Friedrich Nietzsche

[Dioklecian]

Is he ENTJ? His mother was ISFP IMO. Sister ESTP. Father ??


http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche

Nietzsche's quotes:

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you."

"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

"Mathematics would certainly have not come into existence if one had known from the beginning that there was in nature no exactly straight line, no actual circle, no absolute magnitude."

"What does not destroy me, makes me stronger."

"There are no facts, only interpretations."

"Art is the supreme task and the truly metaphysical activity in this life"

"Today as always, men fall into two groups: slaves and free men. Whoever does not have two-thirds of his day for himself, is a slave, whatever he may be: a statesman, a businessman, an official, or a scholar."

"Every concept arises from the equation of unequal things. Just as it is certain that one leaf is never totally the same as another, so it is certain that the concept "leaf" is formed by arbitrarily discarding these individual differences and by forgetting the distinguishing aspects."

previous discussions: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ld-discussion)

[noid]

Nietzshe is INFP. His slave/master morality dichotomy EXEMPLIFY the moral fight delta versus beta.

http://www.unc.edu/~megw/Nietzsche.html (you can note easily aristocratic view here)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%...slave_morality


an intelligent and self aware delta can find this quite depressing.

[Anglas]

his writings are unreadable for me

[Absurd]

They are not unreadable, not unless you're reading the Führer translation and interpretation, Anglas. I can read them perfectly fine in German. But what the heck am I even expecting of you is beyond me anyway. It's like asking a flower to fine tune my stereo or to fix my power windows.

I'm not really following Nietzsche, I don't think I did, but his works (a couple) have been published posthumously by his sister from his discarded notes, and his sister was married to an anti-semite. That already is telling you something...

[1981slater]

Nietzsche.. EIE, I think

[Eldanen]

I think Nietzsche was ILI E5. Definitely E5. Te >> Fe. Logics > Ethics. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...nietzsche.html
E5s are relying on rationality and are grounded in the head quadra. It seems almost impossible that an ethical type would fall into a fixation that is so rational (head-head), since their conscious focus lies in the realm of people handling. True that the enneagram fixations are largely unconscious, but the pattern seems to hold water when typing people I meet. E5s I know are ILEs (Einstein), LIIs, ILIs and SLIs, and probably no other types.

Same thing for the other "pure" fixations - E8 and E2:
E8s rely on instincts and are gut triad - I don't think an introverted intuitor could ever be E8 (gut-gut). (instinctual/reactive of the gut triad). How can you have a fixation that gives perfectionism in external execution when that lies in the parts the are the furthest away from your conscious processing? I laugh at the thought of an IEI E8... I have never seen alpha E8s either. EIEs (Steve Jobs), SLEs, LIEs, SEEs, LSEs and SLIs can be E8s
E2 rely on feelings in the image triad (heart-heart) - I think only types with strong Fe and possibly strong Se in addition, like ESEs and SEEs, can be E2s. Theoretically I would like to believe ENFxs could also be E2s, but I have never seen one.

As for the other E-types, there are similar patterns, when you go deeper into the enneagram, but these patterns are a bit less obvious, so I won't go into details. Surprising type combos I have seen are LSI (Katy Perry) and SLI E7s, and I'll leave your theory the benefit of doubt for that reason.

I would agree with you, but the themes Nietzsche espouses in his writings are more distinctly Beta than anything else. Also, his style of writing is more disjointed and seems to display the qualities one would find in an involutionary type than evolutionary. One finds, usually, a much more fluid manner of thought and expression in the latter. If you've ever read Nietzsche's earlier work, The Birth of Tragedy, the Dionysian way of life he extols should ring a Beta bell in your head. Are you familiar with Gulenko's cognitive styles essay? If you're not familiar with those, involutionary and evolutionary, that article should explain those well.

[Eldanen]

I haven't read much Nietzsche and I can't read more. Tried many times, but died of boredom and facepalms, so I can't really comment deeper on his socionics type, but he's E5.
I guess I can buy an IEI-Ni with an E5 fix, though I have to see it to believe it, but you can't seriously think an IEI could be E8?

