[AirMarionette]

If the universe was a gaping mouth, its expansion would be one giant echo. We're just trying to shout back.

People? Nothing but Lilliputians in a reticulate universe.

The mind and time are entwining in a living sea of marveling.

If there is time when there bliss then it is something you will miss.

Mystified by the ouroboros of gravity and entropy.

Notice patterns of discord and disarray: wrinkles, street cracks, tree cracks, the lines on your palm, a neuron's dendrites, a tree's branches, your arterial system, tangled hair, lightning strikes, white noise. Things that function differently which appear similar. Now notice patterns of completeness, nothingness, and endlessness at once: snails, ferns, whirpools, clocks, wheels, lightbulbs, electron orbital shells, 0, ∆, ∞. Things that unify the disparities in the whole.



Go!

[NeedsNewNameNow]

If we ever succeed in building a Space Elevator (Space elevator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) will it play elevator music? That would kinda take all the prestige out of being an astronaut, wouldn't it?

[touched]

Now notice patterns of completeness, nothingness, and endlessness at once: snails, ferns, whirpools, clocks, wheels, lightbulbs, electron orbital shells, 0, ∆, ∞. Things that unify the disparities in the whole.

I love this!

If intps are seekers of the truth, then why are we so damned subjective in our view of the world? Is it because truth itself is subjective and there are many different versions of it? So then an intp seeks not to discover THE truth (which arguably doesn't even exist), but merely his/her own interpretation of it?

[Lucretius]

I love this!

If intps are seekers of the truth, then why are we so damned subjective in our view of the world? Is it because truth itself is subjective and there are many different versions of it? So then an intp seeks not to discover THE truth (which arguably doesn't even exist), but merely his/her own interpretation of it?

Saying "the truth is subjective" is a contradictory statement.
There are no doubt plenty of subjectivist INTPs, but I'm not one of them.

[yesiknowbut]

Lovely post, Airmarionette.

I have to go and work. But I will be back. And all the time I am busy I will be thinking about the universe shoutiong back.

[touched]

Saying "the truth is subjective" is a contradictory statement.
There are no doubt plenty of subjectivist INTPs, but I'm not one of them.

Good point.
Objectivity does seem to exist in areas like Science, since it deals with positive rather than normative statements that it's possible to be either right/wrong about. Yet in areas like ethics or aesthetics, what exactly an 'ultimate truth' is becomes less clear, since there're many different opinions regarding what makes a piece of art good, or whether an action is justified or not. You could say some opinions are better/truer than others, but then what criteria would you use to justify that?
But I wouldn't say I'm a subjectivist/relativist. On a philosophical level maybe there really is no ultimate good/bad/true/false. But philosophy is philosophy and at times incompatible with living in the real world. I do believe in imposing universal criteria of some sort, such that the justification for 'Why is this action bad?' becomes 'Because it harms people' or something like that. It's a construct of society but I don't think that somehow makes it worthless, since after all we are communal beings. What we do has to make sense in the context of the society we live in. Ethics becomes a question of what's in the best interests of society. etc.

[Lucretius]

Good point.
Objectivity does seem to exist in areas like Science, since it deals with positive rather than normative statements that it's possible to be either right/wrong about. Yet in areas like ethics or aesthetics, what exactly an 'ultimate truth' is becomes less clear, since there're many different opinions regarding what makes a piece of art good, or whether an action is justified or not. You could say some opinions are better/truer than others, but then what criteria would you use to justify that?
But I wouldn't say I'm a relativist. On a philosophical level maybe there really is no ultimate good/bad/true/false. But philosophy is philosophy and at times incompatible with living in the real world. I do believe in imposing criteria of some sort, such that the justification for 'Why is this action bad?' becomes 'Because it harms people' or something like that. It's a human construct but I don't think that somehow makes it worthless.

While I agree that matters of value - like ethics and aesthetics - are subjective per se, I don't think this means they are random or capricious.
Judging by your comments here, we may be more or less on the same page, insofar as "human constructs" are not axiomatically worthless or meaningless.
I would go so far as to say certain values may be universal amongst sane and rational human beings, and that from these values, we could even build a universal ethic.

[touched]

While I agree that matters of value - like ethics and aesthetics - are subjective per se, I don't think this means they are random or capricious.
Judging by your comments here, we may be more or less on the same page, insofar as "human constructs" are not axiomatically worthless or meaningless.
I would go so far as to say certain values may be universal amongst sane and rational human beings, and that from these values, we could even build a universal ethic.

Hmm. Not quite saying they're capricious -- after all common consensus can be reached, as evidenced by the formation of religious sects with huge groups of followers etc. -- just that on a philosophical level, it's hard to call them 'objective' because you can't say 'this is ultimately, eternally true for everyone including people other than myself'.

But I agree with the view (Hume/Kant?) that universal consensus can, at least theoretically, be achieved. Hence constituting a sort of objectivity. The consensus becomes the objective criteria, with truth measured as the extent to which something coheres with the group's beliefs.

On a sidenote I think it's interesting how similar values can be expressed in different practices. Like how we all have different ways of showing love. Or how two cultures can believe in the sanctity of the family unit, but one practises polygamy while the other practises monogamy. I suppose we could come to a common universal consensus where the most basic of values are concerned, but overcoming differences in cultural values - e.g. one culture sees women as property of men, another sees them as equals - would be a bit harder. Since cultural practices have developed cuz of many years of history etc. and would be more difficult to undo, even if they stem from the same value.

[The Phantom]

Notice patterns of discord and disarray: wrinkles, street cracks, tree cracks, the lines on your palm, a neuron's dendrites, a tree's branches, your arterial system, tangled hair, lightning strikes, white noise. Things that function differently which appear similar. Now notice patterns of completeness, nothingness, and endlessness at once: snails, ferns, whirpools, clocks, wheels, lightbulbs, electron orbital shells, 0, ∆, ∞. Things that unify the disparities in the whole.

Go!

^ You've only just recognized these things?

a few more perhaps...

'Explosives'

Mushrooms, the atom bomb, jellyfish, A tree,

[username]

I love this!

If intps are seekers of the truth, then why are we so damned subjective in our view of the world? Is it because truth itself is subjective and there are many different versions of it? So then an intp seeks not to discover THE truth (which arguably doesn't even exist), but merely his/her own interpretation of it?

Truth is one. Viewpoints are subjective. Not every opinion is truth. We must keep our eyes open lest we should become indoctrinated.