Philosophy correlated against Philosophical "School"

[Rei]

I was looking stoicism up recently, and realized that many of my actions were that of a stoic.

I also see from random threads that other INTJs have been called a stoic or were interested in stoicism.

So I was wondering if INTJs... or any other types for that matter, have a prevailing preference for a certain school of philosophy.

I'd make a poll, but I don't think I know enough about philosophy to cover all the bases... sooooo free discussion.... *claps*

1. INTJs: Do you relate to stoicism, if not, what would better describe your view?
2. Non INTJs: What school of philosophy do you agree with most?

P.S. I hope there isn't another thread about this already... I haven't gone through everything to make sure there isn't. I apologize if there already is :blank:

[The Many]

I must admit I wasn't particularly well read-up on Stoicism before this thread, so kudos to you for making me seek it out. Looking at it though, it is far from what I agree with - the quenching of emotions and desires is the quenching of Life and of everything good about it (even negative emotions and sensations are usually quite beneficial in the end, they are after all the reason for growth; a rollercoaster is in the end a more fulfilling ride than a children's carousel, after all).

As to my own philosophy in general, it could probably be described as a rationalistic form of existentialism; in so far as that the creation of new ideas and beliefs for oneself shapes ones emotions and desires around these. These are, in my opinion, better formed through reason than irrationalism though, due to the fact that living in accordance to the world (and yourself) as it (and you) most likely exists probably will give better results in the end than some random fantasies and anecdotes will...

I usually refer to it as "Moralism", since given that morality is ones conscious choices in establishing goals to work for, and these are in fact, necessary for a human being (it is impossible to live without making conscious choices, that is, establishing values - nihilism is a paradox in itself and an abomination upon mankind), so with Moralism I mean living morally, that is, in relation to your ideas about the world.

[AntimonyLegault]

Rationality vs emotion. Emotion complicates things, so I like to keep it in check, so I guess that means 'stoic'.

[logan235711]

Rationality vs emotion. Emotion complicates things, so I like to keep it in check, so I guess that means 'stoic'.
Most modern philosophy discusses the rationality of emotion, or emotion as non-correlative to irrationality, or arguing against emotions as feelings. Writers one might want to look into may be: Anthony Kenny, Erroll Bedford, Gabriele Taylor, Robert Solomon, Patricia Greenspan, Ronald de Sousa, and Richard Wollheim among many others.

So I was wondering if INTJs... or any other types for that matter, have a prevailing preference for a certain school of philosophy.
No prevailing preference. I look into certain arguments and shift slightly to one side or the other as new information comes. The sides of the arguments are the schools, so one would have to tally every single argument and one's siding in each case to determine a preference. This sounds much more simpler than it is.

1. INTJs: Do you relate to stoicism, if not, what would better describe your view?

2. Non INTJs: What school of philosophy do you agree with most?
The only thing which might sound nice to relate to is their idea of 'philosophy as life'; however, it is too vague to hold any merit beyond it's glancing aural aesthetics.

[Tsuru]

1. INTJs: Do you relate to stoicism, if not, what would better describe your view?
2. Non INTJs: What school of philosophy do you agree with most?




The only major philosophical influences on me are Ayn Rand, Nietzsche, and Anton Lavey (not really a legitimate philosopher, mostly a rehashing of Nietzsche, Rand, and Kierkegaard watered down and server 'sinny' side up ^.~). As for my official school of thought, I mostly just catch everything in the mighty headlights of my justice, because I am the immaculate arbiter of right and wrong, truth and falsehood by the grace of my judgment that is keener than the most deadly ninja blade. :P

If you had to pin me down, I'm closer to an Objectivist than anything else. But I've got lots of beefs with that whole movement too. -_-

[stasis]

2. Non INTJs: What school of philosophy do you agree with most?
The philosophy of science (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and something generally logical positivist (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) when it comes to 'applied epistemology', or whatever one would call that. But as far as philosophy for dealing with people is concerned, maybe Objectivism (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) at the moment. In truth, I don't identify with Rand's conclusions as much as I find her attention to logical continuity - including the firm and total disregard of religion in a constructive, non-reactionary respect - a very hopeful thing. So I should say that I "like" Objectivism more than I agree with it. In lieu of something more explicitly rational, I will have to go with that. I have also been accused of nominalism (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), although I have never studied it.

[Rohsiph]

I'm working out a system that draws pretty heavily from Nietzsche and the early Surrealists (the artists--I'm aware they're not philosophers). Tangents also borrow from Kant, Sartre, Spinoza, as well as non-philosophers Camus, Joyce, Carroll, and modern filmmakers Sogo Ishii and Shinya Tsukamoto.

Stoicism does not appeal to me much at all from what I remember of it.

[logos]

Stoicism is the western philosophy most inline with my personal philosophy. Taoism is the eastern philosophy most inline with my personal philosophy.

