# Killing Animals



## Aha (Mar 6, 2014)

Use of what function make humans more compassionate toward animal lives?

Animals of the same kind rarely kill each other without a serious reason. Humans do not kill each other too

But we kill other animals to survive and so do they. 

We have a lot of fellow humans who do killing as part of their business or for sport. I am sure that majority of people wouldn't feel good at that type of job. 

I will tell you how I feel about it:

_I hate the idea of killing. I cannot stop the images in my head - I transfer for a time into the animals head and try to see it through their perception. How they feel, seeing butchers instruments or a gun of "sportsmens". This is actually terrible. I am so deeply into those thoughts, that I am afraid to step on a bug. Just imagine - their whole hopes on the future, their families - all gone in an instant by your stepping on them. 
Oh...one would laugh and tell me that they are just animals. Dude... we ARE animals too! Why should we not feel for them? We are genetical cousins. We share the same genome no less than 60% with any animal on the Earth. 

Oh my... but we share it with plants too. Killing trees for a chair. Or for a book when you can buy an e-book reader? Preposterous! _

So, guys. Questions is: 
User of what functions would be more compassionate toward other animals/life forms?
Who are those heartless callous killers? (not those who do it for survival). Their most probable functions?


My understanding is that it is Fe (It is interpersonal, but also may be inter-life) that freaks me out so much about all those...


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

It could be pretty much any judging function, honestly. 

Fe sees in animals an "other" to feel the emotions of.
Fi determines taking _any_ life is against its values. 
Ti realizes that we share a conscious awareness of the environment with animals, and both meet the criteria for life, so why should we treat them differently? 
Te initially accepts that animals are lesser, but sees evidence to the contrary and changes its opinion. 


So....


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

I don't think it has to do with functions.

I think it has to do with awareness.

_Though_, probably those who do not subscribe to society's ideals and traditions are more likely to care about animal lives.

I'm not sure what function that is. Ni?

edit:



Aha said:


> [Which type is more likely to kill animals for food/sport?] Their most probable functions?


Anyone with Se. But I think it's important to note that very, very few people _enjoy_ killing. They do it as their job because they need money to provide for their families, and maybe that job pays better than working at McDonald's.


Anyone with Si would be able to relate to the animals' pain and suffering better and would be far less likely to kill them for fun.


----------



## Aha (Mar 6, 2014)

emberfly said:


> I don't think it has to do with functions.
> 
> *I think it has to do with awareness.*
> 
> ...


Yeah, but awareness is all about cognition


----------



## dinkytown (Dec 28, 2013)

Sorry, some things are just not type related.

My usual pheasant and goose hunting groups consist of two ESTPs, an ESFP, an INTJ, and me (possibly INTP although not certain).

I've dated two ISFPs relatively long term. One was a strict vegan and appalled by hunting. One would gladly partake in pheasant hunting with me and really took to the sport.

It's much more of a cultural and upbringing thing than anything unique to one's psychology.

EDIT: Although come to think of it, several xSFJs I know seem kind of repelled by hunting, or violence and aggression in general. While I doubt that's a universal Fe-Si thing, there might be something to that.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

Not cog function related.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

@_Aha_ - your particular thoughts are very Fe, and also Ti.... because you approach the 'sense' of it, the logical reasoning or lack thereof, and also how it plays out algorithmically. 

Perceiving functions are amoral and irrational... they'd have nothing directly at all to do with moral or even logical decisions... though it may affect the context in which we might perceive them.

The decision to not kill animals would be a moral/ethical one... thus Feeling. However, Thinking might aid in this process, by helping to clarify the situation so that a better moral decision might be made. Thinking decides whether there is a reason to kill an animal.... and on it's own would not seek to do so unless there was a reason. Feeling might choose to kill an animal for the enjoyment of doing so, or some peripheral enjoyment that involved killing as a natural byproduct. Jung said, and I am so glad he did, that even indifference is Feeling... being itself a rational judgment.

That all being said, I think that intuitive types tend to be somewhat more removed from visceral things, and from concrete perception, and thus incidentally less likely to enjoy or engage activities such as hunting for sport, or to have jobs that involve killing animals, etc. That might leave the appearance that N types are more inclined not to kill, but I don't think that is true. 

The obvious answer for which type tends to rack up the highest kill count is STP. I am inclined to agree, and the obvious correlation is to Se engagement and concreteism... and the relative unconscious of Feeling. 

However, my father is a hilariously stereotypical ISTP raised in a backward rural hunting culture. The house I grew up in had a shed put there for the sole purpose of preparing, storing, and utilizing slain animals. One of my chores as a child was to engage in such activities. However, at about 8-10 years old, so pretty early on, I was taken hunting and witnessed my first killing. I apparently had a hysterical fit, though I don't remember that specifically. I remember, quite vividly, the death. I refused to participate in any sort of violent act from then on out. 

I am not certain whether I was an influence, but at around that point, my father also slowly lost his interest in hunting. Over time he did it less and less and less, and certainly never required me to participate. In fact, he actively shielded me from from the efforts of others to compel me in that regard. He himself traded his gun for a camera on his rare excursions. The shed was repurposed. 

He raises animals, including cows. I went to his house a few years ago and found him in a emotional state. I discovered that he'd raised a cow for slaughter, but had grown attached to it. He had taken the animal to be slaughtered anyway, and lamented it deeply. It was actually kinda funny... absurd and surreal. 

The thing is, I realized at that moment my father was actually living in a state far more objectively moral than myself. I'd just eaten a hamburger... and here was my father, who would be eating an animal he had personally and conscientiously cared for, had personal oversaw the ethical and (mostly) painless death of, and whose death he would genuinely mourn. On the one hand we could say he killed an animal. On the other hand, we could say that he cared for it, and that instead of watching it deteriorate and die anyway, he gave it a fairly ideal death at a time that its body could be utilized and put to desirable use. A paragon of enlightened husbandry, that one.

Then my INFP friend calls up and says he is ordering some chicken at some fast food place and if I want him to get extra for me. 

The whole thing gets so bizarre and convoluted. Is it better that out in some field somewhere, there are countless cows just hanging out in relative mindless comfort... or would it be better that they were winked out of existence, to never be and to never have been? Is it better that they wither and die from natural causes or that they are executed while healthy and utilized? Such a dynamic philosophical question, really.


----------



## Lesley Drakken (Aug 17, 2012)

I'm a feeler with a strong cultural ideology about hunting from my upbringing. I believe that some animals aren't meant to be eaten, but others where put on the earth to be hunted. So yes, I do believe in eating meat and hunting animals for food and have no inhibitions about that. I'm not really a big fan of those people who treat it like a crime, nor do I have much respect for people who trophy hunt to compensate their ego. 

I have plenty of empathy for animals; I just recognize a natural order wherein the relationship between predator and prey keeps the environment in balance. Humans are omnivores. We farm, we gather, we hunt and we kill. Still, we have to respect the animals we take for food, and do our best to act as custodians to nature. Humane, sustainable hunting and efficient use of animal parts is very important to me. There is no 'sport' in slaughtering animals for no reason, and a hunter should always be held to standards and bound to a code of honor.


----------



## Nightchill (Oct 19, 2013)

@Aha Peter Singer uses distinctly logical approach and argumentation. I'd say that otherwise it's Ni +Fe or well developed Fi. Fi isn't a cognitive function but it makes for tendency of having values more independent of the current value system. I know many Fe doms who despite their inner feeling of wrong give into meat eating because they believe it's acceptable as 'labelled: necessary evil' and 'what all people do.'

I on the other hand always felt and pondered on the murder involved and once a grown living being. I comforted myself by thinking: they grew up on a farm and lived a life, all like in nature.


When I saw 'food factories' I realized it's a goddamned holocaust, that surpasses on yearly basis every data we read about 'evil Nazis' and 'evil terrorists.'
I realized that there is no excuse and decided to rather die than continue like that.
But guess what? I found out that vegetarianism is more healthy and works for me better.


----------



## Aha (Mar 6, 2014)

Nowadays we kill approx. 150-250 billion animals every year only for food. 

