View Poll Results: what type was he?

Voters
8. You may not vote on this poll
  • ILE (ENTp)

    0 0%
  • SEI (ISFp)

    0 0%
  • ESE (ESFj)

    0 0%
  • LII (INTj)

    0 0%
  • SLE (ESTp)

    0 0%
  • IEI (INFp)

    4 50.00%
  • EIE (ENFj)

    1 12.50%
  • LSI (ISTj)

    0 0%
  • SEE (ESFp)

    0 0%
  • ILI (INTp)

    0 0%
  • LIE (ENTj)

    0 0%
  • ESI (ISFj)

    0 0%
  • IEE (ENFp)

    0 0%
  • SLI (ISTp)

    0 0%
  • LSE (ESTj)

    0 0%
  • EII (INFj)

    3 37.50%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 42 of 42

Thread: Søren Kierkegaard

  1. #41
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,859
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    IEI > EII. The way he wrote about sin and despair and encapsulated his conception of humanity in The Sickness Unto Death was more NiFe than FiNe, both because the subject matter is more stereotypically in the realm of Fi and because of his writing style. The discourse is more of an extended reflection on the undercurrents of said topics than a definitive taking of a stance, or any kind of "ethical" declaration. For example, talking about sin in terms of "not knowing, not wanting to know and wanting to know," in such a way that theoretical boundaries can be drawn on something he accepts as relatively nebulous, is a far cry from something like Dostoevsky intimating at a struggle to come to terms with what faith is supposed to be for the hero of a novel.
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  2. #42
    Carolus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    North Carolina
    TIM
    EIE-Ni 4w5 sx/so
    Posts
    525
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The fact that Jung misunderstood Kierkegaard is disappointing, but revealing about his character. Kierkegaard was much more human than Jung, that is, he didn't place himself outside humanity in his philosophical and psychological investigation like Jung seems to. Jung, despite writing about fantastic subjects, was much colder and more scientific in his perspective. He's closer to Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, as both of them also took a godlike distant view of humanity. Kierkegaard can be considered to be the greater man and the greater thinker than the three aforementioned men precisely because he wrote as a mere man interrogating himself, without making claim to objectivity. Ludwig Wittgenstein was able to see this in his readings of Kierkegaard and actually considered himself to be a lesser man than him.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •