He seemed like an EIE, very passionate style of writing and makes you feel something even when he's writing something quite dry and factual.
He seemed like an EIE, very passionate style of writing and makes you feel something even when he's writing something quite dry and factual.
I voted for IEI a long time ago, but I have arrived at the conclusion he was most likely
ILI-Ni 5w4 (548)
after all.
Ni-EIE
IEI
ILI-Ni 5w4 sx/so
ILI-Ni is more iconoclastic and eccentric than the other ILI subtype.
I have said before that sx/so types can be easy to mistake as NF. It's got to do with the sx-instinct's premium on attractiveness and sexuality. Social second 'superficializes' or accustoms to the social as a whole. sx/so can get hooked into others....without the sp-instinct to pull back and put a barrier between themselves and others. but if I scratch the surface, Nietzsche is really a cold, detached, cerebrally intense, solitary figure.
Same with Einstein. makes no sense that people type Einstein ILE. read up on him, he was a total introvert throughout his entire life. There is absolutely no way at all that Einstein was an extrovert. Same with Nietzsche. There is absolutely no way that Nietzsche was a feeler. Come on. And then you have all these LIE-Ni that get confused for SLE. I think a lot of it was just due to the habit of typing quadra values first in the early days of socionics.
As a sidenote, it's important to take instincts into account. ILI-Ni with soc-instinct in first, or even second, position camoflouges their nerdiness. My friend is an ILI-Ni so/sx, for example. The only indication you would get that he's an ILI-Ni 5w4 is his detachment and lack of assertiveness. He camoflouges his nerdiness by conveying information to people socially through a lot of intellectual shortcuts (logic that would make sense to an average person without exposing himself as nerdy). Like when there was a conflict between an ILE and LSI, he sided with the LSI behind the ILE's back, his argument to people was "well, the ILE has problems with everybody. The LSI never has problems with anybody. So..."
But when nobody is around, he can start making all these really neat, logically flawless deductions with numbers and stats pertaining to the immediate environment (valuable input). It'll slip out for like a minute or two. My ILI-Te 5w6 sp/so friend has the same capacity for making those same neat, logically flawless deductions but he's right out in the open with it. He's not somebody people gravitate around. He'll just wear plain blue pants and a dull sweater with a baseball cap whereas the ILI-Ni wears cooler, darker tones, sometimes culturally specific, like a shirt with a Jimmy Hendrix face on it (again, you would not know what a nerd he is unless you saw flashes of it or knew the Socionics New Wave VI breakdown well enough to look for it), but at the core, their cognition is identical...it's just stacking and wing makes for a different outer shell.
Last edited by Kill4Me; 08-24-2017 at 03:12 PM.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
@alphamale If you're comparing the two, google Thomas Jefferson. Those images are much closer to Peterson. The Nietzsche comparison doesn't work very well.
Edit: What's funny is earlier today I commented on Ben Shapiro being an ILI (and Nietzsche is IEI or ILI) and if you google images of him and Nietzsche those two definitely compare to each other.
Last edited by squark; 08-26-2017 at 04:06 PM.
Nah just looking at similarity of their eye fixation across multiple photos. Thomas Jefferson does not do it similarly. Hazy distant look is the thing that NTs usually have.
(I don't know exactly why but some consider it positive or even beautiful based on my experience although some think it is just batshit crazy. Don't know why.)
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Well, maybe people see what they expect to see. It's a big reason why VI doesn't really work.
So, I finally got around to reading something of his. I read parts of this: Thus Spoke Zarathustra
In execution it reminded me of Pilgrim's Progress with the style of Psalms and Proverbs, and in content of Atlas Shrugged. I think he's IEI. I found it interesting in the introduction that his sister kept referring to him as "the poet" aka "the lyricist" the title given to IEI. It fits. And I didn't read all of it, only a few parts, as like Atlas Shrugged there was far too much repitition of ideas (I skipped parts of that book too getting sick of the reptition,) and imo far more words than was needed to convey the message. Hm, Pilgrim's Progress moved forward in an actual progression with its allegory, this just sat and spun on the same ideas finding new ways to say them. A lack of Te iow to put procedural grounding to it.
"Thus Spoke Zarathustra" made me think he was IEI; because the main character seems rather IEI-Ni.
However, looking at his life as a whole, his other writings (superficially), and so forth, I came to conclusion he was actually ILI-Ni.