Interactive clock
The Animal Kill Counter << ADAPTT :: Animals Deserve Absolute Protection Today and Tomorrow

After those numbers, hearing about some eaten by shark or someone else is...not actual


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

So you think that functions are behind what is perfectly natural human behavior. lol 'kay


----------



## Alysaria (Jul 7, 2009)

There's a line between purpose and no purpose for me. 

I remember as a little kid, skipping through my uncle's garage naming all the breeds of ducks he'd hunted and had laid out on newspaper. 

I also remember bawling my eyes out when I accidentally chased a rabbit into traffic and a car hit it. 


I love animals, but I recognize the purpose of killing them for food. I also understand thinning populations for health and survival reasons. Deer don't have enough predators to keep their numbers down. Feral cats and dogs create a health risk to other pets and humans if their numbers get out of hand. Unnecessary death...and death that is unnecessarily torturous to the animal is what gets to me. 

We all start out as selfish, demanding little imps. All we know is our own needs. Empathy is a learned behavior. Functions can relate to how you interpret empathy and process kindness toward a person or animal...but no one starts out with it. The seeds of empathy start with a thought like "I love when mommy hugs me....maybe the puppy will love hugs too?"


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

"My conscience wants vegetarianism to win over the world. And my subconscious is yearning for a piece of juicy meat. But what do I want?"


----------



## 7even (Oct 17, 2012)

I am reminded of the quote from the movie 'Pi':

"When you look into his [the animal] is eyes, you are seeing your own emotions reflected back at you."

Mammals aren't self-conscious man, except for, presumably: dolphins, whales, and elephants. 

Well, depending on the culture the organism finds itself in and its consequent sense of morality and to what degree the organism is principles and ideas align with that of the dominating culture (dependent on its degree of self-awareness and intelligence and whether the dominating culture is idea(l)s are perceived as aiding survival) comes either adherence or rejection underlying an emotion (need, desire).

Anyway, I would advocate the respect of nature, to create some form of order rather than the mindless killing, as a factor in creating a healthy culture.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> "My conscience wants vegetarianism to win over the world. And my subconscious is yearning for a piece of juicy meat. But what do I want?"


Tofu?


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

I have no clue how the functions relate, but I look at it like this (keep in mind this is from the perspective of someone who consumes animal-based products - I've never killed anything beyond bugs or needed to go kill animals myself for food):

Animals do not have sentience. They don't have hopes and aspirations - just instinct. They can, however, feel pain. So I see nothing particularly terrible about killing animals, but I think it is best to avoid putting them through unnecessary pain when possible.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

I enjoy hunting. I have difficulty seeing how someone can really respect the meat they eat if they've never looked into the eyes the animal and killed it and then field dressed it and cooked it. It seems counter-intuitive that you really respect that a life was taken for you to enjoy your meal if you bought it from a store prepackaged for you as though it mysteriously appeared out of nowhere. Animals that were hunted got to live free and wild and had a short compassionate death because I was sure to do it properly vs a carcass you bought from the grocery store fridge that was mistreated and kept in shitty conditions and met a gruesome end. I don't want to watch any creature suffer or eat a creature that suffered. Meat that I didn't hunt comes from free range farms. 

My mothers parents have a farm and were using traditional farming methods long before "organic" and "free range" became a thing. I was brought up plucking the chickens and helping out around the farm during the summers. I was taught to respect the animals and put yourself in their shoes. They aren't human but they certainly do experience pain and stress and should always be treated with all due care. 

I think there's something more concerning about the people who just don't seem to connect that the meat they are eating came from a life. And if that makes their stomach turn, maybe they shouldn't be eating it.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

monemi said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You assume everyone eats meat. :tongue:


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Chained Divinity said:


> You assume everyone eats meat. :tongue:


I don't. I just didn't address the topic of vegans and vegetarians as that is irrelevant to my point. I did infer that people who eat meat and find killing animals distasteful should consider becoming vegetarians.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

Sure, animals might not have the level of conscience, awareness and intelligence as ours, they are simpler and we are more complex. But they still have a level of awareness and can feel emotions too. Fear, excitement, simpler happiness or sadness, simpler affection/nurturing states... So no, when you look at their eyes, if you have good empathetic capacities then you'll see their emotions and state; if you are seeing the reflections of your own emotions then you are not truly seeing them (happens with some people who tend to humanize them sometimes, as in attributing human emotions like "dog must feel sad for eating on the floor" instead of truly seeing them).
In doubt, google search for studies of mapping some animals' brains for emotional responses. They are clear signs that animals feels too.


As for cognitive functions, Fe would be the cognitive function related to empathy. Cognitive functions are just a system used to describe different human cognitive functions, and although the 4 cognitive functions attributed to each MBTI type reflects the main 4 functions each MBTI type has preference over, it doesn't mean that we only have 4 cognitive functions anyways. You can have Ni-Fe-Ti-Se as main functions for INFJ, but an INFJ can still have other well developed cognitive functions for example. An INTJ might have Te preference, doesn't mean he would have no Fe at all, it's just Te is stronger preference.
So everyone has some Fe, some more developed or prefered than others.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

7even said:


> "I" implies an ego and awareness of one's space in a specified time. Animals are driven by instinct, by need, desire - slaves to their body. They are conscious, but they are not self-conscious (which is consciousness becoming aware of itself). They aren't capable of forming abstractions (representations).
> 
> I disagree with the dog being aware of itself because it obeys a command. Its externally directed sensual organs are able to perceive patterns causing a conditioned reaction based on the organisms drive for reward (bodily). It is hardly a realization, for one would have to reflect in order to realize something, I would call it an impulsive reaction. Being conditioned is not the same as being self-aware.


Fair enough, but there are better tests to show dogs (and other animals) aren't reacting impulsively. 






 (Watch the first till the end. The beginning experiments don't prove that, I'm aware, but the last ones do)


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

LostFavor said:


> And yet, many animals will murder humans for food without a thought and we can only do so much to train them and domesticate them. Where we can reason with humans and feel safe that most of them won't murder us in our sleep, we can't say the same for some types of animals. Granted, many animals just want to be left to their own devices, but predators are as dangerous to us as we are to them.
> 
> So, you know, it's easy to empathize with domesticated farm animals and household pets, but it's not so easy to empathize with a pack of wolves or a tiger, both of whom probably want to murder you out of instinct.
> 
> Which is not me advocating brutality or mindless killing but rather pointing out that having emotions doesn't necessarily mean we aren't dealing with something dangerous to our health as a species. Sociopaths have emotions too and they can do some rather... crazy things. Hell, so can "normal" human beings. I only say this because I've gotten the impression from some "pro-animal" people that we should just live and let live when it comes to animals, not taking into account that some animals don't have that mindset concerning us.


Of course, I think that what you said is common sense, and me or anyone saying that animals have emotions and a certain level of awareness doesn't mean that we are all going to hug the tigers and lions and ignore that they have wild instincts. Anyone doing so would also be projecting their own image on them, humanizing them.

The point of saying that they have emotions or level of awareness is not to say that we should see them as fellow humans, but just to acknowledge their nature as they are. Studies of mapping their brains for emotional responses are not there to show that they are human, but only showing that they are capable of simpler emotions. And acknowledging their capacity of this is not so that we can hug them fluffy animals, but to be aware that we should have some ethic in how we treat them when we eat them. I eat meat and see this as part of natural cycle of nature, but as they are capable of suffering, I agree that is wrong for them to suffer so much before being killed.


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

Shadow Logic said:


> Humans override instinct? I seriously hope you are joking. Humans feel, think ,and perceive, which are all instinctual. Prove to me that there is no instinct in human and I will prove you wrong every single time. Humans instinctively think, feel, and perceive. You didn't create your beginning, your perception, your feelings, and your thoughts. No, instead you are a slave to them and will always be a slave to them. Try changing them and all you are doing is instinctively reacting to awareness. Your whole is an instinct, but you try to put your instincts above animals. I'm sorry but instincts are instincts, and you are instinctively a human.


Just an outside observation of your discussion - it looks like you two are looking at ''over driving instinct'' from different points of views. I think what he means by humans being able to overdrive instinct is our ability of being aware of our instincts, recognizing that it's a natural drive and then making a conscious choice whether to follow it or not. Whatever reason for the choice will be. In that sense - yes, we do have the ability to over drive instinct. It's also what differs first degree murderers, rapists from people with violent thoughts but who repress them. Do animals have this ability? I don't know, but you don't need any scientific proof to see that humans do.


