Definitely not F.
reading Bertrand Rusell makes me queasy and gives me a headache much the same way reading Aquinous does. stupid overlogical that pains my soul and ends up making me feel retarded. I find no elegance to Rusell's writting or thinking (which is what I seek from books on math) It would not surprise me if he bled oil and sparks when cut.
I agree that his writng is not very good. And he can't quite get to the point I think. Did you read his "History of Western Philosophy"?Originally Posted by Bionicgoat
no I haven't and I doubt anyone's going to talk me into it
i've read his history of philosophy and actually found it very lucid and stimulating, it is VERY difficult to write good history. i disagreed numerous times with his interpretations of the histories (i'm a theist, he is not), but it was still good writing imo.
THE BEARD HEARD HIS MOVEMENT AND MADE AN ATTACK RUN BUT DID NOT ACTUALLY ATTACK HIM
Originally Posted by .thursday
same experience here. i loved why i am not a christian but also got that "awesome, stimulating, great! but...." thing.)
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
I thoguht of it positively too, and at the time I wasvery excitedabout it (which got me through the 700 or more pages) but it wassort of insubstantial. It didn't lead to any further study for me anyways.Originally Posted by implied
What I think is clear about Russell's type is that he expressed lots of in his writings. He also had an extraverted attitude towards life and society. There was a time when I thought that he was an INTP, but ENTj is my best guess today, even though I know that Dmitri Lytov type his as an ENFp. But I haven't seen any arguments for ENFp, and until I do such a claim doesn't make much sense to me. It is perhaps not impossible to see Russell as an ENFp, but if he was I will have to change my view on ENFps in general. Or maybe his extreme general intelligence influences how we perceive him and makes him more difficult to type. Anyway, I think Gamma is the best quadra fit for him.
Augusta thought he was an ENFp. Seeing videos of him actually makes me think this is possible. He comes across as quite warm and bubbly I think, as much as it is possible for a philosopher to be that way. I could see ENTp to a lesser degree, and ENTj seems more remote.
His works do seem logical and lucid to me compared to basically all philosophers bar none...but...and I'm probably biased in my view now...he was like a bookend to philosophy who was able to write about all the various schools of philosophy while remaining impartial from his privileged position in the 20th century (he did of course give his own views on the various schools, but he was of such a liberal mind as to not give an one-sided account). But watching videos of him definitely makes me see him in a different light.
Bertrand is a ****** and a total pederast.
The lowest picture on wikipedia VI's like a ENTP-Ti, I think?
At least it's a very characteristic face, probably people can VI it who are better at VI then me.
I'm pretty sure that he was a Beta NF, and most likely an IEI. Just because he was a logician/mathematician does NOT necessarily mean that he is an NT... that's just so stereotypical...
Some of these quotes by him makes me think that he's Beta/NF (from The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell) :
Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind. These passions, like great winds, have blown me hither and thither, in a wayward course, over a deep ocean of anguish, reaching to the very verge of despair.Bertrand Russell - WikiquoteI have lived in the pursuit of a vision, both personal and social. Personal: to care for what is noble, for what is beautiful, for what is gentle; to allow moments of insight to give wisdom at more mundane times. Social: to see in imagination the society that is to be created, where individuals grow freely, and where hate and greed and envy die because there is nothing to nourish them. These things I believe, and the world, for all its horrors, has left me unshaken.
I think that he is very similar and comparable to Carl Sagan... whom I'd also type as an IEI (I'm pretty sure). I think that they're both very "scientific" E4s.
I'm so tired that I read this as Russel Brand. I think I should go to sleep now.
Yeah I say ENTp
Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048
I guess I must have wrote it in another thread, but his The Value of Philosophy was what clinched me choosing it as a major.
Philosophy, like all other studies, aims primarily at knowledge. The knowledge it aims at is the kind of knowledge which gives unity and system to the body of the sciences, and the kind which results from a critical examination of the grounds of our convictions, prejudices, and beliefs. But it cannot be maintained that philosophy has had any very great measure of success in its attempts to provide definite answers to its questions. If you ask a mathematician, a mineralogist, a historian, or any other man of learning, what definite body of truths has been ascertained by his science, his answer will last as long as you are willing to listen. But if you put the same question to a philosopher, he will, if he is candid, have to confess that his study has not achieved positive results such as have been achieved by other sciences. It is true that this is partly accounted for by the fact that, as soon as definite knowledge concerning any subject becomes possible, this subject ceases to be called philosophy, and becomes a separate science. The whole study of the heavens, which now belongs to astronomy, was once included in philosophy; Newton's great work was called 'the mathematical principles of natural philosophy'. Similarly, the study of the human mind, which was a part of philosophy, has now been separated from philosophy and has become the science of psychology. Thus, to a great extent, the uncertainty of philosophy is more apparent than real: those questions which are already capable of definite answers are placed in the sciences, while those only to which, at present, no definite answer can be given, remain to form the residue which is called philosophy.
