[jtskinner]

Was Plato an INTJ? I know a lot of philosophers were.

[INTJoe]

Yeah, his numbers were:

I-12
N-56
T-82
J-11

His IQ was 176 and his SAT score (old format) was 1560

Also his favorite band was Metallica and favorite movie was Scarface.

[Tsuru]

Granted I've only done very limited reading on ancient greek philosophers... :P

But I think Plato was an INTP and Aristotle was an INTJ. Plato was concerned with the spirit and the "true," "perfect" reality unmitigated by the senses. Aristotle was more concerned with knowledge, workable/demonstratable theory on nature, and the classification of things through observation. I think the full painting your avatar is from shows Plato pointing towards the heavens, while Aristotle points towards the Earth. An apt description perhaps of their differing approaches. 8-)

Socrates was most definitely an extreme INTP, that annoying goober. XD

[Rei]

Originally Posted by Tsuru To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Granted I've only done very limited reading on ancient greek philosophers... :P But I think Plato was an INTP and Aristotle was an INTJ. Plato was concerned with the spirit and the "true," "perfect" reality unmitigated by the senses. Aristotle was more concerned with knowledge, workable/demonstratable theory on nature, and the classification of things through observation. I think the full painting your avatar is from shows Plato pointing towards the heavens, while Aristotle points towards the Earth. An apt description perhaps of their differing approaches. 8-) Socrates was most definitely an extreme INTP, that annoying goober. XD

But Aristotle was very into proof which says he was an S.

[The Many]

	Originally Posted by Rei To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But Aristotle was very into proof which says he was an S.

I don't think any philosopher, ever, has been an S. They just don't have the imagination to go particularly deep. Aristotle is quite likely to have been an INTP too with that need for classification of nature, not to mention all his talk about logic, categories and limiting your desires.

INTJ philosophers would rather be those who come to conclusions and apply these to reality. For instance Nietzsche who tried to created a new world after understanding that God was dead, Ortega y Gasset with his political activism or Richard Rorty with his conclusion that the only task of philosophy is to re-invent itself (which in turn was an older, Nietzschean idea).

[Rei]

Originally Posted by The Many To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I don't think any philosopher, ever, has been an S. They just don't have the imagination to go particularly deep. Aristotle is quite likely to have been an INTP too with that need for classification of nature, not to mention all his talk about logic, categories and limiting your desires. INTJ philosophers would rather be those who come to conclusions and apply these to reality. For instance Nietzsche who tried to created a new world after understanding that God was dead, Ortega y Gasset with his political activism or Richard Rorty with his conclusion that the only task of philosophy is to re-invent itself (which in turn was an older, Nietzschean idea).

Maybe very borderline. Needing proof goes against N-ness, and also the need to classify is definitely far from P, so he is possibly borderline that too.

But I don't know that much about MBTI so meh... just my opinion.

[The Many]

	Originally Posted by Rei To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Maybe very borderline. Needing proof goes against N-ness, and also the need to classify is definitely far from P, so he is possibly borderline that too. But I don't know that much about MBTI so meh... just my opinion.

The classification thing is usually attributed to Ti, so what INTPs do according to the MBTI is to classify their perceptions according to certain already given set of forms. This is more Plato than Aristotle if you want to get anal about it though, after all Plato was the first essentialist (he believed that things had an "essential" nature by which they originally are classified, and Aristotle essentially agreed). And proofs and a need for logical correctness also really comes from thinking rather than sensing, after all you can't take an opinion seriously if it refutes itself.

These are some reasons of why I don't really care for the system too much, I know I personally use Te and Ti almost simultaneously, which I shouldn't do according to it.

[Rei]

Originally Posted by The Many To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The classification thing is usually attributed to Ti, so what INTPs do according to the MBTI is to classify their perceptions according to certain already given set of forms. This is more Plato than Aristotle if you want to get anal about it though, after all Plato was the first essentialist (he believed that things had an "essential" nature by which they originally are classified, and Aristotle essentially agreed). And proofs and a need for logical correctness also really comes from thinking rather than sensing, after all you can't take an opinion seriously if it refutes itself. These are some reasons of why I don't really care for the system too much, I know I personally use Te and Ti almost simultaneously, which I shouldn't do according to it.