Otherwise, I found this study (which I haven't read myself yet, but thought wouldn't hurt to share) about animal perception of past and future, which could also apply to abstract thought. 
http://www.eebweb.arizona.edu/Courses/Ecol487/readings/Episodic memory and Future planning.pdf


Don't know about the functions, but I'm an undecided hypocrite when it comes to meat, but I'm coming to a realization that I don't deserve to eat it. It is either ignorance or conscious choice to purchase or eat the flash of an animal that you didn't kill yourself. I agree with what @monemi said about respecting the animal treating it with care. It is a natural order for us to be a part of the food chain. For us to be the predator and the victim in this chain. In the animal world the cubs are being taught how to hunt for themselves, how to face their victim, how to ''deserve'' it's meal. I know I couldn't kill an animal myself, so I believe I don't deserve it's flash on my dinner table. Yes, it might be flawed, but that's how I roll. So slowly turning to vegetarianism.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

SplitTheAtom said:


> Just an outside observation of your discussion - it looks like you two are looking at ''over driving instinct'' from different points of views. I think what he means by humans being able to overdrive instinct is our ability of being aware of our instincts, recognizing that it's a natural drive and then making a conscious choice whether to follow it or not. Whatever reason for the choice will be. In that sense - yes, we do have the ability to over drive instinct. It's also what differs first degree murderers, rapists from people with violent thoughts but who repress them. Do animals have this ability? I don't know, but you don't need any scientific proof to see that humans do.
> 
> 
> Otherwise, I found this study (which I haven't read myself yet, but thought wouldn't hurt to share) about animal perception of past and future, which could also apply to abstract thought.
> ...


It is clearly obvious that humans override instincts everyday. We have actually developed a mechanism for such a thing -- culture. Which is why we have changed little biologically in the past few thousand years, but have changed much culturally in the past few thousand. Even in the last 100. Think of social mores. Constantly changing, and being tweaked. 

So, when is the last time a chimp, dog or crow came up with a new idea, that went against the nature of their species, that the species adopted it, and culturally evolved/changed? Absolutely never. Happens in humanity all the time. We have cultural mutations and selection, the way animals have biological mutations and selection. Culture is the driving force of humanity. For animals, it is truly true what Freud said, "Anatomy is destiny." Not true for humans.

"when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Every other species is in a perpetual state of infancy.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

SplitTheAtom said:


> Just an outside observation of your discussion - it looks like you two are looking at ''over driving instinct'' from different points of views. I think what he means by humans being able to overdrive instinct is our ability of being aware of our instincts, recognizing that it's a natural drive and then making a conscious choice whether to follow it or not. Whatever reason for the choice will be. In that sense - yes, we do have the ability to over drive instinct. It's also what differs first degree murderers, rapists from people with violent thoughts but who repress them. Do animals have this ability? I don't know, but you don't need any scientific proof to see that humans do.
> 
> 
> Otherwise, I found this study (which I haven't read myself yet, but thought wouldn't hurt to share) about animal perception of past and future, which could also apply to abstract thought.
> ...


Repression is instinctual, it is a common human instinct. The fact that we don't know if animals have this ability, proves we don't know what we are talking about.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> Repression is instinctual, it is a common human instinct. The fact that we don't know if animals have this ability, proves we don't know what we are talking about.


You need to trace the word to its source, and understand its history. It comes from Freud. And Freud thought it was socially imposed. Human conscience itself is culturally created. 

"Civilization, therefore, obtains mastery over the individual's dangerous desire for aggression by weakening and disarming it and by setting up an agency within him to watch over it, like a garrison in a conquered city."

-Freud

From Civilization and Its Discontents. The title explains it all. Freud thought humans could never be happy in civilization, because it requires too much ARTIFICIAL repression of human instinct. Humans can't be happy in society, for the same reason wild animals can't be happy in a zoo. The repression is enforced from the outside, not from within. It is the outside that makes us go against instinct. So, every human mind does have a "garrison" in it, as conscience, or guilt. Culture has been internalized, the way speech was internalized to thought.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> You need to trace the word to its source, and understand its history. It comes from Freud. And Freud thought it was socially imposed. Human conscience itself is culturally created.
> 
> "Civilization, therefore, obtains mastery over the individual's dangerous desire for aggression by weakening and disarming it and by setting up an agency within him to watch over it, like a garrison in a conquered city."
> 
> ...


"Freud *thought*...". He had no proof, just like we still don't have proof now. I agree culture further enhances repression, but that repression and culture are both human instincts. Everything a human does, is within the realm of a human, making all of their actions and decisions human instincts. Our instincts may be different than other animals, but they are nevertheless instinctual.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

The cases of feral children, blow the idea of repression being instinctual out of the water. As it blew out many other nativist claims. You raise a child among wolves, it will not develop any kind of repression. It won't form any type of human personality at all. These cases really show how large of a role culture plays in human development, and how humans are no different than any other animal, without it. I mean, you walk the way you do because of culture. Feral children, trot or whatever. We even have to be taught to walk properly. Without other human interaction, we would not even be able to have this conversation right now. Culture created all these words and ideas I am using. 

If we were born, but then immediately put into an isolated chamber, where we are nourished, but never actually interacted with, or taught anything. Given no human interaction or cultural instruction. We could not even be called human.. We couldn't even think. We would be closer to a dog. Without culture, humans fall right back into instinct. Which is not pretty.


----------



## herinb (Aug 24, 2013)

Consider the Lobster: 2000s Archive : gourmet.com

I really love this essay by David Foster Wallace, "Consider the Lobster". 

I am a meat eater, and I live in Cattle Country, but I have a hard time wrapping my mind around people eating meat. I do think if people are going to be eating animals, we need to treat them and kill them as humanely as possible. Not that that answers all the ethical issues that arise from eating meat. I mean, I eat meat for pleasure, not out of necessity... but advocating a little bit for being beneficent allows me to be at peace with my cognitive dissonance. :tongue: Also, the fact that domesticated animals would be waaaay less abundant if people didn't eat them kind of makes me feel better...being alive and then eaten is better than never having lived at all, riiiiiight? Hahahaha

There're these rich guys from my town who go to Africa and hunt zebras and rhinos and shit. Then they pack their houses with stuffed African animal bodies...it is really weird. Normal hunting of local animals (deer, antelope, rabbits) doesn't bother me.


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

Shadow Logic said:


> Repression is instinctual, it is a common human instinct. The fact that we don't know if animals have this ability, proves we don't know what we are talking about.


I guess I just lost your whole point cuz it seems like you don't even entertain what others are saying (@Shadow Logic and, well, now me).
Yes, repression is instinctual, yes, everything we do is instinctual in the sense that it all comes from a place of natural neuro order (I hope it's understandable what I mean. English isn't my first language), but one instinct (awareness and conscious decision making) that humans possess can over ride another instinct (killing for food). After all we do have another natural instinct (trying to speak your language here) of developing and looking for new innovations, which includes both tools that give us superiority over animals of the food chain that otherwise we would be inferior to AND the knowledge of using other foods to fulfill our need for the right nutrition. We have evolved so far that, yes, we can over ride those instincts that we share with the rest of the animals, the natural survival instincts, with the help of our awareness and ability to make a conscious choice weighting one option over the other. The more people will be exposed to the fact that we have a choice,t he more conscious the choices will be. 
We don't have the scientific knowledge of whether animals have that kind of awareness, but from what we have and can observe we can so far at least assume that they don't. As @FearAndTrembling says, occasions of animals not following their natural instinct to, ''for instance'', catch the mouse and play with it, bite the human when he shows a sign of threat, haven't been observed... I'm not gonna say ever, maybe someone has observed it, but at least by me - no. 

Sorry, if I'm wrong, but seems like you are belittling the abilities of the human mind. I once watched a video of The Young Turks where Ana Kasparian was quite passionately discussing how, for instance, saying that ''a man has the right to rape a woman if she wears skin revealing clothes because she is asking for it by triggering his natural sexual instincts'' is belittling the man. It is putting him to the same level as the animals who cannot recognize the actual existence of their instinct and cannot recognize that there is a choice to either follow them or repress them.

