Nietzsche was a very emotional and goosy personality. Many socionists, including me, believe he was an ENFj (a Beta Quadra representative, by the way). His works are not logically structured - on the contrary, they represent a flood of raw thoughts and emotions, they are rather imaginative than logical and consistent. He was a good poet and composer, a good philologist (he was a professor of Old Greek), but he always lacked mental ballast and self-confidence peculiar to ISTj.
www.socioniko.net is no longer my site.
A more profound analysis would identify his value system rather than the forms of his work.Originally Posted by Dmitri Lytov
The overman: can you say Ne+? That leaves us with ENTp and INTj and we can all agree that he was a J.
Nonsense. There is enough of that in Nietzsche's original work. Glorification ofI can see those familiar only with the popularized Nietzsche making this association. "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger", Nazi appropriation, etc., contempt for
, questioning of standard concepts of
.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Exactly!A more profound analysis would identify his value system rather than the forms of his work.
Nope, but I can safely say Se- and Ni+The overman: can you say Ne+?
Lol you make it sound like you proved anything.That leaves us with ENTp and INTj and we can all agree that he was a J.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I can't give you a deep insight quoting his works - I have read them, probably more than once, but I have never analyzed them deeply - but I can safely say that he glorified
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Contempt for Si? Did you ever read Ecco Homo?Nonsense. There is enough of that in Nietzsche's original work. Glorification of
And Nietzsche's power is the power of individualism, not power over others. It is unfortunate that ****** made the same mistake you made.
Agreed about the Fi.
Clearly Ti.
Nietzsche as the ultimate individualist. INTj the most individualistic type. Philosophy containing high structurual integrity. (philosophy is "of a whole") Ti concerned with internal structural integrity.
Jung and I will have to disagree with you Expat, Dmitri.
Thanks for assuming our ignorance, now please don't, and restate your argument.I can see those familiar only with the popularized Nietzsche making this association. "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger", Nazi appropriation, etc.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Like reading his works?Contempt for Si? Did you ever read Ecco Homo?Nonsense. There is enough of that in Nietzsche's original work. Glorification of
And Nietzsche's power is the power of individualism, not power over others. It is unfortunate that ****** made the same mistake you made.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Har. I'm not saying I'm a fan, I just get where he's coming from...Like reading his works?
I don't know how to restate what I said more clearly. The Alpha of Wagner/Nietzsche made a pretty piss-poor handoff to Beta into the 20th century. Maybe he needed a better editor.
Friedrich Nietzsche
(I always like posting pictures, to enhance the importance of my post. :wink: )
I just think INTJ seems more likely because the creative function is generally what you do automatically and with natural confidence and there is no need to emphasize it to the point of sickly distortion. PoLR again is something you may want to exaggerate in order to hide your real weaknesses. Therefore making patently silly statements like: "When thou goest to woman, take thy whip." does sound a lot more like an infantile INTJ than a genuine aggressor type like ISTJ.
"Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
martin_g_karlsson
Yeah he was something of a poser... My guess is that Wagner's abandonment turned him into a bitter man for life. His Se reaks of the weakling's revenge fantasy, but since he is a philosopher a revenge philosophy against reality.I can't give you a deep insight quoting his works - I have read them, probably more than once, but I have never analyzed them deeply - but I can safely say that he glorified
How's this for a negation of life's work (and I poorly paraphrase since I can't find the quote):
CuriousSoul makes the point well...
Ne+ : Prospects, opportunities, positive potential, essence, the principles, new ideas, promotion of hypotheses, the theory, an insight, interest, originality, singularity, unreality, belief;
Thus uberman.
Neko, you have a horrible understanding of Nietzsche. The will to power and the struggle to accept eternal occurance, the entire concept of affirming one's own life, one's own WILL in such a way that it permeates across all borders, are obviously Se values.
"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."