Hm... which is why I think being NT is very 'controversial'... but okay...
I should probably read up on that Ti, Te, Ni etc stuff.

[Danellian]

I always thought Both Plato and Aristotle were INTJs. But, if one of them was INTP, I would go with Aristotle. The reason for this is that INTPs need more proof then INTJs, since their primary function is Ti, their Ne is mediated through their thinking function. For this reason, INTPs start with the specific observeable phenomena around them, then generalize to theories and principles. INTJs are the other way around; they use primary Ni, and their rational Te function is mediated through their intuition. The result is that they start with the general theory or principle they believe is correct, then move to the specific level by placing observeable facts within this framework. Now, Aristotle was the one who wanted to start with observeable facts and only extrapolate a general conclusion insofar as the facts pointed to it, so he was like an early-day Pragmatist (I say early-day since he still had a lot of rationalistic ideas by the standards of today, but in the context of his time, he was rather empirical). Plato, on the other hand (and Socrates, by extension, though they may have been the same person) started with the general framework of how things *should* be, then placed the things of this world within that context. An example if his Republic, in which he propounds this theory of how society should be structured, then proceeds to explain how this can be implemented. Another is the theory of the Forms, which has no basis in empirical observation, but is rather a rationalistic way of explaining the existence of observeable phenomena when observeable causation cannot necesserily be extrapolated to provide a satisfactory explanation. Now, it is still possible that Aristotle was INTJ who happened to believe is a somewhat empirical framework while applying that to the world. If you look at the theory and writings of Aristotle, he has a lot of idealization about how things *should* be. So, I think we have to take into account not only the theories these individuals propound, but also try to look behind them to the psychological tendencies that led to these theories.

[Tsuru]

	Originally Posted by Rei To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But Aristotle was very into proof which says he was an S.

Uh, no.

I don't even know what more could be said. There's no way any philosopher anywhere is anything BUT an N type. Philosophers by definition devote their life to the speculation of abstract theory.

[Danellian]

Here is something somewhat related that I've wondered about. E1 is, by definition, interested in "practical ideas". Well, I have looked up "practical" along with a bunch of synonymous and antynomious words in Webster's dictionary, and it appears that "practical" is the opposite of "ideational", "speculative", and "theoretical". This being the case, it seems that a person who is interested in "ideas" is "ideational", "speculative", and "theoretical", which means they are not "practical". If this is the case, "practical ideas" is an oxymoron. However, if this is an oxymoron, how do you differentiate between a person who is interested in ideas whether or not they are practical and a person who is interested in practical ideas? Is there such a thing is a practical person who is interested in ideas?

I think we'd better clarify this rather ambiguous matter before we conclude that a philsopher could not be an S, since being practical is a trait of the S.

[INTJgal]

	Originally Posted by Tsuru To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Uh, no. I don't even know what more could be said. There's no way any philosopher anywhere is anything BUT an N type. Philosophers by definition devote their life to the speculation of abstract theory.

Could be a bright S who was a people-pleaser born into the culture where he was expected to do what his daddy did and groomed from diapers to be a philosopher. Never say never
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


(Seriously, though, a borderline but sure S could make a great philosopher. If raised in the right environment, he could be taught the train of thought, and then observe things that Ns would miss. Ss taught a way of doing something are often better at it than Ns, even though Ns are more original and creative to do what the S would do.
Borderline S could make a great philosopher.)

[IdentityClick]

Lol, no. Plato was an INFJ. Commonly typed as one, too. How ironic that so many people on INTJ forum thought him to be NT. Guess it goes to show how rampant NT narcissism runs on NT-dominated forums.

[Zsych]

Its hard to type ancient people
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I wouldn't be surprised if he were INTJ - or INFJ admittedly, although I'd bend towards INTJ myself - and not out of any desire I might have to relate to him, since he's not really a philosopher I relate much to myself.

I also think about what path and choices are better for society. Its a dissociated and analytical view - that happens to be biased towards what is commonly considered goodness.

[Aristocrat Porn]

Originally Posted by The Many To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I don't think any philosopher, ever, has been an S. They just don't have the imagination to go particularly deep. Aristotle is quite likely to have been an INTP too with that need for classification of nature, not to mention all his talk about logic, categories and limiting your desires. INTJ philosophers would rather be those who come to conclusions and apply these to reality. For instance Nietzsche who tried to created a new world after understanding that God was dead, Ortega y Gasset with his political activism or Richard Rorty with his conclusion that the only task of philosophy is to re-invent itself (which in turn was an older, Nietzschean idea).

