Very Philosophy, The Greatest Thing Ever (pls look here future archeologists and philosphers and label me virtuous!)


Your account of Plotinus is similar to the view of Hegel. I’m more familiar with Hegel than Plotinus, but your basic statement that the problem is to reconcile time/change with eternals? The Hegelian solution similar to that. I.e. Eternity substantiates itself through the process of time, etc. Hence both universals and change/time are given their due.

The real problem isn’t how to reconcile eternity and time or being and becoming, but rather the real problem concerns what the status of being itself.

Being, nature, essence, eternals are often used interchangeably by philosophers. They aim at the same thing but do have different specific meanings in specific uses.

For Platonists the truth of a thing or an entity is that which exists at all times for it, and is not a mere accidental property of it. Hence this definition needs eternity to be a possibility.

Likewise the definition of nature is what exists beyond convention, beyond what our mere opinions of it are. And why the dialectical method is the only best method to to establish it. Since different people speaking on the same subject will show difference, conflict of our projections and interpretations, and the truth remains when you remove what contradicts.

If knowledge is possible, it is knowledge of essences, the permanent parts of entities, and each of these entities must partake in a logical unity / intelligibility. There must be forms and classes that clarify and categorise. Hence why Socrates/Plato was correct to infer that if intelligibility is to exist at all, then there must be universals, that the inner logic of logic points to unity and eternity of all.

The meaning of parts depends on greater parts, and these parts must in turn depend on a greater whole, and this whole must be intelligible for any of the parts to knowable as such.

But does Plato ever show that Socrates has reached understanding of the whole? Most dialogues show that he reaches an inconclusive conclusion, a paradox, or aporia. It seems that the whole is elusive. Which would imply that because the whole is not knowable that the parts are neither knowable at all, as we can not grasp the essence of any object properly.

It is not even clear that there is a ‘whole’ at all. That existence isn’t just a collection of heterogenous parts with no underlying unity. Knowledge / logic implies unity, or a common basis to beings, i.e. it implies a unity of being. But implying doesn’t mean it’s true.

For knowledge to exist at all there has to be some sort of permanent horizon of meaning that gives credence to the human ability to categorise by type, its ability to order nature.

It would seem that we don’t have the ability to know the ‘essence’ of anything. But maybe we can still have knowledge of things through dialectical reasoning. That is we can see that some things exist beyond our use/labelling/opinion of them. That is, through Socratic investigation we realise that forms/universals exist in a pragmatic and inevitable sense. That they are a necessary feature of our reality since we are ‘rational’ and ‘logical’ beings, i.e. we cannot but help see the world through language (ideology as a Marxist would put it), we can’t help but universalise and categorise on a basic understanding of a unity of being. Universals are in performative in a way that the Big Other in Lacanian psychoanalysis is. A fake but fundamental part of reality, for us.

The reason why sensing is bad (and sensors inferior!) is not because they see the world as heterogeneous, in constant flux, as it is, but exactly because they see the world through universals, genus, species, type, ideology and are non-reflexive about it—this is why the Socratic turn to investigating ones assumptions/logical meaning is important.

The Socratic turn from investigating how things appear to us to investigating how we understand concepts in the very first place, hence an inevitably politically tied investigation.

And so Socratic philosophy can be seen as attempt to understand the parts of the whole, to classify each thing as it is itself, what it is.

It fundamentally removes meaning from things. What’s most interesting is what cannot be understood, because things that can be understood have conventional meanings—they have ends that are bordered / bracketed off from the whole.

But Platonism is redeemed, as universals / ideas on the whole are sorts of ‘regulative ideals’ in the Kantian sense, they point to the truth of the whole, that there’s NOT a definite horizon, but there’s a truth beyond convention, all is not relative. And this elusiveness of the whole does not provide universal truth to reality as such, but grounds a permanent truth about man’s position in the whole, which is enough to grant legitimacy to a knowledge of kinds, essential knowledge about man, what is his purpose, and hence legitimises the connection between the true and the good that defines Socratism and redeems the Platonic ideas as guides to what is true and what is good etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

how to detect INXJ
how to detect INXJ

this is where you’re wrong boy

just because they prefer reflexive, it doesn’t mean they’re NOT non-reflexive

that’s saying right-handed person cannot use left hand.

a lot of your statements are presumptuous and inequitable

one thing I know for sure from talking to intuitive dominant user is that they cannot grasp the concept of sensation as much as they’d like.
also since it’s also your inferior function.

and your case is pretty bad.

it’s so bad you sound very stupid if I only saw it from my perspective.

saying sensors are

i thought you were trolling this whole time but i think you’re a truly delusional religious quack who only sees from one perspective.

and you’re not the first one to think sensors are inferior. It’s very common in mbti pages and forums.
you’re just one of many that thinks this way.
blinded by intuitive ideology.

it’s obvious that your lack of sensors perspective is pronounced when you think they’re here to entertain and make you laugh.

that’s like me saying intuitives are only good at having good imagination.

but since you like to talk like you’re something, I wanna know what you do in real life to contribute to this society?
where do you work? what have you done in the past that made an impact in this world?