I have to admit that I might have only seen one E8 in real life. Perhaps that's a type you would see more in extroverts. I'm not saying I know everything. 5s and 8s are rather similar in nature being SP-based types. They simply respond to the external world differently. Fives withdraw while 8s create a wall.

[strrrng]

Nietzsche was likely some 4/3 variant, and probably IEI-Ni. the notion of the ubermensch itself is not something I could see a 5 espousing with such passion even in their most compensatory states. Thus Spoke Zarathustra is an exemplar of the beta-tinged style of writing; more emphasis on lofty imagery and metaphor, continual allusions to the implications of various behavioral and cultural trends (i.e. the "I see through you" bit in a passage toward the beginning concerning the city folk, which I think follows the even more egregious one involving walking a tightrope? I've forgotten it's been so long), and an unwavering sense of grandiloquence that anchors the less desirable aspects of his commentary (I now find his mystical elevation pretty pointless). Wittgenstein was likely an ILI, you get a more condensed, almost gritty feel from his thinking style in the way he lays out premises and maintains semantic consistency without falling into linguistic matrices like Heidegger (who I type as LSI-Ti 6w5). On the whole he's just a bit too extravagant for me to buy any typing other than beta NF. Jung would be a more E5-esque exemplar (I never settled on 4w5 or 5w4 but most aspects suggest the latter), you get a stronger sense of submergence, along with a detachment from the social implications of his ideas (i.e. Liber Novus being controversial in its own right, because of eccentricity, not the more indulgent aggrandizement of someone like Nietzsche), and this somewhat disheveled commitment to extracting what's needed and moving forward. Being an E5 has more to do with reasons for intellectual detachment than a pure focus on "head" matters as such (i.e. crazedrat, a 4w5, has an explosiveness that doesn't need to greet itself to retain substance in expression... you can tell he isn't personally invested in the control exerted or social import of it, which is 3 territory; he's unconsciously attempting to synchronize himself with the 'equation' being applied to the situation).

[Eldanen]

Nietzsche was likely some 4/3 variant, and probably IEI-Ni. the notion of the ubermensch itself is not something I could see a 5 espousing with such passion even in their most compensatory states. Thus Spoke Zarathustra is an exemplar of the beta-tinged style of writing; more emphasis on lofty imagery and metaphor, continual allusions to the implications of various behavioral and cultural trends (i.e. the "I see through you" bit in a passage toward the beginning concerning the city folk, which I think follows the even more egregious one involving walking a tightrope? I've forgotten it's been so long), and an unwavering sense of grandiloquence that anchors the less desirable aspects of his commentary (I now find his mystical elevation pretty pointless). Wittgenstein was likely an ILI, you get a more condensed, almost gritty feel from his thinking style in the way he lays out premises and maintains semantic consistency without falling into linguistic matrices like Heidegger (who I type as LSI-Ti 6w5). On the whole he's just a bit too extravagant for me to buy any typing other than beta NF. Jung would be a more E5-esque exemplar (I never settled on 4w5 or 5w4 but most aspects suggest the latter), you get a stronger sense of submergence, along with a detachment from the social implications of his ideas (i.e. Liber Novus being controversial in its own right, because of eccentricity, not the more indulgent aggrandizement of someone like Nietzsche), and this somewhat disheveled commitment to extracting what's needed and moving forward. Being an E5 has more to do with reasons for intellectual detachment than a pure focus on "head" matters as such (i.e. crazedrat, a 4w5, has an explosiveness that doesn't need to greet itself to retain substance in expression... you can tell he isn't personally invested in the control exerted or social import of it, which is 3 territory; he's unconsciously attempting to synchronize himself with the 'equation' being applied to the situation).

I can't see Nietzsche as anything resembling a 4 or a 3. Five makes the most sense for him considering his communication style. A lot of Fives are more brusque than considerate or light handed. A 4, especially a 4w3, would come off as a bit more diplomatic and less pompous.