Your claim betrays a misunderstanding of Se. Perceptive functions are all about a perspective, that is, a way of looking at the world. This mode of looking at the world implies its own particular set of goals and challenges. The challenge of growth, power, manifestion, and other sweepingly vague terms for what any living organism is instinctually rooted in has nothing in particular to do with Se. If this were the case then we would see an evolutionary advantage given to those with strong Se, and the types would not be evenly distributed.
I believe right now amongst the younger generations in the West the perspective of Se is given great importance (Se- in particular) because we are near the beginning of a period of Beta consolidation of the values that swept the world during the Alpha cultural revolutions following WWII. (it began with grunge/alt rock/hip hop) For this reason the benefits attributed to Se sometimes get out of hand.
Ridiculous. You bolded the only thing that supported your opinion.Ne+ : Prospects, opportunities, positive potential, essence, the principles, new ideas, promotion of hypotheses, the theory, an insight, interest, originality, singularity, unreality, belief;
Thus uberman.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Lol.
Western world today = Gamma.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Honored to be of amusement.
It's a difficult thing of course to isolate cultural vectors, there are so many going on at once and they interact in so many ways. Gamma comes to ascendency when the social game is fun and well defined. I don't see that happening yet, at least not amongst the best energies. The Reagan/Glam Rock era for example was definetely a period of Gamma, but I consider that to be a degenerate case following a hypercyclical spinout of the 70s social implosion / drug hangover starting with the Beta punk movement.
Then again you could be right, there could be some of the best energies right now having fun playing the current social game. I sure hope not, that means that the freedoms of the 60s era didn't consolidate very well...
Nietzsche was INTP for sure, 100% my friends
Well I am back. How's everyone? Don't have as much time now, but glad to see some of the old gang are still here.
I will be forever obliged to you, if you can prove that to be true.Nietzsche was INTP for sure, 100% my friends
As you well know proofs are impossible in this things, but I ma sure I can sugest that you will eventually agree with me.
1-Nietzsche's relationship to Wagner. Wagner was ISTJ.
2-Nietzsche's relationship to that woman whore from Russia or something, she was ESFP
3-I studied Nietzsche with an INTP teacher who was OBSESSED with him.
Well I am back. How's everyone? Don't have as much time now, but glad to see some of the old gang are still here.
I'm sorry, Dioklecian, but it will take more to convince me.
How do you know that Wagner was an ISTj? And how can you be so sure that you have a correct understanding of their relationship?1-Nietzsche's relationship to Wagner. Wagner was ISTJ.
The same thing here. The risk of mistypings and misinterpretations of that material is simply to great.2-Nietzsche's relationship to that woman whore from Russia or something, she was ESFP
How do you know that your teacher was an INTp? If he or she was really OBSESSED with Nietzsche, I consider that a rather strong argument against the claim that the teacher was an INTp.3-I studied Nietzsche with an INTP teacher who was OBSESSED with him.
How is that an anti argument for my position?
Ok about the teachers' obsession: his CAT was called Nietzsche, in 2 years he spent 7 months on Nietzsche.
Well I am back. How's everyone? Don't have as much time now, but glad to see some of the old gang are still here.
Because it goes against my general hypothesis about two kinds of philosophy. I am myself an INTp, and I think that most INTps would dislike Nietzsche's philosophy if they understood it, because it is irrational and his philosophical positions are logically incoherent. That kind of philosophy goes against an INTps adherence to truth and objective knowledge.How is that an anti argument for my position?
In my experience INTPs do not seek T-ruth, they like t-truth.
Show me a real example of an INTP seeking objective knowledge.
On the other hand you have people like Dick Cheney who think that thruth is slightly relative.
Well I am back. How's everyone? Don't have as much time now, but glad to see some of the old gang are still here.
I'm not following you here. You have to explain what you mean.In my experience INTPs do not seek T-ruth, they like t-truth.
The best example of that is me, even though that might not convince you of course. But are you suggesting that all those type descriptions of INTPs are wrong?Show me a real example of an INTP seeking objective knowledge.
