Post by nymph on Apr 29, 2018 3:19:00 GMT -5
[6:34 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Chomsky is good example of Ne/Si phil. Probably Bertrand Russell too. But the thing about TiNe is that Ne is more additive than reductive
[6:34 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): So it’s not surprising Chomsky is TiSi
[6:34 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Not very much philosophy is based on an exploration of ideas and cross contextualization
6:35 PM] Phibious: There's a partial type sorter in the ways boundaries between subjects are defined too.
[6:35 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Theory =/= philosophy
[6:35 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): I think TiNe make incredible theorists
[6:36 PM] f a e: Yeah I think Te is ruthlessly rational too Phibious
[6:37 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): That doesn’t mean that they aren’t interested in philosophy
[6:37 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Of course they are that’s very clear
[6:37 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): It’s the style of thinking I’m talking about
[6:38 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Hopefully that distinction is clear
[6:38 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): TiNe seem to build “out”
[6:38 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): That’s the opposite of what philosophy is imo
[6:40 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Lots of philosophy is also theoretical sure. We can’t deny a marrying of science and phil in our current circumstances
[6:40 PM] Phibious: I'm running into an issue with the term 'philosophy' being very wobbly, what exactly qualifies?(edited)
[6:42 PM] Phibious: ...and on that note @f a e we've obscured that aspect by tipping too much material into Ti that should be under Te,
Or rather, we inherited that tilt from greater typology and did not address it fully.
[6:42 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): I mean in the conventional sense of metaphysics being the domain of philosophy and philosophy alone
[6:43 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Everything else is interdisciplinary now
[6:43 PM] Phibious: Ah, okay. I wasn't even fully clear on that being the modern conventional sense.
[6:44 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): It doesn’t add up
[6:44 PM] Phibious: Since a lot of 'philosophers' worked on other material at a time when it was considered philosophy.
[6:45 PM] Phibious: So, metaphysics is very Se/Ni tilted in the inherent ways that it needs to be thought about?
[6:45 PM] Phibious: I could definitely see that.
[6:45 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): TiNe are explicitly described as being more metaphysical
[6:46 PM] Phibious: Could that be an imprecise colloquial usage of the word metaphysical that could be replaced with something accurate?
[6:46 PM] Phibious: Because 'prone to working on concepts of being, identity, and thing-in-itselfness' or whatever reasonable definition you use definitely seems off there.
[6:47 PM] Phibious: I'd agree.
[6:49 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): I think theoretical might work better? The use of metaphysical there has always irked me. Phenomenology as a trait of Ti too. That’s 100% an S trait either Se/Si
[6:50 PM] Phibious: Actually the clarification makes your claimed pattern stronger because it seems like a lot of Si/Ne philosophers sort of accidentally tipped in from other fields and a lot of them worked on things other than metaphysics.
[6:50 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): INT = more theoretical
[6:50 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Because NF people are very metaphysical
[6:50 PM] Phibious: I'm going to guess phenomenology leans Se because it dovetails too well with the other Ni/Se concepts.
[6:50 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Possibly
[6:51 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Husserl is so Se/Ni it hurts
[6:51 PM] Phibious: Also having the words and caricatures layer over your perceptual processing is not good for that.(edited)
[6:51 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): I have seen Si do good phenomenology tho(edited)
[6:52 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Ne caricatures are horrible for that yes
[6:52 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): I’ve been saying that
[6:52 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Lol
[6:52 PM] Phibious: ^^Hmm, maybe it could be S-attached in general then.
[6:52 PM] Phibious: I do agree it's a subject almost specifically designed to lean S in some way.(edited)
[6:59 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Yeah but as I said not a lot things still count as philosophy proper except standard philosophy of the mind: metaphysics, epistemology, phenomenology, being, mind/body, consciousness. There’s a sense in which ontology is misused here too, where ontology is conflated with material things. You can make ontological assertions about non-material things. I make ontological assertions about idea-forms all the time
[7:00 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Almost uniformly TiNe have an epiphenomenal conception of those that leans into eliminative materialism — metaphysics is of no use in a worldview like that so it makes sense
[7:01 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): It also makes sense that the realm of the spiritual/numinous becomes the site of fantasy in such a worldview(edited)
[7:01 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): As opposed to crazy ontological assertions about god
[7:01 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): And inners and outers
[7:03 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Like I literally literally think god is everywhere but that’s not because I’m not metaphysical — it’s because I am
[7:05 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): (I think this all changes in Ti with Si btw, or any double intro psyche)
[6:34 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): So it’s not surprising Chomsky is TiSi
[6:34 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Not very much philosophy is based on an exploration of ideas and cross contextualization
6:35 PM] Phibious: There's a partial type sorter in the ways boundaries between subjects are defined too.
