*meh*
ILE (ENTp)
SEI (ISFp)
ESE (ESFj)
LII (INTj)
SLE (ESTp)
IEI (INFp)
EIE (ENFj)
LSI (ISTj)
SEE (ESFp)
ILI (INTp)
LIE (ENTj)
ESI (ISFj)
IEE (ENFp)
SLI (ISTp)
LSE (ESTj)
EII (INFj)
Martin Heidegger
*meh*
Last edited by felafel; 02-22-2012 at 02:18 AM.
I think he was ISTj. Dont ask me how I know, thats just my impression.
My impression of Heidegger has been ISTj too.
My impression is LII
Sounds like a Process type (which of the IJs, includes ISTj and INFj).Originally Posted by he died with a felafel
His philosophy seems to radically reject all the current of philosophy from Plato onward to embrace the presocratics, this seems like Ni because it ignornes the big picture and trends. Seems also like Ti since it is a worldview develloped out of one's own subjective perception of it and not on facts or phenomena.
Also he VIs like ISTj, hes got that flat look in the eye like hes focused on the physical in environment that ISTjs have.
I was really surprised that some type him as a sensor. Sensors can read philosophy and be fascinated by it as "hobby philosophers", but virtually all serious productive philosophers are intuitives. Especially if they are able to take the lead and create something new in that field, like Heidegger. He is abstract, theoretical, analytical, independent system builder. And I don't really know where the idea of him as an Ni valuer come from. When I read his texts (I've tried at least), he seems to me like a global thinker.
About ISTj: Imagine Heidegger sitting in his office thinking. How does he use Se? Philosophy was not a hobby for him, something that you do whith weak functions. I don't see how he could be a sensor.
I think it's better to look at his actual writing style, the text, the sentences, rather than trying to type him from some very general trends in his philosophy.Typhon wrote: His philosophy seems to radically reject all the current of philosophy from Plato onward to embrace the presocratics, this seems like Ni because it ignornes the big picture and trends.
It's hard for me to type him, although I can say that I am unable to read his writings. In german it's slightly better, but still extremely hard to follow. It might be deduced that his thinking style is quite different from mine. Examples of philosophers I find readable (although not necessarily easy to read): Wittgenstein, Russel, Schopenhauer, Kant, Mill, Frege.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
As a kid, he supposedly was frail and 'useless', but he still ordered the other kids around. As an underhand nazi adult, he reported his university colleagues to organizations such as the Gestapo, and in fact, went far beyond the call of duty by explaining to the Gestapo why a particular colleague had violated Nazi rules and principles. As such he was very much a typical LSI enforcer of systems.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
I do.
ISTp
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I took a class on Heidegger. LSI.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
anti-semite, nazi sympathizer = BETA
xerxonics
Ti-LSI 6w5 sp/sx
4w3-5w6-8w7
bump. can anyone be persuaded to gamma for heidegger? bumping my own old thread is like running into an old acquaintance lol
Although if I really want this to continue as a conversation i should add something:well, he's written a fair bit on Aristotle and derived a number of his ideas from him (Question Concerning Technology comes to mind).
And a picture of him as a more or less young person:
Last edited by Delilah; 09-22-2017 at 05:49 AM.
he's my spiritual dad tbh.
LII
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
mb ISTJ
I considered this, but don't you think he is a bit repetitive for a LII? It seems to me he says the same thing over and over again, like sheer repetition to drive a point home. That would make me doubt LII, even if it's hard to dismiss or accept a type on so little as that piece of info.
Heidegger, like Hanna Arendt who was closely related to him and adapted much of his style, are caught in their endless
I took a class on both of them and Kant on top of that, I didn't understand one bit of what they try to convey. I don't even remember the gist, it's that bad
That's interesting Chae, do you think this is because of Ti? I personally enjoy his writings and i want to say I understand him too though that seems so much to depend on how other people interpret his works. Like a Prof. i used to have anytime I'd address something from Heidegger would go all up in arms with "that's not what he meant" or "he meant [insert prof's interpretation]".Heidegger, like Hanna Arendt who was closely related to him and adapted much of his style, are caught in their endless
I took a class on both of them and Kant on top of that, I didn't understand one bit of what they try to convey. I don't even remember the gist, it's that bad
I say this because his repetitiveness does make me doubt LII. Honestly he sounds a little bit of a broken record to me lol
Inclined to think 5 > 6 now
4w3-5w6-8w7
^Yes
This is pretty much accurate, just that the existential aspect was more of an accentuation of his ontological premise than the primary point. For Heidegger, the core question—which he felt most philosophers up until that point had failed to address—was what it means to be. Something like his attitude towards death was an extension of this.
