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.