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

His philosophy is that of an Ni lead (man's unfolding into something greater), Fe creative (communicating his ideas with emotional vigour without dry evidence), Ti mobilising (reactive attention to logical consistency against opposing worldviews, occasional development of philological terms to understand a concept), Se suggestive (submission to the will to power demonstrated by the mighty Ubermensch)

An EIE would appear similar (albeit not as perfect a fit as how I have written above) but note that Nietzsche was far more of the IP temperament then EJ... he stayed in and wrote, he didn't actively go out and persuade others to follow. Indeed, his philosophy does not call everyone to respond to his expectations but rather guides those who are already susceptible to his advice. His works are written for those select few.

As for ILI... people are confusing him with Diogenes of Sinope because he lookes like another grumpy loner. Nevertheless, the Fe usage in Nietzsche is too apparent, as is the rejection of Te facts and 'usefulness'.

[Amber]

ILI

[Amber]

Nobody has noticed the cute little dominatrix with the whip? I bet she's the one who gave him syphilis.

they never fucked. which is why he wrote Also Sprach Zarathustra.

[DaftPunk]

According to Jung he's together with Kant a Ti-Archetype.

No reason to type him something else than Ti-Base...

[silke]

IEI-Ni sx/so 4w5


"Against that positivism which stops before phenomena, saying "there are only facts," I should say: no, it is precisely facts that do not exist, only interpretations." - one of Nietzsche's quotes demonstrative of subjectivist logic.

[Reficulris]

yeah, I couldn't see Nietzsche as a Ti type actually, most of his work is borderline poetic and there's actually not a whole fucking lot of logic in any of the books he wrote. It's all imaginery, allagory, poetry, sometimes madness...

I'd actually accept IEI-Ni, if only because he's one of the few (maybe the only) dead male person i'd like to have sex with, and I tend to enjoy IEI's.

That said, why did I say that?


There is some evidence of him having weakly developed Fi/Fe. He hated groups of people, overgeneralized moral conclusions somewhat, strongly developed connections with the wrong people and than got very very disillusioned. It could be that all his writing comes from a place of weakness, which, if that's the case, makes him even more fucking awesome in my book!

so, Nietzsche, fuck yeah!

[Reficulris]

According to Jung he's together with Kant a Ti-Archetype.

No reason to type him something else than Ti-Base...

Well, kant and nietzsche differ tremendously (almost diagonally) in both writing style and content. Not sure if they really share a function...

Kant reads like a Ti person (or like what I immagine a Ti person would write like) so does Wittgenstein. Nietzsche is more akin to the french writers in "feel" to me, not lingual perfect like kant, hegel, heidegger, not logically "correct" like most angelsaxian writers. More like the french, a bit of this, a bit of that, and resulting awesome stories!

[Amber]

Perfect example of a -+- ILI.

He was such an hostile-looking dude who liked to criticise everything.

It´s a bit ridiculous to reduce a writer to VI, but he even looks totally ILI.

[Amber]

IEI-Ni sx/so 4w5


"Against that positivism which stops before phenomena, saying "there are only facts," I should say: no, it is precisely facts that do not exist, only interpretations." - one of Nietzsche's quotes demonstrative of subjectivist logic.

Ok, I see why you´re using that quote to make him a Subjectivist, but if Nietzsche was a Positivist, I´ll shoot myself. It´s easy to employ one aspect of one dichotomy only.

[ashlesha]

i can't remember if i've replied in this thread already. beta NF. nottt Fe polr.

[Amber]

His philosophy is that of an Ni lead (man's unfolding into something greater), Fe creative (communicating his ideas with emotional vigour without dry evidence), Ti mobilising (reactive attention to logical consistency against opposing worldviews, occasional development of philological terms to understand a concept), Se suggestive (submission to the will to power demonstrated by the mighty Ubermensch)

An EIE would appear similar (albeit not as perfect a fit as how I have written above) but note that Nietzsche was far more of the IP temperament then EJ... he stayed in and wrote, he didn't actively go out and persuade others to follow. Indeed, his philosophy does not call everyone to respond to his expectations but rather guides those who are already susceptible to his advice. His works are written for those select few.

As for ILI... people are confusing him with Diogenes of Sinope because he lookes like another grumpy loner. Nevertheless, the Fe usage in Nietzsche is too apparent, as is the rejection of Te facts and 'usefulness'.

