David Foster Wallace

[mu4]

P.S. He's used as a video example for ILE here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...es-with-Videos

Those are siuntal/silke's personal typings and not representative of anyone else or this site. Most of what you wrote isn't really relevant to his type. It makes a argument for a type but really doesn't make him a type. If IJ is direct avoidance of Chekhov's gun, then it's anti-Ti. His thesis is also anti-Ti, it matters very little if he wrote it if his content is always anti-Ti. His message is what matters, not the fact that he wrote some philosophical thesis.

""fiction's about what it is to be a fucking human being", and he expressed a desire to write "morally passionate, passionately moral fiction" that could help readers "become less alone inside"."

This is what he wrote about his fiction, and to be quite frank. "Morally passionate, passionately moral fiction"??? ILE? Not likely! Become less alone inside???

Ultimately his hemming and hawing about ethics and morality is indicative of conscious strong ethics. Anyways, it matters very little what you believe someone's type is, but don't go thinking that a types can't write a philosophical thesis or learn about logic. That simply not true.

[Whoobie77]

This is what he wrote about his fiction, and to be quite frank. "Morally passionate, passionately moral fiction"??? ILE? Not likely! Become less alone inside???

Ultimately his hemming and hawing about ethics and morality is indicative of conscious strong ethics. Anyways, it matters very little what you believe someone's type is, but don't go thinking that a types can't write a philosophical thesis or learn about logic. That simply not true.

I'm getting the vibe that you think I'm a thick-skulled moron, hkkmr, lol.

Anyways, it's possible for a Fi type to be concerned with logic, but it's impossible for a Ti type to be concerned with ethics?

I don't think he's Ti just because he wrote a symbolic logic thesis. I think he's Ti also because:
-He had an obsession with cataloging words in order to find the ones which expressed exactly what he meant.

-The end of Consider the Lobster is basically a regurgitation of Wittgenstein's (who I think is LII) final sentence of the Tractatus, which precludes ethics and aesthetics from discussion ("These last couple queries, though, while sincere, obviously involve much larger and more abstract questions about the connections (if any) between aesthetics and morality, and these questions lead straightaway into such deep and treacherous waters that it’s probably best to stop the public discussion right here. There are limits to what even interested persons can ask of each other.")

-In writing about why he truly wrote fiction, he said, "These moments appeared in proof-completions, or maybe algorithms. Or like a gorgeously simple solution you suddenly see after filling half a notebook with gnarly attempted solutions. It was really an experience of what I think Yeats called 'the click of a well-made box.' The word I always think of it as is 'click.'...It was real lucky that just when I stopped being able to get the click from math logic I started to be able to get it from fiction."
That part about searching for "gorgeously simple solutions" doesn't sound like the motivation of a Fi user.

-Eschaton, the centerpiece of Infinite Jest, is an exploration of whether the physical world affects imagined frameworks. This isn't an Fi concern.

There are other reasons, but I don't care enough to look now. Regardless, we agree he's Ne/Si.

I'm still waiting for you to point me to your idea of an ILE writer.