Goethe

[Pallas]

Let's type Goethe in enneagram. I've looked on sites and his typings, as with nearly everyone elses', are all over the place, as if each site owner rolled a different 9-sided die. But I don't want to type him myself lest it turn into the projectionfest it always does when people type famous people they relate to or admire (you know and have seen, and possibly engaged in, exactly what I'm talking about, although I'm not going to bring up examples so this thread doesn't get detracted from. We need objectivity on things like this. @E5s).

We also need more threads like this. Enneagram turns into navel-gazing and weird tribalism above and beyond what any other system seems to (hmm, I wonder why... ).

[Chae]

I've seen him typed as 4w5, sexual subtype. Reading the "Erlkönig" ballad again, that could be it.

[maniac]

5s are bad with objectivity generally, as you can see in yourself. So i dont think thats what we need.

[Chae]

5s are bad with objectivity generally, as you can see in yourself. So i dont think thats what we need.

That aside - what we need are several opinions + focus on Goethe: how would you type him?

[maniac]

That aside - what we need are several opinions + focus on Goethe: how would you type him?

I dont know him much.. he was a statesman so probably not social last.

He could be something like so/sp 4 (9 fixed), just by reading some and looking of portraits of him

statesman, diplomat, civil servant, extensive works on botany and anatomy = sx last

[Olimpia]

At first, what is the most clear to me is his SX instinct.
The biggest bulk of his early work was made up of love poems, and his life was characterized by strong bouts of passion for certain women in his life.
As he matured (and became part of the Weimar Classicism movement), he moved on to more socially and culturally relevant topics (which could be very E1 So/Sp-like, reminiscent of the works and moral code of the Classicism period; that was probably how he integrated to Type 1), like for instance his Prometheus poem (much better in the original imo) is rather Social (and has a touch of E5 with an integration to 8... Probably my favorite poem of his, btw). So all that makes me think Sx/So is the most likely.

The protagonist in "The Sorrows of Young Werther" is Type 4 SX beyond belief (spoiler alert ); a dilettante artist who is trying to find his identity as an artist, and falls head over heels in love with a woman that is ultimately a distant ideal and unavailable to him, so he commits suicide due to a broken heart and depression. And even just the title of the novel itself is stereotypically Type 4 like. Also, it supposedly "sparked" the Romanticism movement, which was the most Type 4-like movement in literary history ever to my knowledge.

His novel "Faust", one of my favourite novels/plays of all time, is about the quest of a Type 5 to ultimate knowledge. I am pretty sure someone without a 5 inclination of any kind couldn't have written it. And again, it has a lot of social undertones and cultural critiques in it. It also does not miss the SX instinct; the first novel/part is centered around Faust's love for Gretchen and her inevitable demise. (And Mephistopheles is the "dark-side" Sx/So archetype incarnate.)

All of that makes me conclude he was most likely Sx/So 4w5.

P.S: I did include some personal thoughts in this analysis of mine, but I couldn't help it.
"Faust" and "Prometheus" are just brilliant, haha.

P.P.S: I think Goethe was Beta NF, most likely IEI.

[strrrng]

based on faust I would say 5w4 > 4w5 (but I'm partly biased by virtue of typing him Ni-ILI, which I think is incompatible with E4). lots of fantastical allusions and grand forays into the mystical/unconscious/whatever. superficially this could sound 4w5, but ime 4s tend to have more of an (emotional/internal) anchor to their surrealism; with goethe it's more like the only reference point is the scope of his horizon. also, the story is more of an intellectual take on flawed love than an artistic evocation of its undertones/implications... 4s are a little more lurid when it comes to expressing the details of things like that. goethe just more or less outlines the important features and maintains a certain distance so as to allow a more thorough illustration of the mechanics of the situation.

for tritype I would guess 458 or 459

[Pallas]

5s are bad with objectivity generally, as you can see in yourself. So i dont think thats what we need.

Can we have a threadban please? 5s are awesome with objectivity, that's kind of the point of 5s, and why we have to call some in, even if typing famous people is sort of impossible regardless of how objective you are.

[Pallas]

I dont know him much.. he was a statesman so probably not social last.

He could be something like so/sp 4 (9 fixed), just by reading some and looking of portraits of him

statesman, diplomat, civil servant, extensive works on botany and anatomy = sx last

This is the problem with enneagram typing famous people. Or anyone.

[maniac]

Can we have a threadban please? 5s are awesome with objectivity, that's kind of the point of 5s, and why we have to call some in, even if typing famous people is sort of impossible regardless of how objective you are.

Why would they be awesome with that? If you know something about 5s its that they get tunnel vision on their own subjective ideas and get obsessed about them while being unable to see other views.

[Pallas]

Why would they be awesome with that? If you know something about 5s its that they get tunnel vision on their own subjective ideas and get obsessed about them while being unable to see other views.

E5 = detached knowledge-seeking, doesn't it? And the point of that is objectivity.

Anyways, if you're so dead-set on me being a 5, at least get the wing right. Chips and underwear doesn't identify me as the same thing as she is at all.

[maniac]

E5 = detached knowledge-seeking, doesn't it? And the point of that is objectivity.

Anyways, if you're so dead-set on me being a 5, at least get the wing right. Chips and underwear doesn't identify me as the same thing as she is at all.

She types as 6w5, not a 5. thought I think shes a 9. And idk what your wing is.

Average Levels
Level 4: Begin conceptualizing and fine-tuning everything before acting—working things out in their minds: model building, preparing, practicing, and gathering more resources. Studious, acquiring technique. Become specialized, and often "intellectual," often challenging accepted ways of doing things.
Level 5: Increasingly detached as they become involved with complicated ideas or imaginary worlds. Become preoccupied with their visions and interpretations rather than reality. Are fascinated by off-beat, esoteric subjects, even those involving dark and disturbing elements. Detached from the practical world, a "disembodied mind," although high-strung and intense.
Level 6: Begin to take an antagonistic stance toward anything which would interfere with their inner world and personal vision. Become provocative and abrasive, with intentionally extreme and radical views. Cynical and argumentative.

[Pallas]

@Jeremy Hmm, sounds like you. No one with the actual qualities of a "heart person" would bother referencing a theory so much every time they define themselves. They'd just connect emotionally.

[maniac]

@Jeremy Hmm, sounds like you. No one with the actual qualities of a "heart person" would bother referencing a theory so much every time they define themselves. They'd just connect emotionally.

Here you go ignoring the truth as usual. Very objective... or?
Im out of this conversation. Good luck.

[Pallas]

The truth that you're completely obsessed with fitting everything into a diagram, which is the whole of "spirituality" for you?
Im out of this conversation. Good luck.

There are more things in heaven and earth, @Jeremy,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.