That's it. Either you will have something to add to this, you will keep on swimming into the sea of ''this is what instinct is and this is what instinct is because instinct is everything'' or I've just completely misunderstood you. Whatevs, me hungry for some Mexican food (no meat) and quite tired actually.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> "Freud *thought*...". He had no proof, just like we still don't have proof now. I agree culture further enhances repression, but that repression and culture are both human instincts. Everything a human does, is within the realm of a human, making all of their actions and decisions human instincts. Our instincts may be different than other animals, but they are nevertheless instinctual.


I'm not so sure that repression is a human instinct. We don't know language by instinct. I'm going to sound like a broken record here because I've used this example before. Being deaf is a risk to your ability to mentally develop but blindness isn't. You need language of some kind, an inner voice or you will not develop mental functions above that of an animal. For generations, the words 'deaf and dumb' were synonymous for a reason. Deaf children weren't taught language or were only taught oralism. They weren't able to develop basic critical thinking skills and so grew up to be mentally disabled. Often they were left to rot in asylums because they were incapable of thought and complete dependent on others for survival. Language isn't a human instinct. We don't naturally develop it without cultural influence. We don't attain higher reasoning or an ego. Without complex communication, we literally aren't any different from an animal. 

Repression seems to come hand in hand with culture/language. I don't see it as an instinct.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

monemi said:


> I'm not so sure that repression is a human instinct. We don't know language by instinct. I'm going to sound like a broken record here because I've used this example before. Being deaf is a risk to your ability to mentally develop but blindness isn't. You need language of some kind, an inner voice or you will not develop mental functions above that of an animal. For generations, the words 'deaf and dumb' were synonymous for a reason. Deaf children weren't taught language or were only taught oralism. They weren't able to develop basic critical thinking skills and so grew up to be mentally disabled. Often they were left to rot in asylums because they were incapable of thought and complete dependent on others for survival. Language isn't a human instinct. We don't naturally develop it without cultural influence. We don't attain higher reasoning or an ego. Without complex communication, we literally aren't any different from an animal.
> 
> Repression seems to come hand in hand with culture/language. I don't see it as an instinct.


Language is a rational concept, language has always existed and so has rationality. Rationalism can enhance critical thinking, hence why deaf people have a problem with critical thinking. We're not the only animals that have a language, nor communicate (which takes a language). Language is extremely instinctual, we do naturally develop it to communicate with one another, and that's how it has always been. Communication is the act of using language, even plants communicate, meaning they have their own language.

Also, anything within the capabilities of anything is instinctual. Anything a human can do is inevitably a human instinct.


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> The cases of feral children, blow the idea of repression being instinctual out of the water. As it blew out many other nativist claims. You raise a child among wolves, it will not develop any kind of repression. It won't form any type of human personality at all. These cases really show how large of a role culture plays in human development, and how humans are no different than any other animal, without it. I mean, you walk the way you do because of culture. Feral children, trot or whatever. We even have to be taught to walk properly. Without other human interaction, we would not even be able to have this conversation right now. Culture created all these words and ideas I am using.
> 
> If we were born, but then immediately put into an isolated chamber, where we are nourished, but never actually interacted with, or taught anything. Given no human interaction or cultural instruction. We could not even be called human.. We couldn't even think. We would be closer to a dog. Without culture, humans fall right back into instinct. Which is not pretty.


Or the natural abilities of the humans mind were actually repressed by the environment that he grew up in. Do you think if you took the child out of the environment that he had grown up in (like the wolves here) and put into the culture of humans, he wouldn't be able to slowly, but loosen his repression and develop the abilities that his mind is capable of? If you switched the subject and the environment, do you think an animal could do the same? I know I can google this and there probably have been studies done on it, but maybe while I make ma Mexican veggie food, someone can actually explain it ^^

That makes me think, is togetherness and team work what allows and allowed us to thrive at the first place?!


Edit: actually I misunderstood your post the first time I red it but never mind. My question are rather dumb after reading it again.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

monemi said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, here's the thing about that. The first human (or hominid, maybe, if you think language came that early) to learn language couldn't have been taught by anyone. So the idea of language had to have come either from a nonhuman source (god/aliens) or have been present to a latent degree in that human/hominid. 

...actually, this might be a perfect God-argument. Hm.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

SplitTheAtom said:


> I guess I just lost your whole point cuz it seems like you don't even entertain what others are saying (@Shadow Logic and, well, now me).
> Yes, repression is instinctual, yes, everything we do is instinctual in the sense that it all comes from a place of natural neuro order (I hope it's understandable what I mean. English isn't my first language), but one instinct (awareness and conscious decision making) that humans possess can over ride another instinct (killing for food). After all we do have another natural instinct (trying to speak your language here) of developing and looking for new innovations, which includes both tools that give us superiority over animals of the food chain that otherwise we would be inferior to AND the knowledge of using other foods to fulfill our need for the right nutrition. We have evolved so far that, yes, we can over ride those instincts that we share with the rest of the animals, the natural survival instincts, with the help of our awareness and ability to make a conscious choice weighting one option over the other. The more people will be exposed to the fact that we have a choice,t he more conscious the choices will be.
> We don't have the scientific knowledge of whether animals have that kind of awareness, but from what we have and can observe we can so far at least assume that they don't. As @FearAndTrembling says, occasions of animals not following their natural instinct to, ''for instance'', catch the mouse and play with it, bite the human when he shows a sign of threat, haven't been observed... I'm not gonna say ever, maybe someone has observed it, but at least by me - no.
> 
> ...


So you do admit that its an instinct to override an instinct? You also admit, that we don't know for certain if this happens in *all* other animals? That's the point I was making, that everything about us is instinctual. It is an animals natural instinct to play with their food if they are doing it. Everything from nature is natural, making it an instinct. You don't know if animals *cant* recognize their existence, there is no proof of it, which makes the statement meaningless.

You have no choice, every choice you ever made came unconsciously, making you a slave to your unconscious factors. You didn't think to think about thinking of a choice before make the choice, you instinctively made a choice and the reacted.

You are right, I am belittling the thought that humans are somehow less instinctual than animals. Another thing I am belittling is unwarranted assumptions, which I have a problem with.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> Language is a rational concept, language has always existed and so has rationality. Rationalism can enhance critical thinking, hence why deaf people have a problem with critical thinking. We're not the only animals that have a language, nor communicate (which takes a language). Language is extremely instinctual, we do naturally develop it to communicate with one another, and that's how it has always been. Communication is the act of using language, even plants communicate, meaning they have their own language.
> 
> Also, anything within the capabilities of anything is instinctual. Anything a human can do is inevitably a human instinct.


Deaf people who are taught language don't have a problem with critical thinking. Language evolved over thousands of years. Chimpanzees have culture and language that took time to develop. No one is born with language as an instinct. 



SplitTheAtom said:


> Or the natural abilities of the humans mind were actually repressed by the environment that he grew up in. Do you think if you took the child out of the environment that he had grown up in (like the wolves here) and put into the culture of humans, he wouldn't be able to slowly, but loosen his repression and develop the abilities that his mind is capable of? If you switched the subject and the environment, do you think an animal could do the same? I know I can google this and there probably have been studies done on it, but maybe while I make ma Mexican veggie food, someone can actually explain it ^^
> 
> That makes me think, is togetherness and team work what allows and allowed us to thrive at the first place?!
> 
> ...


A feral child will never develop their abilities. Every attempt to bring feral children into society has failed miserably. It's permanent. The same with deaf adults that didn't learn language early on. It is critical that you teach language early on during childhood development. Every study on the subject has come back to the same conclusion. Language is critical to brain development. Early intervention is absolutely important. 



Chained Divinity said:


> Well, here's the thing about that. The first human (or hominid, maybe, if you think language came that early) to learn language couldn't have been taught by anyone. So the idea of language had to have come either from a nonhuman source (god/aliens) or have been present to a latent degree in that human/hominid.
> 
> ...actually, this might be a perfect God-argument. Hm.


