INFP: The Truest NF?

[mochi]

Oh yeah? Well... Pew pew to you too!

 

[Trifoilum]

...oh, dear.

Do remember cultural values. Americans (and Western europes, I believe) -highly valued- individualization. Communal cultures might have valued Fe more; and thus, ENFJs.

I'm also echoing @Reverie in every word, and offering insights of my own. How big are the chance of aggrandizing INFPs, or their capabilities, or their potentials compared to other type of NFs?
That is not to say anything negative about INFPs, but.. to say that they are the ones most capable of self actualization is...:|

What is a good NF and what is a true NF?

Ah,
well.

 

[Vilku]

Well it would be helpful to have
1) A good thorough definition of idealism
2) A description on how it manifests in each type of NF
3.) A compelling argument why based on 1) and 2) as to why INFP is the truest idealist
....
4.) TRUEST idealist... define the word true in this context too

These would all be helpful if we were to actually try and assess this in any seemingly rational way (...i hope there are no Ts here... ;D )

1) according what our capabilities are as to laws of physics, assessing into practice through science with understanding for all peoples.

2) each has their different important part they play in society, and when they play their strengths we all gain.

3) our current definitions of words are based on democracy, thus if infp screams "om nomm nom nomm STOP! we peace, we must!" without any consideration for the words practical application, the second party will feel both misunderstood and think infp is a stupid idealist, thus steretypical taunting meaning is created for term idealist through democracy.
tell me, you still support democracy after i taught you what it is?

4) the one who fits the stereotypical definition best is seen as the truest in the eyes of most, and we all know we'ra just slaves of democracy.
if they say einstein is a freak, then thats the definition of freak. look not for the word, but its users and its purpose for them.

elaborated enough have i? ~,,

 

[Untitled]

I was more looking for what is meant by IDEALISM as a term. There are many types of idealism.


Noun 1. idealism - (philosophy) the philosophical theory that ideas are the only reality
philosophy - the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics
philosophical doctrine, philosophical theory - a doctrine accepted by adherents to a philosophy
2. idealism - impracticality by virtue of thinking of things in their ideal form rather than as they really are
impracticality - concerned with theoretical possibilities rather than actual use
romanticism - impractical romantic ideals and attitudes
knight errantry, quixotism - quixotic (romantic and impractical) behavior
3. idealism - elevated ideals or conduct; the quality of believing that ideals should be pursued
high-mindedness, noble-mindedness
magnanimousness, nobleness, grandeur, nobility - the quality of elevation of mind and exaltation of character or ideals or conduct
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/idealism

What at first caught my attention was that the in the OP the question was loaded with the presumption that the "best" form of idealism is staying true to your ideals derived from Fi type feeling, when there are other types of idealism and different manifestations of idealism, like the ENFJs social idealism, for example my friend wanting to develop psychological coping techniques for people with mental issues, or like my ENFP husband who actively lives a very engaging life according to his own value principles and my INFJ way: Having had a series of Ni type epiphanies about life, universe and everything I would be a philosophical idealist. It is apparent in my creative work. Same way I'm sure INFPs mold their lives according to their unique values. I just personally don't think there's anything better about any of the ways, they're just different ways.

I personally think EVERYONE plays an important part in society, the idealist as well as the accountant and salesguy. I'm the better equipped for one thing while some other type is better for another.

And as for popular opinion, I don't much care about it. It's just a matter of taste. I've got mine, other's got theirs. Who cares? Whatever matters to other's doesn't have to matter to me. I don't much bother with that stuff. Most things I've worried about, how others would feel about them, well...I've only pestered myself. The trick how to be free of that is to stop worrying about what others think, what they like or what they don't like, respectfully. You don't have to care if your views are not popular.
As for trying to convince people to "do the right thing"... that never works. Say your peace but don't have expectations about it having any impact. Everybody has to deal with their own head. People hear what they want to hear. If they want to hear "Let's be in peace" they'll be listening for it. If not, they'll not hear it even if you stand on a soapbox with a megaphone. And to be honest many idealistic people use "the truth" or moralizing a bit like a weapon to ridicule others and strip them of their cherished beliefs rather than as something used out of love and concern for someone else's wellbeing.