From Jack´s reasoning you´d think a EIE writer has never existed. True that´s the sterotype of EIE on this forum, that they usually speak tirades in front of crowds only or lead a bunch of people to parties or wars, but you might wanna check Toni Morrison, EIE-Ni. She speaks in her interviews about how she organizes her time for writing daily and how before celebrity due to her job she woke at 4 am to write her first novels before going to work. Her work has a decidedly political quality beside the artistic one (which could be associated with Fe leading). This is a quote from an essay:

" If anything I do, in the way of writing novels (or whatever I write), isn’t about the village or the community or about you, then it is not about anything. I am not interested in indulging myself in some private, closed exercise of my imagination that fulfills only the obligation of my personal dreams – which is to say, yes, the work must be political. It must have that as its thrust. That’s a pejorative term in critical circles now. If a work of art has any political influence in it, somehow it’s tainted. My feeling is just the opposite: if it has none, it is tainted. (…)
It seems to me that the best art is political and you ought to be able to make it unquestionably political and irrevocably beautiful at the same time.”

Nietzsche doesn´t look EIE to me ..just saying.

[silke]

Ok, I see why you´re using that quote to make him a Subjectivist, but if Nietzsche was a Positivist, I´ll shoot myself. It´s easy to employ one aspect of one dichotomy only.

I'm not making him as anything - he's making it into the Subjectivist quadra all on his own and by his own statements. And how is he not a Positivist?

[MensSuperMateriam]

IEI to the max.

Bringing back a discussion about the usefulness of Reinin Dichotomies could be too offtopic. But if we accept a potential negativism, which I do not clearly see, and simultaneously we have subjectivism in conflict, common sense suggests to use the last. Positivism/negativism is a transversal dichotomy and its application could be problematic even for its supporters (depending on the case). Subjectivism/objectivism is not; it's directly related to stardard Socionics as a quadra distribution.

Nietzsche is not only a subjectivist, he's the subjetivist. I could be wrong but I do not perceive the slightest sign of Te or Te valuing in him. Not usually there are cases which are so clear, at least in one aspect.

I think with him happens the same bias that is usually applied to many IEIs. The guy is [extremely] intelligent, and an overuse of Ti is superficially misunderstood as being logic. Maybe his ideas are formatted in a logic way, but they lack logic essence. Much more if by logic we are understanding Te, not Ti.

All he said was, in certain way (oversimplifying to the extreme) just a bunch of emotions and ideals expressed in a superficial logic appearance. But as an extreme subjectivist, he didn't care about how real, how accurate or how useful his ideas could be. He interpreted the world according to his personal internal framework; he didn't adapted his ideas to external world observable phenomena as they are. World according to ideas; not ideas according to the world. Subjectivism.

Beyond this aspect, someone could argue if alpha or beta, but beta is clear imo. The übermensch is, after all, an Se valuer ideal. More if you're Se-DS, it's like screaming for what you need...

Beta, intuitive. If we have to choose between IEI and EIE, the first one is a better option. EIEs have Te as role function; they are not so subjectivist on average. They could prefer Ti/Fe valuing system, but as extroverted they need a minimun external feedback which requires a cerain acceptance of the world as it is. Even if this is only an unavoidable evil, first step for making the external world as it is desired to be.

[yeves]

ISTj

[miss BabyDoll]

he's without a doubt an eie-fe!

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

From Jack´s reasoning you´d think a EIE writer has never existed. True that´s the sterotype of EIE on this forum, that they usually speak tirades in front of crowds only or lead a bunch of people to parties or wars, but you might wanna check Toni Morrison, EIE-Ni. She speaks in her interviews about how she organizes her time for writing daily and how before celebrity due to her job she woke at 4 am to write her first novels before going to work. Her work has a decidedly political quality beside the artistic one (which could be associated with Fe leading). This is a quote from an essay:

" If anything I do, in the way of writing novels (or whatever I write), isn’t about the village or the community or about you, then it is not about anything. I am not interested in indulging myself in some private, closed exercise of my imagination that fulfills only the obligation of my personal dreams – which is to say, yes, the work must be political. It must have that as its thrust. That’s a pejorative term in critical circles now. If a work of art has any political influence in it, somehow it’s tainted. My feeling is just the opposite: if it has none, it is tainted. (…)
It seems to me that the best art is political and you ought to be able to make it unquestionably political and irrevocably beautiful at the same time.”

