all right, so you admit you were wrong in saying jung was anything other than ILI. let's continue on to something else.Originally Posted by Winterpark
all right, so you admit you were wrong in saying jung was anything other than ILI. let's continue on to something else.
Expat! You're next in line!
good, so your lack of negative response indicates that you agree.
Of course I agree with what you wrote before you changed it. Your pathetic behaviour doesn't suit your intelligence. You have the potential to understand the types correctly, but you are not there yet. You understand the ILI type fairly well, but you definitely don't understand the LII.
He understands the LII far better than you miserably do.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
No, you poor fool. You are brainwashed, and it is your own fault.
As you say, Chicken Little.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Phaedrus, allow me to offer form to the nagging voice of "self" inside your head: no, no, no you are wrong. You are wrong before the providence in which you disbelieve. And if we give into you, then we are giving in to that providence's own capacity for disbelief in itself. Because that providence is us.
From VI, I think Jung was the same type as Dick Cheney.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
thanks for that dashing bit of insight there expat
No problem. Thanks for taking it seriously.
so it's settled then; jung was SLE.
ok, so we all agree; Jung was LSI.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
It's been settled once and for all, then; Jung was LSI. What's your favorite love song?
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
so it seems like we can all agree on jung as ILI, then.
all right. we agree; jung was ILI.
Every person who believes that he or she is the same type as Jung is an idiot.
What if the person is an LII? But of course, I suppose for you, the LII would be an idiot not because they believed they were the same type as Jung, but simply because they are LII.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Does one reason exclude the other?What if the person is an LII? But of course, I suppose for you, the LII would be an idiot not because they believed they were the same type as Jung, but simply because they are LII.
No. I was merely pointing out the ridiculous logic present in your irrational and empirically unfounded beliefs.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
No, you were not.
Yes, I was. Your beliefs are irrational. They are not beliefs founded on fact, but on prejudice, bias, and sheer stupidity. You know nothing of the LII.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
i love how people come to type like greeks after reading too much philosophy
Yeah, there's no more doubt that Jung was LSI. Let's move on to something else now.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
You forgot idiocy.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
so we're agreed; jung was ILI.
i concur that jung was ILI and am glad you see things similarly.
Did anyone else immediately recognize him as Jung and find it hilarious for some reason?
Yes. He was indeed LSI.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Yeah, he was definitely LSI. Do you like enchiladas?
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
i concur; ILI it is.
so it's settled; jung was ILI.
VI aside, what are the arguments for either type?
Let's start with LII, because labcoat appears to be questioning his earlier assessment. (this in a PM I received). What are the arguments for LII precisely?
all right; so we're all in agreement on jung as ILI then, and anybody who says otherwise retracts their argument.
Yes. LSI it is.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Same as you, I think it's clear that he is LSI.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
I agree whole-heartedly - he is IEI.
4w3-5w6-8w7
The most important parts of my #199 once again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterpark
Jung's knowledge came from his real life observations and experiences rather than from his intuition and imagination.
Jung's knowledge came from his real life observations and experiences. His superstitions and esoteric interpretations of his experiences came from his intuition and imagination judged by his subjective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterpark
He liked to travel around the world and learn from his experiences and his observations of the human nature instead of learning from books, which is the type of learning he disliked and clearly understated with his own words.
Yes, and which type is most prone to learn from books of all the types? In case you don't know the answer I can tell you that it is the ILI. Nothing you describe here suggests that Jung was not an LII, and his behaviour shows a dislike for facts and
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterpark
He had great observation skills and an empirical approach to his work.
Jung has commented on this aspect of his work, and the problem is discussed in a Swedish book on how to read Jung, written by Kurt Almqvist. In his debate with Martin Buber in the 1950s Jung asked rhetorically why no one called him an empiricist. And Jung claimed on various occasions during his lifetime that he was an empircist scientist. It seemed to be a theme of great importance to him, and yet very few outside the close circle of his disciples agreed on the correctness of that self-characterization.
