The infamous "I" mentality | Page 3 | INFJ Forum

The infamous "I" mentality

Discussion in 'Psychology and MBTI' started by just me, Nov 6, 2019.

Share This Page

Watchers:
This thread is being watched by 12 users.
More threads by just me
  1. dragulagu

    dragulagu Galactic Explorer
    Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2019
    Threads:
    48
    Messages:
    1,543
    Featured Threads:
    10
    Likes Received:
    7,071
    Trophy Points:
    1,077
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Andromeda
    MBTI:
    INTJ
    Enneagram:
    549
    So far so good..

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/#TracLogiPhil


    Ogden translation
    Pears/McGuinness translation
    1. The world is everything that is the case. The world is all that is the case.
    2. What is the case, the fact, is the existence of atomic facts. What is the case—a fact—is the existence of states of affairs.
    3. The logical picture of the facts is the thought. A logical picture of facts is a thought.
    4. The thought is the significant proposition. A thought is a proposition with sense.
    5. Propositions are truth-functions of elementary propositions. A proposition is a truth-function of elementary propositions.
    (An elementary proposition is a truth function of itself.) (An elementary proposition is a truth function of itself.)
    6. The general form of truth-function is [p¯,ξ¯,N(ξ¯)]" role="presentation" style="display: inline; line-height: normal; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;">[p¯,ξ¯,N(ξ¯)][p¯,ξ¯,N(ξ¯)]. The general form of a truth-function is [p¯,ξ¯,N(ξ¯)]" role="presentation" style="display: inline; line-height: normal; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;">[p¯,ξ¯,N(ξ¯)][p¯,ξ¯,N(ξ¯)].
    This is the general form of proposition. This is the general form of a proposition.
    7. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.

    (yeah i left that one in intentionally)

    >>Will BBL with more intro/extraspection
     
    #41 dragulagu, Nov 6, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2019
    Ren, John K, Sandie33 and 1 other person like this.
  2. sassafras

    On Holiday

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Threads:
    172
    Messages:
    14,097
    Featured Threads:
    7
    Likes Received:
    41,526
    Trophy Points:
    2,376
    MBTI:
    .
    A little late to this convo...

    It all depends on context. A 'we' mentality can be a positive force when a group of individuals is united under the banner of a common goal or philosophy through their own volition and free will. But the need to be needed, the desire to belong and to connect with others can also be exploited for nefarious purposes. See: propaganda, cults, your common pitchfork mob, etc. It's rarely good to lose yourself to others completely. The human mind is highly permeable and prone to social influence. You have to be careful with whom you associate with and make sure your 'we' includes multiple perspectives.

    A good balance requires one to respect the human in everyone - after all, there wouldn't be a we if there weren't multiple 'me's' involved too.

    Yes, exactly.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    Ren, John K, just me and 4 others like this.
  3. Maikl Jexocuha

    Maikl Jexocuha ΦAGMAKFA!

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2019
    Threads:
    2
    Messages:
    954
    Featured Threads:
    1
    Likes Received:
    5,246
    Trophy Points:
    1,062
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    MBTI:
    INFJ
    Enneagram:
    Type 4w5
    Lol...a little irony in this topic? Given the Op is "justMe"?
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    Asa, John K, just me and 3 others like this.
  4. OP
    just me

    just me GONE

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Threads:
    211
    Messages:
    12,013
    Featured Threads:
    16
    Likes Received:
    6,161
    Trophy Points:
    1,121
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    not here
    MBTI:
    infj
    Enneagram:
    6w5
    My time. I cannot speak about your time, as I have no idea. We have healthy uses of "I" and they are necessary. Had I said "our time", it would have been a large assumption. Love the gif.

    My wife and I are in the bed together. We are in the bed together. Not really the point, though. In leadership roles, which is the point of this, "we" gets farther down the road than "I want you to do this."

    Concerning God, "I Am" means more than we understand now. In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.
    "Whom shall We send, and whom shall go for Us? Then said I: take me, Lord. I will go for Us. He who goes for God is with God and never alone.

    Great responses and good discussions.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  5. OP
    just me

    just me GONE

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Threads:
    211
    Messages:
    12,013
    Featured Threads:
    16
    Likes Received:
    6,161
    Trophy Points:
    1,121
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    not here
    MBTI:
    infj
    Enneagram:
    6w5
    It was intended to show meekness.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    John K, Maikl Jexocuha and Hostarius like this.
  6. OP
    just me

    just me GONE

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Threads:
    211
    Messages:
    12,013
    Featured Threads:
    16
    Likes Received:
    6,161
    Trophy Points:
    1,121
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    not here
    MBTI:
    infj
    Enneagram:
    6w5
    I'm myself leans toward I am, which is only part of the conjugation of the verb "to be".
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    Ren, Maikl Jexocuha and Hostarius like this.
  7. Maikl Jexocuha

    Maikl Jexocuha ΦAGMAKFA!

