what type is he?
what type is he?
Last edited by silke; 06-19-2014 at 09:58 PM. Reason: updated links
My first thought is INTp
Argue for that hypothesis, please.Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz
I've always though he was a very good example of INTj.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
On most Socionics sites, as in those which link historical figures with types, Immanuel Kant is always an INTj.
come on guys, he's ESFp.
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
i've seen robespierre and descartes as being the prototypical INTj.
my money, however, is on kant for that role. what could be more than Critique of Pure Reason?
I wonder what mr. science as ma-jhik thinks about Kant.
Kant doesn't VI INTj.
i also think he's INTj.
lol I thought about it and the first thing that came to mind was INTp.Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Um but the INTj idea seems to fit quite nice as well.
Well that and the fact that his style is so authoritatively well argued that it becomes uber- (or logic made fact), which almost seems . Of course, his greatest argumentative weakness was for the moral arguments for the existence of God, which was perhaps brought about by his difficulties in reconciling his devotion to logic and his devotion to God.i also say intj but sometimes he gives me entj vibes. i think it is due to the zeitgeist of his age rubbing off in his language
any devoutly religious Ti type has the same problem. look at any of the absolutely nutcase religious logical arguments you see. case in point: creationism.Originally Posted by Logos
So what type do you think was Thomas Aquinas? Was he even dominant?Originally Posted by niffweed17
i know nothing about him, sorry.
He was the medieval theologian who reintroduced Aristotle to the European world by integrating Aristotelian philosophy with Christian doctrine. He believed in natural theology, or that people are capable of rationalizing the existence of God independently from divine revelation.Originally Posted by niffweed17
I think he was INTj. He shows in he's works very pure logic. He explains difficult stuff with simple logic.
Kant lived a highly regimented life and never left his hometown Koenigsberg -- now Kaliningrad (I saw his grave there! ). As the legend goes, townspeople would check their watches against the time Kant would take his daily walk. This continued for several decades. Not taking into account his works, this would speak for introversion and rationality.
Kant lived the first part of his life in christian schooling I believe (which apparently is very strict). He describes the time as an unhappy part of his life, so this could be the cause of his difficultly in pondering religious matters.Originally Posted by Logos
What I find interesting is theirs a correlation between INTj like philosophy and losing faith in chrisitianity or at least loathing the current way it is being taught. Neitzsche and Kant seem to exhibit this, also both were german and existed around the same time era more or less, neitzsche coming a far bit latter.
It would seem that possibly, these people turned to logical philosophy to explain the complex ideas presenting in chrisitianity which rarely (to them) mixed with the reality they saw. This may have had an enormous impact on their life, at least this is my theory on Neitzsche and Kant.
Then it is to question why he was unhappy, to which I do not know the answer. Was he unhappy because of how religion was taught? Was he unhappy about the perceived logical inconsistencies?Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz
There is definitely truth in that. I know that at least my own experiences have been very similar in this regards. It is pretty easy to see why this is the case though for INTjs. The doctrines and theology which we've been taught very often do not hold up to our internal logic systems. So that leaves us with a few choices: abandon the old system for another developed one or to create a totally new theological doctrine. Of the two, the second holds the greatest appeal for the INTj as it offers the opportunity for making beneficial reforms while creating something entirely new. The "truth" of a variety of religions is processed and then dismantled by the INTj into core truth components and ideas to be reassembled into a new system while simultaneously attempting to maintain some resemblance to their prior religious system.What I find interesting is theirs a correlation between INTj like philosophy and losing faith in chrisitianity or at least loathing the current way it is being taught.
Yes, I find many of the 19th century philosophers of this time to be some of the most revolutionary and interesting thinkers. Feuerbach is another incredibly influential philosopher of his time who was surpassed by his peer Marx. He essentially saw that people's ideas of God were essentially anthropomorphized maxims. Or in other words, God exists as the projected version of our ideal self that exists as a result of our self-alienation from society. It is a very interesting idea that is easy to incorporate into most theological reformist views.Neitzsche and Kant seem to exhibit this, also both were german and existed around the same time era more or less, neitzsche coming a far bit latter.
