Types of Philosophers

[Logos]

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.

And let me guess, you also adhere to the skeptic school as well? So you are a stoic, a cynic, and a skeptic? Three conflicting schools of thought which all belong to the INTps? The Socratic school? INTps. The Aristotelian school? INTp. The Platonic school? INTp. Phaedrus, your reasoning always seems to leave all other quadras philosopher-less. So let's hear it Phaedrus, which (if any) Greek schools of philosophy would you associate with the other three quadras?

May I ask why you think stoicism is somehow inherently more Gamma NT? I believe that stoicism deals with primarily with trying to maintain in moderation, acknowledging the different possibilities and viewpoints of others through while doing this through reason in the form of either and . This would point to Alpha and Delta quadra.

On Relativism: Alpha NTs definitely have their relativists, but that does not mean that somehow relativists only belong to the Alpha NTs. I am sure that there are relativists even among the Gamma NTs. I mean I would hardly call Immanuel Kant a relativist. Instead, I think perhaps Alpha NTs should be called generalists.

[Phaedrus]

And let me guess, you also adhere to the skeptic school as well? So you are a stoic, a cynic, and a skeptic? Three conflicting schools of thought which all belong to the INTps? The Socratic school? INTps. The Aristotelian school? INTp. The Platonic school? INTp. Phaedrus, your reasoning always seems to leave all other quadras philosopher-less. So let's hear it Phaedrus, which (if any) Greek schools of philosophy would you associate with the other three quadras?

I will adress that question in a moment. But first I'd like to say that I agree with Subterranean on this:

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

That is a good way of pinpointing the main difference between the INTj (subjectivist) and the INTp/ENTj (objectivist) perspective, and it can be clearly seen in the writings of various philosophers and scientists. Here are some clear examples:

"Relativists": Michael Dummett, Luitzen Brouwer, Richard Rorty, Niels Bohr, Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend

"Objectivists": Karl Popper, Bertrand Russell, Albert Einstein, Kurt Gödel, Thomas Nagel, Saul Kripke

Now back to your question. I haven't formed any clear opinion on all the quadras and their associations with different schools of philosophy. I am still trying to make sense of the distinction between the two very general trends I think can be seen between "relativists" and "objectivists". Socrates and Plato would of course be objectivists in that grouping, whrereas Protagoras and the sophists are representatives of the relativist attitude.

May I ask why you think stoicism is somehow inherently more Gamma NT? I believe that stoicism deals with primarily with trying to maintain in moderation, acknowledging the different possibilities and viewpoints of others through while doing this through reason in the form of either and . This would point to Alpha and Delta quadra.

I am not wholehartedly a stoic, cynic, or skeptic in a philosophical sense, but all those three schools captures something typical of my temperament and attitude towards life. None of that is relevant to other Gammas, for example ENTjs, since I think a cynical attitude is more linked to an IP temperament. If we compare stoicism with cynicism, I am probably more of a cynic, but I share the tendency to resignation with both. I have also said on this forum that I think that Taoism is an expression of an attitude that has clear similarities with stoicism, skepticism, and especially cynicism. Taoism is also clearly linked to the IP temperament, and the INTp (at least the intuitive subtype) is in a sense the socionic type that is closest to Taoism in spirit.

On Relativism: Alpha NTs definitely have their relativists, but that does not mean that somehow relativists only belong to the Alpha NTs. I am sure that there are relativists even among the Gamma NTs.

Yes, I don't dispute that. But I have never met an ENTj relativist, and I can't think of any ENTj philosopher or scientist that is a relativist. Maybe there is.

I mean I would hardly call Immanuel Kant a relativist. Instead, I think perhaps Alpha NTs should be called generalists.

Kant is not a clear example of a relativist, but he is still a relativist (subjectivist) in my groupings. Kant's philosophy focuses on the limitations of human knowledge. The human (subjective) perspective is its starting point. The continental tradition in philosophy, which in general show clear relativistic tendencies, is also very much an attempt to build from a Kantian foundation. The analytic tradition in philosophy can be traced back to Hume, and many socionists believe that Kant was an INTj and Hume an INTp.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "generalist". Extraverted thinking in Jung's sense is (among other things) about coming to general conclusions, formulating general ideas out of a huge mass of empirical data. Introverted thinking in Jung's sense is about developing the logical consequences of a subjective idea. Socionics doesn't contradict Jung on that. So, in what sense are Alpha NTs generalists in way that Gamma NTs are not?

