# Perspectivism



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

What IE, type, etc. does this view most likely develop as a result of?

*Perspectivism is the term coined by Friedrich Nietzsche in developing the philosophical view (touched upon as far back as Plato's rendition of Protagoras) that all ideations take place from particular perspectives. This means that there are many possible conceptual schemes, or perspectives in which judgment of truth or value can be made. This is often taken to imply that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively "true", but does not necessarily entail that all perspectives are equally valid.

Perspectivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Ni, likely more negativist than positivist. Viktor Gulenko's DA cognitive style could also work perhaps. I can't comment as I have little to no understanding to how other DA types think other my own. Anyway, this is how I think pretty much. I do however think introversion is more likely than extroversion as is indicated in the description, because of the focus on subjective over objective truth.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> Ni, likely more negativist than positivist. Viktor Gulenko's DA cognitive style could also work perhaps. I can't comment as I have little to no understanding to how other DA types think other my own. Anyway, this is how I think pretty much. I do however think introversion is more likely than extroversion as is indicated in the description, because of the focus on subjective over objective truth.


The part that leaves room for weirdness is the last little tail, "does not entail all perspectives are equally valid."

Validity implies logic. So this person has two masters, it seems. It makes me think that this is a view directly caused by someone trying to integrate both of their introverted and extraverted viewpoints, but hits a roadblock because to combine them is a non-sequitur, and leaving them separate threatens to leave the "entire picture" unexplored.

I see the Ni, but could this be someone who is actively fighting to reconcile both their thinking and intuitive sides? Sort of a theme I'm seeing in Nietzsche's writing. His writing in general is an awkward attempt to bring "wholeness" with subservient awkward attempts to make up for the places where the mish-mashing of the two leaves a hole open for feeling and sensing(evidenced by his will to power and love of art). Also explains his ubermensch thing, the guy whose consciousness is literally raised above itself. I need to read his earlier stuff probably.

I'm curious, too, if other types attempt to do things like this, or maybe it's just an oddity of an intuitive, or a thinker.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@tangosthenes

Well it's about logic and external logic in particular. Some shit just isn't as valid so I think that falls back on Fi sorting which Te fact/data is more relevant/important over others (I assume Nietzsche is ILI here). I don't see the problem in the thinking, to be honest. There's no conflict going on at all. 

If you tell me that there are martians living among humans I will consider your POV as valid to you but reject it as truth to me. I can't say that's how Nietzsche reasoned but seeing how it correlates with my thinking I think I can use myself as an example. Logically speaking, saying that there are martians living on earth is just bogus because there is nothing to back it up. Your opinion, I'll see the validity of it in your thinking but still BS. I can merely accept that you have some internal logic albeit crappy one that led to such a conclusion. That's how I tend to view deeply religious people for example. I don't think their worldviews are logical at all given the experiential reality of it and the way we know how it operates e.g. creationists denying evolution theory, but I can still admit that their thinking has subjective value to them. I couldn't do this when I was younger by the way, but it was a skill I had to develop in a sense as I matured. 

Perhaps it's a quadra difference. I think alpha is more accepting of these kinds of reasoning examples or can be, not drawing such hard-lines necessarily based on what's factual or not or what is realistic or not. I mean, I think this need for "wholesome" thinking that you describe in general in Nietzsche is just likely because he's irrational over rational. It's by default going to be a bit more awkward, especially likely as perceived by the rational mind, simply because logic is not what is the basic metabolism of the psyche. There will thus be, to the rational base, "discrepancies" in thinking. 

While rationality-irrationality do not oppose each other cognitively in that both are required in order to fundamentally operate to one degree or another, the differences in weight in what is given to each within the psyche is going to create oddities in the individual's thinking. Irrational bases strive towards seeing the entirety of experience, to indulge in irrational thought, but the problem is that to the irrational mind that if one tries to structure that thought too much it's going to lose out on the wholesomeness of irrational experience. Depth of experience is lost in favor of structure. There is a point where all things cannot be explained in a rational manner, or perhaps should not be explained even, because such strict definitions will ruin the perception of what things are; it will miss out on the depth and the bigger picture. 