4w3-5w6-8w7
There's a tangled relationship with life and death, and it's death to make life authentic. Being and time is fundamentally the realization that a "being" is going to die, it has a limited amount of time, in an epoche that he is going to experience, by chance somehow, the being is "being-there". we realize the authenthicity of life only in relationship with death, because we are beings in Time,
other key subjects of Heidegger, that keep playing in the back of my mind as a source of infinite wondering, are the concepts of "truth", even called "aletheia", at the core of every being. but as the name of "aletheia" reveals, such a truth is never graspable, and keeps hiding under many veils (of language), so that only silence comes to reveal the mystery.
the other concepts are quite nihilistic, but saying that nihilism has only negative features would be shallow, even wrong. as Limitless noted, Heidegger realized the interconnections between all the parts, we're all instruments somehow, but every instrument has its purpose inside such a big system. every being is related to the others.
so every being is called to take care of its instruments, of its operating inside the world, in order for a real human cooperation beyond technocracy, that is seen as the pitfall of humankind (but even the thing that will set us free)
Last edited by ooo; 10-03-2017 at 02:46 PM.
Some interesting(?) facts:
I once attended a course in Being and Time. I didnt understand much of it but the teacher was ILE and two of the students were great fans of Heidegger, both ILE
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
arent u supposed to love it too? lol
I think Heidy was some strong EII tbh... maybe IEI.
and he VI as LII
I also know a SEI who studies philosophy and he just recently wrote his masters thesis on Being and Time.
Based on these people I'd say he was LII. Alpha philosophy. And LIIs are into ontology, they just don't call it that in everyday life.
The only thing I like about Heidegger is that it is impossible to understand so it sounds funny to read out loud.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Yeah, though I somewhat think that the realization of death as an absolute isn't quite exactly the same as the realization that one is going to die. The temporal aspect is obviously present, but it's more general.
It's interesting to consider in the context of the concept of "unconcealment," in relation to his claim that language is the house of being. I don't think Heidegger conceived of silence as a phenomenological absolute or whatever, something that would be akin to a kind of new age obscurantism that would claim true awareness comes from some sort of mystical opacity or nothingness; if anything it was just more a reflection of the limits of his thought.other key subjects of Heidegger, that keep playing in the back of my mind as a source of infinite wondering, are the concepts of "truth", even called "aletheia", at the core of every being. but as the name of "aletheia" reveals, such a truth is never graspable, and keeps hiding under many veils (of language), so that only silence comes to reveal the mystery.
I think he had a kind of aristocratic conception of the whole, which oscillated between attempting to vindicate the part/individual and affirming the necessity of broader order.the other concepts are quite nihilistic, but saying that nihilism has only negative features would be shallow, even wrong. as Limitless noted, Heidegger realized the interconnections between all the parts, we're all instruments somehow, but every instrument has its purpose inside such a big system. every being is related to the others.
Hence:
What's interesting is that the qualification of his claim that technology was the source of our potential freedom, was that it would come through art.so every being is called to take care of its instruments, of its operating inside the world, in order for a real human cooperation beyond technocracy, that is seen as the pitfall of humankind (but even the thing that will set us free)
4w3-5w6-8w7
to me it's more like, "it's impossible to talk about language" we'd fall in a semantic trap... it's this impossibility to distinguish the being from all the layers that cover its essence that make all words... vain. and it's in the silence that words find a place, so yea. it's a realization of the impossibility to describe the essence, it's what makes us free through the arts, when we can defy language, rules and codes... ourselves
this is excellent LSI description, what proves my version
(had a look above, and saw there other smart dudes too *sigh*. I even did not read them befor saying own version - I used nonverbal only)
lulz
u're just following Willy Wonka
It's about time we let Heidegger himself speak
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
That's actually not really a new idea. Nietzsche said reality is beyond words in very explicit terms, and he wasn't even the first German philosopher to say that, much less the first non-New-Ager. "New Age" is something else (hint: it has to do with the idea of a "new age"). There's a lot of actual mysticism in German thought (and it did kind of directly lead to New Age over time) but the connotations can be tinged with other things, like how apparently some people think that whenever I reference subjectivity that means there has to be more than one truth even though I don't think that and that doesn't necessarily follow. It's just what people are used to hearing so they assume that and argue with strawmen. Ditto for all this stuff.
@Tallmo SEI
Yes, I am SEI, I agree. But we are typing Heidegger here.@Tallmo SEI
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
He's SEI! Now you know what to do...
No way, you are kidding, right. He has this sensitivity that many LIIs and other Si valuers have. But it's not Si base.
In any way, it's not possible that a world famous philosopher did all his work using weak functions. That just doesn't happen.
In Heidegger you see very far reaching, original thinking that hints at creative Ne. It's really powerful.
Same tendencies in Jung. Very broad view of the psyche.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Yeah.. I agree.
but he VI as SEI >,< look at his mouth
do u look like Heidegger somehow?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
