Personality Cafe banner
1 - 20 of 123 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
These are just rough ideas. Anybody who knows more about typing may want to chime in.

Karl Marx- INTJ
He is definitely Fi, rather than Fe (compare his 1844 Manuscripts with Trotsky's essay on proletarian culture-- I would say Trotsky is Fe).

That means he uses Te, which is consistent with his materialist dialectic-- he is concerned with the organization of existent, material society. Hegel might be more Ti. The Te is probably higher up than the Fi.

The Ni is a bit trickier, but I can see how it would be necessary for some of his insights. Hell, all of Capital begins with he commodity and the antagonism of use and exchange value. Idk

Jean-Paul Sartre- INFP?
Obsession with authenticity, the human condition, angst/nausea all profoundly Fi. Sartre is practically the anti-Fe, although this might become somewhat problematic in his later writings?
Actually, the nausea bit seems like a relationship between Fi and Si.

Even his most dense, academic work is more F than T-- consider Being and Nothingness: the waiter who plays too well at being a waiter; shame and the gaze; his rejection of solipsism.

Ne also appears in his understanding of the gaze, his interpretation of the Master-Slave relation, his view of human relations.

Albert Camus- INFP

This one's pretty easy. The Stranger is basically just Fi vomited onto a page (not meant as a critique). Theoretical work like The Myth of Sisyphus, no less so.
Walter Benjamin- INFP???

This is a really tough one. He incorporates elements of Jewish mysticism, although he subjugates these to a general Marxist framework. Many of his writings are on poetry and theater, and unlike many philosophers, he does not neglect the human, emotional side to the things he writes. He writes about the 'aura', the gaze, and what is lost from art in the age of technical reproducibility, as well as what is to be gained. He is committed to a Marxist ethics, but in a far less rigid, dogmatic way than many, and his Arcades Project is all about subjective experience of the 19th century, commodification, and alienation.

He he is definitely Ne-- his writings can be all over the place, drawing together different strands. I'm pretty sure he's more feeling than thinking. I suppose he could be ENFP

Aristotle-
Okay, so most immediately, it seems that Aristotle's hylomorphism and biological/political empirical study is more Te, where Plato's theory of Forms and the divided line are more Ti. This is consistent with ethics, where Plato's Republic seems based on Fe, and Aristotle's focus on character, voluntarism, and individual happiness seems to spring more from Fi.

Now, it is between Ne/Ni and Se/Si. I think there is strong evidence for Ne and Si. The former appears in all of his writings-- it is the way in which he consistently outlines various proposed and unproposed potential solutions to a problem. He begins many of his treatises with aporiai, or impasses, and solutions that have been offered by Pythagoras, Plato, etc. Further Ne indicators include his focus on the interrelatedness of things; he is truly a dialectician, in that his formal cause or entelecheia is always unifying parts and aspects that function together to form a totality.

Aristotle's understanding of the senses, as laid out in De Anima, appears to be more Si than Se. This I'm less confident about, but I'm sufficiently sure of Ne to assert that he must have Si.

so that means he's either *STJ or *NFP.

If anybody would like to type the following, I'd be interested:
Spinoza, Adorno, Lenin, Lukacs, Hegel, Heraclitus, Feuerbach, Fichte, Schelling, Schopenhauer....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
  • Like
Reactions: soya and DJeter

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,330 Posts
Jung seemed to think that Socrates was a T or F dom (rationalist) with intuition repressed as far as possible.

In a sense one might compare it [i.e. the intuitive function] with the daemon of Socrates--with this qualification, however, that the strongly rationalistic attitude of Socrates repressed the intuitive function as far as possible, so that it had to make itself felt in the form of concrete hallucinations since it had no direct access to consciousness. But [unlike Socrates] with the intuitive type this latter is precisely the case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,540 Posts
Jung seemed to think that Socrates was a T or F dom (rationalist) with intuition repressed as far as possible.
That's fascinating...

He was known as one not to deny a drink or several. He indulged himself if given the opportunity. He wouldn't actively seek to make money or anything, but he was an aesthete of sorts. Unlike Plato I would think...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
"When faced with a logical contradiction, adds up both position to form a greater whole"
What cognitive function is this supposed to represent?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
131 Posts
"When faced with a logical contradiction, adds up both position to form a greater whole"
What cognitive function is this supposed to represent?
Introverted Intuition. Its notorious for reconciling opposites due to its highly visual nature.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fievel and soya

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,630 Posts
I keep seeing St. Thomas Aquinas typed as INFJ. I could certainly see him as a Ni-dom.

Martin Buber was INFJ.