[felafel]

i clicked on some university's philosophy department's website. there was a link on the left saying:"employment prospects". i clicked onit being certain that it would simply say"none"

[Logos]

I'm not sure what you mean by a "generalist". Extraverted thinking in Jung's sense is (among other things) about coming to general conclusions, formulating general ideas out of a huge mass of empirical data. Introverted thinking in Jung's sense is about developing the logical consequences of a subjective idea. Socionics doesn't contradict Jung on that. So, in what sense are Alpha NTs generalists in way that Gamma NTs are not?

I do not get this. I recall you calling Alpha NTs generalists due to their tendencies to generalize data (as in skipping over the details) in order to formulate universal ideas. And how you are saying that generalization is Gamma NT? Great. But at least I now know that the dichotomy is the Alpha NTs (relativists) and the Gamma NTs (empiricism, generalists, and everything else that pertains to knowledge and truth).

[FDG]

I'm not sure what you mean by a "generalist". Extraverted thinking in Jung's sense is (among other things) about coming to general conclusions, formulating general ideas out of a huge mass of empirical data. Introverted thinking in Jung's sense is about developing the logical consequences of a subjective idea. Socionics doesn't contradict Jung on that. So, in what sense are Alpha NTs generalists in way that Gamma NTs are not?

I do not get this. I recall you calling Alpha NTs generalists due to their tendencies to generalize data (as in skipping over the details) in order to formulate universal ideas. And how you are saying that generalization is Gamma NT? Great. But at least I now know that the dichotomy is the Alpha NTs (relativists) and the Gamma NTs (empiricism, generalists, and everything else that pertains to knowledge and truth).

Well basically he just thinks gammas are better or, more precisely, every group he identifies with is better.

[Phaedrus]

I do not get this.

Neither do I. Are we talking about the same thing? I'm not sure.

I recall you calling Alpha NTs generalists due to their tendencies to generalize data (as in skipping over the details) in order to formulate universal ideas.

I don't recall having said that. Aren't you confusing me with someone else?

And how [now?] you are saying that generalization is Gamma NT?

The thought of the extraverted thinking type is, positive, i.e. it produces. It either leads to new facts or to general conceptions of disparate experimental material. Its judgment is generally synthetic. Even when it analyses, it constructs, because it is always advancing beyond the, analysis to a new combination, a further conception which reunites the analysed material in a new way or adds some., thing further to the given material.

There is also, however -- and now I come to the question of the introverted intellect -- an entirely different kind of thinking, to which the term I "thinking" can hardly be denied: it is a kind that is neither orientated by the immediate objective experience nor is it concerned with general and objectively derived ideas. [...]

Whenever the chief value is given to the subjective process, that other kind of thinking arises which stands opposed to extraverted thinking, namely, that purely subjective orientation of thought which I have termed introverted. A thinking arises from this other orientation that is neither determined by objective facts nor directed towards objective data -- a thinking, therefore, that proceeds from subjective data and is directed towards subjective ideas or facts of a subjective character.

But at least I now know that the dichotomy is the Alpha NTs (relativists) and the Gamma NTs (empiricism, generalists, and everything else that pertains to knowledge and truth).

According to Jung, Extraverted thinking and Introverted thinking will always tend to misunderstand each other and see the creations of the other as having less worth. But in Psychological Types Jung explains rather clearly why we don't understand each other in full. I recommend reading the chapters on Extraverted thinking and Introverted thinking many times. I think he is right about what he says there, and yet he clearly favours Introverted thinking over Extraverted thinking.

Well basically he just thinks gammas are better or, more precisely, every group he identifies with is better.

Every quadra is better than the others at something, and I don't have any special disagreement with the official socionic descriptions of the differences. Alpha is clearly better at generating new ideas than Gamma. Gamma is better at finding flaws in the ideas coming from Alpha. Each quadra and each type has its own special role to play. If we all do what we are best at, we can accomplish more together.