Hahaha no, Nietzsche was the archetypal intp. Anyone who has read his stuff can see the intp way of thinking and of perceiving the world in it.

[Conservationist]

	Originally Posted by INTJoe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Also his favorite band was Metallica and favorite movie was Scarface.

I think Plato would have liked Slayer and Burzum.

My guess is that most philosophers are INTJ/ENTJ; I think Nietzsche was an ENTJ.

[Indubitably]

Originally Posted by The Many To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The classification thing is usually attributed to Ti, so what INTPs do according to the MBTI is to classify their perceptions according to certain already given set of forms. This is more Plato than Aristotle if you want to get anal about it though, after all Plato was the first essentialist (he believed that things had an "essential" nature by which they originally are classified, and Aristotle essentially agreed). And proofs and a need for logical correctness also really comes from thinking rather than sensing, after all you can't take an opinion seriously if it refutes itself. These are some reasons of why I don't really care for the system too much, I know I personally use Te and Ti almost simultaneously, which I shouldn't do according to it.

Actually, classification is usually attributed to Si, and sometimes Te depending on whether or not the act of classifying something will result in tangible external accomplishment. Ti is an abstraction engine, it is primarily concerned with extracting the fundamental core nature of something.

The true masters of classification, of measuring something against established standards, is the ISTJ. I've had my issues with the type from time to time, but even so I have to admit that when you need something done to spec with an uncompromising attention to detail, you call an ISTJ. They know exactly what something is "supposed to be", and they will work tirelessly to ensure that it conforms to that standard.

For INTPs classification serves a rather subservient, utilitarian roll, in that something must have a name in order to be defined, but we are loath to admit that the name itself holds any significant meaning. Thus we will happily change its name the moment a better one comes along, much to the chagrin of individuals for whom Si plays a more dominant roll. Si does have its moments though, and I believe that in concert with Ti it is largely responsible for the definitively INTP tendency to design, build, and test a system entirely in one's head before ever bothering to even touch the drawing board.

This is probably one of the easiest ways you will find to distinguish, for instance, an INTP engineer from an INTJ engineer. Te absolutely demands to see one's ideas evolve before its eyes. An INTJ engineer will be busily darting about, creating flow charts, sketching plans, building models, literally forcing his designs into reality long before his plans have come to fruition. An INTP engineer is that guy that is pacing back and forth mumbling to himself like a mad man for hours on end while he apparently accomplishes absolutely nothing until one day, poof, he has seemingly pulled a working design out of the proverbial ether.

[thod]

I have always thought of INTP's as very much classifiers. The linear model of science where each discovery leads to the next and a build up of information is not how the INTP mind works. Rather it is looking at that data and seeing the picture within it, classification, that is the INTP skill. An example would be the periodic table from the vast amounts that were then know about chemistry. Once that picture has emerged it leads to more discoveries due to implications, yet the picture cannot be derived in a linear fashion. That's what INTP's do, they skim information looking for the big picture rather than memorizing the details. Thus they tend to develop wider knowledge rather than true expertise, except their chosen pet subjects.

[childofprodigy]

	Originally Posted by Rei To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But Aristotle was very into proof which says he was an S.

And proofs isn't just an S thing. It's also a TJ thing. At least TJs who've worked to develop their extraverted thinking.

[The Many]

Now, this thread is getting fascinating with all my all posts dug up. To tell the truth, I don't take the MBTI seriously enough anymore to care about the depeer ideas behind the cognitive functions: they seem to me to be randomly slapped together so as to create a coherent whole without any kind of empirical basis behind them. So take what I said above with a grain of salt or five. (However, remember that INTPs actually use Si rather than Se; this is probably what provides the logical forms into which they categorize things if we are going to go by MBTI theorization here. Hence, Ti is used to classify the information provided by Ne according to the way these logical and/or mathematical forms the INTP somehow adapts as an Si framework. When I said categorizing, I was not speaking of categorizing according to external criteria, but rather in one's own intuition.)