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2019
    Threads:
    2
    Messages:
    954
    Featured Threads:
    1
    Likes Received:
    5,246
    Trophy Points:
    1,062
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    MBTI:
    INFJ
    Enneagram:
    Type 4w5
    @just me Its all good. Was just teasing
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    just me, Ren, John K and 1 other person like this.
  8. John K

    Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Threads:
    3
    Messages:
    4,062
    Featured Threads:
    3
    Likes Received:
    36,741
    Trophy Points:
    2,332
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cheshire, England
    MBTI:
    INFJ
    Enneagram:
    5W4 549
    But what if Wittgenstein is just a figment of my imagination? What if my own sense of ‘I’ is part of the same fiction? And what if these are worldview forming primary perceptions not conclusions? The rabbit hole is a black one .... resistance is useless ....

    Just joking! .... am I? ..... Hello! .... Is anyone else there?
     
  9. Ren

    Ren Pin's android

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2017
    Threads:
    54
    Messages:
    9,845
    Featured Threads:
    28
    Likes Received:
    78,269
    Trophy Points:
    4,121
    Location:
    Dublin
    MBTI:
    INFJ
    Enneagram:
    458 spsx
    There it is.

    ---------------------------------------------------


    5.6 The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.

    5.61 Logic fills the world: the limits of the world are also its limits. We cannot therefore say in logic: This and this there is in the world, that there is not. For that would apparently presuppose that we exclude certain possibilities, and this cannot be the case since otherwise logic must get outside the limits of the world: that is, if it could consider these limits from the other side also. What we cannot think, that we cannot think: we cannot therefore say what we cannot think.

    5.62 This remark provides a key to the question, to what extent solipsism is a truth. In fact what solipsism means, is quite correct, only it cannot be said, but it shows itself. That the world is my world, shows itself in the fact that the limits of the language (the language which only I understand) mean the limits of my world.

    5.63 I am my world. (The microcosm.)

    5.631 The thinking, presenting subject; there is no such thing. If I wrote a book “The world as I found it”, I should also have therein to report on my body and say which members obey my will and which do not, etc. This then would be a method of isolating the subject or rather of showing that in an important sense there is no subject: that is to say, of it alone in this book mention could not be made.

    5.632 The subject does not belong to the world but it is a limit of the world.

    5.633 Where in the world is a metaphysical subject to be noted? You say that this case is altogether like that of the eye and the field of sight. But you do not really see the eye. And from nothing in the field of sight can it be concluded that it is seen from an eye.

    [​IMG]

    5.634 This is connected with the fact that no part of our experience is also a priori. Everything we see could also be otherwise. Everything we can describe at all could also be otherwise. There is no order of things a priori.

    5.64 Here we see that solipsism strictly carried out coincides with pure realism. The I in solipsism shrinks to an extensionless point and there remains the reality co-ordinated with it.

    5.641 There is therefore really a sense in which in philosophy we can talk of a non-psychological I. The I occurs in philosophy through the fact that the “world is my world”. The philosophical I is not the man, not the human body or the human soul of which psychology treats, but the metaphysical subject, the limit—not a part of the world.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  10. Maikl Jexocuha

    Maikl Jexocuha ΦAGMAKFA!

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2019
    Threads:
    2
    Messages:
    954
    Featured Threads:
    1
    Likes Received:
    5,246
    Trophy Points:
    1,062
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    MBTI:
    INFJ
    Enneagram:
    Type 4w5
    ...Sapir-Whorf?(do I see a linguistics connection here in philosophy?)
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  11. Maikl Jexocuha

    Maikl Jexocuha ΦAGMAKFA!

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2019
    Threads:
    2
    Messages:
    954
    Featured Threads:
    1
    Likes Received:
    5,246
    Trophy Points:
    1,062
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    MBTI:
    INFJ
    Enneagram:
    Type 4w5
    This is awesome!
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  12. Ren

    Ren Pin's android

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2017
    Threads:
    54
    Messages:
    9,845
    Featured Threads:
    28
    Likes Received:
    78,269
    Trophy Points:
    4,121
    Location:
    Dublin
    MBTI:
    INFJ
    Enneagram:
    458 spsx
    Wittgenstein is a genius :relieved:

    I should add that it is technically more an argument than a proof against solipsism. I find it fascinating in the way it turns solipsism on its head, so to speak.

    The idea that the subject is a limit of the world is also a powerful one.

    Yeah, the 20th century saw a rift between so-called analytic philosophy, at the heart of which linguistic and logical analysis plays a central role, and continental philosophy, which rejects this central role because of what it sees as nefarious consequences on the scope of what philosophy can legitimately discuss.