[Not A Communist Shill]

+ start from different points, but can make similar conclusions (though some are quite different). Also, particular schools of philosophy aren't going to have people of the same type anyway.

goes from 'I think, therefore I am' - if a type can be certain of anything, it is when it makes a thought about something at a given moment, that thought is genuine, even if nothing else is. From there, types build a framework of knowledge on this, which they hold to be more valid than anything else (otherwise it is replaced).

seems to be 'the universe is here, therefore I also possibly exist'. So, types see themselves as a small cog in the running of the universe - they see everything as predetermined by 'universal' laws - the individual is a minor part in this.

types see nothing as truly knowable outside their own experience - while INTps are limited by universal laws, INTjs are limited by local\internal laws.

Both INTps + INTjs can become convince of an idea (become religious etc.), but for different reasons. INTjs might see a supreme being as the only possible cause of their internal, personal thinking, whereas INTps might consider that laws as universal as the universe itself could only have been created by a supreme being. So both types can be 'delusional'. But INTps can seem like 'mystics' because they attempt to go locally experienced rules (or laws) to find the universal laws outside human experience - they go into the void. The universal laws, being universal must exist - but are not necessarily observable by mere mortals etc. etc.

[Phaedrus]

+ start from different points, but can make similar conclusions (though some are quite different). Also, particular schools of philosophy aren't going to have people of the same type anyway.

Agreed.

goes from 'I think, therefore I am' - if a type can be certain of anything, it is when it makes a thought about something at a given moment, that thought is genuine, even if nothing else is.

I'm not sure this will make us able to distinguish between LIIs and ILIs. I think that ILIs can be absolutely certain of some things at a given moment, and Descartes is one of the persons that may have been mistyped by socionists. He had a mechanistic, deterministic view of the universe and saw humans as objects (machines) rather than subjects (acting agents). The soul with free will was rather passive in his perspective. I haven't analysed Descartes' style of writing much, but I think it is quite possible that he was an ILI rather than a LII (which also makes slightly more sense on V.I., I think). Kant on the other hand was definitely a LII.

From there, types build a framework of knowledge on this, which they hold to be more valid than anything else (otherwise it is replaced).

I agree with the building of a framework of knowledge if by that we mean the same thing as building a system "bottom-up" -- starting with a subjective idea (premise) and see where it leads to. As I understand it, ILIs instead take in as many perspectives (theories, hypotheses, theses ...) as possible from outside sources and after that try to make sense of them. I think the puzzle analogy is good; in a rather random, unsystematic, "holistic" way I try to see if I can make the pieces fit together. In that process I might (and hopfully will) eventually end up with some basic premise (principle) like the one Descartes ended up with.

seems to be 'the universe is here, therefore I also possibly exist'. So, types see themselves as a small cog in the running of the universe - they see everything as predetermined by 'universal' laws - the individual is a minor part in this.

Yes, that's good. At least I agree with that.

types see nothing as truly knowable outside their own experience - while INTps are limited by universal laws, INTjs are limited by local\internal laws.

I agree with that too. That fits perfectly in my view on different philosophers and philosophies.

Both INTps + INTjs can become convince of an idea (become religious etc.), but for different reasons. INTjs might see a supreme being as the only possible cause of their internal, personal thinking, whereas INTps might consider that laws as universal as the universe itself could only have been created by a supreme being. So both types can be 'delusional'. But INTps can seem like 'mystics' because they attempt to go locally experienced rules (or laws) to find the universal laws outside human experience - they go into the void. The universal laws, being universal must exist - but are not necessarily observable by mere mortals etc. etc.

You may be right about this, but I don't know how to determine it, and I have no clear opinion on it. Personally I am almost fanatically against all religions that include a belief in supernatural beings. Some "religions", like Taoism, are not based on that, and therefore they may be somewhat excused, but I don't consider classical Taoism to be a religion in the strict sense of the word.

[Not A Communist Shill]

That last bit was about how INTps\INTjs could be religiously 'non-religious' too, if you see what I mean . (It was about the different ways they defend their ideas that they hold dear).