The best way I can explain it is akin to having a complete object given to you, like a video game. However, it turns out that upon buying not all content is actually provided but you need to pay for additional content. Some of the content is stripped away. That's what rationality does to thinking. You have this finished product but you can't access and experience all the parts without paying. Rationality cuts away pieces of the entirety of experience in favor of it making sense to them over than simply enjoying something for what it is in its wholesome nature. 

My impression pretty much is that you are expressing that Nietzsche is having issues reconciling these two things. Being a logical type and irrational base, it's not so strange at all, especially given his background as a philosopher that as a science is known for its almost exaggerated need for rational thought over irrational. How can I as an irrational type prove or convince you, the rational type, that my experience is true and the reality of things without first providing it to you in a highly structured and condensed form that makes you willing to accept its nature? And the answer to that question is of course I can't. I need to rationalize my irrational thought first before I can even remotely communicate with the world around me, or I'll end up making little sense to anyone I engage in conversation. It would be akin to a child that goes "ooh look picture oh look birdie sitting on the branch" kind of thing. You can only point out that which you experience but you cannot articulate the experience itself.

With that said, I want to reiterate that I still don't see the issue in claiming that some POVs are more important or have greater value of truth over others. I also wonder if that's a difference between Ne vs Ni, in that the Ne ego tends to want to see all options as having equal worth and value. Ni doesn't.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

tangosthenes said:


> The part that leaves room for weirdness is the last little tail, "does not entail all perspectives are equally valid."


That would fit with my observation of Ni vs Ne. Ne seems to have an inclination towards relativism. However, Ni seems to view relativism as a violation of genuine progress. Note that I distinguish between 'what I think is right' and 'which is more valid'.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> With that said, I want to reiterate that I still don't see the issue in claiming that some POVs are more important or have greater value of truth over others. I also wonder if that's a difference between Ne vs Ni, in that the Ne ego tends to want to see all options as having equal worth and value. Ni doesn't.


Great post, thank you. You picked up on what I was putting down, I hadn't thought of it in terms of rationality vs irrationality but it makes sense.

As to your question, I think there's a problem with it, in line with what you were saying.

First he established that no one's views are true, then says that some ways are truer than others. Which he is justifying via his view that no one's views are true.

Personally, this is fine with me on the level of its result, because truth begins to look very much like the art of persuasion if you play around with it, assuming you don't also give full weight to your own senses and limit to what you've experienced in "reality" in defining what is a true concept and what is not. But don't mask your persuasion and call it truth.. 


*This is often taken to imply that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively "true", but does not necessarily entail that all perspectives are equally valid.


*


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Inguz said:


> That would fit with my observation of Ni vs Ne. Ne seems to have an inclination towards relativism. However, Ni seems to view relativism as a violation of genuine progress. Note that I distinguish between 'what I think is right' and 'which is more valid'.


edit: redoing this post

Relativism is a violation of progress in what sense?


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

tangosthenes said:


> edit: redoing this post
> 
> Relativism is a violation of progress in what sense?


If neither is better nor worse, and it's wrong to compare and rule out some perspectives as less valid, then there would be a hindrance to the idea of adopting something better. For example, fighting for 'what is right' would be a tad bit meaningless if there isn't any basis on which you can say that your idea of what is right is more valid than what it is that you think is wrong.

There's no objective basis for saying if the perspective of a regular person is more "true" than that of a psychotic person, but that in it self doesn't imply that the perspective of the psychotic person is equally valid.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Inguz said:


> If neither is better nor worse, and it's wrong to compare and rule out some perspectives as less valid, then there would be a hindrance to the idea of adopting something better. For example, fighting for 'what is right' would be a tad bit meaningless if there isn't any basis on which you can say that your idea of what is right is more valid than what it is that you think is wrong.
> 
> There's no objective basis for saying if the perspective of a regular person is more "true" than that of a psychotic person, but that in it self doesn't imply that the perspective of the psychotic person is equally valid.


that is illogical


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

tangosthenes said:


> that is illogical


What exactly is illogical?


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Inguz said:


> What exactly is illogical?