Then Jung's autobiography came in 1962, one year after his death, in which he admitted that his critics had been right, and that he was, in fact, a gnostic mystic of the kind that Buber had accused him of being. Jung said (on page 179 in a Swedish translatied version of his autobiography) that he never departed from his original experiences. All his works, all that he had created, came from the initial imaginations and dream that he started to have in 1912, according to Jung himself. What he describes there (you should read his own words in the book) is unmistakeably Ti.
Jung's thinking has striking similarities with Rudolf Steiner's antroposophy, which is another "theory" that is claimed to be a science by those who practice it. But of course it isn't.
During Jung's lifetime there has been a prolonged and intensive debate through many years about the nature of science and its relation to religion. Volumes have been written on this subject, but the dividing lines are very clear and has never changed.
One camp favours empiricism, naturalism, and an objective, reductionistic science. The other camp criticizes the positivistic approach and often tries to defend religion from the attacks of the inhuman positivists. At the end of the 19:th century Otto Liebmann declared that the only solution was to return to Kant if you wanted to save the humanities as a discipline independent of the natural sciences.
From this clash comes Wilhelm Dilthey's well-known divide between the natural sciences (Naturwissenschaften) that try to explain the phenomena in terms of cause and effect in an externalist, objective perspective, and the human or spiritual sciences (Geisteswissenschaften) that instead of explaining the phenomena try to understand them in a subjective, internalist, interpreting perspective.
The young Jung was clearly influenced by the Neo-Kantian ideas on science. As a student he expressed a strong aversion towards the reductionism of the natural sciences, and claimed that the soul should be viewed as an intelligence independent of time and space.
If we compare Jung with Freud we can see that their ontological assumptions are incompatible. Freud took as his starting point a biologically based, materialistic ontology, whereas Jung had a mentalistic ontology that proclaimed that reality is that which lives in a human soul.
The indisputable and extremely clear pattern in all of this is the same as the one I have talked about on various occasions on this forum. I have tried to explain to all of you what is the truth here, and this is not just an opinion that I happen to have, but, as everyone with a minimum of philosoophical education and brain functions can see, there is only room for one correct interpretation of the material. We know this to be true, and we know it for certain.
Jung was without the slightest of doubt a Subjectivist in the Reinin dichotomies, he was highly influenced by Kant and Neo-Kantianism, he was much more interested in Meaning than in Truth (see my outline of the differences between INTj and INTp philosophy in a post some time ago), and his perspective is typically Ti in every respect. Jung disliked positivism, he was a pronounced anti-naturalist, he had the clearly subject oriented view on mind that is typical of INTjs and separates them from INTps, he was hostile towards reductionism, and he was therefore definitely not an empiricist and had definitely not an empirical approach to his work.
And here's an extremely important part of #162:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
But we are talking of structural logic, which is Ti.
You simply don't understand what is meant by "structural logic" in Socionics. Structural logic (Ti) is not formal logic and it is not conceptual logic. The "structural" part of
"In its most basic form, phenomenology is the study of the consciousness from a first-person perspective, as opposed to, but not exclusive of, a third-person perspective like the neurological perspective. It is the attempt to reflect on pre-reflexive experience to determine certain properties of, or structures in, consciousness."
"It should be clarified right from the start that even though many of the phenomenological methods involve various reductions, phenomenology is essentially anti-reductionistic; the reductions are mere tools to better understand and describe the workings of consciousness, not to reduce any phenomenon to these descriptions."
In these quotes we also see the basic differences between a Subjectivist and an Objectivist perspective beeing outlined. Science is
And together with this from #147 with have almost all the pieces in the puzzle to come to a definite and indisputable conclusion on Jung's type:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
Even in the example of math, it is not that he is bad at math, but that did not accept that algebraic math was logical at all. He found it illogical, but conversely that does not mean that he valued logic, merely that he found a type of math illogical.