Language wasn't learned overnight. It took time for culture and communication to develop. Hence it isn't an instinct. It's learned.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

monemi said:


> Deaf people who are taught language don't have a problem with critical thinking. Language evolved over thousands of years. Chimpanzees have culture and language that took time to develop. No one is born with language as an instinct.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So babies dont cry out the womb? Thats an instinct and a form of communication. Crying is a language. When babies grow their cries change based upon what they want, that is instinctual. If you are saying communication isnt instinct, then we just wont agree, I guess. Communication is built into us instinctively, how we express it is the language.

Language didnt evolve from anything, its literally what we do when we communicate, and there are many species who communicate. Communication is instinct.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> So babies dont cry out the womb? Thats an instinct and a form of communication. Crying is a language. When babies grow their cries change based upon what they want, that is instinctual. If you are saying communication isnt instinct, then we just wont agree, I guess. Communication is built into us instinctively, how we express it is the language.
> 
> Language didnt evolve from anything, its literally what we do when we communicate, and there are many species who communicate. Communication is instinct.


You cannot communicate complex concepts with cries.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

monemi said:


> You cannot communicate complex concepts with cries.


Doesnt take away from the fact that crying is still a language, and also doesnt take away the fact that language is instinctual.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> Doesnt take away from the fact that crying is still a language, and also doesnt take away the fact that language is instinctual.


It does. Low order communication is not the same thing as communicating complex ideas.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Shadow Logic said:


> Everything thats an action can be derived to instinct, the fact that you cant find any action that is not based outside of instinct is proof that all there is are instincts. If logical proofs dont count for you, then there really is no discussion between us because what I consider proof, is logical proof. Now if you want my conceptual analysis to prove my point, then I will deliver but if youre telling mw that I need sources from documented hard evidence, then I have none. Thats my point though:
> 
> If you have no proof at all that something is or is not, then all you have is a meaningless statement. I use logic as proof, if you dont then there really is no discussion/debate between us two.


Oh, I use logic for proof too. Sometimes. But instinct is a complicated topic and requires a lot of clarification of terminology and empirical evidence, if you really want to prove something conclusively. Thinking critically means utilizing both formal logic and empirical evidence. I'm being a bit of a dick about this, but the point I'm trying to make is that if you're going to demand proof, you can't then use only one form of proof for a subject like this and play it like your form of proof is sufficient.

P.S. Your argument is circular. 

Premise 1: "Everything thats an action can be derived to instinct," 
Premise 2: "you cant find any action that is not based outside of instinct"
Conclusion: "all there is are instincts."

P1- You haven't actually proven why action is only derived from instinct (that's assumed in your first premise). 

P2- You reaffirm what you said in P1 with different words. 

C- Assumes that "if every action is derived from instinct, then instinct is all there is," without first establishing why the one follows from the other.

If you aren't familiar with it already, I recommend checking out The Nizkor Project. It's a gold mine of information for spotting some of the more common logical fallacies.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

LostFavor said:


> Oh, I use logic for proof too. Sometimes. But instinct is a complicated topic and requires a lot of clarification of terminology and empirical evidence, if you really want to prove something conclusively. Thinking critically means utilizing both formal logic and empirical evidence. I'm being a bit of a dick about this, but the point I'm trying to make is that if you're going to demand proof, you can't then use only one form of proof for a subject like this and play it like your form of proof is sufficient.
> 
> P.S. Your argument is circular.
> 
> ...





> in·stinct
> noun
> ˈinstiNGkt/
> 1.
> an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli.


So actions arent innate patterns that we use in reaponse to certain stimuli? Im sorry for not adding my proof through definition before, thats why it seemed circular. In my logic I go off of the definition of a word, then I break it down to see if it negates or doesnt negate itself. Instinct does not negate itself, and instead is a pattern that is innate when reaponding to certain stimuli. Everything a human does, is by nature an innate action because humans are natural, everything around us is natural. Natural meaning that it is part of existence. If everything is natural, than what we do is innate within us, including all of our actions. The logic is my proof. If logic doesnt match up to reality then it is not logic to me. 

Every action is a reaction, and also a part of nature. All there is within nature, is innate patterns of this action/reaction process. Meaning it is an innate process.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Shadow Logic said:


> So actions arent innate patterns that we use in reaponse to certain stimuli?


I don't know of any such definition for the word action, so no, not by virtue of the meaning of the word. You've yet to show why the one follows from the other. Your initial premise was actually a good example of where empirical evidence would help, by trying to prove that all action does derive from instinct. 



Shadow Logic said:


> Everything a human does, is by nature an innate action because humans are natural, everything around us is natural. Natural meaning that it is part of existence. If everything is natural, than what we do is innate within us, including all of our actions. The logic is my proof. If logic doesnt match up to reality then it is not logic to me.
> 
> Every action is a reaction, and also a part of nature. All there is within nature, is innate patterns of this action/reaction process. Meaning it is an innate process.


Wait, so you're saying that:

"Everything a human does is an innate action because everything, including humans, is a part of existence"? 
"If everything is a part of existence [you're using part of existence and "natural" interchangeably], then what we do is innate within us, including all of our actions."

Pretty much have no idea what you're trying to say at this point. It's like you're saying that stuff is innate because it's innate and if everything we do is innate, then what we do is innate within us. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say circular reasoning.

Also, proofs are simply not sufficient evidence for some things. If you can make a proof that says there isn't a giant bear in front of you, but there is indeed one in front of your eyes and it just mauled your shoulder, your proof gets shot to hell. And so does your shoulder.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

LostFavor said:


> I don't know of any such definition for the word action, so no, not by virtue of the meaning of the word. You've yet to show why the one follows from the other. Your initial premise was actually a good example of where empirical evidence would help, by trying to prove that all action does derive from instinct.
> 
> 
> Wait, so you're saying that:
> ...


Are you made up of atoms? Is everything in existence a thing? Are you implying that there are factors that are in existence that dont belong?

Its not really circular when you look at it closely. If a certain set of factors make a cat and only a cat, then where did those factors come from? Are you saying they dont come from existence, they come from somewhere else outside of existence. Actions are reactions, factors lead somewhere and come from somewhere. Are yiu saying factors are randomly appearing in existence but doesnt belong?

You cant prove that there is no bear in front of you, if there is a bear in frony of you, logically impossible. Unless you are stating that person is proving that bears may not be called bears. If a thing is there, then there is no proof at all that its not there. Even if thoughts are flowing outside your head, making an illusion of existence around you, those things you are seeing still exists, whether they belong to the objective world or not. Subjective worlds are also part of existence because they exist. True proof proves and nothing less.

If everything in existence happens to be, then it belongs. You can assume it doesnt belong, but existence clearly disagrees with you.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Shadow Logic said:


> Are you made up of atoms? Is everything in existence a thing? Are you implying that there are factors that are in existence that dont belong?
> 
> Its not really circular when you look at it closely. If a certain set of factors make a cat and only a cat, then where did those factors come from? Are you saying they dont come from existence, they come from somewhere else outside of existence. Actions are reactions, factors lead somewhere and come from somewhere. Are yiu saying factors are randomly appearing in existence but doesnt belong?


I realize you want something to debate with, but I'm really not saying much of anything. I'm just pointing out where your proofs don't make any sense.

That said, yes, I'm made of atoms and everything in existence is a thing, but I don't see what that has to do with your proof about instinct/action. Affirming basic knowledge doesn't automatically make your proof correct. Here's a breakdown of circular reasoning (no point in reinventing the wheel by trying to rephrase it).



Shadow Logic said:


> You cant prove that there is no bear in front of you, if there is a bear in frony of you, logically impossible. Unless you are stating that person is proving that bears may not be called bears. If a thing is there, then there is no proof at all that its not there. Even if thoughts are flowing outside your head, making an illusion of existence around you, those things you are seeing still exists, whether they belong to the objective world or not. Subjective worlds are also part of existence because they exist. True proof proves and nothing less.
> 
> If everything in existence happens to be, then it belongs. You can assume it doesnt belong, but existence clearly disagrees with you.


It's an absurdly obvious example to make it clear what I'm talking about. Most instances of needing empirical evidence are not so blatant and it's kind of arrogant to think that any human is going to be able to spot all such instances without error.


