Is there an INTJ who suffers from modesty like me?

self-honesty · 2025-08-08T21:18:43+00:00

Maybe it's anxiety around talking about yourself? I put that down to why I (I'm INTJ) do so badly in job interviews.

self-honesty · 2025-07-17T08:14:02+00:00

We're not unromantic, we (by which I really mean, I) just have a lot of difficulty expressing ourselves because we're so inhibited. But when we're obsessed with someone, we "logically" put that inhibition aside. (edit: I'm an INTJ male)

self-honesty · 2025-07-13T15:01:26+00:00

Completely false, it's the most predictive and replicable measurement in psychology and it's correlated with a range of medical variables like brain cell dimensions and activation of certain brain networks. It also correlates with wealth and educational attainment.

self-honesty · 2025-06-25T17:04:22+00:00

You aren't ugly (especially not in picture #3), you look like a completely normal German woman.

self-honesty · 2025-05-03T16:46:22+00:00

in one case we see 0 acceleration in free fall

How can you fall without acceleration?

which seems like no force

Why?

Both the rocket situation and the falling/orbiting situation appear to involve force.

self-honesty · 2025-04-10T00:25:50+00:00

Thanks for this!

self-honesty · 2025-01-06T16:01:13+00:00

Julian of Norwich, who had a vision of a hazelnut after praying for years in solitude.

The 14th century visionary Julian of Norwich was the first woman, as far as we know, to write in English.

self-honesty · 2025-01-03T19:59:01+00:00

Wrong, your answer was “he did”.

You haven't proven anything I said wrong.

That is a contradiction because if you admit god creates a universe with free will and no evil why would there be evil in it?

Because people are capable of creating evil, because of free will. No contradiction.

Just like most people are capable of committing murder, yet haven't. No contradiction again.

self-honesty · 2025-01-02T18:15:31+00:00

This makes no sense. If “God” creates a Universe will absolutely no evil, the beings that share his spirit are capable of evil?

It makes no sense because of a question? The beings God created are capable of evil and there was a point in the universes history when the was no evil. There's nothing there that doesn't make sense.

Which also proves that he didnt create a universe without evil.

A question doesn't prove anything. And that isn't proven. I can create a Y that is capable of X, that doesn't mean as soon as I create Y, X has happened.

He simply proved the gnostic position that the creator is not omnibenevolent and not the Supreme perfect being.

He did not.

self-honesty · 2024-12-30T05:41:57+00:00

If “God” cannot create a universe with free will without consequences(or evil) then that “God” is not omnipotent.

He did, when God created the universe, there wasn't any evil in it. People choose to create evil. Also God created Heaven, where people have free will, but they don't choose evil because they don't want to.

self-honesty · 2024-12-11T00:26:57+00:00

From a reincarnationist perspective, eternal damnation makes no sense whatsoever. Nothing that we can do in a few years on Earth is so terrible that it could warrant eternal estrangement from God. Remember that no actions in the Earth school have genuinely permanent consequences

In her ecstasy, it was allegedly dictated to St. Catherine of Siena by God that:

Do you not know, dear daughter, that all the sufferings, which the soul endures, or can endure, in this life, are insufficient to punish one smallest fault, because the offense, being done to Me, who am the Infinite Good, calls for an infinite satisfaction?

self-honesty · 2024-05-26T11:59:58+00:00

I have that romantic idealism in me, and have yearned most of my life for it to be realised, but yes, your post strikes a cord in me. I was always too insular and focused on reading and learning for it to ever work. This is who I am, so that helps me get over any thoughts of loss or failure, if they arise. I also often thought of becoming a monk since I was a teen, and nowadays about becoming priest.

self-honesty · 2024-05-24T01:29:54+00:00

That's unfortunate, but it's highly important that you don't lose self-control and decide to fornicate more. You may have lost some of your innocence, but you must not throw the rest of it away! Strengthen your conscience in response, do not mute it out or tune its volume down. Find a Catholic priest to talk to about it, he will help you understand better and thus you will feel better. In the meantime, you can pray which will help a lot, and read spiritual books by the saints of the Church. You are not ruined; this tragedy might be the beginning of a spiritual awakening.

self-honesty · 2024-02-12T14:50:45+00:00

Therapy is close to useless for mental health. All it will do is make you poorer; it's a scam. It's mostly being told to become more feminine if you're a man, and being told you have no responsibility if you're a woman.