    Interestingly, Karl Popper, who in many ways saw himself as an adversary of Wittgenstein, has a totally different argument against solipsism. It follows from his principle of falsificationism, according to which the openness to being falsified by empirical observation provides the line of demarcation between scientific and non-scientific theories. Solipsism cannot be empirically falsified (he argues), therefore it is not scientific; therefore it is very unlikely to be true, etc.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    #52 Ren, Nov 7, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2019
  13. Ren

    Ren Pin's android

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2017
    Threads:
    54
    Messages:
    9,845
    Featured Threads:
    28
    Likes Received:
    78,269
    Trophy Points:
    4,121
    Location:
    Dublin
    MBTI:
    INFJ
    Enneagram:
    458 spsx
    He is also a figment of my imagination. But maybe I am also a figment of your imagination. Or is it you who is a figment of mine?!!
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  14. John K

    Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Threads:
    3
    Messages:
    4,062
    Featured Threads:
    3
    Likes Received:
    36,741
    Trophy Points:
    2,332
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cheshire, England
    MBTI:
    INFJ
    Enneagram:
    5W4 549
    :tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy:
    We can relax because it’s all ok really. This depends on imagination - which is of course also a figment of something that’s just a figment of ..... something.
    Logic - that’s just a fiction too, a metaphysical opium dream. But there’s no real dreamer.
    Did someone say something?

    I’m intrigued by the conclusion that Wittgenstein reached - that the philosophical subject is a limiting point of the world it perceives but not part of that world (but then - how can they interact? ). As well as a fascinating logical analysis, this reduction is an important meditation for anyone who would like to understand what is meant by ‘I’.
     
  15. dragulagu

    dragulagu Galactic Explorer
    Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2019
    Threads:
    48
    Messages:
    1,543
    Featured Threads:
    10
    Likes Received:
    7,071
    Trophy Points:
    1,077
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Andromeda
    MBTI:
    INTJ
    Enneagram:
    549
    Thanks Ren, that part is indeed the one on solipsism.

    So in hindsight; there is world constraint in the perception of "I". There is a "we" to describe / propose this world in a broader context. Language dictates the ability to describe this world between us by exchanging our propositions/thoughts of this world. So "we" is valued more than "I" from a descriptive point of view of the world.
    "we" however would be more prone to faults due to the (in)ability of language to be perceived / translated differently by each individual, based on their perception and collection of facts. There lies the difficulty in any discussion and the need for truth - simplex sigillum veri (simplicity is the sign of truth, as noted in the book).

    The world is the totality of facts. It does not need our description to exist.

    <might correct some stuff later here after I did some re-reading>

    PS: That book was not easy to go through (went to a compressed 36 page version of it)...a lot of propositions towards logic, language, ... in a very...robotic kind of way. Not that much in regards to philosophy/psychology, except for the last chapters and a paragraph here and there. Will have to re-read it a couple times again though to properly understand it. But damn interesting!

    Sorry, I was trolling. Solid reasoning. The point I wanted to make is that we need to learn to say both "I" and "We" where and when necessary.
    As your OP picture is a solid example of it.
     
    just me, Sandie33, John K and 2 others like this.
  16. Hostarius

    Hostarius Saudade Retard

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2018
    Threads:
    32
    Messages:
    9,370
    Featured Threads:
    15
    Likes Received:
    66,179
    Trophy Points:
    4,131
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    MBTI:
    INTJ
    Enneagram:
    1w2
    The problem with that is that 'falsification' takes non-solipsism as axiomatic anyway - it couldn't work in any other way.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  17. dragulagu

    dragulagu Galactic Explorer
    Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2019
    Threads:
    48
    Messages:
    1,543
    Featured Threads:
    10
    Likes Received:
    7,071
    Trophy Points:
    1,077
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Andromeda
    MBTI:
    INTJ
    Enneagram:
    549
    I wonder...couldn't solipsism be falsified by breaking down the concept of one's own reality of the world from a neurological/biological (biochemical,physical,mathematical) point of view?

    Also...something is chiming here with contradiction as argumentation of taking non-solipsism as an axiomatic on the falsification of solipsism...depending from which point of view you are proposing (the solipsism point of view or the non-solipsism point of view). The one excludes the other...I don't know...

     
    Sandie33, John K and Hostarius like this.
  18. Hostarius

    Hostarius Saudade Retard

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2018
    Threads:
    32
    Messages:
    9,370
    Featured Threads:
    15
    Likes Received:
    66,179
    Trophy Points:
    4,131
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    MBTI:
    INTJ
    Enneagram:
    1w2
    See that's exactly the point - no it couldn't.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    Sandie33, dragulagu and John K like this.
  19. dragulagu

    dragulagu Galactic Explorer
    Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2019
    Threads:
    48
    Messages:
    1,543
    Featured Threads:
    10
    Likes Received:
    7,071
    Trophy Points:
    1,077
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Andromeda
    MBTI:
    INTJ
    Enneagram:
    549
    Because of solipsism...hmm...the empirical facts are mere illusion...
     
    Sandie33, John K and Hostarius like this.
  20. Hostarius

    Hostarius Saudade Retard

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2018
    Threads:
    32
    Messages:
    9,370
    Featured Threads:
    15
    Likes Received:
    66,179
    Trophy Points:
    4,131
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    MBTI:
    INTJ
    Enneagram:
    1w2
    The only 'point of view' that could be said to exist is the subjective - it's the only way through which any reality at all is experienced and thus absolutely foundational.

    The subjective is the core, the centre, the 'ground' (to borrow a Rennism) of everything else. It can't be undermined.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    Sandie33, dragulagu and John K like this.

Share This Page