Types of Philosophers

[Logos]

Socrates seems to be accepted as an INTp. But what about the other ancient Greek philosophers?

Plato: a bore according to Nietzsche, but student of Socrates and teacher of Aristotle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato

Aristotle: "the Philosopher"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle

Pyrrho: founder of the the school of Skepticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrho

Antisthenes: founder of the school of Cynicism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisthenes

Zeno: founder of the school of Stoicism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno_of_Citium

Epicurus: founder of the school of Epicureanism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus

Protagoras: "man is the measure of all things"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras

Xenophanes: epistemology & criticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophanes

[consentingadult]

Jung's Psychological Types opens with a quote of Heinrich Heine: "Plato and Aristotle!"

Heine considers Plato and his followers feelers and mystics (NF?) and Aristotle and his advocates are said to be the constructors of systems (NT?).

I'd say, based on what I read: Plato INFj, Aristotle INTj.

[science as magic]

aristotle is up the ass

[Logos]

How so?

[FDG]

Socrates seems to be accepted as an INTp. But what about the other ancient Greek philosophers?

Plato: a bore according to Nietzsche, but student of Socrates and teacher of Aristotle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato

I think he was INTj, or INFp

Aristotle: "the Philosopher"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle

This ones' not easy. I've seen ISTj, INTp Te subtype.

Epicurus: founder of the school of Epicureanism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus

ENTp, ESFp

Protagoras: "man is the measure of all things"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras

ENTj?

[Jonathan]

What makes people think Plato's NF? (Just curious.)

[consentingadult]

What makes people think Plato's NF? (Just curious.)

Subjective mysticism, denial of the One Reality. Most of Western history has been a clash between Plato's mysticism and Aristotle's logic. Plato=Dark Ages (Augustine), Aristotle=Renaissance and Beyond (Aquinas). Sooner or later, we're bound to fall back into a Dark Age era when Aristotle's philosophy (which is currently dominating Western culture, i.e. it has the upper hand) is overtrown in some way by Plato's.

God forbid that I ever come into power

[Expat]

aristotle is up the ass

Because he was an empiricist? But he was also keen on putting things into a system.

[consentingadult]

aristotle is up the ass

Because he was an empiricist? But he was also keen on putting things into a system.

I concur: in fact, building systems is what Aristotle is all about, it not just empirical, but also logical induction.

[Rocky]

Empirisicm could also be S.

[oyburger]

Empirisicm could also be S.

This is funny.

My husband accuses me of being an empiricist (I'll agree) and he can't stand empiricism, however, he's so S its not funny.

[consentingadult]

Empirisicm could also be S.

Indeed, but S-empiricism is about "factual experience" and not so much about "speculative explanations".

[mikemex]

Men... that was a great society, ruled by intuitives as it should be. Abstract matters interest intuitives, not sensorials.

Epicurus... wow, I can't belive it's obvious for you that he was ENFp. The epytome of ENFp, it seems to me.

Trying to teach the "ultimate truth" about life meaning.... ah? Isn't it a typical humanitarian trait?

He was pretty gregarious (E)... one of his teachings was that life is about friends... huh... ENFp...

He allowed women to enter his circle (!)... a huge leap for the greek society.

And, like any good a respectable ENFp, he tried to back his statements with science... and made a mistake in judgement.

ENFp in all it's glory.

[science as magic]

interesting take on aristotle. i shall use this occasion to absorb rather than speak

[Rocky]

@oyburger:

@consentingadult: how is "speculative explainations" 'empirical'? That seems to be a judging function if anything, and not so much experiental.

@mike: yes, it is true that Intuition is the abstract perceiving function, however, Thinking is the abstract judging function. This includes things like math, science, etc... that can all be explained through Thinking, and is the reason that STs are often driven to these areas. Intuition is a "different" kind of abstract then what Thinking is.

[mikemex]

Nope, I think you are wrong. Judging functions are neutral. It is the perceiving-judging pair which gives it an orientation.

Sensory logicals do not (generally speaking of course) think abstractly. They see mathematics and such as a tool to get into something concise.