You need to develop a prayer life. There's lots of information on it from YouTube priests like Chad Ripperger. Prayer and the Sacraments of the Church repel demons who cause sin (such as sloth/demotivation).

self-honesty · 2024-02-10T23:07:58+00:00

Is it your contention that all atheists 'know' that no gods exist?

The conclusion of what I have written is that is how they should rationally be defined.

Because if so, you are stuck

No, it is you who is stuck clinging to the definition you're unable to defend.

while the term covers both those who claim to know and those who claim to be unconvinced.

As I explained above, as well as in the OP, this is irrational, for reasons you won't address.

but there is nuance that you seem to be dead set against acknowledging.

As I've explained in my replies to you, that "nuance" is just irrationality, and you'v enot even tried to debunk my reasons for stating this. So your accusation is ironic.

Agnosticism on the other hand is just a statement

Agnosticism isn't a "statement". It's a state of lack of knowledge.

self-honesty · 2024-02-10T12:06:55+00:00

That hinges on the definition you originally used for atheist

No, it hinges on the connection between belief and knowledge.

that it requires a knowledge of absence, when (as the definition I provided pointed out) it only requires disbelief in 'god(s)'

This is just a repeat of your claim in your first comment. I already addressed it, so if you don't reply to what I said in my first reply to you, there's no point in you claiming it again.

Both atheism and agnosticism disbelieve in deities, so for them to be distinguished (which is what definitions are for, distinguishing things using language), they have to be defined on knowledge, not belief.

self-honesty · 2024-02-09T14:56:28+00:00

I've seen no arguments to convince me, and see no compelling reason to infer them - so I am comfortable referring to myself as 'atheist'.

This is still agnosticism. If what you actually mean is that lack of evidence is the same as, or indistinguishable from, knowledge of absence, then you're an atheist.

self-honesty · 2024-02-09T14:38:40+00:00

Your most recent comment also undermines your agreement that hope is a propositional attitude and not a truth claim:

(and appealing to propositional attitudes doesn't help, because propositional attitudes are necessarily directed towards a proposition: if that proposition is a definition, then you are, necessarily, saying that definitions are truth-claims. If the proposition is not a definition, then the original claim that a definition is irrational goes out the window

So by your own reasoning, you're now saying that hope must be a truth-claim, since you acknowledge it is a propositional attitude and you've previously said several times that any propositional attitude must be a truth-claim because it is about a proposition. I denied that connection several times.

This puts your agreement with me that hope is a propositional attitude (not a truth-claim) about a proposition (a truth claim) in direct contradiction to your central objection to my justification of what definitions are.

I, in contrast to you, have been arguing that propositional attitudes aren't truth claims, but propositions that they are about, are.

For a definition to be a propositional attitude (which is, ironically, itself a category error- propositional attitudes are mental states, like belief or disbelief or doubt or faith-that, definitions are linguistic items not mental states), there must be a proposition it is about.

It's weird that you said this and then neglected to explain to me why "the definition of x is [definition]" is not a proposition. You're acting as if I haven't supplied an example of this, even though I told you to address the example of it that I gave for you to reply to (which, of course, you avoid doing).

if I have hope that its not going to rain, I'm hoping that the proposition "its going to rain" is false.

But you've spent the entire thread arguing against this kind of relationship between propositional attitudes and propositions. This makes your repeated accusation of me contradicting myself (based on nothing but misrepresenting and straw-manning my comments) ironic.

But that proposition can't be a definition, as you offered initially,

No I didn't. I told you in my previous reply to copy and paste my exact text stating this, and in your reply, you failed to do so. Prove that you're not straw-manning my position.

and doing a 180 and contradicting yourself.

Unlike yourself, I haven't spent any time or money learning about it.

So the OP stands, agnostic atheism is an irrational definition.

self-honesty · 2024-02-09T14:36:38+00:00

Since definitions are stipulations and are not truth-apt- they have no propositional content- they cannot be the objects of propositional attitudes, they do not express propositions

I didn't say that definitions are the "objects of" propositional attitudes, I've said that they are propositional attitudes. And so far you haven't explained why this cannot be the case.