[6:35 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Theory =/= philosophy
[6:35 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): I think TiNe make incredible theorists
[6:36 PM] f a e: Yeah I think Te is ruthlessly rational too Phibious
[6:37 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): That doesn’t mean that they aren’t interested in philosophy
[6:37 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Of course they are that’s very clear
[6:37 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): It’s the style of thinking I’m talking about
[6:38 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Hopefully that distinction is clear
[6:38 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): TiNe seem to build “out”
[6:38 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): That’s the opposite of what philosophy is imo
[6:40 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Lots of philosophy is also theoretical sure. We can’t deny a marrying of science and phil in our current circumstances
[6:40 PM] Phibious: I'm running into an issue with the term 'philosophy' being very wobbly, what exactly qualifies?(edited)
[6:42 PM] Phibious: ...and on that note @f a e we've obscured that aspect by tipping too much material into Ti that should be under Te,
Or rather, we inherited that tilt from greater typology and did not address it fully.
[6:42 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): I mean in the conventional sense of metaphysics being the domain of philosophy and philosophy alone
[6:43 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Everything else is interdisciplinary now
[6:43 PM] Phibious: Ah, okay. I wasn't even fully clear on that being the modern conventional sense.
[6:44 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): It doesn’t add up
[6:44 PM] Phibious: Since a lot of 'philosophers' worked on other material at a time when it was considered philosophy.
[6:45 PM] Phibious: So, metaphysics is very Se/Ni tilted in the inherent ways that it needs to be thought about?
[6:45 PM] Phibious: I could definitely see that.
[6:45 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): TiNe are explicitly described as being more metaphysical
[6:46 PM] Phibious: Could that be an imprecise colloquial usage of the word metaphysical that could be replaced with something accurate?
[6:46 PM] Phibious: Because 'prone to working on concepts of being, identity, and thing-in-itselfness' or whatever reasonable definition you use definitely seems off there.
[6:47 PM] Phibious: I'd agree.
[6:49 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): I think theoretical might work better? The use of metaphysical there has always irked me. Phenomenology as a trait of Ti too. That’s 100% an S trait either Se/Si
[6:50 PM] Phibious: Actually the clarification makes your claimed pattern stronger because it seems like a lot of Si/Ne philosophers sort of accidentally tipped in from other fields and a lot of them worked on things other than metaphysics.
[6:50 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): INT = more theoretical
[6:50 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Because NF people are very metaphysical
[6:50 PM] Phibious: I'm going to guess phenomenology leans Se because it dovetails too well with the other Ni/Se concepts.
[6:50 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Possibly
[6:51 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Husserl is so Se/Ni it hurts
[6:51 PM] Phibious: Also having the words and caricatures layer over your perceptual processing is not good for that.(edited)
[6:51 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): I have seen Si do good phenomenology tho(edited)
[6:52 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Ne caricatures are horrible for that yes
[6:52 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): I’ve been saying that
[6:52 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Lol
[6:52 PM] Phibious: ^^Hmm, maybe it could be S-attached in general then.
[6:52 PM] Phibious: I do agree it's a subject almost specifically designed to lean S in some way.(edited)
[6:59 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Yeah but as I said not a lot things still count as philosophy proper except standard philosophy of the mind: metaphysics, epistemology, phenomenology, being, mind/body, consciousness. There’s a sense in which ontology is misused here too, where ontology is conflated with material things. You can make ontological assertions about non-material things. I make ontological assertions about idea-forms all the time
[7:00 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Almost uniformly TiNe have an epiphenomenal conception of those that leans into eliminative materialism — metaphysics is of no use in a worldview like that so it makes sense
[7:01 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): It also makes sense that the realm of the spiritual/numinous becomes the site of fantasy in such a worldview(edited)
[7:01 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): As opposed to crazy ontological assertions about god
[7:01 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): And inners and outers
[7:03 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): Like I literally literally think god is everywhere but that’s not because I’m not metaphysical — it’s because I am
[7:05 PM] iso-jellyskelly | TiSe (II-I): (I think this all changes in Ti with Si btw, or any double intro psyche)