It doesn't seem to matter how many times I point this simple fact out to people: Logic is not
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
Many of his works in fact repeatedly devalue the overreliance logic and science in favor of spirituality, balance, and harmony.
Exactly. And that is what
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
This is a devaluing of T elements in general in favor of F elements.
No, it is devaluing Te elements in favour of Ti elements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
But this is also an indication of Delta themes and not Alpha ones.
You fucking moron. How can you misunderstand things so badly? Are you brainwashed by Expat and this forum in general? It certainly seems so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
Jung's work was mostly a sort of spiritually-focused anthropology that incorporated Freud's works. He even wanted to originally be an archaeologist, which is a pursuit of Te concerns. I suppose you, Phaedrus, will take the extreme devaluing of logic and science to indicate that he devalues Gamma, and by Gamma you mean ILI, and by ILI you mean yourself.
Jung devalues
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
But the other statements of Jung's in this thread has shown a greater devaluing of Ti > Te. It instead seems that Jung prefered a more pragmatic and practical use of Te that is closer in line with that of Te blocked with Si found in Delta quadra.
All of this is completely wrong. Your incompetence is overwhelming. I can't stand it.
Hopefully an indisputable LII like tcaudilllg will realize that in light of all this it is obvious that Jung was an LII too and that idiots like Logos and niffweed have no idea what they are talking about.
Wrong. Jung was an ILI. You are a total moron.The most important parts of my #199 once again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterpark
Jung's knowledge came from his real life observations and experiences rather than from his intuition and imagination.
Jung's knowledge came from his real life observations and experiences. His superstitions and esoteric interpretations of his experiences came from his intuition and imagination judged by his subjective
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterpark
He liked to travel around the world and learn from his experiences and his observations of the human nature instead of learning from books, which is the type of learning he disliked and clearly understated with his own words.
Yes, and which type is most prone to learn from books of all the types? In case you don't know the answer I can tell you that it is the ILI. Nothing you describe here suggests that Jung was not an LII, and his behaviour shows a dislike for facts and
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterpark
He had great observation skills and an empirical approach to his work.
Jung has commented on this aspect of his work, and the problem is discussed in a Swedish book on how to read Jung, written by Kurt Almqvist. In his debate with Martin Buber in the 1950s Jung asked rhetorically why no one called him an empiricist. And Jung claimed on various occasions during his lifetime that he was an empircist scientist. It seemed to be a theme of great importance to him, and yet very few outside the close circle of his disciples agreed on the correctness of that self-characterization.
Then Jung's autobiography came in 1962, one year after his death, in which he admitted that his critics had been right, and that he was, in fact, a gnostic mystic of the kind that Buber had accused him of being. Jung said (on page 179 in a Swedish translatied version of his autobiography) that he never departed from his original experiences. All his works, all that he had created, came from the initial imaginations and dream that he started to have in 1912, according to Jung himself. What he describes there (you should read his own words in the book) is unmistakeably Ti.
Jung's thinking has striking similarities with Rudolf Steiner's antroposophy, which is another "theory" that is claimed to be a science by those who practice it. But of course it isn't.
During Jung's lifetime there has been a prolonged and intensive debate through many years about the nature of science and its relation to religion. Volumes have been written on this subject, but the dividing lines are very clear and has never changed.
One camp favours empiricism, naturalism, and an objective, reductionistic science. The other camp criticizes the positivistic approach and often tries to defend religion from the attacks of the inhuman positivists. At the end of the 19:th century Otto Liebmann declared that the only solution was to return to Kant if you wanted to save the humanities as a discipline independent of the natural sciences.
From this clash comes Wilhelm Dilthey's well-known divide between the natural sciences (Naturwissenschaften) that try to explain the phenomena in terms of cause and effect in an externalist, objective perspective, and the human or spiritual sciences (Geisteswissenschaften) that instead of explaining the phenomena try to understand them in a subjective, internalist, interpreting perspective.
The young Jung was clearly influenced by the Neo-Kantian ideas on science. As a student he expressed a strong aversion towards the reductionism of the natural sciences, and claimed that the soul should be viewed as an intelligence independent of time and space.