I’m curious what credibility you have to prove besides your biased nonsenses.

look, I think you have a lot of potential.
but just know that you’ll never understand sensor’s perspective and it’s very limited and lacking right now and will continue to be that way if you don’t open yourself up to more possibilities than what you perceive from your own INFJs brain.

there are about two INFJs I know that sounds like you and they have some sort of biased view towards sensors and they usually have no idea but they think they know what they’re talking about.

if you want to expand your intelligence and wisdom, you gotta start seeing ‘bigger picture’ , INFJ fella


type with your own fingers explaining what intuitives are bad at.
I wanna see how good or bad you’re at seeing different angles


Lol I literally just wrote a couple hundred word post justifying my view that sensors are inferior to intuitives cognitively.

There’s literally nothing to get about ‘sensors’ or Se because it is what it is, it’s simple apprehension of reality through the senses.

You’re right to say that there’s lots of anti-sensor hate from Ni-doms or Ti-doms or whatever or the web. I’m sure there is. I’ve seen it. I’ve partaken in it. And historically it’s true as well, with most philosophers since Plato onwards degrading the ‘senses’ and mere appearance as inferior to true reality.

I’ll explain why I think sensors are inferior. The first problem most people have with this statement is the fact of ‘inferiority’ at all. Most good citizens of the West are egalitarians and anything that sounds of superiority is considered conceited or arrogant.

I certainly don’t think this and I think some people are better than others. I’m better than some people and some people are better than me. I think there’s a universal good in the world which orders good and bad. I’m not a nihilist.

I’ve just explained my views on Plato’s ideas the possibility of the good, and this grounds my opinions on ranking of types.

You can disagree with this, you can say its quack, metaphysics, or whatever.

My biggest contention with Se is its dominance in the West since the Enlightenment (since Hume’s arguments against necessity), and the dominance of analytic philosophy in the Anglo unis, and just the general positivist trend in social science.

I think it’s actually been harmful for the world because its promoted nihilism and moral relativism. Where the only thing that’s given any credence or ‘value’ is brute fact and evidence, i.e. numbers.

Kids of today aren’t even taught that to say things are ‘good’ or ‘bad’. This is a problem.

As for your ad hominems (which I honestly don’t get or see the point? the arguments stand or fall regardless of who says them, or what their personal experience is), I work in government / politics and get more done for society in a year than you probably get in a life time.

But a person’s goodness doesn’t stem from their effect on society. Whether they do good for society is not important. Their virtue is all that matters.


I’ll restate my main political thesis for clarity:

The problem with the world today is not climate change, war in North Korea, or Donald Trump.

These are all symptoms of a decay brought upon by the dominance of empirical science which divorces the idea of a ‘rational’ and ‘objective’ good for humans from the true.

We live in a society where Ni / intuition / big picture thinking is a persecuted minority.

When someone asks for the empirical evidence of something they are implicitly implying that a non-empirical rational account of something is not of value, or is inferior to Se or Te.

People do this every day. All day. In arguments. In policy making. In political debate.

It’s prejudice so common in our daily life that it goes unnoticed, and when someone dares to suggest that Ni has greater worth and validity than Se/Te they are pariahs or accused of arrogance.


It’s not wrong, but only a fairly limited bandwidth can be covered by empiricism, this perspective has led to moral relativism- if you can’t empirically prove it it’s just your opinion. Platonic ideals can provide maps, but the maps must be compared to something real and there actually is more than one way to get to most places. What would an intelligent person do at a crossroads in unfamiliar territory? Postmodernism arrived in full force after a devastating world war, the holocaust, atomic bombs, cold war, news always available to kick in survival fears even though we’re physically probably safer than any time in history, people increasingly staring down into a bright, bottomless rectangular pit instead of going out and using their senses. Not much romantic idealism to be found anymore. There is a way out, but you have to look very carefully.


[quote=“RumDawg, post:88, topic:412”]
I work in government / politics and get more done for society[/quote]

You have views that would get people angry or annoyed as indicated from even a few intuitives on this thread. You’ve even rightfully mentioned that Ni is a persecuted minority so I’m sure you are aware of this.

But this makes me wonder if you’d have to keep these views hidden or be highly manipulative to make the type of impact that would gain buy in from a majority of people (sensors) in your government/political job. The type of impact that would convince you to say that you get more done than Super? What part of government do you work for?