There's no basis to say something is objectively better than something else, then that means there is no way to say it is better in a way that actually means anything from one person to the next, so why say it's better? Effectively, by saying it's better, you're stepping out of the context of relativism and asserting more assumptions than are entailed by it. You are saying you're a relativist when you're actually not.

That is why it is illogical.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

tangosthenes said:


> There's no basis to say something is objectively better than something else, then that means there is no way to say it is better in a way that actually means anything from one person to the next, so why say it's better? Effectively, by saying it's better, you're stepping out of the context of relativism and asserting more assumptions than are entailed by it. You are saying you're a relativist when you're actually not.
> 
> That is why it is illogical.


I'm not a relativist. The consequence of your line of reasoning is that the validity of the paranoid hallucinations of a psychotic person is equal to that of a sane person. It's worth to think about.

The reason that I personally do reconcile the fact A) there is no objective basis to establish which perspective is 'true' and B) we do have a common-sense understanding of someone not being 'sane' for example, with this seemingly (to you) illogical rationale is that to me the ethical apathy that would result from relativism is something that should be discouraged rather than encouraged. How you want to reconcile A+B is up to you.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Inguz said:


> I'm not a relativist. The consequence of your line of reasoning is that the validity of the paranoid hallucinations of a psychotic person is equal to that of a sane person. It's worth to think about.
> 
> The reason that I personally do reconcile the fact A) there is no objective basis to establish which perspective is 'true' and B) we do have a common-sense understanding of someone not being 'sane' for example, with this seemingly (to you) illogical rationale is that to me the ethical apathy that would result from relativism is something that should be discouraged rather than encouraged. How you want to reconcile A+B is up to you.


You could just remove it from the realm of validity and sat its due to your feelings about the situation. It's not all that uncommon for people to be moved by something other than logic


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

tangosthenes said:


> You could just remove it from the realm of validity and sat its due to your feelings about the situation. It's not all that uncommon for people to be moved by something other than logic


There are serious issues with relativism. Ok, scientific example... Is Newton's theory of physics more valid than Einstein's theory of physics? In a relativist framework you would not have the means to say that one is better than the other, because ultimately all perspectives are equally valid (according to the relativist).

What I mean to say by that example is that there is some 'perspectives' that are simply better than others, even if it COULD be possible that Newton's theory is a better approximation of reality. What I dislike about relativism is the consequence that neither ought to be more valid. That is illogical. If there is no such thing as adopting a better 'perspective' over time, then empirical science is an exquisitely pointless exercise.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Inguz said:


> There are serious issues with relativism. Ok, scientific example... Is Newton's theory of physics more valid than Einstein's theory of physics? In a relativist framework you would not have the means to say that one is better than the other, because ultimately all perspectives are equally valid (according to the relativist).
> 
> What I mean to say by that example is that there is some 'perspectives' that are simply better than others, even if it COULD be possible that Newton's theory is a better approximation of reality. What I dislike about relativism is the consequence that neither ought to be more valid.


Bad example as both are true and equally valid within their relative scales. In fact, that would be more of an argument in favor of relativism.



> That is illogical. If there is no such thing as adopting a better 'perspective' over time, then empirical science is an exquisitely pointless exercise.


I think the problem with this argument is that you've implicitly assumed that there is one viewpoint that is ultimately quantifiablely better than all others. I can't think of one instance where that'd be true or accepted as fact. Also, is progression about replacing an old perspective with a "better" perspective or seeking a more complete perspective? I'd say it's the latter moreso than the former.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Inguz said:


> There are serious issues with relativism. Ok, scientific example... Is Newton's theory of physics more valid than Einstein's theory of physics? In a relativist framework you would not have the means to say that one is better than the other, because ultimately all perspectives are equally valid (according to the relativist).
> 
> What I mean to say by that example is that there is some 'perspectives' that are simply better than others, even if it COULD be possible that Newton's theory is a better approximation of reality. What I dislike about relativism is the consequence that neither ought to be more valid. That is illogical. If there is no such thing as adopting a better 'perspective' over time, then empirical science is an exquisitely pointless exercise.