----------



## Nightchill (Oct 19, 2013)

7even said:


> Man has no inherent compassion, compassion is introduced into the tribe as an idea(l), as a means of aiding the survival of the group or achieving a communal objective by focusing the groups collective energies via a common will (a need) which is controlled by those who sold the idea(l) to the inter-dependent group in the first place for their own advantage. It should be self-evident to the reasons why the weak would encourage compassion.


Already proven wrong/unlikely


Psychologists say babies know right from wrong even at six months


I won't argue though, that it's possibly a few geniuses that invented language and the herd adopted it because it was handy.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

LostFavor said:


> I realize you want something to debate with, but I'm really not saying much of anything. I'm just pointing out where your proofs don't make any sense.
> 
> That said, yes, I'm made of atoms and everything in existence is a thing, but I don't see what that has to do with your proof about instinct/action. Affirming basic knowledge doesn't automatically make your proof correct. Here's a breakdown of circular reasoning (no point in reinventing the wheel by trying to rephrase it).
> 
> ...


Thats funny because I think any group of humans has a higher chance at making a mistake than one human who consolidates all his knowledge into one system. Thats a different conversation.

Look my logic is based off of existence. If all things are part of existence, then all things in existence are part of existence, therefore any action that happens is an innate action. Its not circular at all unless you are saying existence equals existence is circular, if so then that doesnt take away from the facts presented. I understand you rely on empirical evidence from groups of people but I rely on my own understanding of things bybfocusing on their patterns. The pattern of existence is action and reaction, im not really seeing how you cant comprehend that.

All factors came from.factors and all factors lead to other factors, how is that wrong in anyway? I know what circular logic is but I dont think you understand all of its implications and what exactly makes logic circular. Saying A=A isnt circular if you are proving A exists. Patterns exists, all patterns are factors that lead to and come from more patterns. If you disagree thst patterns exist, then we definitely have two different viewpoints of the world. Im not seeing how actions are reactions, how things that come from existence and do existential things are not part of existence. If they are then they are innate within us.

If A=A then all the parts that make up A, essentially make up A. Thats a fact, not circular logic.



> ac·tion
> ˈakSHən/Submit
> noun
> 1.
> the fact or process of doing something, typically to achieve an aim.





> in·nate
> iˈnāt/Submit
> adjective
> 1.
> inborn; natural.


I already gave you the definition of instinct.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Shadow Logic said:


> Thats funny because I think any group of humans has a higher chance at making a mistake than one human who consolidates all his knowledge into one system. Thats a different conversation.


:frustrating:



Shadow Logic said:


> Look my logic is based off of existence. If all things are part of existence, then all things in existence are part of existence, therefore any action that happens is an innate action. Its not circular at all unless you are saying existence equals existence is circular, if so then that doesnt take away from the facts presented. I understand you rely on empirical evidence from groups of people but I rely on my own understanding of things bybfocusing on their patterns. The pattern of existence is action and reaction, im not really seeing how you cant comprehend that.
> 
> All factors came from.factors and all factors lead to other factors, how is that wrong in anyway? I know what circular logic is but I dont think you understand all of its implications and what exactly makes logic circular. Saying A=A isnt circular if you are proving A exists. Patterns exists, all patterns are factors that lead to and come from more patterns. If you disagree thst patterns exist, then we definitely have two different viewpoints of the world. Im not seeing how actions are reactions, how things that come from existence and do existential things are not part of existence. If they are then they are innate within us.
> 
> ...


The problem is, action being innate by virtue of being a part of existence doesn't actually mean anything. You can use that same logic to say that everything in the universe is innate. Where does that lead you? Nowhere. It still doesn't connect action to instinct.

"If A=A then all the parts that make up A, essentially make up A. Thats a fact, not circular logic." If it's not circular in this particular illustration of yours, it's redundant. No shit A=A means that A=A. A can't equal anything other than A. It's certainly not fucking B or C.

Though you're probably being redundant too, that isn't your only problem. Your main problem is: A + B = C (assumed). Therefore, A + B = C.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

LostFavor said:


> :frustrating:
> 
> 
> The problem is, action being innate by virtue of being a part of existence doesn't actually mean anything. You can use that same logic to say that everything in the universe is innate. Where does that lead you? Nowhere. It still doesn't connect action to instinct.
> ...


How is anything thats innate in existence not an instinct?

If A exists and the relation to B always equals C, then there is no assumption. My whole logic has nothing to to do with B or C, though. It has to do only with A. A being equivalent to existence. If A is equivalent to existence, then A is equivalent to all things in existence. If actions are all part of existence then A is equivalent to all actions. All things in existence, or A, are innate within A, or existence. How is anything not instinctual in existence?


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> How is anything thats innate in existence not an instinct?
> 
> If A exists and the relation to B always equals C, then there is no assumption. My whole logic has nothing to to do with B or C, though. It has to do only with A. A being equivalent to existence. If A is equivalent to existence, then A is equivalent to all things in existence. If actions are all part of existence then A is equivalent to all actions. All things in existence, or A, are innate within A, or existence. How is anything not instinctual in existence?


There's no proof that empiricism is the answer to everything. There could very well be intangible parts of reality tied to higher existence, i.e. souls or spirits. Not everything can be tied to an innate action/reaction.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

EthereaEthos said:


> There's no proof that empiricism is the answer to everything. There could very well be intangible parts of reality tied to higher existence, i.e. souls or spirits. Not everything can be tied to an innate action/reaction.


Yea I don't buy that. I have never came across anything I couldn't understand by utilizing action/reaction concepts. You're free to believe what you want, but there is no convincing me that things aren't connected, unless you have proof. Btw, I don't care for empiricism, I care only for logical proofs. Given, I only accept logic that can be expanded to all of existence in a systematic way, but I do not at all care for empiricism. To tell you the truth, I think all empiricist are very limited in their thinking, but they are who they are, and I respect who they are.

Also I include all things as part of existence, whether they are humans, planets, or ghosts (if they exist). Any possible thing to me is part of existence. I don't separate one existence from another like you do. Its all existence to me. To go a little further, any pattern whether it is objective or subjective is part of existence, and is how I see the world.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> Yea I don't buy that. I have never came across anything I couldn't understand by utilizing action/reaction concepts. You're free to believe what you want, but there is no convincing me that things aren't connected, unless you have proof. Btw, I don't care for empiricism, I care only for logical proofs. Given, I only accept logic that can be expanded to all of existence in a systematic way, but I do not at all care for empiricism. To tell you the truth, I think all empiricist are very limited in their thinking, but they are who they are, and I respect who they are.


You are demonstrating empiricism by relating all thoughts and actions as reactions to the environment. That is the very nature of empiricism. And, is there not a logical phallacy in determining something to be true or false because it cannot be proven? And, to your past experience in understanding, I turn to Hume for my antithesis. Basing a viewpoint on consistent experience is merely habit, and placing complete faith in a product of induction is just as illogical as believing in something unobservable. Unless you agree this is an illogical debate, you have commited a philosophical phallacy by adhering solely to the inductively proven, without recognizing that there could be more to the world than immediately observable and provable phenomena.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

EthereaEthos said:


> You are demonstrating empiricism by relating all thoughts and actions as reactions to the environment. That is the very nature of empiricism. And, is there not a logical phallacy in determining something to be true or false because it cannot be proven? And, to your past experience in understanding, I turn to Hume for my antithesis. Basing a viewpoint on consistent experience is merely habit, and placing complete faith in a product of induction is just as illogical as believing in something unobservable. Unless you agree this is an illogical debate, you have commited a philosophical phallacy by adhering solely to the inductively proven, without recognizing that there could be more to the world than immediately observable and provable phenomena.


Did you not read anything I wrote. I just told you, all objective and subjective things are part of existence to me. I just told you that if Ghosts exists then they are part of existence to me. Its not a logical fallacy to not accept anything without proof, it's a way of thinking. 

I have never once said that everything has to apply to the environment, unless you consider subjectivity and things we can't see (as of right now) as part of the environment. I don't care for the immediate observable, what are you not understanding about this? I only care for existence, and anything that could ever possibly exist, is part of existence for me. Everything that has a pattern is part of existence for me. You can discount that all you want, but it's how I view life. You have your view and I have mine, but empiricism is far from what I am.