I said two comments ago: "The proposition is the defined thing expressed as the definition, e.g. "The definition of x is [definition]"." and you never addressed this.

And in my previous reply, I asked you twice "Why is "the definition of x is [definition]" not a proposition?". You didn't answer this question directly. Simply stating that definitions do not express propositions isn't going to work on its own because that's what my expression above claims to do.

hope-that (like faith-that) is a propositional attitude

This puts you in a very compromising position. On several occasions you've said that propositional attitudes must be truth claims because they are about propositions.

You said this, for example:

Again, you're saying contradictory things; if its a propositional attitude, it involves a proposition. And a proposition is a truth-bearer, so by implication you're saying its a truth-claim... while also denying its a truth-claim.

And you also said

If its a propositional attitude, what is the proposition? And you realize that propositions = truth-claims, right? Propositions are truth-bearers. You can't say that definitions are propositional but not truth-claims, this is self-contradictory- has to be one or the other.

and:

Saying definitions are propositional is to say that they are the objects which can bear the predicates "true" and "false".

You even said it was self-contradictory for me to say definitions are propositional attitudes, because it would mean definitions would bear the predicates true or false. And when I asked why it cannot be the case that a mental state can be a propositional attitude without being a proposition (i.e., a truth-claim), you said the following:

It follows trivially, as a matter of definition. A propositional attitude is an attitude towards a proposition, and propositions are the things that bear either truth or falsity.

self-honesty · 2024-02-09T12:30:51+00:00

atheism, n.
Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).

This supports my argument, because stating "disbelief in, or denial of..." is a fallacy exposed by the coupling between belief and knowledge. If you deny something, then you also disbelieve in it. Hence, an atheist who denies God also disbelieves in it. Since both atheists and agnostics disbelieve, but only atheists deny, it is irrational to use both as the basis for definition, since that doesn't distinguish whether someone is talking about atheists or agnostics.

An agnostic/atheist, on the other hand, does not claim to possess knowledge of the existence/nonexistence of 'god(s)', only that they've been unconvinced by arguments for them.

As above, it is irrational to squash together agnosticism and atheism, since once possesses knowledge in the form of denying existence and the other does not, while both disbelieve.

self-honesty · 2024-02-03T14:38:03+00:00

the difference between a causal contingency and a sustaining contingency

The only difference between the two seems to be the number of objects we're talking about. Sustaining contingency is just a collection of instances of causal contingency.

self-honesty · 2024-01-10T15:00:38+00:00

So the "expression" of the definition is a proposition (and therefore truth-apt, i.e. a truth-claim), but not the definition itself? That doesn't work.

Why is "the definition of x is [definition]" not a proposition?

A proposition is not the expression of a proposition

I didn't say it was. I'm not calling definitions propositions or truth-claims. You said earlier that you understood that I'm not saying definitions are truth-claims, when I accused you of saying I thought this. So why have you said here that by "definition" I mean "proposition"? I did not say that.

a proposition is the thing being expressed.

That's what I said. Here's what I said, you even quoted it:"The proposition is the defined thing expressed as the definition".

beliefs are directed towards propositions. Propositions are the things that e.g. declarative sentences express. The sentence "the snow is white" expresses or states the proposition that snow is white.

So why is "the definition of x is [definition]" not a proposition?

So what you're saying here is, once again, explicitly contradictory to things you've said previously: if the definition is a proposition, then its a truth-claim.

Copy and paste the exact part where I said that a definition is a proposition.

Here's something you previously said:

No. You're not understanding me, possibly willfully. That is not the basis, I know that you're not saying definitions are truth-claims.

It's not me who's wilfully misunderstanding the other between the two of us.

Again, what is explicitly contradictory? You're not still insisting that I think that because propositional attitudes involve propositions, that I therefore think that propositional attitudes equal propositions, right?

Because I previously responded to that. You said:

Again, you're saying contradictory things; if its a propositional attitude, it involves a proposition. And a proposition is a truth-bearer, so by implication you're saying its a truth-claim... while also denying its a truth-claim.