Yes, this is what I was saying. Your position is pragmatic, but has very little to do with logic. You _want_ progress, while a position like relativism simply describes things. The two don't go together as a method of truth. I mean, I completely understand you because I used to think my "real world" philosophy were the same statements that underpin science, and my "actual" philosophy was something between relativism and post-modernism (maybe). But again, that's a pragmatic concern, and I don't know that the two mold together in any way that doesn't make your brain hurt when you try to break it down. So I think perspectivism is a wholist viewpoint, not something just based on logic, more like a patchwork quilt from many different parts of life. And I don't know if that's actually a facet of it that brings it into contention with basically everything not in the individual, and raises a lot of interesting questions, probably too much for one person to answer, though.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

MNiS said:


> Bad example as both are true and equally valid within their relative scales. In fact, that would be more of an argument in favor of relativism.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the problem with this argument is that you've implicitly assumed that there is one viewpoint that is ultimately quantifiablely better than all others. I can't think of one instance where that'd be true or accepted as fact. Also, is progression about replacing an old perspective with a "better" perspective or seeking a more complete perspective? I'd say it's the latter moreso than the former.


"relative scales "?


tangosthenes said:


> Yes, this is what I was saying. Your position is pragmatic, but has very little to do with logic. You _want_ progress, while a position like relativism simply describes things. The two don't go together as a method of truth. I mean, I completely understand you because I used to think my "real world" philosophy were the same statements that underpin science, and my "actual" philosophy was something between relativism and post-modernism (maybe). But again, that's a pragmatic concern, and I don't know that the two mold together in any way that doesn't make your brain hurt when you try to break it down. So I think perspectivism is a wholist viewpoint, not something just based on logic, more like a patchwork quilt from many different parts of life. And I don't know if that's actually a facet of it that brings it into contention with basically everything individual, and raises a lot of interesting questions, probably too much for one person to answer, though.


The way that I see it, it also touches on the limitations of inductive/deductive reasoning. It can be a headache as you just wrote, but in my experience, people who value Se/Ni seems to default to what is known when facing such problems and instead try to unify these seemingly contradicting "facts".


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Inguz said:


> "relative scales "?
> 
> The way that I see it, it also touches on the limitations of inductive/deductive reasoning. It can be a headache as you just wrote, but in my experience, people who value Se/Ni seems to default to what is known when facing such problems and instead try to unify these seemingly contradicting "facts".


Yes, those limits are frustrating. When someone tries to justify god by pointing out that there's always doubt in science and things like evolution, it's like... no shit. Anyway, I caught myself unifying these perspectives since I've been reading this site, but reading and really thinking about Nietzsche has just convinced me more and more lately that I'm uncomfortable with that unification and the dissonance it brings. Not sure what this says as to my socionics type, but I suppose I was adapting in order to try to convince Ni-doms, but I just have to admit I have no idea what they're talking about, I guess. Or something.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Inguz said:


> "relative scales "?


That they're valid within their scales of reference. Newton's Laws are most valid on an astronomical scale but begin to break down at smaller levels and are invalid on an atomic level. Quantum Physics is valid on an atomic level but is irrelevant on a macro level since the math would be impossibly complicated and Newton's Laws already work well. So they're both valid within their relative scales. Newton for astronomical scales and Quantum for atomic levels. So conditionally, they're both equally valid.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

tangosthenes said:


> but I suppose I was adapting in order to try to convince Ni-doms, but I just have to admit I have no idea what they're talking about, I guess. Or something.


Convince us of what, exactly? 

Essentially, perspectivism says something in the lines of (and honestly, this is more Te-Fi than it is Ni-Se per se in my opinion) that my truth is true to me, your truth is true to you. Therefore, it is a relativist point of view in that they are still held somewhat equal, but only within each given context.

Hence I have to say, I find this discussing somewhat amusing to follow since I think this goes beyond Ne-Si vs Ni-Se, which I think Inguz' POV proves to me, being of the beta quadra. 

