Dtcwee wondered in response to my previous post:
If proving something to others is unnecessary, I wonder what the blog post is for then.
To be honest, the question struck me as a non sequitur. There are plenty of reasons to write blog posts besides trying to prove something to others. Wanting to communicate something to an audience is not the same as trying to prove something.
In the previous piece I had written:
I need to advance on the basis of what I know to be true, not on the basis of what I can prove to others
And I went on to provide the context of “theoretical certitude”.
If you replace “prove” with “show to be theoretically certain” in my statement, the meaning will become clearer. Yet if we do the same with dtcwee’s comment, his argument presents an obvious problem.
We could formulate it as follows:
1 Zac says he needs to advance by what he knows to be true not by what he can prove to others.
2 But writing a blog post implies trying to prove something to others.
3 Therefore, Zac either wants to prove something to others and is contradicting himself,
4 or writing a blog post is not always about proving something to others.
It’s tempting to read dtcwee’s comment in the context of the vernacular “prove something to somebody”, meaning:
to substantiate a claim about something to someone; to make someone believe or accept a statement about something.
By this interpretation, one could argue that everyone who publishes online is trying to prove something to somebody, though it may not always be conscious or obvious.
I might be trying to prove to people that I am a deep and thoughtful person, and strive to do so by writing cryptic or convoluted posts. I might, right now, be seeking to prove to people that I can be analytical and logical.
Nonetheless, this is not the interpretation of “prove” that I was using, as illustrated by my use of “theoretical certitude” in the original post. If we factor my meaning into the 4-point formulation above, we quickly spot the error at point 2:
2 But writing a blog post implies trying to show that something is theoretically certain to others.
It should be clear that theoretical certitude is a degree of proof far removed from idiomatic uses like “what are you trying to prove?”.
This kind of misinterpretation is known as equivocation, with wikipedia offering the following example:
- A feather is light.
- What is light cannot be dark.
- Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.
It’s a common problem in argument or debate, and that is why philosophy requires us to define our terms at the outset. Dtcwee took my use of the word ‘prove’ and treated it according to a different definition.
But that’s not the end of it. Quite apart from the equivocation, I’m curious as to why dtcwee implicitly believes that publishing a blog post denotes trying to prove something to somebody.
I suspect the answer lies (conveniently) in one of my favourite topics: temperament.
The four temperaments see the world differently, have different values, motivations, and perspectives. And this may be as good a time as any to introduce a slightly different take on the four temperaments – the Keirsey Temperament Sorter.
I won’t go into the background and details, but what the American psychologist David Keirsey has done is to group the famous Myers-Briggs personality types into four groups which correspond to the traditional temperaments.
Here we can see that the main difference in MBTI terms between the Rationalist (Choleric) and the Idealist (Melancholic) is their Thinking and Feeling functions respectively. The Rationalist makes decisions based on “objective observations and factual analysis in any given situation”. Strategic and goal-oriented thinking comes naturally to them. As such, a Rationalist is predisposed to look for the strategies and goals underlying the behaviour of others.
By contrast an Idealist makes decisions on the basis of his feeling, which is just as obscure as it sounds. An Idealist is not precluded from making objective observations and factual analysis, but at the end of it all, he will make a decision based on how he feels. It is hard to describe, but just as thoughts may be true or false, so things can feel right or wrong. Things that feel right usually point toward meaning, purpose, identity, authenticity, and other ideals.
When I write, I almost always do so for the sake of ideals. I write to uncover meaning, I write with a goal of authenticity, and I write to establish and clarify my own identity for myself. These are all fairly self-absorbed purposes for which an audience is nonetheless important firstly because it imposes a discipline and a rigor that might otherwise wane, and secondly because ideals shared and communicated are thereby strengthened and clarified.
At least, that’s the ideal.
What my blog posts are for is primarily to discover something for myself through the creative and expressive effort. Half-formed ideas can expand, or collapse under their own weight. Intuitions can be tested. Ideals can be explored. If it’s of benefit to anyone else, that is a wonderful side-effect. But if I tried to think strategically about it, my motivation would shrivel up and die.
The Keirsey system offers a different perspective on the temperaments by aligning them with the Myers-Briggs functions. However, in so doing it brings forward other more refined possibilities. 16 types are more particular than four temperaments, and there’s a risk of getting lost in the minor details of the MBTI.
One of the reasons I like the temperament theory so much is that it is imprecise. It’s rough around the edges and barely doctrinaire, in a way that perfectly suits our imprecise nature. So I don’t take Keirsey dogmatically.
That said, there are interesting questions to consider and explore in detail: such as the shared intuitive function of Cholerics and Melancholics that makes them in many ways so similar.
Or the ‘slowness’ of both the Melancholic and the Phlegmatic perhaps arising from very different causes: the obscure strangeness of feeling in the one, and the introverted sensing in the other.
Likewise the excitability of Cholerics and Sanguines is, in Keirsey’s arrangement, most likely due to the powerful thinking function of the former, and the extroverted sensing of the latter.
Going further, you could explore some of the nuances of interaction between the different temperaments, such as why Cholerics often make Melancholics uneasy. I suspect it’s because despite sharing the same or similar intuitive function, Cholerics are quick to think in directions that don’t feel right to the Melancholic. Likewise, Cholerics may get frustrated with Melancholics whose rambling observations and insights never get to the damn point….