Nietzsche doesn´t look EIE to me ..just saying.

I've since changed my mind on this. I now think Nietzsche was an EIE. His writings have that directive, passionate pushiness of an ExE and although he wasn't physically active, his main focus was about spreading the Nietzschean message to other people. In comparison, I'd say an IEI philosopher would be someone like Rousseau.

[Beautiful sky]

A p type....I hate bnw pics. I cant tell much from them

[mu4]

My vote is IEI, his attitude was always turned towards the subjective. He and Kierkegaard share the same attitudes towards ressentiment and Kierkegaard is IEI.

In many ways Nietzsche is far from a self-promoter, his writing is that of a prophet, except his is that of a prophet with no leader, Nietzsche is a follower thru and thru, he was looking for his overman but no contemporary of his satisfied and his friend Wagner(EIE) disappointed.

Also Nietzsche main earlier topics such as Apollonian vs Dionysian shows a clear preference for Dionysian irrationality vs Apollonian rationality. It's as clear a case of the Perception vs Logos discussion as Parmenidies.

His presentation is of course artistic vs mechanical but it's still a clear rational/irrational divide. One of the interesting comments he has of Apollonian rationality is that it is a dream and full of illusions and this is something that is true of rationality(schizotyme in socionics).

Going to quote the wiki here.

The relationship between the Apollonian and Dionysian juxtapositions is apparent, in the interplay of tragedy: the tragic hero of the drama, the main protagonist, struggles to make order (in the Apollonian sense) of his unjust and chaotic (Dionysian) fate, though he dies unfulfilled in the end. Elaborating on the conception of Hamlet as an intellectual who cannot make up his mind, and therefore is a living antithesis to the man of action, Nietzsche argues that a Dionysian figure possesses knowledge to realize that his actions cannot change the eternal balance of things, and it disgusts him enough not to be able to make any act at all. Hamlet falls under this category – he has glimpsed the supernatural reality through the Ghost, he has gained true knowledge and knows that no action of his has the power to change this.[144][145] For the audience of such drama, this tragedy allows them to sense an underlying essence, what Nietzsche called the Primordial Unity, which revives Dionysian nature. He describes this primordial unity as the increase of strength, experience of fullness and plenitude bestowed by frenzy. Frenzy acts as an intoxication, and is crucial for the physiological condition that enables making of any art.[146] Stimulated by this state, person's artistic will is enhanced:

"In this state one enriches everything out of one's own fullness: whatever one sees, whatever wills is seen swelled, taut, strong, overloaded with strength. A man in this state transforms things until they mirror his power—until they are reflections of his perfection. This having to transform into perfection is—art."

IMO this is a clearly irrational perspective and imo his ideal is actually his dual SLE.

[chemical]

I have really no idea on this one, because Lytov types him EIE, and Jung types him "ILI" (obviously not really ILI, but introverted intuitive dominant, with secondary thinking, and not as good feeling and sensation). I think it's hard to say because Jung also mentioned there are strong admixtures of feeling in his writing, and given he saw the dominant as ever present, he obviously saw Ni+feeling in there, in his own system's sense. The systems are not the same, but socionics does draw enough from Jungian typology that this big of a contrast can't go unnoticed. For what it's worth though, in Jung's system, he was a "Ti/Fe" type, so point's typing of IEI could be close in a sense, but still Ti and Fe aren't distinguished from Te/Fi in the same way by Jung as they are in socionics. Whereas I'd say at minimum, logic and ethics are pretty close to thinking versus feeling.

Point may also be interested to know that in Jung's presentation of types, he wrote of the Apollonion in reference to what seems to be introverted intuition (or at least just intuition), rather than a truly rational orientation to ideas. I think Apollonian/Dionysian was sort of linked to intuition/sensation, and more introverted intuition/extraverted sensation given Jung was explaining the difference between introversion/extraversion incarnations. Chapter 3 of Psychological Types if you're interested. Jung agreed with your idea that Nietzsche's views indicated an irrational orientation.