I also think this is the kind of issue that happens when we try to singularly nitpick one part of someone's cognition instead of seeing how that part is a part of a larger whole. You cannot arrive at the logic of perspectivism unless you are at least I assume, an ILI, at least not as a natural position that comes automatically to you. And by that it's not enough to just be NiSe-valuing, but one must also be FiTe-valuing. If you remove either one you don't have an ILI anymore.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> Convince us of what, exactly?
> 
> Essentially, perspectivism says something in the lines of (and honestly, this is more Te-Fi than it is Ni-Se per se in my opinion) that my truth is true to me, your truth is true to you. Therefore, it is a relativist point of view in that they are still held somewhat equal, but only within each given context.
> 
> ...


edit: I have no idea what I mean right now, so nvm.
What convinces you to see things another way once you've seen "your way?" I found the easiest way was to put my hand in the fish bowl top down and rearrange a few things.


----------



## babblingbrook (Aug 10, 2009)

I consider myself to be a perspectivist. I don't believe in ABSOLUTES and I think we cannot know the ding-an-sich. It does have some problems though. It denies any sort of metaphysical disposition, but it is in itself a metaphysical disposition. 

Seeing subjectivity and all sorts of perspectives in everything, might be a Fi thing.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

http://personalitycafe.com/socionic...gnitive-functions-information-processing.html

*Question 8*
h) how is our composition of our reality?
_
Users will consider:_
-User is Relaying.
-Reality is dependent from relation and defines user. 
-Reality is evident *just* for the user relaying.
-Reality is polar and subjective.
-Approach to reality is unique.
_Result:_
Tendency to Contrasting reality. (Fi)


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

babblingbrook said:


> I consider myself to be a perspectivist. I don't believe in ABSOLUTES and I think we cannot know the ding-an-sich. It does have some problems though. It denies any sort of metaphysical disposition, but it is in itself a metaphysical disposition.
> 
> Seeing subjectivity and all sorts of perspectives in everything, might be a Fi thing.
> 
> ...


Hmm, I'm tempted to lay some stuff out here and then go read that link so I don't bias myself.

I agree. No thing in itself. Which is why perspectivism is contradictory, since it asserts a form of validity anyway. In effect, it asserts the foundation of a truth based on emotional judgement. Which is _technically _true because, like as your signature says "We see things as we are."

But I just have problems with the use of the word validity since it's a misnomer for the concept. Weird how my grand insight boils down to nitpickiness(not that it's actually a grand insight). 

I used to think Derrida was a crackpot but we might have this nitpickiness in common.


----------



## babblingbrook (Aug 10, 2009)

Validity sounds pretty good to me. 

Pragmatists say Truth with a capital T is undefinable. Rorty argues that some interpretations are more 'useful' than others, but 'useful' leaves a bad taste in my mouth, since it reminds me of utilitarianism.

I see you are a Ti dom, how does perspectivism rhyme with this?:
-Reality is *not* dependent from relation with user.

Would you even agree with this theorem?


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

babblingbrook said:


> Validity sounds pretty good to me.
> 
> Pragmatists say Truth with a capital T is undefinable. Rorty argues that some interpretations are more 'useful' than others, but 'useful' leaves a bad taste in my mouth, since it reminds me of utilitarianism.
> 
> ...


I suppose it's meant to say "reality is not dependent on relation with user."

Honestly I can't say I have a good enough grasp on reality to tell you whether I agree or not. There are some blind spots put forward by people in conviction which continue to irk me and make me doubt that I understand anything.

Hmm, what does this quote really mean though? "Does reality have no objective existence and is in fact just a pointless little bit of conception in the brain?" 

I could see it going either way to be honest. What's important is that we get the intersubjective experience right. So maybe in a way, I disagree with that statement because I acknowledge that people CAN see reality differently, and in all full belief that they are correct(I have a nagging sense that I should qualify this by saying that is doesn't mean they're right, and my way of seeing doesn't mean I'm right either). Thing in itself is not knowable though, and I think you'd have to know things in themselves to come up with an answer to whether an objective reality is possible or not.

So I'd have to say if you have a belief such as this, to go further and assert you are correct beyond all doubts is just crazy. Perspectivism seems to assert correctness IN SPITE of doubts that it knows exist. Irrational.

But then again, it may seem like I'm doing this too, right? So that's why this is all a big mess for me. I'd very much like to know the truth but it seems impossible.


----------