If we compare Jung with Freud we can see that their ontological assumptions are incompatible. Freud took as his starting point a biologically based, materialistic ontology, whereas Jung had a mentalistic ontology that proclaimed that reality is that which lives in a human soul.
The indisputable and extremely clear pattern in all of this is the same as the one I have talked about on various occasions on this forum. I have tried to explain to all of you what is the truth here, and this is not just an opinion that I happen to have, but, as everyone with a minimum of philosoophical education and brain functions can see, there is only room for one correct interpretation of the material. We know this to be true, and we know it for certain.
Jung was without the slightest of doubt a Subjectivist in the Reinin dichotomies, he was highly influenced by Kant and Neo-Kantianism, he was much more interested in Meaning than in Truth (see my outline of the differences between INTj and INTp philosophy in a post some time ago), and his perspective is typically Ti in every respect. Jung disliked positivism, he was a pronounced anti-naturalist, he had the clearly subject oriented view on mind that is typical of INTjs and separates them from INTps, he was hostile towards reductionism, and he was therefore definitely not an empiricist and had definitely not an empirical approach to his work.
And here's an extremely important part of #162:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
But we are talking of structural logic, which is Ti.
You simply don't understand what is meant by "structural logic" in Socionics. Structural logic (Ti) is not formal logic and it is not conceptual logic. The "structural" part of
"In its most basic form, phenomenology is the study of the consciousness from a first-person perspective, as opposed to, but not exclusive of, a third-person perspective like the neurological perspective. It is the attempt to reflect on pre-reflexive experience to determine certain properties of, or structures in, consciousness."
"It should be clarified right from the start that even though many of the phenomenological methods involve various reductions, phenomenology is essentially anti-reductionistic; the reductions are mere tools to better understand and describe the workings of consciousness, not to reduce any phenomenon to these descriptions."
In these quotes we also see the basic differences between a Subjectivist and an Objectivist perspective beeing outlined. Science is
And together with this from #147 with have almost all the pieces in the puzzle to come to a definite and indisputable conclusion on Jung's type:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
Even in the example of math, it is not that he is bad at math, but that did not accept that algebraic math was logical at all. He found it illogical, but conversely that does not mean that he valued logic, merely that he found a type of math illogical.
It doesn't seem to matter how many times I point this simple fact out to people: Logic is not
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
Many of his works in fact repeatedly devalue the overreliance logic and science in favor of spirituality, balance, and harmony.
Exactly. And that is what
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
This is a devaluing of T elements in general in favor of F elements.
No, it is devaluing Te elements in favour of Ti elements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
But this is also an indication of Delta themes and not Alpha ones.
You fucking moron. How can you misunderstand things so badly? Are you brainwashed by Expat and this forum in general? It certainly seems so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
Jung's work was mostly a sort of spiritually-focused anthropology that incorporated Freud's works. He even wanted to originally be an archaeologist, which is a pursuit of Te concerns. I suppose you, Phaedrus, will take the extreme devaluing of logic and science to indicate that he devalues Gamma, and by Gamma you mean ILI, and by ILI you mean yourself.
Jung devalues
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
But the other statements of Jung's in this thread has shown a greater devaluing of Ti > Te. It instead seems that Jung prefered a more pragmatic and practical use of Te that is closer in line with that of Te blocked with Si found in Delta quadra.
All of this is completely wrong. Your incompetence is overwhelming. I can't stand it.
Hopefully an indisputable LII like tcaudilllg will realize that in light of all this it is obvious that Jung was an LII too and that idiots like Logos and niffweed have no idea what they are talking about.
You have now lost absolutely all of my previous respect for you, Cyclops. You are a totally incompetent idiot with no brain capacity. What you think that you know about the types is not worth a shit. The only thing you seem to be capable of is to parrot what other people say -- including me -- without understanding the meaning or importance of it.
Posting Permissions