LSI
ILI Ni.
IEI is an interesting possibility, but he was more democratic and less aristocratic.
I think Nietzsche might have been a very intellectual, educated, and refined LSI (Se-ISTj) [Creative subtype]. Alternative typing: Ne-INTj.
It always amazes me when philosophers and intellectuals are typed as Sensor : ) would you expand on this?Originally Posted by HERO
Jung explains many ancient philosophers as being S, for the kind of repression or elevation of their instincts... it's sad that only Jung could do that.. we now think S=retardation, or smth not as advanced as N
Nietzsche created a horcrux, which Jung passed on along with a secret scroll to a friend of Myers Briggs. One night, MB murdered her friend in cold blood and escaped with the scroll and horcrux, but could not activate it through the ritualistic human sacrifices of empiricists and festive sexual orgies, as indicated by a translator of the language of ubermanscrit of the Ancient Order. This failure led to the incomplete typology known as the MBTI.
The horcrux and scroll were stolen by Russian spies, who attempted to activate the horcux themselves, but it split into thousands who are now active members of 16types. After the last member is found to be the One, the one True Type, the Uberman, Nietzsche will be born again in the flesh.
It wouldn't surprise me if Epicurus was S.
he can't be an IXI because his Se is too strong. in his young age he became a legend because he take a burning rock in front of his friend to impose his will. his speech about art in "human too human" is a great exemple of LSI vision of art (art is not based from an inspiration coming from the start (like would think a vortical IEI.) but his the product of hard work and an intransigent method. his work on the genealogy of moral seem fit to a Ti base. he fit to the archetype of LSI as the "The rational artist who sees music, film, or visual art as a language to be deciphered. http://wikisocion.net/en/index.php?t..._LSI_composite . he seem more Beta NF than most of LSI because of his dual EIE inspirations (Goethe,Jésus, Dyonisos).
http://emcybulska.blogspot.com/2016/...-disorder.html
I don't see why he would not be a dynamic type...and if the posthumous diagnosis of bipolar disorder were true, I think this adds a bit of fuel to that notion. I know some people would reject this, saying type is separate from disorder or mental pathology, but we are dealing with mental state and the thoughts that will emerge from these states at the end of the day so I would argue that it is relevant (to clarify, consider the fact that someone we would type xSI and has PoLR Ne is probably very static in their thinking and occupy a very consistent headspace. To argue Nietzsche fits with that paradigm is absurd.)
One thing I dislike about this article is that it characterizes Thus Spoke Zarathustra as a testament to psychotic experience...this denies Nietzsche of agency and somewhat says that these uncharted and unexplored mental states can't deliver a truth of their own. If we accept art from someone like Royal Robertson as having meaning, we should accept Nietzsche's writing as being capable of generating interesting content. Would it be linked to these specific states of perception? Of course, but parallel and opposed states can all be valid and endow life with fascination and mystery. Anyhow, I can't see him as an ethical type and believe ILI-Ni fits best. A way to differentiate him from someone like Jung who is LII and uses Ti and Ni as his main functions is that Jung is always attempting to give meaning to his internal visions and to find the hidden meaning behind him (sign of rationality). Nietzsche took a more live and let live attitude...he did intuit truth with strong Ti from his works, but he considered himself a "free spirit" and a mental wanderer...satisfied with sojourning mental states for no other reason than to do so. He actually critiques and shows himself existing in contradistinction to the typical Ti dominant philosophers who he says (see a dream world (Ni) and try to intuit a deeper truth behind it). Nietzsche wanted to expose this idol and smash it on the anvil mercilessly, liberating the human being into a realm where there was more to explore and justification to do so.
yeah it sort of depends on what they mean by calling it psychotic experience. in some sense it is, because psychotic experience is a normal part of a full life and you might say zarathustra was about a man before his time witnessing the descent of society into its own form of insanity, thus he suffered for them pre emptively, which is precisely what prophets do--so they might head it off or somehow warn or prevent it. in a certain sense he was psychotic and the proof was the fact that western culture itself went insane during the 20th century. on the other hand, if its simply a kind of dismissal to ignore what he said, that's the worst kind of response that will ultimately produce more psychoticism in the future for failure to successfully integrate what nietzsche was saying and instead simply exclude it in the most banal and bound-to-strike-back- harder sense. in other words, the important difference is between understanding what he's saying or simply excluding him. both involve labeling his work psychotic in some sense: one in a perjorative sense toward N and the other as a reflection on society
Good points, unfortunately there are many individuals out there who seem to desire to promulgate this notion of a valid distinction between a sane or normal basis of reality perception where truth can be discretely discerned and run this in contradistinction to the "ill or unwell." I have seen enough times the hypocritical acts of mental health professionals who seem to be in the business of confirming the validity of their own state of mind by treating and helping to bring the ill "back into the light." The problem with scientism is that it seems to extend this manifest destiny notion that the world can be solved and we can be delivered to a utopia where humans understand perfectly how to coagulate reality for the benefit of all. The problem with this is our perspective is so thin when you think of things on a cosmic scale, and we could still be obliterated in a single moment. If we continue down this route we spread our crop far too thinly, and I agree that you create a gradient where "insanity" is bound to reassert itself when we push forward a singular perspective too far.
yes %100 agree. I run up against this all the time
ILI-Ni 5w6 sx/so
https://www.pinterest.com/socionics/ili-ni/
He's like the all-time best example of Ni/Te. Ni/Te converts inner worlds into new modes of thought.
core five motivation: solitude
Last edited by Kill4Me; 07-01-2018 at 06:55 PM.
Bravo to you both those two thoughts were just wow.
Friedrich Nietzsche - ISTJ - Gorky
EIE.
Let's suffer and laugh sounds undeniably EIE kind of thinking. Writes book about prophesies that exist in highly cumbersome format.
First and foremost his texts are dialectical. It goes through circles but states very little. This is dynamic and seems ethical. Like he needs someone to tell how things are.
What about thisO Voltaire! O humanity! O nonsense! There is something to “truth,” to
the search for truth; and when a human being is too humane about it –
when “il ne cherche le vrai que pour faire le bien” – I bet he won’t find
anything!
We have to test ourselves to see whether we are destined for independence
and command, and we have to do it at the right time. We should not
sidestep our tests, even though they may well be the most dangerous
game we can play, and, in the last analysis, can be witnessed by no judge
other than ourselves. Not to be stuck to any person, not even somebody
we love best – every person is a prison and a corner. Not to be stuck in
any homeland, even the neediest and most oppressed – it is not as hard
to tear your heart away from a victorious homeland. Not to be stuck in
some pity: even for higher men, whose rare torture and helplessness we
ourselves have accidentally glimpsed. Not to be stuck in some field of
study: however much it tempts us with priceless discoveries, reserved, it
seems, for us alone. Not to be stuck in our own detachment, in the ecstasy
of those foreign vistas where birds keep flying higher so that they can keep
seeing more below them: – the danger of those who fly. Not to be stuck to
our own virtues and let our whole self be sacrificed for some one of our
details, our “hospitality,” for instance: this is the danger of dangers for
rich souls of a higher type, who spend themselves extravagantly, almost
indifferently, pushing the virtue of liberality to the point of vice. We must
know to conserve ourselves: the greatest test of independence.
Last edited by The Reality Denialist; 09-18-2018 at 07:00 AM.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
@Troll Nr 007
Yes, i was definitely thinking of the 'union of opposites' and paradoxical circling present in EIE and ILI reasoning. Since there's quite a lot of Fe, i think EIE most likely.
100% YES
Nietzsche was certainly Beta quadra.
I still think IEI-Ni > EIE or any gamma NT. It's the difference between pursuing evanescence and realizing things are fucked. EIEs don't internally delve the way he did, they just track transformations and use this awareness to actually influence things; Nietzsche just wanted to say something that needed to be said in a way that had no tangible context.
4w3-5w6-8w7
Unmistakably an Ni ego type. He viewed concepts from every angle until he synthesized paradoxes. Paradoxes can be found in a substantial amount of his writing. His work, The Antichrist, generally rests on paradoxical premise about how Christianity undermines itself on every front; he says the last Christian died on a cross, implying that after Christ, true Christians didn't even exist.
Paradoxical, synthetic thinking from Thus Spake Zarathustra:
Zarathustra, however, looked at the people and wondered. Then he spake thus:Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman—a rope over an abyss.A dangerous crossing, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous trembling and halting.What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal: what is lovable in man is that he is an OVER-GOING and a DOWN-GOING.I love those that know not how to live except as down-goers, for they are the over-goers.I love the great despisers, because they are the great adorers, and arrows of longing for the other shore.I love those who do not first seek a reason beyond the stars for going down and being sacrifices, but sacrifice themselves to the earth, that the earth of the Superman may hereafter arrive.I love him who liveth in order to know, and seeketh to know in order that the Superman may hereafter live. Thus seeketh he his own down-going.I love him who laboureth and inventeth, that he may build the house for the Superman, and prepare for him earth, animal, and plant: for thus seeketh he his own down-going.I love him who loveth his virtue: for virtue is the will to down-going, and an arrow of longing.I love him who reserveth no share of spirit for himself, but wanteth to be wholly the spirit of his virtue: thus walketh he as spirit over the bridge.I love him who maketh his virtue his inclination and destiny: thus, for the sake of his virtue, he is willing to live on, or live no more.I love him who desireth not too many virtues. One virtue is more of a virtue than two, because it is more of a knot for one’s destiny to cling to.I love him whose soul is lavish, who wanteth no thanks and doth not give back: for he always bestoweth, and desireth not to keep for himself.I love him who is ashamed when the dice fall in his favour, and who then asketh: “Am I a dishonest player?”—for he is willing to succumb.I love him who scattereth golden words in advance of his deeds, and always doeth more than he promiseth: for he seeketh his own down-going.I love him who justifieth the future ones, and redeemeth the past ones: for he is willing to succumb through the present ones.I love him who chasteneth his God, because he loveth his God: for he must succumb through the wrath of his God.I love him whose soul is deep even in the wounding, and may succumb through a small matter: thus goeth he willingly over the bridge.I love him whose soul is so overfull that he forgetteth himself, and all things are in him: thus all things become his down-going.I love him who is of a free spirit and a free heart: thus is his head only the bowels of his heart; his heart, however, causeth his down-going.I love all who are like heavy drops falling one by one out of the dark cloud that lowereth over man: they herald the coming of the lightning, and succumb as heralds.Lo, I am a herald of the lightning, and a heavy drop out of the cloud: the lightning, however, is the SUPERMAN.—
Exactly.
I agree Nietzsche is Ni but I don't view him as generating paradoxes, I think of paradoxes as static logical constructions. Nietzsche seems to me to have been a person who tended to unwind such paradoxes. Just because he was difficult to understand sometimes doesn't make him paradoxical in my opinion. sometimes paradoxes are incredibly easy to understand, and its because of that to unwind them becomes a long process, thus to turn around and say that unwinding is paradoxical because of its difficulty is actually just a consequence of the initial paradox. in essence Nietzsche was not accessory to the crime although he technically got caught trying to restore the stolen goods
Doesn't this imply that the paradoxes he spoke of were not from his own conception? Where do you think he derived such thinking from?
his benefactor, of course
in my opinion many paradoxes (I like to use zeno's as a go-to example) come from ILE
No doubt, ENTps often generate paradoxes.
And even under the premise that Ni generates paradoxes, we still have to contend that Ni is a perception function and therefore susceptible to perceived objects of inspiration.
But I don't think your reasoning gives Nietzsche due credit for thinking that appears to come from his own way of processing information. To paraphrase, earlier you stated that you saw Nietzsche as attempting to logically iron out preconceived paradoxes, but this statement seems at odds with the content of his writing because he often unpacks paradoxes with even more paradoxes. In other words, he supports paradoxical theses with even more paradoxes right up until it comes down to the plain facts of history. And, generally, he takes a far less rational route in conveying his thoughts than most philosophers do, often opting instead to use rhetoric that more greatly resembles poetry or mythology.
But hey, if you know of any works of his that demonstrate a more classic, rationalist attempt to convey his message, I'll be happy to read them and get back to this thread.