We work on ourselves in order to help others,
but also we help others in order to work on ourselves.
Pema Chodron

 

[Owfin]

3) our current definitions of words are based on democracy, thus if infp screams "om nomm nom nomm STOP! we peace, we must!" without any consideration for the words practical application, the second party will feel both misunderstood and think infp is a stupid idealist, thus steretypical taunting meaning is created for term idealist through democracy.

I don't think "stupid idealist", I think "that was random and nonsensical". Somebody who seems to be externally babbling off does not get called an idealist, they get stares. The term idealist is not affected.

4) the one who fits the stereotypical definition best is seen as the truest in the eyes of most, and we all know we'ra just slaves of democracy.
if they say einstein is a freak, then thats the definition of freak. look not for the word, but its users and its purpose for them.

If they say Einstein is a freak, and that is the way they use the word freak, then yes, the definition of freak will be Einstein. Except that means now the term freak is no longer negative. It will just mean Einstein. There's a book called Frindle, about a kid who decided to call pens "frindles" instead of "pens" (it's a long story). He shares it with his friends, and their use of the world interests the kids in that grade, and then it gets the attention of the school, and then the neighborhood, and then the local news, (or something along those lines) and it escalates until it becomes a massive phenomenon. At the end of the book, it is put in the dictionary.

Word definitions are indeed based on how people use them. Frindle is a nonsense word, but if it is consistently used to refer to a pen, then the word is given meaning. It is good that word definitions work this way. It allows the language to evolve and expand.

 

[Vilku]

I don't think "stupid idealist", I think "that was random and nonsensical". Somebody who seems to be externally babbling off does not get called an idealist, they get stares. The term idealist is not affected.



If they say Einstein is a freak, and that is the way they use the word freak, then yes, the definition of freak will be Einstein. Except that means now the term freak is no longer negative. It will just mean Einstein. There's a book called Frindle, about a kid who decided to call pens "frindles" instead of "pens" (it's a long story). He shares it with his friends, and their use of the world interests the kids in that grade, and then it gets the attention of the school, and then the neighborhood, and then the local news, (or something along those lines) and it escalates until it becomes a massive phenomenon. At the end of the book, it is put in the dictionary.

Word definitions are indeed based on how people use them. Frindle is a nonsense word, but if it is consistently used to refer to a pen, then the word is given meaning. It is good that word definitions work this way. It allows the language to evolve and expand.

maybe not on your case, but you fail to consider most derive the meaning of word from its use. (needles to say, if its used for taunting, then people believe its a taunt.)
if 100% of humans thought they were individuals, i doubt youd find the truth even if its the opposite.

language doesnt evolve nor expand, its an illusion that language ever was static. it never was, no matter how many books of it you create, no matter how many you kill to enforce your opinion. we are opinionated and you can either accept the fact none of the knowledge we poses has form nor reliability or delude yourself.

knowledge is merely a representation of something else we deem meaningful, never the other way.

language is like water, its liquid and changes form and position constantly.

 

[Owfin]

maybe not on your case, but you fail to consider most derive the meaning of word from its use. (needles to say, if its used for taunting, then people believe its a taunt.)
if 100% of humans thought they were individuals, i doubt youd find the truth even if its the opposite.

What? Didn't my post specifically agree, yes, people derive the meaning of a word from its use? If idealist is used as a taunt, okay, it becomes a taunt. So...?

In a way, 100% of people are individuals, but I assume you weren't getting into sentimatics here.

anguage doesnt evolve nor expand, its an illusion that language ever was static. it never was, no matter how many books of it you create, no matter how many you kill to enforce your opinion. we are opinionated and you can either accept the fact none of the knowledge we poses has form nor reliability or delude yourself.

I never said language is static. Did I? I know that a drawback of English is that it changes so much that some of the older books we have have to be translated. This has nothing to do with people being opinionated.

 

[Vilku]

What? Didn't my post specifically agree, yes, people derive the meaning of a word from its use? If idealist is used as a taunt, okay, it becomes a taunt. So...?

In a way, 100% of people are individuals, but I assume you weren't getting into sentimatics here.



I never said language is static. Did I? I know that a drawback of English is that it changes so much that some of the older books we have have to be translated. This has nothing to do with people being opinionated.

as i divided the first part by a paragraph, to specificly show which part of your post its response to. (thus excluntant to you, rather a response to your words.)

by using your words how you did, you clearly shew a belief in languages being accountable which they are not at all.
thus any and every book about languages is as useless as cockroach's last thought.

books only limit our learning, they stop us from learning the truth.