I’ve heard on good authority that there is a very long waiting list for the armchair philosopher division of the Illuminati.


Yeah I never talk philosophy with people I work with, or my friends who are not into it. The only reason I post about it here is because the general topic of this forum is slightly related.



I knew you were lying. You said you worked for the government, but you no longer do.

My exact thoughts were either this guys an angry, hurt, lying, and intelligent teenage Infj or HIM aka INxx.

Anyway, when can we expect those tax cuts?


You can think of types as unequal without ranking them. You can rank them too as well of course. If you truly think Ni or infj, I forget what you’re even saying, is superior, that’s fine. But of course it will sound arrogant to so steadfastly declare this truth. Kind of comes with the territory of feeling superior with such certainty.


There’s a difference between the truth being spoken and the person speaking it. Most people find it hard to draw the distinction, hence people asking questions relating to someone’s job, or personal experience, etc etc. etc.

When I’m making a statement or proposition about reality what is only of concern is of what is said. Not how it is said or how forcefully it is said. — that all matters socially, but doesn’t really matter regarding the thing itself.

As for the idea that Ni is superior than any other cognitive function, my premise is that any orientation that admits a bare minimum of ‘objective truth’, any position that claims that its possible to make valid claims about things, has to admit that some ways of life are better than others, and it must necessary follow that there are preferences in cognitive function. Si could be better, Ti could be better, but I don’t think it’s logically possible for all cognitive approaches to be equal, if one admits there to be an objective good or bad, whatever they may be.

As for the specific claim that Ni is better than Se I’ve put forth my reason being that Se doesn’t ask of the whole, and only receives/recognises particulars. And my position is that the whole is greater than the part, both logically and morally.

This doesn’t mean that all Se-dom people are stupid, or bad, or don’t have access to intuition, or the ability to grasp the ‘whole’ but just cognitively wise it’s gonna be a greater strain for them.


yeah i know. same as there is a difference between a type and an individual of that type.
but i don’t know why it rubs me the wrong way?
i do find a lot of what you wrote very interesting however. i even thought about your Germans/racist remark and thought about how black people there really do have a hard time. but then i thought about how many immigrants Germany has taken in etc, and how different the situation there is. But i dated a black guy while living in Germany and he did come across a lot of racism. same as my muslim family member in canada.
so yeah.
it’s ok.
i think you are presenting things in a very strong way and my initial impulse is to think you are pushing it, like i am almost picturing nuclear heads going off behind you. you come on very strong. but that’s ok.
but talking directly to a sensor and saying their type/functions are inferior and saying “it’s not personal, it’s the truth, someone has to break it to you” is really strong. do you see yourself as coming on strong? maybe my perception is off, it usually is.




The German remark was irony, i.e saying ‘all x people are racist’ is a racist comment itself. But also I was playing on the common perception of Germans like that. But also I was also suggesting there’s a kernel of truth in the exaggerated comment/opinion. I do think Germans no matter how multicultural and politically correct they try to be have identitiarian core. This can be seen in anecdotal evidence, but also in their integration policies which are very dominant culture focussed vis a vis policies in the Anglosphere. The thing is, being German is tied to a very strong identity—not overtly—but its deep down in their culture. Similar to the French. The French no matter how ‘colour blind’ they claim to be, or how colour blind they try to make their laws have terrible problems with white people and racism, and with minorities integrating properly.

Overall the Anglosphere Western countries have done a much better integrating different ‘races’. Largely because the identity of the dominant cultures in these societies has never been as strong in the first place. There’s still racism, but it doesn’t stem from identitarian insider / outsider roots.


oh ok. well it did make me think. and i actually ended up thinking about this (although only in the context of the U.S.):


I’m not pushing anything. I’ve just doubled down. This all just began because in that questionnaire I said my definition of stupid was sensors.

When asked to explain this I said simply “monkey see, monkey do” — a few brief words that encapsulated my meaning. I was happy with that.

But that wasn’t enough for some. I was pushed to explain more.

Like Socrates in Piraeus coerced by Glaucon and Polemarchus I have been forced to explain and justify myself.

But if someone said this statement:

“I think it’s better that people question reality rather than simply accept what is given”

or “people who question reality are smarter than people who simply accept what it’s given”

— most people would have no problem with it, with this basic ‘truism’.

But that statement is logically the same statement as saying Ni is better than Se. And pretty much that statement entails all the same value consequences.

But all well.


you make some good points,
but you still don’t see the narrow-mind you have.

and this statement, she put it better than I could.

but if Hitler was really an INFJ, in his Era, you’re basically saying intuitives are better ruler and politician, and that’s one example.

