Typing: Philosophy

[Infjente]

If you like, Darwin's theory of evolution/survival of the fittest is a theory of world history that makes zero metaphysical claim and sees itself as solid because of that. There is no God-designed purpose, no telos, only the struggle for existence. There is no "reality beyond what we see": it's all right there — a rather uncommon view among philosophers, at least before Pragmatism. This is why you are a good Darwin.

This solves the question of @Infjente's type! ESTP

I don't stay away from philosophy because I don't find it reliable, relevant or interesting - on the contrary!(!!!) I do that so I can see "reality beyond what we see" clearly using my own strict "scientific method". I LIVE for "reality beyond what we see", not for "possibilities beyond what we see" and I don't care about what we already can see (including all of my interests as I listed above), but it's what I use for the shadow works (which I LIVE for).

 

[Deleted member 16771]

I don't stay away from philosophy because I don't find it reliable, relevant or interesting - on the contrary!(!!!) I do that so I can see "reality beyond what we see" clearly using my own strict "scientific method". I LIVE for "reality beyond what we see", not for "possibilities beyond what we see" and I don't care about what we already can see (including all of my interests as I listed above), but it's what I use for the shadow works (which I LIVE for).

So what's your 'scientific method'?

 

[Krypton]

I don't stay away from philosophy because I don't find it reliable, relevant or interesting - on the contrary!(!!!) I do that so I can see "reality beyond what we see" clearly using my own strict "scientific method". I LIVE for "reality beyond what we see", not for "possibilities beyond what we see" and I don't care about what we already can see (including all of my interests as I listed above), but it's what I use for the shadow works (which I LIVE for).

How do you access "reality beyond what we see" and how do you differentiate that from philosophy?

@Deleted member 16771 Why would you be so rude as to ninja me?

I don't know if I have or not.

Alright, so, I don't know you that well, nor do I know a lot about philosophers, but from my limited information bank I'm gonna guess Foucault. Skeptical of big narratives, despite what you may think pretty unpretentious (source) and restrained in the claims they make.

 

[Infjente]

So what's your 'scientific method'?

I don't know if I can explain it, at least not in a fulfilling way, but I'll try to give you the essence of it. It's about taking the positive "shape" of something and create the negative shape from what you see. You can do this by guessing, use of knowledge or by figuring it out from scratch. For instance, everyone knows that white is black in negative, but not everyone knows that red is green in negative. For me it's better to not know anything about the complimentary/opposite colors, but to figure out which is the opposite of red from what I already know about the primary colors. If I learned the opposite colors, it's a good chance that I would remember wrong (contamination!) or never really bother to understand the system, and then I wouldn't be able to control/check if I'm right. I would also HATE if someone gave me the answer 'green' before I got to figure it out by myself. Hearing other's ideas (not facts, facts are okay) can be like someone is accidentally reading the last page of a book you can't wait to finish yourself.

Yep ...

 

[Infjente]

I do that so I can see "reality beyond what we see" clearly

Ouch! This was not what I intended to say! (no, no Freudian slip either)

 

[Krypton]

I don't know if I can explain it, at least not in a fulfilling way, but I'll try to give you the essence of it. It's about taking the positive "shape" of something and create the negative shape from what you see. You can do this by guessing, use of knowledge or by figuring it out from scratch. For instance, everyone knows that white is black in negative, but not everyone knows that red is green in negative. For me it's better to not know anything about the complimentary/opposite colors, but to figure out which is the opposite of red from what I already know about the primary colors. If I learned the opposite colors, it's a good chance that I would remember wrong (contamination!) or never really bother to understand the system, and then I wouldn't be able to control/check if I'm right. I would also HATE if someone gave me the answer 'green' before I got to figure it out by myself. Hearing other's ideas (not facts, facts are okay) can be like someone is accidentally reading the last page of a book you can't wait to finish yourself.

Yep ...

I got it. It's actually a pretty cool way to be, and I'm aspiring to get better at finding the raw data. Though there times when someone comes up with something you wouldn't/couldn't have that you have to deal with, unfortunately, and times when raw data is too difficult to find.

I have a pretty good idea of what philosopher I'd give you, but I now want to ask--do you want me to tell you? I can give you just a hint if you'd like.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

I don't know if I can explain it, at least not in a fulfilling way, but I'll try to give you the essence of it. It's about taking the positive "shape" of something and create the negative shape from what you see. You can do this by guessing, use of knowledge or by figuring it out from scratch. For instance, everyone knows that white is black in negative, but not everyone knows that red is green in negative. For me it's better to not know anything about the complimentary/opposite colors, but to figure out which is the opposite of red from what I already know about the primary colors. If I learned the opposite colors, it's a good chance that I would remember wrong (contamination!) or never really bother to understand the system, and then I wouldn't be able to control/check if I'm right. I would also HATE if someone gave me the answer 'green' before I got to figure it out by myself. Hearing other's ideas (not facts, facts are okay) can be like someone is accidentally reading the last page of a book you can't wait to finish yourself.