Nietzsche was definitely INTJ. Kant could be INFJ or INTP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Well going along with what was said about 'reconciling opposites' I would guess Ni is used by Hegel.
First instinct is to say Ti due to the way he builds up his logic, but then I consider his political and economic writings and interaction with other philosophers and lean more toward Te. Or that could be something more like Fe. INTJ, INFJ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fievel

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,330 Posts
CelebrityTypes has these interesting comparisons:

Given the bullet points listed for Aristotle, such as "concerned with observable objects" and "more practical and experiential," why would he be typed as an ENTJ? Why not ESTJ or some other sensing type?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,805 Posts
"When faced with a logical contradiction, adds up both position to form a greater whole"
What cognitive function is this supposed to represent?
Trying to form logical contradictions into a greater whole... speaking directly, seems more like Ti/Ne to me. Consider Einstein, whose whole goal was this. His entire work after Relativity was attempting to reconcile logical contradictions into a greater whole, and he was criticized heavily for doing so... by Ni types, among others. Ti bears down on inconsistencies.. and Ne expands out for an objective perspective to untangle it. So, either this quotation fails to express it's intended meaning, or it is an example for INTP for Spinoza. Consider that Kant's motivation for his Critique of Pure Reason specifically was to reconcile the two contradictory schools of thought at the time into a greater whole. Who is Spinoza up against in that infographic? Oh.... oh snap.

Also, contradictions being solved via a greater unifying whole is at the core of how I personally think. I wonder if my interpretation of this quote is flawed? I hit on Spinoza more below.

Given the bullet points listed for Aristotle, such as "concerned with observable objects" and "more practical and experiential," why would he be typed as an ENTJ? Why not ESTJ or some other sensing type?
I suspect that the objectivity of Aristotle was more of a pushback against the work of Plato. I think he was emphasizing empirical proofs over the relative mysticism of Plato. That being said, I still suspect Ni for Aristotle. Te and Ni seem to fit best.

------------------------

As for the other philosophers....

Descartes obviously INTP.

Kant probably also INTP... though, if so, he was heavily influenced by Si. Ti/Si kinda nails Kant in a lot of ways.

Socrates is an xNTP through and through. It would be all but impossible to argue out of that. Some say ENTP, due to his relatively social persona - but I hesitate. I am on the fence, but still lean INTP - his Fe feels inferior. I think an ENTP would have fought more. His stubbornness, strong focus on logic, and his neurotic relationship with social ethics still makes me lean INTP. xNTP for sure.

Marx, an Ni, most likely an INTJ. Neitsche likely the same.

Plato seems very likely an xNFJ - and Aristotle an xNTJ, as discussed above. Both dealt heavily with metaphysics for it's own sake... too much for a likely Si typing... and Aristotle did show some indication of Se in his life, particularly in his tutelage of Alexander the Great.

Spinoza - Clearly a Ti. I am going to argue for him being an INTP. I think the mysticism of his infinite substance is overplayed. Above all, I think this was a hypothesis that he objectively assumed. This would be the crux of an argument between INFJ and INTP. If a 'mystical' intuition, or a pure abstraction, then, yes, certainly an Ni typing would work. I rather think it was the result of logical distillation. He parsed reality down to a single point of logic - an assumption that was perfectly logical and had no context with which to make any more universal than it was. It was Einsteins cosmological constant, Kant's categorical imperative, Descartes "I think therefore I am". In each case, the result of a logical reduction down to a single most-logical point. From this logical point, which must then be assumed absolutely, a whole framework of reality could be built. However, before anything could be done, one single thing had to be assumed. This thing would be universal and abstract, and the whole system would hinge on it. I think this is very typical of INTP thought.

I also don't find any of Spinoza's postulations to be particularly subjective (aka, out of touch with objective conceptualizations of reality).... compare Neitzsche, Marx, and even Plato... who are supremely subjective in their perceptions. I am not 100% convinced of INTP over INFJ for Spinoza... but I am even less convinced of the opposite.

-----------------------

I know I put a lot of INTP typings up there, and it's not that I think most philosophers are INTPs, but rather that I have gravitated to these particular ones, and thus know enough about them to venture a guess. I think it is when I hear something from a philosopher that resonates with me that I am motivated to learn about them... which happened mostly during my development, and gravitated me to those philosophers who shared my mode of thinking. Socrates (appealed to Ne and Fe), Descartes (appealed to Ne and Ti), and Kant (appealed to Si and Fe, interestingly), especially... though I did learn about many many more over time. I just don't know if I have done proper diligence toward typing them.

I'd love to know what type John Stuart Mill was!
 
1 - 20 of 123 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top