The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty. The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason. To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected. As soon as we begin to philosophize, on the contrary, we find, as we saw in our opening chapters, that even the most everyday things lead to problems to which only very incomplete answers can be given. Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom. Thus, while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never travelled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect.
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
I'm reading a very short book by Russell right now. It's called "The Problems of Philosophy." I just started it, but from what I can tell, it's a very basic, introductory book that surveys the key problems of philosophy.
What I can tell you about his writing style is that it is simple in some ways, yet complicated in others. I've found that he doesn't use a lot of pompous language or complicated jargon. However, he seems to want to spell things out in a very exact way, using gramatically complicated phrases that convey precise logic. This means that you probably won't feel completely lost in reading his work, but your mind has to work hard to read it, sometimes causing you to reread certain phrases again and again. Overall, however, it seems manageable.
As for his socionics type, in my mind, the combination of his strong need for precision and logic, and his simplicity of word use implies LII. As for those who think ILE, if you look more carefully, that second picture on Wikipedia is of his father.
Last edited by jason_m; 06-06-2009 at 07:28 AM.
LII-IEI; 5w4 ---> 5 (LII)-w-(IEI) 4.
I can't really see him as an intovert (at least by the usual meaning of the term). And it's too easy to say "his writing is logical, therefore he must be a logical type".
I personally think his writings come across as very approachable and easy to understand. He tends to talk colloquially, and is very good at using examples to illustrate his point - but I think most good philosophers\historians etc. do that. The way I see his writing is that he addresses each point or chapter like a person pops into someone's house and has a cup of tea. I don't think it's simply Ti to present a well-defined argument which covers everything and doesn't leave anything open for debate. He was quite a reasonable philosopher in that he was able to accomodate and entertain many philosophies just so long as they weren't repugnant - and a great issue of his was the intolerance of others. These are things that I myself can identify with, but my point is, I don't see why ENFp cannot work for Bertrand Russell. The typing of ENTp...I don't know. I certainly do think there's a good case for it.
In terms of Ti and Fi PoLR stereotypes...he generally didn't give a shit if he was seen as acting 'unethically' and he wasn't against civic disobedience...but it's hard to make anything of this. It's just clear that he did not think he was acting unethically or he thought he was doing what he did for a good cause.
Alys (first wife) - divorced:
Dora (second wife) - divorced:
Patricia (third wife) - divorced (rubbish photo):
Edith (fourth wife) - did not divorced:
I get the impression that amongst his wives, Si seems to be a common feature (at least in the three where the photos are fairly good).
Dora - ISFp or some NF type I think.
Edith - maybe ISFp also.
Alys - seems more icy.
Patricia - I can't get much from the photo. She could be Se or Ni dominant or something else for all I know.
Two more of Dora:
More of Bertie:
Last edited by Subteigh; 06-06-2009 at 11:00 AM.
lol, while preparing all these images, I noticed similaries with Albert Einstein, David Tennant, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Jung...I see the Ti death stare in some images, the warm smile of an Ne dominant in others, while also seeing the grave face of an ESTp or an ENFp. But what do I know!
BR reminds me of the Brirish politician Tony Benn in many senses, and perhaps also in terms of VI (though I think Ti is more evident in TB's case...I know Expat has typed him as an INTj).
I want to say that this might be Merry/Subjective, but perhaps a lot of people could relate to this, too, so I don't know. I really relate to what he's saying and how he writes, because I prefer precision over everything. I don't like the thought of redundancies or wasting anything or the thought of things being interpreted incorrectly. But perhaps this isn't really type-related.Originally Posted by Bertrand Russell
Anyway, I think that it's more important to type him based on what kind of a role that he has played, what kind of a character that he was, what he did, etc, rather than just taking bits and pieces of information and analyzing them.
Last edited by Singularity; 06-06-2009 at 12:31 PM.
If he spent hours "trying to find the shortest way of saying something without ambiguity" is that strong , weak , or just an interest in being as coherent as possible ?
Hmm, I think you make a good point - that does seem to show valued Ti.
On a side note, I'm reminded of a Rick observation about some ISTjs who seemingly want to show good use of Ti through complex language. When I read works by people like Russell, the words seem very 'efficient' and flowing, with nothing left out or poorly explained. The exact choice of words seems like quite an important feature for me - a single well-picked word or phrase can speak volumes. In a sense, it is very much like poetry to me (although poetry can be obscure and obfuscated). So I would argue that this particular quote could be Ne-related (with Ti being the most likely companion to that).
Would this: (Russell's paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) be an example of a Ti-valuing type making fun of Ti, or a non-Ti valuing type making fun of Ti, or is it just simply a problem that occured to him?
bionicgoat lures unsuspecting neighbours' pets to his outhouse, where he likes to sodomize them.
logical positivism is by definition accepting and creative
IMO Russell is ILE. I know someone else typing him so, if it matters.
Shock intuition, diamond logic.
The16types.info Scientific Model
Alpha NT has always been my best guess. He's the reason I decided to major in philosophy in the first place.
Bertrand Russell: IEE
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)