That is a good explantion of the basic idea of what was happening.It would seem that possibly, these people turned to logical philosophy to explain the complex ideas presenting in chrisitianity which rarely (to them) mixed with the reality they saw.
It would be interesting to see how many theologians and philosophers of religious matters were INTjs. I think C.S. Lewis has also been typed by some as an INTj, and Thomas Aquinas may have been one as well.
Well lol I know when I get in my INTj mode it because of this.... I realized that after I kind of started questioning chrisitianity and debating it out, I became alot more I(N)Tj. I found myself obsessed with constantly analyzing possibility after possibility out in search for the truth when I first started discussing ideas concerning philosophy and christianity. I eventually applied this to most ethical understanding, in order to have a logical reasoning behind it. Still though I think most of the ethical axioms are rooted in feeling and not in logic, I can only rationalize to people the way I feel about a certain ethical idea.Originally Posted by Logos
Anyways I am thinking there is some underlying connection with human nature, that when certain intuitive concepts that are important to the person come into question, they immediately jump in a search for an objective answer to re-establish this feeling-thinking connection. <--- but that is all speculation
Anyways I dunno why kant was unhappy, I just remember reading it somewhere..... I'd be interested to figure out personally.
I thought he might be ISTj. He did have that IxTj structure in his life, but IMO he was too meticulous. I think his life style is what I imagine would happen to ISTjs without the help with Ni/Ne and emotionally he seemed like he really could have used some Fe.
In his opinion, only actions matter, but not consequences. I think it's because he didn't even what to think about the existence of the future consequences because of his PoLR. Another proof of that is his habit of having a very exact schedule.
lol ISTj's hate philosophy because it lacks practicality, besides he was a member of german society in the enlightenment era, a somewhat more ISTj prone culture imo.Originally Posted by Kristiina
very briefly looking over his wikipedia entry, it seems like he could be INTj. i am really not sure of his type however, as my evaluation was very hastily completed.Originally Posted by Logos
Any reason (besides practicality) to choose INTj over ISTj? He reminds me of a possible INTj, but many habits and beliefs are very ISTj.
yea but his beliefs would be with the times since he had a superego , he would have tried to conform to society much like the ESFj's of the time would act. This accounts for his habits and beliefs, assuming he was an INTj.Originally Posted by Kristiina
Thats possible I am no expert on Immanuel Kant, I have only read enough about him to assume hes probably some kind of Intuitive Thinker because of the philosophy he writes.Originally Posted by science as magic
I could see Aquinas being an ENTj.Originally Posted by science as magic
People say LII, but look at the factual bases for his argument. He doesn't have any. He says we should act the way we should towards each other because we should. Pure dogmatism. Obviously, everyone's argument comes down to dogmatism, but he's one step away from that. He doesn't have a rationale for why we should act according to the CI; according to his theory. EII is more of a possibility in my eyes, because it essentially comes down to mutual respect between human beings, but for harmonious relationships and beneficial living, not because there is a true reason why we should. It comes from his own beliefs and ideas, not from a possible objective foundation.
The view you seem to have on what attitudes are typical for LIIs is actually more in line with how ILIs are.
Can I get a consensus on this? Is what Phaedrus says true?
Jung perceived Kant as a "pure" introverted thinking type without much intuition. As an example of an introverted type with both thinking and intuition he did mention Schopenhauer, and it it obvious that Jung also considered himself to have strong intuition (of the "mystical" kind that both Jung and Socionics attributes to Ni/).
He was all about ethics and the limits of reason. Very rigid in a way that I am pretty sure I am not myself (if that's any indication). And why would Ayn Rand get such a rise out of him if he's her Mirror?
ENTp or INTp
100% N type.
Carl Jung is INTj
Ayn Rand is ISTp
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 04-12-2010 at 03:56 AM.
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
ENTp is a very common typing for Rand.
Keirsey types her as INTJ Mastermind (his hyper-self confident rational type).
Phaedrus thought she was INTp based on objectivism and conflict with Kant and a bunch of other things.
Just for the record, I don't buy the whole thing. Just posting a tangent.