It is true that mathematics and such are abstract, but so are love, trust and other ethical concepts. An ENFp, like it has been stated in many places, can think logically and be succesful about it, not only ethically.

In fact, in the studies I've read, ENFp is the brightest personality of all types, and is more versatile than any other too. I wouldn't be surprised if many figures in history were ENFp and they masked themselves as other types.

[FDG]

In fact, in the studies I've read, ENFp is the brightest personality of all types, and is more versatile than any other too.

What about the longest penis?

[Rocky]

Sensory logicals do not (generally speaking of course) think abstractly. They see mathematics and such as a tool to get into something concise.

Now I think you're wrong.

It is true that mathematics and such are abstract, but so are love, trust and other ethical concepts.

Exactly!!

Here you are showing that there are still more 'abstract' concepts, like morals and love which are tied to a judging function; Feeling. Similarly, the concepts of logical systems and mathematics are tied to the Thinking functions. I hope you realize that when STs are using their Thinking function they lose contact with their Sensing (unless they're doing a real good job of balancing the two out). Detail on this forum made fun of me for relying on a sort of "abstract mathematical model" or something, which is a problem that happens when you use the Thinking function too much; models, numbers, statistics, math- these are all thing that are stressed when you use Thinking too much, and it obviously pulls you away from the Sensing reality. I just wish you could see this.

An ENFp, like it has been stated in many places, can think logically and be succesful about it, not only ethically.

Ummm... ok, sure...

In fact, in the studies I've read, ENFp is the brightest personality of all types, and is more versatile than any other too. I wouldn't be surprised if many figures in history were ENFp and they masked themselves as other types.

I have no idea what this has to do with the conversation.

[mikemex]

@mike: yes, it is true that Intuition is the abstract perceiving function, however, Thinking is the abstract judging function. This includes things like math, science, etc... that can all be explained through Thinking, and is the reason that STs are often driven to these areas. Intuition is a "different" kind of abstract then what Thinking is.

Sorry, I tought you said that a Feeler couldn't handle such matters, but it seems that I made a mistake.

[Dioklecian]

Accorfing to Socionics INTPs are "the philosophers", is the reverse true? Could you say that Philosophy is INTP?

Keep in mind that:
Socrates is INFP
Plato is INTJ
Nietzsche is ENTJ
John Lock is ISTP

(all in my humble opinion of course

[Dioklecian]

Type the people listed in this website, if possible:

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~phildept/faculty.html

This in particular:

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~phildept/godfrey-smith.html

[Phaedrus]

Accorfing to Socionics INTPs are "the philosophers"

Where have you read that? Actually I think many philosophers are INTps, but we often hear that philosophy is an INTj domain.

Could you say that Philosophy is INTP?

In a sense, yes, but that could mean many things.

Socrates is INFP

Very unlikely.

Plato is INTJ

Very unlikely.

Nietzsche is ENTJ

Definitely not.

John Lock is ISTP

Probably not.

(all in my humble opinion of course

Based on what?

[aestrivex]

wrong on every count, dio.

congratulations.

[Dioklecian]

wrong on every count, dio.

congratulations.

By the way, I found your tupe. It will cost you 200 bucks though

[aestrivex]

dio, whatever type you have picked for me has a greater chance of being my conflictor than my actual type.

[Dioklecian]

dio, whatever type you have picked for me has a greater chance of being my conflictor than my actual type.

Maybe you should use it in reverse then, but its' still 200

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I think the Greek schools of philosophy were INTp (as a general vibe) - they believed the Earth had existed since the dawn of time and was at the centre, and backed such assertations with principles such as 'If I drop a stone and it falls straight down, the Earth can't be orbiting anything (not moving horizontally) - it must be the centre of the universe'). They believed the Earth and the gods were eternal, and humans were the active, but mortal explorers of this (e.g. Prometheus, who stole fire from the gods ).

Though, of course there were exceptions, such as Protagoras, who believed 'man is the measure of all things', and Aristarchus determined the Sun was the centre of the universe (the Pythagoreans too, but due to belief, not evidence.

The Cynics doubted that anything could be known, but this isn't necessarily a move away from INTpness, just the futility in believing in immortality\mortality or anything else, in fact .

Later philosophers in the enlightenment, seem to be, 'hang on, this shit ain't right' and took more of a scientific approach, which might be more ENTp. But philosophers such as Kierkegaard seem to doubt the ability of humans to truly know the value of anything, so this seems a continuation of Greek thought.

(All this is overly simplified, and the general 'vibe' I get doesn't look into typing individual philosophers).

[Logos]

Later philosophers in the enlightenment, seem to be, 'hang on, this shit ain't right' and took more of a scientific approach, which might be more ENTp.

Just to let you know, once Phaedrus sees that little bit, he will assert that these later philosophers could not be ENTp or INTj, since he believes that science (and a good number of philosophers) are the sole domain of Gamma .

I do think that as far as Greek philosophy schools go, stoicism is probably Alpha NT and Delta NF.

From Wikipedia.org:

[Stoicism] teaches that self-control, fortitude and detachment from distracting emotions, sometimes interpreted as an indifference to pleasure or pain, allows one to become a clear thinker, level-headed and unbiased. A primary aspect of Stoicism would be described as improving the individual’s spiritual well-being. Virtue, reason, and natural law are prime directives. By mastering passions and emotions, Stoics believe it is possible to overcome the discord of the outside world and find peace within oneself. Stoicism holds that passion distorts truth, and that the pursuit of truth is virtuous.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

To me, Enlightenment philosophers in in general sought to get away with ideas such as the Earth always being there, history repeat itself, humans being at the mercy of the immortals etc. - they broke this circular view of time and explainations such as infinite regression - things existing for their own sake. They preferred to build up proofs from what they saw, i.e. inductionist type reasoning, and where things couldn't be explained from empirical truths due to our mortality or due to the discussion of (subjective) moral issues, was used to ponder the best explainations - e.g. 'if we are mortal and imperfect, we cannot be expected to be perfect, but if we are perfect, then....'.

The earlier philosophers (and some later ones) sought to say 'here are some universal truths, you cannot explore them, as they are outside human experience, but they are true' - this seems more INTp to me.

(I am over-generalising some what).

[Logos]

Well, it does seem to be that INTjs do possess amongst their numbers two thinkers who represent the beginning and end of an era: Rene Descartes and Immanuel Kant. Descartes was seen as the beginning of the rational movement and the precursor to the Enlightenment, while Kant is considered to be the last of the great Enlightenment thinkers.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I was talking about the vibe in general, not particular type of philosophers.

Rene Descartes said the only thing you could be certain of was your capacity to think, and only in that moment could you be certain of that thought. And yet, by some bizarre proofs, this led him to the conclusion that god exists. Even niffweed's siggy makes a more convincing argument than his. So philosophers may not even be consistent.

Descartes could count as a empiricist philosopher in a way - you can't be certain of anything, but the only way you can live your life is to follow empirical truths (that might sound like weird reasoning on my part - but both empiricism and Descartes sought an end to universal truths, if only because the universal truths determined by Descartes would have meant certain death if he had followed them ).

[Phaedrus]

Later philosophers in the enlightenment, seem to be, 'hang on, this shit ain't right' and took more of a scientific approach, which might be more ENTp.

Just to let you know, once Phaedrus sees that little bit, he will assert that these later philosophers could not be ENTp or INTj, since he believes that science (and a good number of philosophers) are the sole domain of Gamma .

I did see that little bit before you posted your reply, and I was thinking about asking what type(s) (if any) you would think is most inclined to adopt a typical scientific attitude. I think that the scientific attitude is most clearly seen in ENTjs, for example in Bertrand Russell and Karl Popper. I am less certain about ENTps, INTjs, and INTps, but I really think that the scientific approach is most closely linked to the function. If that is true, Gamma would be more typically "scientific" (in a generally "postitivistic" sense in contrast to a more "hermeneutic" attitude, which I would think INTjs and some other types are more inclined to adopt). But I have also observed a typcially positivistic scientific approach in, for example, ISTjs and probably in some ENTps too. Most of the INTjs I know have an approach to science that is more or less influence by a "subjective", hermeneutic perspective, and some of them are relativists in a way that is alien to me.