I don't think Nietzsche is paradoxical.. I also don't think he necessarily tries to "rationally iron out paradoxes" I think inasmuch as he sees genuine paradoxes he tends dissolve them on the level of perception. But it would be best if you could provide an example of his paradoxical thinking and point out exactly what the paradox is. I think if you can do that I can explain why its not really a paradox although it may be mysterious or otherwise obscure. In essence what Nietzsche does is describe a different version of the same "event" and does away with a paradox that way. If this seems difficult or just an exchange of one paradox with another I would argue it probably has more to do with the exegesis. Because Nietzsche is not fully understood, to say he is "paradoxical" is one way to dismiss the difficulty as being "his fault"--people do this to Jung too. But there's a big difference between people intentionally constructing things as a deadlock on the rational level and someone describing a sophisticated circular relationship from which there is seemingly no exit. I suppose its possible to call them both paradoxes but I think this does violence to the traditional notion of a paradox, because it collapses both kinds into its rational formulation, and Nietzsche is deeper than that. I don't think Nietzsche is really rationally formulating certain doctrines, like the eternal return, people miss the point if they think its a "real" metaphysic. I hesitate to say he wasn't "serious" because he was, but essentially Nietzsche is not advocating a scientific reading of his own work. In essence a lot of his seeming "contradiction" is the difference between a koan and someone like zeno. zeno is making a straight case--whereas the koan has meaning because it points out the absurdity of paradox itself, because it suggests that paradoxes are illusions and koans exist to point out how the understanding can fail and its in "seeing" that that one is enlightened to the "real" truth. whereas zeno is not so self aware, hes not saying this paradox proves rationality is limited, hes offering it more or less as a straight example of motion being in fact impossible. basically Nietzsche's paradoxes are ironic contradictions stated in such a way so as to illustrate the futility of certain modes of rationality, this makes them not genuine paradoxes because they don't trap the intellect, they liberate it. in a certain sense one could nevertheless fairly call them paradoxes but this zeros out the difference between paradoxes that freeze the intellect rather than move it along. I would say this is a good example of Ne v Ni in general, since Ni has that associated "depth" that goes under or over the contradiction, and in so doing bypasses the paradox, on the level of perception
Last edited by Bertrand; 09-25-2018 at 01:40 AM.
I voted for IEI a long time ago, but I have arrived at the conclusion he was most likely
ILI-Ni 5w4 (548)
after all.Hey Olimpia.
I voted ILI like you did, but wanted to bounce an idea off of you.
What do you think the likelihood is that a logical type would hug a horse when on the verge of a nervous breakdown?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...he-horses-head
par·a·dox
ˈperəˌdäks/
noun
- a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true.
The notion of "Over going and down going" is a paradox.
The notion of "The great despisers who are the greater adorers" is a paradox.
The notion of "Willing to live on or live no more" is a paradox.
The notion of a person who "Chasteneth his god who loveth his god" is a paradox.
The notion of a person who's "Soul is so full that he forgets himself; all things are in him" is a paradox. Ie. Common sense would, instead, suggest that filling something up would only make the thing more pronounced and more difficult to forget.
I didn't dismiss the difficulty as "his fault" because I don't think this paradoxical mode of thinking is a crime or a taboo. It's simply a different way of viewing things, and the audience is on the same page, it can more concisely convey a general message than getting into the weeds.
none of that seems paradoxical to me, and since "seemingly" is built into the dictionary definition we can say what is or is not a paradox is subjective and to some extent a meaningless statement as a reflection on the work itself. rather it reflects on the reader. I think Jung and other Ni authors are often accused of this but they are "innocent" for the above reason. whether you think "paradox" is good or bad is sort of irrelevant, because we haven't reached that issue because we haven't established paradox even applies as to the work itself. its like, I don't think the cookies were taken so it doesn't matter if its a theft or if its bad or good or justified or excusable or whatever. are we really going to say everything everyone ever found confusing and so accused of being self contradictory is now paradoxical. to do so simply renders the term meaningless. in any case, its often simply used to discredit authors. if the emphasis is on "proved well founded or true" then that should be duly emphasized. certainly zeno did not end up being proved true, and yet people still call it a paradox, so something is not adding up. if the rejoinder is simply that "may" means it possibly could be true, that is literally every seemingly contradictory statement until time runs out. I'm sure we'll all be surprised to find out what ends up being true or not true at the end of time. in essence the way you use paradox could apply to anything and so you might as well not even use it because it adds nothing, and the more you try to prove it does the less it ends up adding because the broader its scope becomes
to put it another way is 2+2=5 a paradox or a symbol for something else? it sort of cheapens Nietzsche to reduce him to "paradox", not because paradox is bad, but because its a shallow understanding of both Nietzsche and the nature of contradiction itself. the badness is in the shallowness not in the application of the word paradox per se. if you read shallowness into Nietzsche is takes all the value of his thinking out right at the onset, but its the reader that is worse off for it
Last edited by Bertrand; 09-25-2018 at 02:06 AM.
Lol. How anyone could think you're a T ( a Ti ego type, in particular) is beyond me.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