[Phaedrus]

That last bit was about how INTps\INTjs could be religiously 'non-religious' too, if you see what I mean . (It was about the different ways they defend their ideas that they hold dear).

I think I know what you mean (roughly), but how do we determine for what reasons INTjs and INTps become religious? I know that some people, especially theologians and other religious people, see my anti-religious attitude as "religious" and similar to a fundamentalist attitude, but I don't really buy their way of describing our differences, because that would give them a legitimacy I am not willing to grant them. They want to explain our differences relativistically -- that my negative attitude towards religion is nothing but a belief too. As I see it, they want to impose their relativism on everything (including my non-relativism) so that they become immune to serious critique. Maybe INTjs have less trouble accepting the kind of "language game" that religious people prefer to play.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I think they might hold a 'hidden value' which they just know is right - if you have no keystone at your centre holding everything up, it all falls apart. So when challenged, there is nothing which can disprove what they hold central to them - e.g. I might doubt my existence but I know my thoughts are real regardless of existence - if someone tells me they are certain of something when I myself aren't certain of the credibility of the new position, I can (sometimes ) defend my position doggedly, regarding it as better simply because I hold it - therefore its more likely to be true.

[FDG]

That last bit was about how INTps\INTjs could be religiously 'non-religious' too, if you see what I mean . (It was about the different ways they defend their ideas that they hold dear).

I think I know what you mean (roughly), but how do we determine for what reasons INTjs and INTps become religious? I know that some people, especially theologians and other religious people, see my anti-religious attitude as "religious" and similar to a fundamentalist attitude, but I don't really buy their way of describing our differences, because that would give them a legitimacy I am not willing to grant them. They want to explain our differences relativistically -- that my negative attitude towards religion is nothing but a belief too. As I see it, they want to impose their relativism on everything (including my non-relativism) so that they become immune to serious critique. Maybe INTjs have less trouble accepting the kind of "language game" that religious people prefer to play.

That thing they say is completely illogical, I agree with you. They say that no decision is equal to making a decision, which is of course false: if somebody remains neutral in a war, that doesn't mean that he/she supports the party that is winning, for example.

[Dioklecian]

That was for the author of this thread.

Ohhoo wait a minute, please put this in my type thread please

Plus I am no stalker, what the hell, I might be brush, but that is no reason to compare me to Hugo. Plus I don't think Hugo was that bad, I never had any trouble with him.

[Dioklecian]

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.

I would agree with your statements.

[Dioklecian]

Come on guys, lets' get at the bottom of this: INTP it is then?

[tcaudilllg]

Reviving this thread from the DEAD!!!!

I think that Aristotle was an LII. I really do. He has a great hedonism about him, and we've associated that pretty concretely with Alpha quadra.

[silverchris9]

I've typed Aristotle as LII although I'm still seriously considering a suggestion of LSI.

I'm dissenting from the common opinion and typing Socrates as the IEI and Plato as the ILI. At least in the Symposium (where Alcibiades is his SLE dual), Plato is manifestly IEI, because there's no way he's Fe-polr. Really in the Republic too. The only thing is that Plato's everybody-in-your-place system in The Republic seems beta, but then, it was not really serious, and may even have been somewhat sarcastic; it only mattered as an image of the soul. Also, Plato was WAY into math and geometry, that may be some evidence for Te-valuing...?

[Creepy-male]

Epicureanism itself at least sounds very Si. It's hedonism, yes, but pleasure is seen as a lack of pain, which is achieved through temperance and lack of indulging now and creating a void later (which is a source of pain). This is how Si bases view the world, where Se bases would go for the rampant indulgence and consumption for its own sake (think Marlon Brando or Robbie Williams; also recall that Se base implies Si ignoring and vice-versa).

I'm not sure if this is necessarily useful for typing Epicurus himself, though, or even whether I'm just typing what about Epicureanism makes sense to me.

[thePirate]

epicureism = enneagram 7 philosophy?

[crazedrat]

Also, Plato was WAY into math and geometry, that may be some evidence for Te-valuing...?

it's not.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I think LSI for Aristotle at the moment. He was keen on systemising and recording things, and while he developed theories, he tended to be an 'earthy' sort of person.