I'm going to say Nietzsche is an introverted intuitive foremost, and am noncommittal about whether ILI or IEI fits better. I'd love to hear more on this though from people who think they can say more.

[mu4]

Point may also be interested to know that in Jung's presentation of types, he wrote of the Apollonion in reference to what seems to be introverted intuition (or at least just intuition), rather than a truly rational orientation to ideas. I think Apollonian/Dionysian was sort of linked to intuition/sensation, and more introverted intuition/extraverted sensation given Jung was explaining the difference between introversion/extraversion incarnations.

Thank you for mentioning this because this is a perhaps a appropriate interpretation of Apollonian as well. However I do believe Apollonion is more conventionally a rational association. Apollo is after all the god of reason.

[chemical]

I absolutely think Nietzsche is introvert too. And yes Nietzsche's views very likely colored his perspective.

As side note, I think on this point Jung even used to portray the more inward individuals as slightly more "rational" and even described Ti as somewhat more rational in a strict sense than Te, in that he saw Te as more willing to merge with the facts, thus more empirical, whereas Ti dealt with the subjective foundation of the formation of ideas to describe facts, and thus was dealing directly with the process of creating abstractions in the form of logical associations, removed from experience and only indirectly related to it. This interestingly carried over to socionics I think, in that Te is described more in terms of following the flow of a process and often suggestively labeled as "profit" while Ti is suggestively labeled as "logic."

[mu4]

I absolutely think Nietzsche is introvert too. And yes Nietzsche's views very likely colored his perspective.

As side note, I think on this point Jung even used to portray the more inward individuals as slightly more "rational" and even described Ti as somewhat more rational in a strict sense than Te, in that he saw Te as more willing to merge with the facts, thus more empirical, whereas Ti dealt with the subjective foundation of the formation of ideas to describe facts, and thus was dealing directly with the process of creating abstractions in the form of logical associations, removed from experience and only indirectly related to it. This interestingly carried over to socionics I think, in that Te is described more in terms of following the flow of a process and often suggestively labeled as "profit" while Ti is suggestively labeled as "logic."

I have several theory of how functions originated and one of them is that introverted functions originated as manager modules on top of extroverted irrationality(which are manager modules of extroverted irrationality).

This would be a growth based hypothesis of function evolution, and introversion is fairly unique in the animal kingdom and likely a later evolution. I also take a stack based perspective on this that's influence by Hofstadter. In the function stack, the introverted functions are higher up the cognition stack vs extroverted functions(at least some, like extroverted sensing) and thus more distant from pure reality, this would make them more cognitive and perhaps take on the characteristic of it's rational precursors.

This is an area I am still striving for personal clarity on the exact mechanism.

[Dionysius]

Jung types Nietzsche as Ni Ti, and a definite irrational type. In other words, IEI.

He says the philosopher is Ni dominant and uses him as a classic example of Ti in Psychological Types, along with Kant.

So, when he considers Nietzsche an intuitive introverted with secondary thinking he basically says Nietzsche uses Ni with auxiliary Ti.

[Dionysius]

"Just as Darwin might possibly represent the normal extraverted thinking type, so we might point to Kant as a counterexample of the normal introverted thinking type. The former speaks with facts; the latter appeals to the subjective factor. Darwin ranges over the wide fields of objective facts, while Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge in general. But suppose a Cuvier be contrasted with a Nietzsche: the antithesis becomes even sharper."

(Carl Jung - Psychological Types, The Introverted Thinking Type)

Jung classifies Nietzsche as an introverted thinking philosopher.

But as he says Nietzsche's first function is Ni, and his thought process is made "not by rational means, but by intuitive means", we shall classify Nietzsche - according to Jung - as an extreme case of Ni Ti.

[Dionysius]

In the classical description of Introverted Thinking, he uses Kant and Nietzsche as the greatest examples of Ti.

Study more, learn how to interpret a text and shut up.

[Not A Communist Shill]

2. The Introverted Thinking Type

Just as Darwin might possibly represent the normal extraverted thinking type, so we might point to Kant as a counter-example of the normal introverted thinking type. The former speaks with facts; the latter appeals to the subjective factor. Darwin ranges over the wide fields of objective facts, while Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge in general. But suppose a Cuvier be contrasted with a Nietzsche: the antithesis becomes even sharper.

