Talk:Philosophy

T only?

Is philosophy T only? What about the role, say, Ni plays in philosophy?

Socionic benchmarks tend to place Socrates in Gamma (ILI usually). How does this fit with logic being completely housed inside the "Ti" category? --Jonathan 08:52, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

I think philosophy in the meaning of making sense of things applies equally to all information aspects. The language of academic philosophy, though, seems logic-dominated. I just chose a dichotomy that seemed to apply well to scientific inquiry. If you can think of others, please add them. --Admin 09:59, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, we definitely need to have examples of Ni vs. Ne (Sartre or Nietzsche are good examples of Ni), as well as the other quadra-value dichotomies, or other dichotomies in general. I'm sure we could find some great examples of Fi vs. Fe philosophy by looking at past threads on the16types (such as the "Soup Nazi" one). Thehotelambush 15:27, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Socrates

Intuitively, Socrates (as depicted by Plato) fits the role of the ILI critic, or gadfly, by basically tearing down any system anyone comes up with, even suggesting that no such system can withstand scrutiny (i.e., the wisest person is the person who recognizes how little he knows). However, his tools basically boil down to logic. He never suggests that the answer to a problem is to go out and do more experiments, or to read more. Instead, he assumes that without gathering any external information other than very common experiential knowledge to provide examples, one can find the flaw to any position.

How does this square with the framework proposed in this article, and with the common Socionics views about Socrates's type? Are we to interpret Socrates as someone who basically just put great emphasis on his 8th function? Or is logic equally the domain of Ti and Te? --Jonathan 08:52, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

My first thought is to look at the main result of Socrates' intellectual activities. Was it a logical system, a code of conduct or attitudes, a batch of insightful observations, an ideology about what the future was supposed to bring, or a certain "style" of looking at things? I think the answer to this question will help figure out his type. --Admin 09:59, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Unfortunately Socrates didn't write anything down, so we only know him from secondary sources (like Plato, whose fictional version of Socrates is probably more reflective of his own INTj-ness). I think Expat knows more about this. Thehotelambush 15:27, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

By Socrates, I'm referring to the portrait in Plato. Whether this reflects the actual type of Socrates in real life isn't really the issue, as far as I'm concerned. :) It may well be that the character "Socrates" is more representative of Plato himself. Presumably, in that case, you'd type him LII? And what would be the case for LII? Should we consider the Socionics benchmark results of ILI as a mistake? --Jonathan 17:38, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Presumably, in that case, you'd type him LII? Yes, the character Socrates seems very much INTj. I assume he was essentially a mouthpiece for Plato's own thought process and philosophy, which centers around the theory of Forms, things in their "ideal state", which betrays a pathological tendency of rationals. (I'm all for typing characters, btw.) As for the historical Socrates, his notable opposition of the sophists and their rhetoric (which I think is what you are referring to below) could indicate subdued Fe. Thehotelambush 18:11, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

(My own view, by the way, is that the main result of Socrates's intellectual activities was to introduce doubt among people who were over-confident of their views, and also to introduce techniques for analyzing problems, but not answers to the problems themselves. These are probably the reasons why he was typed ILI. It is possible that he used Ti as an 8th function extensively to criticize what he saw as the dangers of overly assumptive systems. However, the apparent use of Ti introduces a basis of conflict regarding his type. Also, people may have differing opinions on whether his messages of doubt, open-mindedness, and flexibility of position are more reflective of LII or ILI.) --Jonathan 17:38, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

If that is accurate about what Socrates mostly did, I would say ILI. It's not so much that he "used" Ti in this role, but that he played down its importance and tore down the excessive use of Ti around him. An analogous role would be for an IEE to go around making fun of people's emotional affect in times of mass hysteria or ideological hype. I think this role requires the use of the 8th function to imitate and make fun of the excessive behavior, but the actual verbal/mental criticism comes from the Ego functions, which carry the real message of what the person is saying. --Admin 01:28, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

That reinforces my view that Socrates was ILI. (But Thehotelambush: Why Fe? :) Actually, though, I can see your point that Plato might have been LII. I've always felt that the shorter dialogues and ones that dealt with Socrates's trial are more true to Socrates, and his aversion to any solid system of any kind. The longer dialogues that come up with definite systems, the theory of Forms, ideas about government, and so forth, are probably just using the character of Socrates to voice Plato's views. At least, that's how it seems.

That said, it seems to me that theory of Forms is more of an introverted, N > S, T > F view; as I recall, Plato was de-emphasizing the physical nature of things and saying that we should focus on abstract concepts. This could be understood as both Ni as well as Ti. Furthermore, he was suggesting that people should first think about what the ideal state of something is, instead of just looking at how things are and picking the lesser of two evils. Again, this could be interpreted as valuing imagination (Ni) or logic (Ti) as way to perceive the "ideal" state before taking any kind of action.

If Plato was LII and Socrates ILI, this shows that the quasi-identity relationship can be much more productive than typically suggested in Socionics. It seems to me that there are lot of very non-dual relationships that work in professional and friend-oriented relationships. This usually creates an atmosphere that is a little unbalanced (e.g., all intellect, no emotion, no practicality), but may be productive and satisfying in its own right. I don't know if Socionists have studied this enough. In the case of Plato and Socrates, it seemed that perhaps Socrates relished using Ti as a technique, even if his goal was tear down any system that came along. Plato may have interpreted Socrates as the perfect critic to help teach him to devise better systems than he otherwise might.

One other thing: The article on Rationality and irrationality makes the theory of Forms sound a bit like rationality. Personally, I believe that article is quite wrong and needs to be fixed somehow. Its claims that irrationals see things as they are in the external world is more true of Se types than any other irrational type.--Jonathan 16:24, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

1. Let's start an article on Socrates
2. Let's fix those names, if thehotelambush can figure out the alphabetizing bot
3. Yes, that Rationality and irrationality article needs work --Admin 01:57, 12 July 2007 (CDT)