I don't really have any additional information to add to that. :p

[The Many]

I'm working out a system that draws pretty heavily from Nietzsche and the early Surrealists (the artists--I'm aware they're not philosophers). Tangents also borrow from Kant, Sartre, Spinoza, as well as non-philosophers Camus, Joyce, Carroll, and modern filmmakers Sogo Ishii and Shinya Tsukamoto.

Stoicism does not appeal to me much at all from what I remember of it.

What? A system? Where? When? How? Do you have any ideas to share? (I'm working on a system myself too, and it has taken quite some shape too, I may add).

[Sylvanus]

I haven't read much on stoicism. I just read the wiki article on it, and I'm far from making a final decision. I am a Christian (which is not a philisophical school per se), and it appears on the surface that there are similar means to similar ends between the two. There are a couple mutually exclusive beliefs that would prevent me from being a true stoic, including determinism vs free will and also finite vs eternal life. However 'happiness outside of circumstances' and leading a life of virtue is common to both beliefs.

[Rohsiph]

What? A system? Where? When? How? Do you have any ideas to share? (I'm working on a system myself too, and it has taken quite some shape too, I may add).

Oh wow . . . I wonder . . . if I could really start transcribing here-- I suppose I can try.

I laid down an initial conscious groundwork after taking a class in "Modern Philosophy" that basically summarized the major Western philosophers from Descartes through Nietzsche. I started wondering about the possibility of laying down potential tenets for a full-fledged "surrealist epistemology & metaphysic," realizing not long into these thoughts that such a method would, at the least, require devices that would almost surely be rejected by any modern academic philosopher.

Thus, I've downgraded writing at length about figuring it out to the degree of being able to separate it from other philosophies from my long-term goals . . .

but I think I can offer a few critical points/directions for a shaky foundation:

a strong feeling for/attraction to finding beauty in destruction (Shinya Tsukamoto's films attack this from a few different views)
an impersonal acceptance, affirmation, and understanding of the insignificance of any single entity in the universe (some Nietzsche, but largely drawn from knowledge of astronomy--this kind of gets close to "willing the eternal recurrence")
an overwhelming need for personal integrity (strongly Nietzsche)
identification with & affinity towards intuitive methods of creation (particularly the Automatism of some surrealists)

not sure exactly how to tie down how Sartre, Camus, Joyce, or Carroll really fit in . . . Kant's transcendental aesthetic is appealing for grounding ethical ideas in a relative-yet-not-at-all kind of way . . .

I suppose Carroll & Joyce fit in with the magnetism of chaotic kinds of creative work. Creation itself being (borrowing from Nietzsche again) the most effective goal one could work towards.

Let me know if you'd like me to try to explain more . . . it's somewhat refreshing attempting to organize things "out loud" like this :)

[The Many]

Oh wow . . . I wonder . . . if I could really start transcribing here-- I suppose I can try.

I laid down an initial conscious groundwork after taking a class in "Modern Philosophy" that basically summarized the major Western philosophers from Descartes through Nietzsche. I started wondering about the possibility of laying down potential tenets for a full-fledged "surrealist epistemology & metaphysic," realizing not long into these thoughts that such a method would, at the least, require devices that would almost surely be rejected by any modern academic philosopher.

Thus, I've downgraded writing at length about figuring it out to the degree of being able to separate it from other philosophies from my long-term goals . . .

but I think I can offer a few critical points/directions for a shaky foundation:

a strong feeling for/attraction to finding beauty in destruction (Shinya Tsukamoto's films attack this from a few different views)
an impersonal acceptance, affirmation, and understanding of the insignificance of any single entity in the universe (some Nietzsche, but largely drawn from knowledge of astronomy--this kind of gets close to "willing the eternal recurrence")
an overwhelming need for personal integrity (strongly Nietzsche)
identification with & affinity towards intuitive methods of creation (particularly the Automatism of some surrealists)

not sure exactly how to tie down how Sartre, Camus, Joyce, or Carroll really fit in . . . Kant's transcendental aesthetic is appealing for grounding ethical ideas in a relative-yet-not-at-all kind of way . . .

I suppose Carroll & Joyce fit in with the magnetism of chaotic kinds of creative work. Creation itself being (borrowing from Nietzsche again) the most effective goal one could work towards.

Let me know if you'd like me to try to explain more . . . it's somewhat refreshing attempting to organize things "out loud" like this :)

Of course I'd be interested in reading more about it! I feed on theory, and in fact I finished The Open Society and Its Enemies a while ago (well, a couple of days, but even that is too much) so I haven't been reading anything since then - I'm starving...

A question though, have you compiled this even for yourself on paper rather than in your head? I mean, I certainly get your point about the ridiculous modern analytic philosophers (as a friend of mine put it, they get so bogged down in trying to think of how to find the truth that they don't find any... now granted, I don't mind deeper analysis, but there is certainly a need for coming to conclusions as well), but I know that I personally have benefitted a lot from compiling my ideas and working them through thouroughly. I have been working on my stuff for roughly 18 months now and it's coming along nicely.

But either way we should perhaps continue this discussion in PMs or something similar to make sure we don't hijack this thread too much. Or do you use some instant messenger or something like that?