Are you suggesting that Cheney is an INTp? I don't know anything about him, but of course there are INTps out there who think that truth is relative. Though if they are not to stupid, and you give them enough time to think about concepts like truth and knowledge and other philosophical concepts, they will eventually realize that all relativistic theories of truth are logically incoherent. INTps in general are good at finding logical inconsistences, and when they do they try to get rid of them.On the other hand you have people like Dick Cheney who think that thruth is slightly relative.
I could be wrong but from my experience INTPs are not about THE truth, and are likely to take shortcuts.
Well I am back. How's everyone? Don't have as much time now, but glad to see some of the old gang are still here.
How would you like to define the difference between the truth an a truth?I could be wrong but from my experience INTPs are not about THE truth, and are likely to take shortcuts.
thats' exactly the point: Ti people see one truth not many, Ni people see many truths.
Well I am back. How's everyone? Don't have as much time now, but glad to see some of the old gang are still here.
Wrong. INTjs are subjectivists (relativists), INTps are objectivists.Ti people see one truth not many, Ni people see many truths.
But if you mean that INTjs only see their own (subjective) "truth", and INTps see many real (objective) truths, then I agree with you.
Fo a Ti person their truth is objective, thats' what science is: no matter who you are, the atomic mass is the same, it doesn't change because of your perspective. For Ni its' the other way around I think, your perspective determines the truth, so if racist person says that some people are inferior, you aren't bother: of course, he is a racist, thats' what racists say. But if you are Ti, you get up and tell him to shut up because in fact there is no evidence that race is adeterminant of superiority, etc.Wrong. INTjs are subjectivists (relativists), INTps are objectivists.Ti people see one truth not many, Ni people see many truths.
But if you mean that INTjs only see their own (subjective) "truth", and INTps see many real (objective) truths, then I agree with you.
For example:
Answer this question: who is stronger, the coalition in Iraq or their opponents?
Well I am back. How's everyone? Don't have as much time now, but glad to see some of the old gang are still here.
And I think that the truth is exactly the opposite of what you state. From my experience it is the INTps (like myself) who take the scientific stand here and claim that truth is objective, whereas I have seen the perspectivist (subjectivist, relativist) position represented by more than one INTj. That is what my general hypothesis about the two fundamentally different kinds of philosophy is about. Since Nietzsche is a clear example of a perspectivist, one might start to think that you have mixed INTps and INTjs up. Maybe those who you think are INTps are really INTjs and the other way round.Fo a Ti person their truth is objective, thats' what science is: no matter who you are, the atomic mass is the same, it doesn't change because of your perspective. For Ni its' the other way around I think, your perspective determines the truth, so if racist person says that some people are inferior, you aren't bother: of course, he is a racist, thats' what racists say. But if you are Ti, you get up and tell him to shut up because in fact there is no evidence that race is adeterminant of superiority, etc.
I don't know the answer to that, but if "stronger" is defined so that the statement can be empirically tested, there is an objectively true answer to it.Answer this question: who is stronger, the coalition in Iraq or their opponents?
For a Ti person "stronger" is already defined more or less. My Ti is still weak so I don't know exactly. Its' like wet. You don't have to define wet, you know how wet something , you don't need a parameter.
As to the relativist approach, that is Ne. It has nothing to do with perspectives (there is still only one perspective for them), but they are uncertain of the evidence.
Well I am back. How's everyone? Don't have as much time now, but glad to see some of the old gang are still here.
If that is true, then it is in line with my general hypthesis. The relativist approach could be Ne (As to the relativist approach, that is Ne.) or Ti (
) or both, I don't know. I have seen the relativist approach in both INTjs and ENTps, but I think that it is often more clearly expressed by INTjs.
My guess is that the explanation for the objectivist approach probably has to do with Te (
My Te is weak as well, perhaps ENTJs can explain it betterIf that is true, then it is in line with my general hypthesis. The relativist approach could be Ne (As to the relativist approach, that is Ne.