Edit: and to me, all of existence is one connected infinite whole, full of everything that could possibly be. Also I am not the one making claims that animals are lesser than us or more instinctual, I'm the one saying everyone is assuming about things they don't have a clue about, because there is no proof. For all I know, animals party and bullshit every day, but we don't have proof, that's my point. To not make unwarranted assumptions and let that change your world view based on things you don't know.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> Did you not read anything I wrote. I just told you, all objective and subjective things are part of existence to me. I just told you that if Ghosts exists then they are part of existence to me. Its not a logical fallacy to not accept anything without proof, it's a way of thinking.
> 
> I have never once said that everything has to apply to the environment, unless you consider subjectivity and things we can't see (as of right now) as part of the environment. I don't care for the immediate observable, what are you not understanding about this? I only care for existence, and anything that could ever possibly exist, is part of existence for me. Everything that has a pattern is part of existence for me. You can discount that all you want, but it's how I view life. You have your view and I have mine, but empiricism is far from what I am.
> 
> Edit: and to me, all of existence is one connected infinite whole, full of everything that could possibly be.


I apologize if I misunderstood your stance. Please present your thesis entirely and clearly so I can rework my position. I don't quite comprehend what you are proposing.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

EthereaEthos said:


> I apologize if I misunderstood your stance. Please present your thesis entirely and clearly so I can rework my position. I don't quite comprehend what you are proposing.


Let start from the beginning: people in this thread have made assumptions that we are less instinctual than animals. I am telling them that every thing that is part of existence is innate, which means it is instinctive. Therefore we are just as instinctive as any other animal, and that there is no proof to suggest otherwise. I never discount things I don't know, I just don't accept them into my system until I do know, which means using logical proof based on negation to prove anything that is in existence. Things I dont know, like Ghosts and Spirits, I can only play with the idea but can't accept that they exist, because there is no proof. I can accept the possibility, but the possibility isn't a fact until I see logical proof. My logical proof has to expand to all of existence, or it isn't logic to me. To me all of existence, no matter how many realms there are, how many things we can't see, is one big connected system that can be studied by looking at all reactions/actions. Everything has a factor that lead to it or from it, I study those factors by focusing on all those patterns, whether they are subjective or objective. My focus is on patterns and not unwarranted assumptions.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> Let start from the beginning: people in this thread have made assumptions that we are less instinctual than animals. I am telling them that every that is part of existence is innate, which means it is instinctive. Therefore we are just as instinctive as any other animal, and that there is no proof to suggest otherwise. I never discount things I don't know, I just don't accept them into my system until I do know, which means using logical proof based on negation to prove anything that is in existence. Things I dont know, lie Ghosts and Spirits, I can only play with the idea but can't accept that they exist, because there is no proof. I can accept the possibility, but the possibility isn't a fact until I see logical proof. My logical proof has to expand to all of existence, or it isn't logic to me. To me all of existence, no matter how many realms there are, how many things we can't see, is one big connected system that can be studied by looking at all reactions/actions. Everything has a factor that lead to it or from it, I study those factors by focusing on all those patterns, whether they are subjective or objective. My focus is on patterns and not unwarranted assumptions.


You're a Realist Functionalist… hmmm.
I agree that our world is a giant web of cause and effect, though I also believe rational minded organisms, i.e. humans, can override their instinct with cognitive thought. Hence, attacking an animal of a similar species provokes a similar response, but humans experience diverse reactions to similar stimuli. As we all possess shared physical biology, there must be something else going on here.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

EthereaEthos said:


> You're a Realist Functionalist… hmmm.
> I agree that our world is a giant web of cause and effect, though I also believe rational minded organisms, i.e. humans, can override their instinct with cognitive thought. Hence, attacking an animal of a similar species provokes a similar response, but humans experience diverse reactions to similar stimuli. As we all possess shared physical biology, there must be something else going on here.


I'm not saying our instincts are the same as theirs. I'm saying that you being able to override anything, is still a human instinct. Anything that a human or any other object does in existence, is part of existence, therefore its innate within existence. Do we have all the answers? No, but what I do know is that everything that exists or can be, is part of existence, and that makes everything innate, leading all things to react instinctively. There may be a difference in response, but that response has patterns to all responses in that given moment. Those patterns are what my focus is on.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> I'm not saying our instincts are the same as theirs. I'm saying that you being able to override anything, is still a human instinct. Anything that a humans or any other object does in existence, is part of existence, therefore its innate within existence. Do we have all the answers? No, but what I do know is that everything that exists or can be, is part of existence, and that makes everything innate, leading all things to react instinctively. There may a difference in response, but that response has patterns to all responses in that given moment. Those patterns are what my focus is on.


As this would all boil down to a binary system, I concede. I believe the human mind boils down to binary units myself, so accept your stance. :tongue:


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

EthereaEthos said:


> As this would all boil down to a binary system, I concede. I believe the human mind boils down to binary units myself, so accept your stance. :tongue:


That's what I've been getting at, glad you can see my stance. Its not often that someone can.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> That's what I've been getting at, glad you can see my stance. Its not often that someone can.


Not to seem rude, and with the best of intentions, but it wsn't that openly stated, at least to my point of view. The casual reader would have a bit of trouble understanding what your stance was. You may experience less confusion by succinctly and clearly stating your view.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

EthereaEthos said:


> Not to seem rude, and with the best of intentions, but it wsn't that openly stated, at least to my point of view. The casual reader would have a bit of trouble understanding what your stance was. You may experience less confusion by succinctly and clearly stating your view.


I notice people get confused by what I say, but I really do try to get as precise as possible. Sometimes I think I may be too precise, but I have to be because my mind can only see in concepts which have definitions that make up everything within these concepts. When I explain, I am always explaining a picture and I think that's where the problem comes in because most people don't use pictures constantly to perceive or relate to their surroundings, while its the most natural thing that I do. I'm very visual mentally, and have to rationalize these visual concepts as precise as possible so others can somewhat see what I am painting for them. I understand that people think differently, but their difference of thought and cognition can cause a problem of communication, especially if visual concepts aren't the base of their mind.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> I notice people get confused by what I say, but I really do try to get as precise as possible. Sometimes I think I may be too precise, but I have to be because my mind can only see in concepts which have definitions that make up everything within these concepts. When I explain, I am always explaining a picture and I think that's where the problem comes in because most people don't use pictures constantly to perceive or relate to their surroundings, while its the most natural thing that I do. I'm very visual mentally, and have to rationalize these visual concepts as precise as possible so they can somewhat see what I am painting for them. I understand that people think differently, but their difference of thought and cognition can cause a problem of communication, especially if visual concepts aren't the base of their mind.


I have this issue quite frequently as well... telepathy would make talking so much easier eh? roud:


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

EthereaEthos said:


> I have this issue quite frequently as well... telepathy would make talking so much easier eh? roud:


Hell Yea, I could just send them the picture and then explain all the patterns and relations within it, that would make life a billion times easier. If it ever becomes possible in my life time, where I can utilize it, that would change so many things (that have to do with communication) in my life lol


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> Hell Yea, I could just send them the picture and then explain all the patterns and relations within it, that would make life a billion times easier. If it ever becomes possible in my life time, where I can utilize it, that would change so many things (that have to do with communication) in my life lol


Though, trolls would get so much worse…


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

EthereaEthos said:


> Though, trolls would get so much worse…


Imagine throwing someone's worse fear visually right into their head, and then seeing their reactions afterwards. That would always be fun to watch lol.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> Imagine throwing someone's worse fear visually right into their head, and then see their reactions afterwards. That would always be fun to watch lol.


This is why I am the INTP, and you the ENTP.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

EthereaEthos said:


> This is why I am the INTP, and you the ENTP.


I was even thinking about trapping them in their mind, where all they would be doing is falling over and over again, or witnessing death over and over again, just to see all their reactions. There would be so much I could do with telepathy, which I am probably one of the reasons that such an ability probably shouldn't exist. People would really only become play things for me.


----------



## 7even (Oct 17, 2012)

Nightchill said:


> Already proven wrong/unlikely
> 
> 
> Psychologists say babies know right from wrong even at six months
> ...


Mhm, nature is the sum of all (past) nurturing, the idea(l) was biologically embedded into the tribe beforehand.