Yep ...

Cool. Yeah that's rationalism, and hence philosophy.

 

[Infjente]

How do you access "reality beyond what we see" and how do you differentiate that from philosophy?

I never ment to make such a claim but I explained a little bit in my answer to Hos how I try to figure out "the other side" by staying away from other's philosophies, because I need my own to be clean and original in order for myself to accept them as reality

 

[Infjente]

I have a pretty good idea of what philosopher I'd give you, but I now want to ask--do you want me to tell you? I can give you just a hint if you'd like.

I probably wouldn't take that hint

But, yes, I would want to know who you're thinking about

 

[Krypton]

I probably wouldn't take that hint

But, yes, I would want to know who you're thinking about

Socrates would be the one I'd consider. Surprisingly few philosophers do philosophy just for the joy of it, or at least they don't make it seem like they do. They seem like they're trying to solve a specific problem. Socrates gives me the vibe like they just want to play with their brains a bit.

Plus the whole "question everything" shtick.

That said, if Charles Darwin was allowed, I'd rather give you a scientist than a philosopher anyway. Maybe Einstein.

 

[Infjente]

Socrates would be the one I'd consider. Surprisingly few philosophers do philosophy just for the joy of it, or at least they don't make it seem like they do. They seem like they're trying to solve a specific problem. Socrates gives me the vibe like they just want to play with their brains a bit.

Plus the whole "question everything" shtick.

That said, if Charles Darwin was allowed, I'd rather give you a scientist than a philosopher anyway. Maybe Einstein.

Personality wise I think Socrates fits me well from what I just read about him on wiki I've got a similar approach, maybe (?) as Darwin, but our "fields" are opposite. And I don't "bend" quiet like Einstein

Holistic scientist or a realistic philosopher, maybe?

 

[Ren]

I try to figure out "the other side" by staying away from other's philosophies, because I need my own to be clean and original in order for myself to accept them as reality

To be honest, very little of what we think is ever clean and original... That's the one thing that practicing philosophy taught me. To have a truly original idea — that is very rare, and usually requires familiarity with what's been done. There are some exceptions, though; Wittgenstein was a very original thinker and I'm pretty sure he didn't have expert knowledge of the history of philosophy.

 

[Ren]

Alright, so, I don't know you that well, nor do I know a lot about philosophers, but from my limited information bank I'm gonna guess Foucault. Skeptical of big narratives, despite what you may think pretty unpretentious (source) and restrained in the claims they make.

I think you could be Foucault

Edit: restrained in the claims he made, though? I'm not sure about that :}

 

[Infjente]

To be honest, very little of what we think is ever clean and original... That's the one thing that practicing philosophy taught me. To have a truly original idea — that is very rare, and usually requires familiarity with what's been done. There are some exceptions, though; Wittgenstein was a very original thinker and I'm pretty sure he didn't have expert knowledge of the history of philosophy.

Exactly, that's why I'm so strict about it. It doesn't have anything to do about with not wanting to copy others, or that I want to be original, I NEED to be as original as I possibly can to be able to trust my own system and the reality I "see". Nothing would make me more satisfied than to sit on my death bed reading a whole bunch of philosophy, falling a sleep for the last time, smiling because I didn't miss a thing, or even figured a couple of things they didn't. I doubt it will be the case, but it illustrates how my philosophy works. I'm not inspiring to publish or anything, I just want to know I got it right.

@Deleted member 16771 is guess you were right about third function infj on being right

 

[Infjente]

My field it human un/subconscious, and the universe un/subconscious I guess.

 

[Ren]

@Deleted member 16771

What if I had said: "You are Derrida"?

 

[Ren]

My field it human un/subconscious, and the universe un/subconscious I guess.

Ok, so you're a psychoanalytical panpsychical pantheist, but you reject any of those philosophical associations at the same time....

You are Derrida, madam! @Deleted member 16771's favorite philosopher.

 

[Infjente]

Ok, so you're a psychoanalytical panpsychical pantheist, but you reject any of those philosophical associations at the same time....

I'm most definitely psychoanalytical, but panpsychical pantheist?? Did he rejected them because he didn't want his study contaminated?

Dang! You know your philosophers!

You are Derrida, madam! @Deleted member 16771's favorite philosopher.

 

[Infjente]

I've been told by someone that I reminded them of Melanie Klein, if that helps

 

[Krypton]

I think you could be Foucault

Edit: restrained in the claims he made, though? I'm not sure about that :}

What am I missing? The synopsis of the guy is that he mostly wrote about mental health issues, though to be fair I guess the reminder he made about common-sense or proven claims was bigger, but still niche. He wasn't making sweeping claims about what the political system should be, or the meaning of life, a la older philosophers.