I’m okay with truths. and i love the raw truths. but you state your opinion as if it were objectively true. which I think is highly flawed.

you make great arguments. from your perspective. but that’s not all there is to it.

you see, i grew up surrouded by intuitives in my family, and friends, and my society.

so it’s not the first time where i was told ‘you don’t get it’, or trying to make me an inferior.

and these statement as well.

when you hear these things more than enough times, you start to think ‘is it true?’

and later down the road after finding out MBTI, i’ve heard intuitives who grew up around Sensors said the same thing.
they felt misunderstood, inferior, or lacking something.

what’s being said is quite more important than how it’s being said, yes.

but i can’t help but to question, 'what happened to this kid?'
and i keep saying kid, because i think you’re someone relatively young.
you definitely sound like one.

one of the remarks i first noticed you coming into this forum was "eww… ENFPs"
and it’s very hard to imagine that you’re some kind of influential politicians talking like this.
how do you even find the time to play Final Fantasy? hahaha it really makes no sense to me.

and even your name. RumDawg? there are so many indication that points to

and i’m glad i’m not the only one who thought this.

seriously man. maybe it’s the scorpio moon thing.
i’ve had friends in the past that talks JUST like you.
and they sound pretty knowledgeable and can hold an intellectual debate.
but their viewpoint is highly skewed and often see only one side of things and make it objective.

well. good.
i’m glad you explained yourself.
because it gives me a better idea how your skewed ideology began. i can trace it back.
but you’re still not ‘pushing’ hard enough.

hahahah statements like this , do you hear yourself?
this is your opinion. not a fact.
and in one hand i’m glad you think you’re doing something important. i hope you continue your passion.

when you say things like this, comparing, implying that you’re someone doing ‘more in a year’ than 'my lifetime’
first off, if you truly knew who i was, i wouldn’t think you’d be saying those words.
but of course, i’m not surprised because i see your pattern here.

you could either say something like “i participate in governmental work and make huge impact in society by doing blah blah blah”

but you choose to say “i do more in a year than your lifetime”

hey. maybe you’re right though. i have no idea. because i don’t know what you actually do and have done.

but it’s hard to imagine

it says a lot about who you are, which in turn, says a lot about the stuff you say.

i like this statement though. i see some truth to it.

but truly, how much do you think Ni-dom can completely understand Se in its essence?
not much at all.
so if you’re Ni dom, neither can you.

i don’t mind if you’re arrogant or pushy. that’s not the problem.

your skewed view and stating something as

i’d be way more convinced if sensors agree with your ranking system.

no. that’s not the problem.
i never had a problem with your ‘arrogance’ or whatever. i just see someone hurt and bitter. but that’s just what i see. i can be wrong. but i can’t help but to see it.

what i have problem with is

and then you say


so… are you saying they’re bad or they’re not bad?

and @lunar mentioned racism.
that shit exist in most place where one ‘dominant race’ resides.

i’ve lived in 4 different countries and they are all racist man.

and it’s not just Germans.

there are other cultures who think their race and ethnic is the superior one.


but besides the type, i do believe there are universal good and evil, and

i also believe that some people are ‘better’ than others.
but just because i do, i don’t consider it to be an objective truth. although, i may want it to be.
it’s probably because i’m a Libra and i cannot say my opinions and beliefs are objective.
although, deep down i want to think that it is.

so, the whole N/S division goes the same. it’s the interpretation and connotation that’s being given is what i don’t quite agree with.

in US, i’ve lived in predominantly white neighborhood, and predominantly black neighborhood as well.

and i’ve seen and heard both sides of arguments or why the other race is worse, and how they’re better.

so what objective measurement do i have to use to determine which is the truth?

some philosopher? if i say “plato says this, marxis says this” does that mean it’s true?

what determines good and bad? what determines better?

i get it. i totally get why sensors CAN be bad.

and from what measurement are we speaking of?

i only want to convince you to see the other side,
because so far you only stated one side of things, and that’s why i think it’s very skewed.
and after you see the other side, FULLY, and you still stick with your belief, then so be it.

i’m glad you can share your views, it’s thus far interesting.
but goddamn can you just see the other side?
or am i expecting too much from you?

if other Ni dom didn’t speak up, i would’ve questioned if your view is how everyone in intutive dominant function sees it.

what i like is your passion of believing something so hard.
if i had a depressed INFJ friend, i’d definitely want him to talk to you and you’ll probably be good at boosting his confidence and ego. but i’m afraid he’ll get bitter towards the causes of his depression and say something like “yeah! fuck everyone! i’m better than you all!”

question for you. what is your definition of Se?
explain Se as much as you know it.
that way, i can get the grasp of why you think the way you do