(a rather brief summary)

[SkoteinosHoEleisos]

Those generalities are not in any way disconnected from what they generalise nor are they negating of experience. What occurs is simply, details, all details are considered, as is the manner in which they link up and all this is experienced and takes experience into consideration. The result? Dichotomies. A general image and details at the fingertips. An ultimate truth, a theory of how it all works together and mundane truths, each individual pattern. Dreams and reveries and inaccessible realms and individual experience of their conceptions and other things. Perfect ideal forms and the manner in which they're distorted. It's not a forest for the trees scenario, it's a forest and the trees one. Just to be clear

The image remains fairly constant in light of new evidence but as change is assured, so too is the image's being altered, therefore, it is possible to fly without plummeting, to soar without plunging, to move unattached. Fear is the first and only poison. Once it's overcome, there's nothing to trammel the individual.

[Metamorph]

All philosophers are LII. This is simply an indisputable fact. If you try to dispute it, you're not really disputing it. If you think philosophers are a type besides LII, you are incorrect. Take Friedrich von Schiller. He is a very popular and hip philosopher to read if you go to one of America's hundreds of very prestigious universities. His type was given as LII by St. Carl Gustav von Jung, our founder of Socionics™ (peace be upon him.) It is true that Goethe's type was given as EIE, but as we know Goethe was not a real philosopher, or poet, or playright, or painter, or scientist, and as a matter of fact, what Goethe was a real thing of except for an actual demigod and Uberdriver is up for debate, so we can continue hating ****** by giving him the same type without being Germophobic. Oh, and the guy who made the Sorcerer's Stone (I don't buy that it was the "Philosopher's Stone" even if the guy who made it was a dumb philosopher and not a real scientist as evidenced by his lack of ability to produce it) was probably the same type as Jung, but then that was LII except for all the people who think it had to be IEI because all our holy people are IEI and that's a fact, even if they make a Sorcerer's Stone like St. Carl founder of Socionics™ (peace be upon him.)

[para]

Plato is perhaps IEI. Ni lead in mental pure perception of is-ness or true form of things, his view of the fate of the good/bad person, ordering of the 'Republic' and as the macrocosm of the soul seems Ti+Ni (and high Ne). Dialogue form seems Fe valuing, preferring dramatism, human workings and interaction to show truth instead of more detached, ''lonesome'' thoughts. Seems Aristocratic.

Socrates seems ILX, and there's no way he's Fe PoLR, although that might just be the influence (or creation) of Plato.

[khcs]

Aristotle - INTJ - Robespierre

pnl.jpg

[idiot]

Aristotle is (with 100% certainty) LII. I don't see how any LIE could be a philosopher.

He did a lot of concrete work, but look also at his other works like Categories or Metaphysics. One thing that is consistent, in both practical and abstract works, is his obsession with making systems and grouping objects with similarities. I could maybe see a logical sensing type but I find it highly unlikely due to the abstract nature of a lot of his works.

Plato is harder to tell, but I don't view his works as belonging to an ethical intuitive. I think his speculations and imagery is from Ni. I think he is ILI, and their relationship as that of quasi identicals.
In particular, it's hard for me to believe ANY Fe ego type could lock themselves into confinement for so long. His works also seem to follow a logical structure. This could of course be the result of Socrates rather than Plato himself (if Plato simply copied what Socrates said, which is considered unlikely by a lot of scholars). But I personally find his dialogues to follow a recursive nature, in that he thought of the logical points first, and then converted it into a story. I don't think his story telling is the primary focus of the dialogues, as would be the case if he was indeed an IEI.

Reinin dichotomies are mostly bullshit, so I don't care if they are "aristocratic". By that logic, most people of that era would be aristocratic types, even though Athens was considered the most democratic of the Greeks.

[misanthropex6]

Diogenes was probably an SLE. Very stubborn, sacrificed his own comfort to prove a point, one of the fathers of cynicism, one of the most memorable shall we say, fairly because of his described personality more than his actual concepts as a philosopher. Also embraced conflict, he seemed rather disappointed if people agreed with him, antagonistic to the extreme. Some say SLI but the dude was completely SLE from what we can tell, impossible for him to have been a Si base, fuck that.