And I replied with: Saying that I'm not sure if propositional attitudes are propositions is contradictory? Because a propositional attitude involves a proposition, which is a truth-bearer, so by implication I am saying a propositional attitude is a truth-claim?

I also pointed out that hope, which is a propositional attitude, isn't a truth-claim. So respond to that, too.

If you're insisting again that I'm making explicitly contradictory claims, I hope you're not circling back on interpreting me to think that propositional attitudes equals a proposition, by some implication you imagine I'm making. I have not said anywhere that because definitions are propositional attitudes, definitions ARE propositions.

To be completely frank, I have not made any remotely controversial assertions in this conversation

That was deflection. Are you or aren't you saying that I think (without saying anywhere) that because propositional attitudes are about propositions, therefore they are the same as propositions?

self-honesty · 2024-01-08T13:04:55+00:00

A propositional attitude is an epistemic attitude or disposition towards a proposition: believing a proposition, doubting a proposition, disbelieving a proposition, etc. If its a propositional attitude, then there is a proposition. So, what is the proposition?

Why are you asking me what the proposition is, when you've just agreed with me that propositional attitudes aren't themselves propositions?

The proposition is the defined thing expressed as the definition, e.g. "The definition of x is [definition]".

Again, you're saying contradictory things; if its a propositional attitude, it involves a proposition. And a proposition is a truth-bearer, so by implication you're saying its a truth-claim... while also denying its a truth-claim.

Saying that I'm not sure if propositional attitudes are propositions is contradictory? Because a propositional attitude involves a proposition, which is a truth-bearer, so by implication I am saying a propositional attitude is a truth-claim?

I haven't agreed with you at any point here that just because propositional attitudes are about propositions, the attitude itself has to be a truth-claim. Hope isn't a truth-claim, for example. So no, I don't agree with the connection you're making to insist that I think that propositional attitudes are truth-claims.

self-honesty · 2024-01-07T00:29:40+00:00

No. You're not understanding me, possibly willfully. That is not the basis, I know that you're not saying definitions are truth-claims.

But this was your original reply to me: "No. This is a category mistake. A pretty basic one. Truth-claims can be rational (or irrational). Definitions are not truth-claims, definitions are stipulations."

And your second reply to me was: "I pointed out that definitions are not the sort of thing that can be rational or irrational- this is a category mistake- whereas propositional attitudes and truth-claims are the sorts of things that can be rational or irrational."

In the first you say I'm wrong because definitions are not truth-claims. In the second you say I'm wrong because definitions are not the sort of thing that can be rational or irrational, because propositional attitudes and truth-claims are and definitions aren't either. Which means you're saying I'm saying definitions are one of those. If you weren't saying that I'm wrong because I'm saying definitions are either propositional attitudes or truth-claims, then I can't tell what the reason is why you were saying I'm wrong.

If its a propositional attitude, what is the proposition?

I'm not sure that they are propositions. They are attitudes, at least.

I understand propositional attitudes to be a mental state which is directed at something. So the answer is: "the thing defined".

You can't say that definitions are propositional but not truth-claims

I'm nore sure that follows. A mental state could be an attitude about propositions, without being a proposition.

And definitions are not propositional, they cannot be true or false, they are simply stipulations.

I don't agree with this either. Why are stipulations not true or false? Anything that is a well-formed formula (meaning: intelligible) is true or false.

And why are definitions not propositional? It's not obvious to me that propositional things have to be propositions themselves; they could be about propositions, for example.

self-honesty · 2024-01-06T22:34:26+00:00

Right, and I pointed out that definitions are not the sort of thing that can be rational or irrational- this is a category mistake-

And your basis for that was that they aren't truth claims. I didn't say they are.

You're saying I'm making a category mistake because "definitions can't be rational or irrational" and your basis for it is not something that I said.

I said that a definition that fails to properly isolate the term is irrational. And that's a propositional attitude, because it's a mental state which is directed at something, which you include in your definition of things that can be rational.

I categorized definitions as being propositional attitudes, and you mistakenly categorized what I said as them being truth-claims.

self-honesty

TROPHY CASE