.

[golden]

Thank you for mentioning this because this is a perhaps a appropriate interpretation of Apollonian as well. However I do believe Apollonion is more conventionally a rational association. Apollo is after all the god of reason.

Imo, Apollo is not best viewed as the god of reason. He was the god of prophecy. Which I think fits just fine with Ni.

Prophecy, music, arts, etc. So those things may be cold and light and removed and orderly in a sense--we might say it's a certain type of music/art--but not necessarily reason-bound.

And yes, I know how the term apollonian has been used to represent the logical. I've never bothered to find out the why of the total dichotomy but am curious, given Apollo's nature. And a sort of untidiness in the sense that Dionysus and Apollo were linked and not necessarily dichotomous. It has always seemed like an appropriation that involves a leap away from the source. Again, imo.

Anyway, this is a tangent.

ETA: Okay, I looked up how the terms were treated by Nietzsche and the idea that the two split apart where once they were melded together or what have you. I haven't read Birth of Tragedy, maybe I should.

[chemical]

To those who may be concerned (and please do not take this to mean I take any side here, but just spilling some useful facts) --

In the Jungian type community, the idea that the auxiliary function is extraverted in an introvert is not standard. Generally the orientation of the auxiliary is either left unstated, or is at least more likely to be introverted than extraverted (though unstated seems to be the prevailing paradigm), given Jung thought an introvert's extraversion would be unconscious. It's possible one can argue the auxiliary had a middle-ground. It was partly unconscious, and partly developed to codetermine the conscious orientation.

Moving on...There is almost no question Jung identified Nietzsche as Ni first and Ti second, in my mind, although he is indeed quite characteristically a bit dodgy with his wording. The quote by Subteigh to me is honestly evidence enough, but I have a lot more that basically comes down to proof as far as I can see, but I give some background first.

This isn't a proof but merely a hint from Jungian analyst and psychological types writer John Beebe that the idea of the attitude of the auxiliary being extraverted in an introvert and vice versa is far from well-accepted:

And then we had Wayne Detloff who was the man who first did the heretical thing of telling us that there was such a thing as a Myers-Brigg Type Indicator, and he was the one who told me something that I gather still is heretical in some circles, but not in the circles I travel in and create for myself, that if the superior function is extraverted, then the auxiliary function is introverted. If the superior function is introverted, the auxiliary is extraverted. And I know that there are many people who still resist the idea, but I am absolutely enamored of it, and I can usually prove how it is true of them, even against their resistance.

And here, from the words of the author of the "heretical" MBTI, is her view while laying out her theory on the prevailing view among Jungians:

Good type development thus demands that the auxiliary supplement the dominant process in two respects. It must supply a useful degree of balance not only between perception and judgement but also between extraversion and introversion. When it fails to do so it leaves the individual literally "unbalanced" retreating into the preferred world and consciously or unconsciously afraid of the other world. Such cases do occur and may seem to support the widespread assumption among Jungian analysts that the dominant and auxiliary are naturally both extraverted or both introverted; but such cases are not the norm: They are instances of insufficient use and development of the auxiliary.

As for Jung's view on Nietzsche's type, here are his remarks

Nietzsche's Zarathustra has, in my opinion, furnished the best example of it; moreover, it has strikingly demonstrated the possibility of a non-intellectualistic, though none the less philosophical comprehension of the problem. Schopenhauer and Hegel appear to be the forerunners of the Nietzschean intuitionism, the former on account of the feeling-intuition which lends such. a decisive colouring to his views, and the latter by virtue of the conceptual-intuition underlying his whole system. With these two fore-runners -- if one may use such an expression -- intuition ranked below the intellect, but with Nietzsche it ranked above it.

The fact that it is just the psychological functions of intuition on the one hand, and of sensation and instinct on the other, that Nietzsche brings into relief, must be characteristic of his own personal psychology. He must surely be reckoned as an intuitive type with an inclination towards the side of introversion. As evidence of the former we have his pre-eminently intuitive, artistic manner of production, of which this very work The Birth of Tragedy is highly characteristic, while his master work Thus Spake Zarathustra is even more so. His aphoristic writings are expressive of his introverted intellectual side.