My guess is that the explanation for the objectivist approach probably has to do with Te (
Well I am back. How's everyone? Don't have as much time now, but glad to see some of the old gang are still here.
Re: Two versions of LII
Given the current alpha discussion between LII subtypes,
The original post in this thread portrays somewhat of what I feel to be the difference between Ne and Ti subtype, Ne being the LII-a. LII-a seems a slightly more negative portrayal however.
One of the things that I've been pointing out is that the overal image of what LII looks like seems to be different depending on who you ask. I've decided to try to flesh out what these two different views would look like in the form of a description.
Many people, based on their reading of Jung and intuition about what
People who are more in the "inner circle" of the Socionics community seem to describe something that I'd call LII-b.
My intent is to try to make this divergence of views as crystal clear as possible. Of course, the question of which one is "correct" (i.e., which makes the intertype relationships work out properly, which one makes for appropriate patterns such as Reinin dichotomies, etc.) is open to debate.
Hopefully, my wording of the descriptions is close enough to communicate what I see as these two opposing views of what LII must be like.
If you feel that one of these really describes another type (i.e., ILI, ILE, LIE, etc.), I'd be very interested in your thoughts.
LII-a:
The LII's 1st function
His second function,
With a relative lack of
Given his weak
LII-b:
The LII's 1st function
His second function,
Because of his rational nature, he's able to see what's important and what's not important. He's very able to understand systems and heirarchies. This helps him deal with organizations, social heirarchies, and external systems in general. As a result, he's very successful at influencing people and getting what he wants. Although he doesn't usually seek positions of leadership, his structured, systemmatic, decisive thinking often impresses others, leading him into positions of leadership when someone of obvious intelligence and uncompromising integrity is required.
Although he prefers the conceptual to the practical worlds, he's very good at getting done what he has to, because he has a clear sense of priorities through his rational nature. Given his weak
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
I don't think it's correct to say that INTj's don't "believe in objective truths". The part of INTj philosophy that could be called 'relativistic' (I'm using quotes not because I think the label is wrong, but because use of such labels is simply not my preference) revolves around a scepticism towards measures of getting at what the truth really is. When there is nothing outside of your own observations that you know for certain, a "many perspectives" interpretation of situations becomes an effective way of orienting, if not the only way. This, however, does not mean that relativism is the one and only attitude to truth that we apply. We are not quite that one dimensional.
Alpha NT's generally seem to be interested in matters of objective possibility more than in matters of actual objective truth. In a sense, a statement that a certain state of affairs is possible with no allusion to it's actual applicability, confers an objective truth in itself. It is in this region that alphas make invaluable contributions to science to which the gammas have no equal substitute.
I agree with this. This is also how I see one important general difference between Alphas and Gammas.
my strongest impression of INTjs and of INTps is the last three or four posts by dioklecian. There must be a reason why I didn't change my mind. I would like to hear more discussion about those posts.
To me, there must be only one truth behind everything. Of course, there are many ways to think of and approach things. The truth, however, is the same no matter which standpoint you look at it from. It could be compared to looking an apple. It looks different depending on the lighting and from which angle it is looked. The apple is, nevertheless, the same apple.
But it's not easy to find the truth. Every thought might possibly be influenced with prejudice that comes from what we are taught. Therefore it is extremely difficult to discover the truth, as one can never be fully sure about if he/she is right. Even if the logic were correct, it's always possible that you've made a mistake since you always need to trust in something that cannot be proven or might be incorrectly perceived.
I don't know if that has anything to do with anything, but it just came to my mind about Dio's posts.
Intuition
Thank you labcoat. Although you may not have specifically intended it, you have affirmed my understanding ofIn a sense, a statement that a certain state of affairs is possible with no allusion to it's actual applicability, confers an objective truth in itself.
To all:
Instead of two versions of INTj, perhaps you should consider eight.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote