Have you even read his work?
Have you even read his work?
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
yup... his ideas are iconic INTj, I've actually had a bunch of his ideas
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
Which works?Originally Posted by hitta
O RLY? Which ones? And why do you think that they are?his ideas are iconic INTj,
Which ones? Is it not possible for two different types to come up with the same idea? And if Nietzsche turned out not to be an INTj, would you thereby reconsider your type?I've actually had a bunch of his ideas
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
hitta, I would firstly like to commend you on your brazen arrogance. you start a thread titled with a statement, then write definitely; well that's sure to get a good reaction, just like you like.
you are not even near his level. do you understand that?
Nietzsche's type is a very interesting subject for discussion, hitta, but it will get nowhere unless you are willing to give us some more food for thought. Why do you think Nietzsche was an INTj? In what way are his ideas iconic INTj? What mistakes are others making when they don't realize that?
Jung seemed to think that Nietzsche was an introverted thinker, and I am open for that possibility. I think we can learn a lot about Socionics and the types if we understand why (or why not) Nietzsche was an INTj.
What comes accross in Nietzsche's works seems to be mainly Ni, Ti, love for Se, and little Te. So, in principle, Beta.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
He seems void of Fi, values Ti, but I am not sure about Ni, or Se. I kind of see him valuing Ne. . could be Beta or Alpha. . . hmmm. . . Are you very certain about Beta Expat? Can you give an example of Ni in his work?
Last edited by Christy B; 01-06-2008 at 12:00 PM.
EII 4w5
so/sx (?)
We should do a thread that types philosophers by quadra! If we don't aready have one. . . ???
EII 4w5
so/sx (?)
Excellent idea. If I should ever be so arsed as to read philosophy, I'll know exactly what to avoid.
How this thread should be interpreted....
- Hitta notices certain similarities between himself and Neitsche
- Hitta uses himself as the prime measure to compare INTj'ness in general to
- Hitta reasons Hitta = INTj, Neitsche = Hitta, Neitsche = INTj
For what little it is worth: under the same reasoning I would myself never designate Neitsche INTj.
"I have already given my answer to the problem. The prerequisite to it is the assumption that the type of the Saviour has reached us only in a greatly distorted form. This distortion is very probable: there are many reasons why a type of that sort should not be handed down in a pure form, complete and free of additions. The milieu in which this strange figure moved must have left marks upon him, and more must have been imprinted by the history, the destiny, of the early Christian communities; the latter indeed, must have embellished the type retrospectively with characters which can be understood only as serving the purposes of war and of propaganda. That strange and sickly world into which the Gospels lead us — a world apparently out of a Russian novel, in which the scum of society, nervous maladies and “childish” idiocy keep a tryst — must, in any case, have coarsened the type: the first disciples, in particular, must have been forced to translate an existence visible only in symbols and incomprehensibilities into their own crudity, in order to understand it at all — in their sight the type could take on reality only after it had been recast in a familiar mould.... The prophet, the messiah, the future judge, the teacher of morals, the worker of wonders, John the Baptist — all these merely presented chances to misunderstand it.... Finally, let us not underrate the proprium of all great, and especially all sectarian veneration: it tends to erase from the venerated objects all its original traits and idiosyncrasies, often so painfully strange — it does not even see them. It is greatly to be regretted that no Dostoyevsky lived in the neighbourhood of this most interesting decadent — I mean some one who would have felt the poignant charm of such a compound of the sublime, the morbid and the childish. In the last analysis, the type, as a type of the decadence, may actually have been peculiarly complex and contradictory: such a possibility is not to be lost sight of. Nevertheless, the probabilities seem to be against it, for in that case tradition would have been particularly accurate and objective, whereas we have reasons for assuming the contrary. Meanwhile, there is a contradiction between the peaceful preacher of the mount, the sea-shore and the fields, who appears like a new Buddha on a soil very unlike India's, and the aggressive fanatic, the mortal enemy of theologians and ecclesiastics, who stands glorified by Renan's malice as “le grand maitre en ironie.” I myself haven't any doubt that the greater part of this venom (and no less of esprit) got itself into the concept of the Master only as a result of the excited nature of Christian propaganda: we all know the unscrupulousness of sectarians when they set out to turn their leader into an apologia for themselves. When the early Christians had need of an adroit, contentious, pugnacious and maliciously subtle theologian to tackle other theologians, they created a “god” that met that need, just as they put into his mouth without hesitation certain ideas that were necessary to them but that were utterly at odds with the Gospels — “the second coming,” “the last judgment,” all sorts of expectations and promises, current at the time. —" ---- Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ, 31
"If I understand anything at all about this great symbolist, it is this: that he regarded only subjective realities as realities, as “truths” — that he saw everything else, everything natural, temporal, spatial and historical, merely as signs, as materials for parables. The concept of “the Son of God” does not connote a concrete person in history, an isolated and definite individual, but an “eternal” fact, a psychological symbol set free from the concept of time. The same thing is true, and in the highest sense, of the God of this typical symbolist, of the “kingdom of God,” and of the “sonship of God.” Nothing could be more un-Christian than the crude ecclesiastical notions of God as a person, of a “kingdom of God” that is to come, of a “kingdom of heaven” beyond, and of a “son of God” as the second person of the Trinity. All this — if I may be forgiven the phrase — is like thrusting one's fist into the eye (and what an eye!) of the Gospels: a disrespect for symbols amounting to world-historical cynicism.... But it is nevertheless obvious enough what is meant by the symbols “Father” and “Son” — not, of course, to every one — : the word “Son” expresses entrance into the feeling that there is a general transformation of all things (beatitude), and “Father” expresses that feeling itself — the sensation of eternity and of perfection. — I am ashamed to remind you of what the church has made of this symbolism: has it not set an Amphitryon story[13] at the threshold of the Christian “faith”? And a dogma of “immaculate conception” for good measure?... And thereby it has robbed conception of its immaculateness —" ---- Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ, 34
"The "bringer of glad tidings" died as he had lived, as he had taught--not to "redeem men" but to show how one must live. This practice is his legacy to mankind: his behavior before the judges, before the catchpoles, before the accusers and all kinds of slander and scorn--his behavior on the cross. He does not resist, he does not defend his right, he takes no step which might ward off the worst; on the contrary, he provokes it. And he begs, he suffers, he loves with those, in those, who do him evil. Not to resist, not to be angry, not to hold responsible--but to resist not even the evil one--to love him." ---Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ, 35
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
Something else that might be considered in relation to the above passages (which sadly I don't think I quite have the talent to explicate in socionics terms), was his extensive admiration of Dostoevsky whom he claimed was the 'only psychologist from whom he had anything to learn'.
This respect was somewhat reciprocated as F.D. made a point of putting a dream piece in one of his novels depicting the mental breakdown of a character after the same fashion of Nietzsche.
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
Now that I think about it, it is probably their common possession of a degenerative mental illness.
That said, Beta NF is just about the only options which could be reasonably suspected for Nietzsche apart from Beta ST and a far distant Gamma. Namely because Nietzsche showed weak Ti (there are very noticeable jumps in his logic) and often downplayed Te when it allowed him to give his points a far more dramatic flare, relied upon a sense of emotional appeals (Fe > Fi), a focus on the idea of willpower and self-mastery (Se) as a means of overcoming the resultant nihilism of the death of Western morality (derived through a Ni assessment of process), and followed by talks of a master/slave morality (Beta/Gamma). So the primary question then becomes one of which Nietzsche had leading Fe and an EJ temperament or if he had leading Ni and an IP temperament.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Let's assume that that is true. Then why did Jung think that Nietzsche was an introverted thinker? We can safely take for granted that Nietzsche was not an ISTj, can't we?
Probably because Nietzsche showed a much greater disposition for Ti than Te in his works, but upon a much closer examination of Nietzsche, that while present the Ti rather appears to be wanted and weak. It is perhaps not a stretch that Nietzsche may have been an LSI, but a critical look at Nietzsche's works tends to suggest otherwise. It is also possible, and should always be considered, that Jung was perhaps hard pressed to find an example at hand of an Introverted Thinker and in partial error selected Nietzsche as it was prevalent (albeit weak).
The problem is that this is far easier said than done as there is perhaps a desire to "lay claimant" certain philosophers for certain Quadras. While perhaps some philosophers seem far more clear cut (Kant [Alpha]), others have still not been decided upon through any sense of consensus or conclusive argumentation.
Last edited by Logos; 01-06-2008 at 07:44 PM.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Yes.
Also:
1) as needs to be repeated, Jung's typology is not the same as socionics
2) the most obvious (in a lazy way) Jungian typing for someone like Nietzsche is Introverted Thinker, because, duh, he was a Thinker (professionally) who could usefully be called an introvert in the everyday use of the term.
3) We don't need to wonder what Jung was thinking in order to type Nietzsche according to socionics.
I haven't read him recently, and I can't give you isolated examples since he has a Ni feel to me as a whole, but I think that On the Genealogy of Morals has a strong Ni focus.
The rest is very true, but "emotional appeals" in general can be either Fe or Fi. (Not to say that Nietzsche's kind weren't totally Fe.)
Those are the types of statements that make me want to puke when I read this forum. All the Fe>Fi Se>Si crap based on stupid functional comparisons is just dumb. To be honest I don't see how anyone could come to those rationalizations based on so little information. Its almost like you are pulling assumptions out of a hat.
Also, mental illness really doesn't exist. Take a schizophrenia patient that supposedly has hallucinations. Just because hes visions and auditory stimulations are different from the average human being does not mean that his senses are wrong. How do you know that what a schizophrenia patient isn't the true absolute truth, and what we see(our perception of reality) isn't just a falsehood. Theres no way to know. Everything in the end is relative, there are infinite perceptions, but how do you know which one of them is closest to the absolute truth? There is no way to know.
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
From the person who brought us "Nietzsche was an INTj...definitely"? We still have not heard any arguments from you or anything that refutes "all the Fe>Fi Se>Si crap based on stupid functional comparisons."
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
But if Nietzsche was (hypothetically) an ENFj (for a fact), then we can start to question everything Jung has said. Such a (hypothetical) mistake is unforgivable and/or unexplainable. And what other Beta type could Nietzsche have been? If Jung was not totally deluded regarding Nietzsche's type, then Nietzsche was probably not Beta, and in that case we need to start questioning Expat's assumptions and/or conclusion.
Why shouldn't we question what he said?
Why?Such a (hypothetical) mistake is unforgivable and/or unexplainable.
IEIAnd what other Beta type could Nietzsche have been?
That's a fairly big "if." And I do not know why you are saying that these are Expat's assumptions, as he is clearly not the only one who thinks that Nietzsche was Beta. Wait...if Nietzsche was Ti, then he could still very well be Beta. It is not as if Nietzsche was not Ti, it does not follow that he necessarily not be Beta.If Jung was not totally deluded regarding Nietzsche's type, then Nietzsche was probably not Beta, and in that case we need to start questioning Expat's assumptions and/or conclusion.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Of course we should -- but only if we have reason to. And we should definitely question our own typing of Nietzsche if it is totally different from Jung's.
Why would Nietzsche be an IEI? Because we think that he was Beta, and we don't think that he was either EIE, LSI, or SLE? Such reasoning is very bad, because it is based on a totally unreliable typing method.
Is it likely that Nietzsche was an LSI? How would you argue for such a claim if you are not allowed to use quadra considerations?
"But if Nietzsche was (hypothetically) an ENFj (for a fact), then we can start to question everything Jung has said. Such a (hypothetical) mistake is unforgivable and/or unexplainable."
No it isn't. It's easily explainable through what Expat said: intellectual laziness.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
Well Ti wasn't Jung's last word on Nietzsche. I have access to all of Jung's seminars on Nietzsche, and it is clear from those that his position changed: he came to see Nietzsche as an irrational type.
Certainly not. If anyone is intellectually lazy here it is you or Expat -- not Jung.
Which irrational type? At least one typing must be wrong here, ours or Jung's -- and we should try to find out which and why.
??? So have you officially abandoned your Ti and Te now?
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Meaning? No amount of intellecutal laziness is enough to explain Jung's mistake if Nietzsche really was an ENFj.
Why not?
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Because it is ridiculous. It doesn't make sense. Socionists are too lazy when typing famous people. They often blatantly ignore others typing when they contradict their own, and they refuse to explain the anomalies. Such behaviour is unacceptable -- unless you have reason to think that other people's typings (for example Jung's) are so deluded and wrong that you are entitled to ignore them.
Jung isn't a god. He is not infallible in knowledge.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
"Meaning? No amount of intellecutal laziness is enough to explain Jung's mistake if Nietzsche really was an ENFj."
You're saying this assuming that Jung has a well-defined view on Nietzsche, as well as assuming that Jung wasn't just bad at typing people.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
Can't see him as LII. That whole 'will to power' philosophy' seems quite Se to me. You know, he seems to worship Se.
+1
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
The whole discussion is pointless, due to the folllowing:
1) Jung's types aren't the same as socionics types. To pretend that they are is to show one's ignorance of what makes someone a socionics type - and be, yes, "intellectually lazy."
2) In his seminars, has Jung even explained at length why he saw Nietzsche as an Introverted Thinking type? He barely mentions him in the online texts of Psychological Types (a link would be much appreciated).
3) We don't know - and it's pointless to speculate - what Jung would have made of socionics.
4) The only person here being "intellectually lazy" - or, rather, ignorant and incompetent - is Phaedrus. To those who understand socionics, it's very obvious why Nietzsche belongs in Beta. The reason why Phaedrus has to "hide behind Jung's skirts", so to speak, is because he's totally unable to even understand why it is so obvious, that kind of discussion goes totally above his head.
5) Speaking of which, I hadn't even thought of that, but socioniko.net - which I think still contains Lytov's typings rather than Khrulev's - already had Nietzsche as EIE. This is just by the way.
What is interesting is that Phaedrus's first reaction (at least from what I see in what people have quoted, since I still ignore him) is to make it personal. He does not use independent arguments, of his own, to say why Nietzsche shouldn't be Beta, or why he should be whatever type he thinks Nietszche was in socionics. No, he goes for "are you suggesting Jung was wrong? If so, why?" Which is a pointless exercise before we even see what precisely Jung's view of Nietzsche was, and if that is relevant to socionics (as opposed to Jung's typology).
One more point --
It's not necessary at all to even wonder what Jung was thinking. I know socionics, I take a look at Nietzsche, I reach my own conclusions (right or wrong). Others can do the same. I can also type Napoleon as SLE without wondering for one second why Augusta typed him as SEE: she was simply wrong and did not really study Napoleon enough (if she ever wrote something on why she typed him as SEE I would read it, of course; but in the absence of such evidence, it's not important).
Those who think Jung's view of Nietzsche is relevant, they are welcome to present the evidence of what Jung was thinking and why. The burden of proof is on them. If Jung's seminars (or whatever) present good enough socionics evidence of Nietzsche's type, sure, that would very interesting.
Even Te PoLR types (not that Nietzsche necessarily was one) can provide historical detail and other evidence when defending their theses. The difference - often difficult to spot - is in how they actually handled the totality of the available historical evidence, that is, if they did not just brush aside too quickly the details that contradicted their theses.
Have I claimed that he is? Viewed from my perspective, Jung seems to be a brain-washed (by himself) superstitious person who was certain that God exists, who believed in telepathy, etc. But he had some correct things to say about the types, even though he was totally unscientific in some other regards. The discrepancy in our typings must be explained still. If you don't see that as a problem, YOU have a totally unscientific attitude and should be re-programmed.
I am really tired of seeing this stupid remark coming from Expat's pen over and over again. It is simply false. The socionic types and our understanding of the functions are similar to Jung's in a more direct way than people seem to be aware of.
From memory I can only recall the passage where he contrast the extraverted thinkers (like Darwin) with the introverted thinkers (like Kant), and he mentions Nietzsche as an even more extreme form of introverted thinking than Kant. Maybe tcaudillg can shed some light on this.
Irrelevant remark. That "problem" is not an issue here.
An even more irrelevant and stupid argument.
That is an example of what I am talking about. The intellectual laziness of socionists typing famous people. Lytov is not particularly lazy in that regard -- he is probably the opposite -- but my point is still valid: we should try to explain how Jung could be so wrong if Nietzsche was an EIE.
And this quote clearly shows that Expat totally misunderstands what I am trying to say. Why does he make logically invalid inferences so often? And why does he consistently misinterpret mine and some others remarks as having to do with anything PERSONAL? I don't know the answer, but his misinterpretations certainly lead him astray when typing people.
Posting Permissions
:" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"