----------



## Nightchill (Oct 19, 2013)

7even said:


> Mhm, nature is the sum of all (past) nurturing, the idea(l) was biologically embedded into the tribe beforehand.


Your point on topic being what exactly?


----------



## 7even (Oct 17, 2012)

Nightchill said:


> Your point on topic being what exactly?



They don't necessarily know 'right from wrong', there is no 'right from wrong'; just what 'right and wrong' was determined to be within the super organism (the tribe, culture, community) beforehand, and how good of a fight it put up against nature in terms of survival.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

7even said:


> They don't necessarily know 'right from wrong', there is no 'right from wrong'; just what 'right and wrong' was determined to be within the super organism (the tribe, culture, community) beforehand, and how good of a fight it put up against nature in terms of survival.


Right from wrong can also be determined by the individual in contradiction to the collective ideals. However, I don't think a baby would be doing this; this seems to happen later in life. However, inherent compassion does exist. It is a biological process intended to make the parents protective of their children, to ensure genetic spread.


----------



## 7even (Oct 17, 2012)

EthereaEthos said:


> Right from wrong can also be determined by the individual in contradiction to the collective ideals. However, I don't think a baby would be doing this; this seems to happen later in life. However, inherent compassion does exist. It is a biological process intended to make the parents protective of their children, to ensure genetic spread.


Agreed. Yeah, it may occur at a later stage in life dependent on the individual's circumstances (cultural environment), genetics (intelligence, degree of self-awareness), and upbringing (family idea(l)s).


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

7even said:


> Agreed. Yeah, it may occur at a later stage in life dependent on the individual's circumstances (cultural environment), genetics (intelligence, degree of self-awareness), and upbringing (family idea(l)s).


Just environment in general, I'd say.


----------



## 7even (Oct 17, 2012)

EthereaEthos said:


> Just environment in general, I'd say.


Why would the external 'settings' have more priority than the internal? Seems like a double-standard to deny genetics, an egalitarian one. Degree of self-awareness is a trait based on intelligence, those that lack it, assimilate into the cultural ideals quite naturally.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

7even said:


> Why would the external 'settings' have more priority than the internal? Seems like a double-standard to deny genetics, an egalitarian one. Degree of self-awareness is a trait based on intelligence, those that lack it, assimilate into the cultural ideals quite naturally.


I meant, environment in general as opposed to cultural environment. Sorry for the confusion. I believe that genetics and environment are the determining factors. Ironic, considering it boils down to nature vs. nurture. And isn't it quite presumptuous to claim low intelligence is the determining factor in assimilating the collective ideals? And, doesn't this essentially discredit the entire scientific community as non-intelligent, as they assimilate collectively held axioms, predicates, and postulates?


----------



## 7even (Oct 17, 2012)

EthereaEthos said:


> And isn't it quite presumptuous to claim low intelligence is the determining factor in assimilating the collective ideals? And, doesn't this essentially discredit the entire scientific community as non-intelligent, as they assimilate collectively held axioms, predicates, and postulates?


It would depend on the culture in question; assimilation of today's cultural idea(l)s is not progressive but rather self-destructive. 
Scientifically progressive we may be yet civilization is decaying and culture is dead [humanism] and has been replaced by the dominating state is idea(l)s which are essentially anti-growth.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

7even said:


> It would depend on the culture in question; assimilation of today's cultural idea(l)s is not progressive but rather self-destructive.
> Scientifically progressive we may be yet civilization is decaying and culture is dead and has been replaced by the dominating state is idea(l)s which are essentially anti-growth.


I'm fine with ideals as long as harmless alternatives are tolerated. I'm fine with alternatives as long as harmless ideals are tolerated. Problem is, neither position seems completely open for toleration.


----------



## MissAverage (Aug 7, 2014)

Aha said:


> Use of what function make humans more compassionate toward animal lives?
> 
> Animals of the same kind rarely kill each other without a serious reason. Humans do not kill each other too
> 
> ...


Lmao... youre scared to step on bugs?

This is not function or type related.


----------



## Grain of Sugar (Sep 17, 2013)

not function related I think and I hope. Watch out, people will justify all their behavior with their T/F F/T Preference. Ugh, yeah.


----------



## Aha (Mar 6, 2014)

MissAverage said:


> Lmao... youre scared to step on bugs?
> 
> This is not function or type related.


It is related to your ethics system. Thus F. Mostly interpersonal. Also to your perception - whether you can virtually transfer your POV into someone else.

You see, since you have such a limited knowledge of JCF, your opinion is of little worth yet. Have you completed your mbti questionnaire yet? Or video? 

What are you trying to accomplish by answering to all the old threads? Did you pray today? You should have. Jesus is saddened by your disobedience streak


----------



## Grain of Sugar (Sep 17, 2013)

Aha said:


> It is related to your ethics system. Thus F. Mostly interpersonal. Also to your perception - whether you can virtually transfer your POV into someone else.
> 
> You see, since you have such a limited knowledge of JCF, your opinion is of little worth yet. Have you completed your mbti questionnaire yet? Or video?
> 
> What are you trying to accomplish by answering to all the old threads? Did you pray today? You should have. Jesus is saddened by your disobedience streak


Well, F, yeah, but idk... are Fis really that different? 

Wow, this thread is really old, sorry ^^


----------



## Aha (Mar 6, 2014)

BlueberryCupcake said:


> Well, F, yeah, but idk... are Fis really that different?


They are different. Look at how INTJ's interpersonal ethics compared to INFPs. Best juxtaposition. The first named "protectors". The others "Idealists". 
Ni-Fe will be feeling in the shoes of the one suffering. Fi-Ne will be torn apart between right and wrong and what should they do to keep everyone in a happy state.



BlueberryCupcake said:


> Wow, this thread is really old, sorry ^^


It's a good thread with a lot of interesting contributions and opinions.

But...the way it was brought up by the troll... (who just chooses whatever thread I started) Anyway, it is not your fault


----------



## Grain of Sugar (Sep 17, 2013)

Aha said:


> They are different. Look at how INTJ's interpersonal ethics compared to INFPs. Best juxtaposition. The first named "protectors". The others "Idealists".
> Ni-Fe will be feeling in the shoes of the one suffering. Fi-Ne will be torn apart between right and wrong and what should *they* do to keep everyone in a happy state.
> 
> 
> ...


First: That's good to hear. And you mean INFJ ;P INTJ protector would be funny. 
Fi: I should (my belief=my action -> harmony)?; Fe: One should (externalization applying to the globe)?
I've read somewhere that Fi is the function which internalizes external problems. To me it seems like what you say about Fe. Is the Fi thing wrong or is there a difference?


----------



## StellarSkies (Jun 29, 2014)

Fe and Fi are probably most likely to see things from the animals' points of view and thereby feel empathy for them. 

However, Ne's with Fi are able to see that moral outlooks are purely subjective, and also see circumstances from many different perspectives. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with harming or killing animals if it is benefiting human life. Selfish, however I'm certain animals would do the same to us if they attained the same level of stature, knowledge and consciousness. 

I think Ti would be in favour of killing, because if it fits their larger framework, which it probably would in terms of food production and medical research, then they would view it as positive and necessary. In terms of hunting for sport, Se would definitely be the prime cognitive function responsible for this. Se's like to experience new and exciting things, and will therefore find the competitive nature of hunting stimulating.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Aha said:


> They are different. Look at how INTJ's interpersonal ethics compared to INFPs. Best juxtaposition. The first named "protectors". The others "Idealists".
> Ni-Fe will be feeling in the shoes of the one suffering. Fi-Ne will be torn apart between right and wrong and what should they do to keep everyone in a happy state.
> 
> 
> ...


Those names are somewhat arbitrary. Those labels are supposedly Keirsey's, but Keirsey referred to all NF as "Idealists". So INFP just got stuck with that generic label on this forum for some reason. Keirsey specifically called INFP "Healers" and INFJ "Counselors". ENFP are "Champions" and ENFJ are "Teachers". 

But he also broke down the NFJ types as "mentor" types. And the NFP as "advocate" types. So, yes they do have different styles, and you can see it in the names he gave them. An NFP is more likely to assume another's cause as their own. NFJ is more likely to counsel/direct people what they should do. They don't want to go on the journey themselves.


----------