Combining these, it's hard to say he didn't think Nietzsche is an introvert, and we can feel safe to say he thought Nietzsche is an intuitive type, and hence not a sensation type. The only issue is whether feeling or thinking could possibly be above intuition. Intuition is clearly presented as ranking above thinking, and the thinking is introverted. Submitting to Myers' view and Beebe's allusion one could conclude quite safely that Nietzsche's secondary is Ti, not Fe. If one is not convinced...

From Jung's seminar on Nietzsche's Zarathustra,there is an exchange he has with a Mrs. F:

He was identified with his thinking, and when he writes, it is like an influx of very inferior feeling, a sentimentality.

To which Jung replies:

That is true, that is one thing.

He goes on later in the same page to say:

the anima is chiefly fed by the inferior function, in this case inferior feeling, so the inferior function and anima are one

Inferior feeling and pronounced introverted intellectual side is proof enough in his system (as good as it gets) that Jung viewed Nietzsche as a thinking type over a feeling type.

Myers acknowledged that her interpretation of Jung was in the minority or at least far from the widespread notion she's heard of when she concluded that, when Jung says "in every respect different," he was specifying that the attitude of the auxiliary is opposite that the dominant. The reason her interpretation is likely wrong is that, unlike our modern conception, Jung rarely referred to "Ti" and "Fe" and "Fi" -- he referred to four functions by themselves, and his 8 types originally were portraits of when the introverted and extraverted types showed a dominant function - in other words, the combination of an introverted consciousness or extraverted consciousness with one dominated by a function.
Thus, he wouldn't have thought "Ti is in every respect different" to "Ne" but rather, "thinking is in every respect different to sensation" -- because he thought of functions as 4 individual processes, rather than 8 "function-attitudes," especially at the time he wrote Psychological Types.

I'd however advise people not to take the "Jung obviously said this" approach because he has been quite vague on many things, depending on the level to which you nitpick him, and his views are fodder to take forward.

In socionics, the two strongest IE in an introvert are both supposedly introverted, but it takes a different perspective towards what introversion/extraversion mean to an extent at least.

Last, it isn't untrue that Jung saw a good amount of feeling in Nietzsche's writings, so that's perhaps where the "IEI" typing is coming from

These, in spite of a strong admixture of feeling, exhibit a pronounced critical intellectualism in the manner of the French intellectuals of the eighteenth century. His lack of rational moderation and conciseness argues for the intuitive type in general.

And of course, that quote also shows there's no way Jung likely thought Nietzsche a rational dominant type, and as he is introverted, intuitive, and not rational, he is clearly Ni-leading according to Jung. The preceding remarks establish that he had secondary Ti.

I could say Jung thought Nietzsche's function-attitudes most likely ran Ni>Ti>Fe>Se, because he referred to Fe as an inferior function, which means it is unconscious and extraverted in an introvert.

[Dionysius]

That's what I said.

Let's remember one thing: to Jung, even the auxiliary function is 'relatively uncounscious', in other words, still without complete development. So, if we consider Nietzsche being socionics IEI (with creative Fe) he still can be considered a type with 'inferior feeling', specially in the case of an overdevelopment of Ti. That's my point of view: that he is an unbalanced IEI, whose Ti distorted Fe as a healthy function. It's also probably one of the reasons of his upcoming mental illness: a total self-destroying lifestyle generated by his lack of Fe and Se (solitude, lack of love, women, etc).

His intense poetic streak is a sign of a rather well developed Fe.

To me, he is indeed Ni Fe Ti.

[Not A Communist Shill]

It seems that Jung contrasted Nietzsche as the antithesis of the extroverted thinking type...which could mean in the context, Nietzsche
was a introverted thinking type or an introverted thinking valuer, with something akin to a PoLR. Jung talks of Nietzsche in terms much the same as how he describes , as something introverted and subjective (and yet part of some common collective unconscious).

[yeves]

his philosophical ruminations read as irrational with few detailed analysis, and subjectively fervent