I do think that as far as Greek philosophy schools go, stoicism is probably Alpha NT and Delta NF.

I am very much a stoicist and a cynic myself, so what you say here is interesting. I would think that INTps have a stoic, cynical attitude more often than INTjs and ENTps, but please argue against that if you think otherwise.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

When INTjs such as myself are relativists, its typically because they base their knowledge on what they know - it seems bizarre that INTps can be objective + universal about laws they can't experience or measure .

[science as magic]

Dear Hugo #2,

Please take into consideration that you are intj.

Sincerely,

Your friendly neighborhood moderator

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Dear Hugo #2,

Please take into consideration that you are intj.

Sincerely,

Your friendly neighborhood moderator

?

[science as magic]

That was for the author of this thread.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Ahh, for a minute, I thought you had put me in the place of resident stalker.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

is a practical knowledge, rather than an observational one - they say what Karl Popper might have said (wikipedia ):

Among his contributions to philosophy is his answer to David Hume's Problem of Induction. Hume stated that just because the sun has risen every day for as long as anyone can remember, doesn't mean that there is any rational reason to believe it will come up tomorrow. There is no rational way to prove that a pattern will continue on just because it has before. Popper's reply is characteristic, and ties in with his criterion of falsifiability. He states that while there is no way to prove that the sun will come up, we can theorize that it will. If it does not come up, then it will be disproven, but since right now it seems to be consistent with our theory, the theory is not disproven

seems to be about practical falsifiability - following the current train of thought until it is proved false. Cynicism has a similar approach - if things can only be disproved, then we can never be certain of anything. ( seems very all or nothing, and yet seems more practical than 'relativist' INTjs ).

would build from the ground-upwards through observations and assume these to be true until something contradicts their general observations.

[Phaedrus]

When INTjs such as myself are relativists, its typically because they base their knowledge on what they know - it seems bizarre that INTps can be objective + universal about laws they can't experience or measure .

But you agree to call yourself a relativist then? It's perfectly in line with my own observations that an INTj would say what you just said -- that you base your "knowledge on what you know". That seems to be the same phenomenon I have been talking about more than once on this forum -- that INTjs don't want to make a clear distinction between the two concepts truth and knowledge, whereas I think that is of paramount importance. It is rather irrelevant whether INTps and ENTjs really are more objective than INTjs or not. My point is that they want to be objective, and that they think that it is possible, in principle, to be objective, and that objectivity is something to strive for, and that INTjs usually don't share that same attitude towards these things. I don't deny that the INTp attitude may look bizarre or even ridiculous in the eyes of an INTj. That doesn't bother me too much. But if we could reach a consensus on how to describe the differences in attitude between the types, that would be a great accomplishment.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Yes, I would consider myself a relativist - but I still feel I have a better understanding of the universe than a INTp would . To call things objective + universal without proof seems like a lie than a truth, whereas basing worldviews on observations from the bottom-upwards (through induction) seems to be the only way of establishing 'truths' - the 'truths' are true until they proven false. To me, a INTp cannot claim to have objective truths because they also claim to be part of the same universe, and not an outside observer, so meh. Knowledge (through observation) is truth to me. INTps seem to think knowledge is the same as the universal 'truths' of the universe - and yet their views on what a universal truth changes with more scientific observations, and so you can never be sure knowledge = universal truth. INTps may say that current knowledge = understanding of universal truths at the present time, but the very fact it accepted knowledge changes means such an assertation cannot be made (universal truths are true regardless of the moment).

(I'm not sure this a fair reflection - I think I made INTps look like complete idiots somewhere ).

EDIT:
Relativists = 'all truths come thorugh knowledge, therefore knowledge = truth'
Objectivists = 'truth is greater than knowledge, therefore truth > knowledge'