. in the most direct sense, if empiricism is defined as purely experiential, then it's not an extension of anything, but in terms of scientific theory, empiricism generally requires rationalization before it can take precedent

i mean, as a ti user, i can argue that making sense is not objective to begin with, so such a train of thought is totally futile
That's what I'd like to know, what is "objective knowledge" in the first place, to a Te user? How does Te relate to the use of "objective knowledge"? Is objective knowledge merely sensory observations and empirical data? Especially since you did mention that empiricism requires rationalization.

I'm fascinated with your idea of making sense not being objective. What proof would you use for such a claim, if you'd be asked to provide any?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ninjahitsawall

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,055 Posts
That's what I'd like to know, what is "objective knowledge" in the first place, to a Te user? How does Te relate to the use of "objective knowledge"? Is objective knowledge merely sensory observations and empirical data? Especially since you did mention that empiricism requires rationalization.
i don't know if objective knowledge exists. any experience that is extrapolated for data will automatically be compromised via bias. i suppose consistency is the key, so the only objective knowledge must be paradoxical in nature

I'm fascinated with your idea of making sense not being objective. What proof would you use for such a claim, if you'd be asked to provide any?
making sense is a linear process of rational vs irrational. you can't be objective by utilizing only one half of the equation. all empirical knowledge is predicated upon agreed upon paradigms. group subjectivity compensating for a lack of true objectivity. true objectivity embraces contradictions without a need to understand them, because understanding compromises objectivity
 

·
Heretic
ESI 5w4 9w8 2w1
Joined
·
10,691 Posts
So how exactly is Ni-Te/Te-Ni different from Si-Te/Te-Si in terms of empiricism and epistemology? Which school of thought of epistemology would either fall under?
Id say that Se/Ni is more focused on phenomenology.
Si/Ne seem to orient towards icons and don't care as much about the phenomena themself.
But it isprobably not as clearcut as that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,187 Posts
Does Te have anything to do with the philosophical concept of empiricism?

Is Ti, being opposed to Te, rationalism?
Te organize things more pragmatically but the perception being epirical is a Se thing. In this sense Te is different from Ti because Ti will try to find an optimal way that works more as an universal standard to organize things/thoughts. Te will just do what seems more practical in the situation and therefore Te is more dynamic as opposed to methodical and standardized Ti.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
Rationalisation is always done on data. There's no other way. It needs a basis to start, whether that data is related with events, rules, beliefs, or other abstract concepts. The main difference between rationalism and empiricism is that rationalism takes reasoning as absolute, and empiricism takes reasoning as an hypotheses.

So, in this sense empiricism truly is objective because it states if a certain event will always happen under determined conditions or not. And in my view, it really doesn't need rationalising because it isn't concerned with the understanding of why it happens, just how and when. Can empiricism be biased? No, but the the way it's made can. That is, if one fails to observe (or can't account for) all the conditions for which the experiment is executed, then there's a risk that a very similar experiment draws a different outcome. This can lead one to think empiricism needs rationalising to be done, so all is correctly accounted for. However, I don't see it like that because that's not quite rationalising over the event, but only making sure the stage is set right so the result can be considered valid. Empiricism can also be taken as being subjective because it is often bound to cause-effect statements which are later found to be false and strongly biased. In this case, the bias truly is in the reasoning made upon the data/results, not the data/results itself. Just because there's a correlation on the data, it doesn't mean there's a cause-effect relationship. This is a mistake often seen in science.

Rationalisation comes in when you want to know why the outcome is that one and not another. And then you must go back to empiricism to verify your hypotheses. Science works by going back and forth between empiricism and rationalism to draw a conclusion (whereas engineering can be exclusively empiricist). So, in this sense rationalism is always subjective because it is a product of the mind, but it is never completely detached from data (facts), which are objectively observed (or derived) empirically. That's why I think knowledge can be created empirically or rationally, but can only be verified by the first method.

Someone asked "what is objective knowledge?" My answer is: a fact which can be replicated. It is as simple as that. Can rationalisation be objective? I don't think so. Even if you're testing a physical/mathematical theory, you still have to prove its theorem. This exercise is empirical because you're actually testing an hypothesis within the rules of those sciences. The rationalisation was made to formulate the question, and it was a completely subjective process, although based on empirical data (the knowledge you had at the time).

Does Te have anything to do with the philosophical concept of empiricism?

Is Ti, being opposed to Te, rationalism?
I must admit I don't know what to say. Any person can take info in and then rationalise over it, regardless of their type, although they do it in a different way. Most people don't rationalise over most things anyway, but if they do, reality eventually strikes in. There's no reason to keep trusting a reasoning which is repeatedly shown invalid, unless:

A: one is a very self-centred and dumb person;
B: one trusts a reasoning which can't be empirically tested. In this case it is entirely subjective and more a matter of belief than knowledge, since there can be an equally valid reasoning/logic showing the opposite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xLeonhart

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,860 Posts
That's what I'd like to know, what is "objective knowledge" in the first place, to a Te user? How does Te relate to the use of "objective knowledge"? Is objective knowledge merely sensory observations and empirical data? Especially since you did mention that empiricism requires rationalization.

I'm fascinated with your idea of making sense not being objective. What proof would you use for such a claim, if you'd be asked to provide any?
I can't find it now but I once saw a quick video of the scientific method as described by some academic guy. He said that it's actually not "objective" but "intersubjective', because the only thing that can really be confirmed empirically is that everyone is seeing/observing the same phenomenon. That was something I thought more closely matched my own perspective.

There was a thread maybe like a year ago on a similar topic (maybe it was about epistemological certainty, don't remember), where I said that certainty doesn't exist and an INTP responded that of course it does. I was defining certainty in empirical terms (like being certain that what you see in the outer world really exists), and they were defining it in terms of true/false value (1+1=2 is a certainty). I thought it was interesting that we were defining it differently, probably the Te/empiricism and Ti/rationalism slant you refer to. Although I would agree that a priori statements can be certainties in terms of truth/falsehood, I think there's no such thing as "real world" certainty..so my next question here would be, what is the implication of there being certainty in pure logic, but not in the observable universe? To me it would suggest pure logic is insufficient to describe reality...thus there will always be uncertainty when it comes to your actual lived experience, i.e. empirically. I'm not sure a Ti user would be thinking along those lines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mOchO

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
I can't find it now but I once saw a quick video of the scientific method as described by some academic guy. He said that it's actually not "objective" but "intersubjective', because the only thing that can really be confirmed empirically is that everyone is seeing/observing the same phenomenon. That was something I thought more closely matched my own perspective.
This one made me think. My conclusion is that it's certainly true when you try to draw conclusions from an observational study. You can only draw hypothesis from those. Conclusions must come from studies which can establish cause-effect relationships. If you change one variable and can predict the outcome of such implication, I don't see how that can be considered subjective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ninjahitsawall
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top