Personality Cafe banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,611 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
There seems to be a need to redefine some of the original verbage used by Jung. Or maybe just retranslate, as many seem to be hung up by the old terminology/direct translation.
One of the biggest offenders is "rational" and "irrational" functions. Remember, Jung didn't do his research in English, so there may be some things lost in translation. Back then there may not have been a proper word to translate the original parts of the manuscript into.

So, I think we need to read over the original direct translations and figure out what exactly he meant to say, in modern English. I have read some of the translations, and while the translators did a great job on word for word, the meaning gets muddled in there. And I think it should be a group project on here. That way we can get a community agreement on what it all really should and does mean.

Any thoughts on the idea?

Twitch

PS: I'm pretty sure that "rational" and "irrational" refer to judging vs perceiving. Because you never see that verbage in the original translations, but pretty much everywhere it makes sense is where we find "rational" or "irrational".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,330 Posts
I don't think this particular point was lost in translation. Jung defined his intended meaning of rational and irrational in chapter XI of Psychological Types.

IrrationalAs I make use of this term it does not denote something contrary to reason, but something outside the province of reason, whose essence, therefore, is not established by reason.

Although, in essence, rational and irrational relates to judging and perceiving, the J/P dichotomy from MBTI is something else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,611 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I'm not talking about the Dichotomies here, I'm referring to the orientation of the functions.
Whether they are a a function that is information gathering or information sorting.
In the original language, rational vs irrational may have been perfectly suited words. But in modern English, Perceiving or Judging may be better suited to use for the descriptive words.

An example, if we were to look at the functions by the rational or irrational, we can separate the feeling and thinking functions as well as the sensing and perceiving functions into the two categories.
Irrational: N&F
Rational: S&T

So in theory, we can pare down the types into 4 categories.
Super Rationals, Rationals, Irrationals and Super Irrationals.
Super Rationals would be ST's.
Rationals would be ENTJ, INTP, ISFJ, ESFP.
Irrationals would be ESFJ, ISFP, INTJ, ENTP.
Super Irrationals would be NF's.

Confusing, right?
But there is a logical format for that organization.
If you didn't get it, Super Rationals use Thinking and sensing functions in Dominant and Auxiliary positions.
Rationals lead with a Dominant Thinking or Sensing function, but have a Feeling or Intuitive for Auxiliary.
Irrationals lead with a Dominant Feeling or Sensing function, but have a Thinking or Sensing in Auxiliary.
Super Irrationals lead with both a Feeling or Intuitive in the Dominant and Auxiliary position.

This doesn't support either MBTI, Socionics or Kiersian ideals.
I wonder if this is what Jung had in mind? More reading is to be done...

Twitch
 
  • Like
Reactions: Northwind

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,610 Posts
As PaladinX said earlier, different systems with different lingo, despite having a similar originating root.

To be less confusing, you could always clarify with NT rational type or TF type with rational function dominance.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top