However, given the general characterization of how a person thinks and works according to the MBTI, I would definitely call Nietzsche a dominance-based INTJ. He has judging opinions on everything, writes in the hubris:ish manner of someone who believes he knows the truth (but does anything but!), is incredibly narcissistic (perhaps even to the extent of accepting his horrible perspectivism - I very much doubt an INTP, at least going from the stereotype, would make a case for truth being found nowhere but in intuition), believes solitude and ruthlessness to be virtues, etc. His inability to deal with women also screams INTJ to me, although INTP is plausible for this too.

As to Plato and Aristotle, Plato does seem more INTP:ish from his writings, seeking to find the pure essence of everything (i.e. the universals). That he wishes to organize a state in the same manner as a moral person also seems quite INTP:ish - he thinks in terms of forms (quite literally!), rather than in particulars which is a lot more INTJ:ish. However, it is very hard to tell what profile either of them would have as we know so little about their lives - someone mentioned that Plato might turn out an INFJ and that is actually also possible. Aristotle may however very well have been too intelligent to be typed.

Finally, on the conceptual distinction of ideas vs. practicality, I believe "practical" in the MBTI theorization should be characterized as "applies to a concrete end already in sight". An INTJ, being goal-oriented, would probably be using ideas in a "practical manner" in some sense of this terminology (e.g. applying what philosophers call "practical reason"), but would still be an N in the sense that the person is using abstract ideas - perhaps consciously considered moral concepts, while the "practical ideas" of the S would relate to e.g. how to paint a house. (Note: I could go much deeper into semantics here, but I doubt anyone would be interested. The stipulation above does however provide a charitable and probable distinction.)

However, you should also remember that the MBTI is written based on intuitive archetypes and that the conceptual problems you are mentioning apply to the general theory. It is simply not worked out in a manner which is rigorous enough for this kind of issues not to evolve.

[Aristocrat Porn]

	Originally Posted by The Many To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	However, given the general characterization of how a person thinks and works according to the MBTI, I would definitely call Nietzsche a dominance-based INTJ. He has judging opinions on everything, writes in the hubris:ish manner of someone who believes he knows the truth

INTPs are every bit as judging as any INTJ out there. The difference is we usually aren't as quick to do it and when we do we keep it to ourselves, while INTJs are a lot more comfortable with externalizing it. We also tend to reflect a lot more on our judgments.

That doesn't mean anything in this context, however. He was writing critique books. Of course he has to externalize his judgments. The alternative is leaving every page blank.

Also, INTPs believe they know the truth as much as any other type out there. So do INTJs.

	Originally Posted by The Many To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	(but does anything but!)

This is your own personal judgment. Ill go ahead and I say I believe you have done "anything but" read all his books. Or most.

	Originally Posted by The Many To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	is incredibly narcissistic (perhaps even to the extent of accepting his horrible perspectivism - I very much doubt an INTP, at least going from the stereotype, would make a case for truth being found nowhere but in intuition)

His "horrible perspectivism"?

Anyway, that is exactly what an INTP would tend to do, and what an INTJ would tend to stay away from.

The reason INTPs aren't as quick to judge (and to become comfortable with their judgment) as INTJs is exactly because the P makes you more subjective, whereas the J is objective and pragmatical.

Also perspectivism does not equal "truth being found nowhere but in intuition".

And keep in mind INTPs can be very different. I don't know so much about other types, so I can't talk about them, but there are at least 2 solidly regonizable types of INTPs out there.

One is heavy N and P, and tends to be a lot more aloof and subjective, with a weaker T. The other usually has a very strong T with a recognizably weaker P. The latter can seem a lot more like INTJs when it comes to rationality, and is in fact irritated by extremely wild or imaginative ideas (because they seem to him way to irrational and he doesn't deal well with this), while the former isn't.

	Originally Posted by The Many To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	believes solitude and ruthlessness to be virtues, etc. His inability to deal with women also screams INTJ to me, although INTP is plausible for this too.

I dont see how either of these conflict with being an INTP.

Re-reading my post, I feel someone might perceive a little hostility, but I assure you I am not trying to be hostile (although I am bothered by you outright critiquing him without explaining to us why it is that some of his ideas seem so ridiculous to you)

[The Many]

Originally Posted by Aristocrat Porn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

INTPs are every bit as judging as any INTJ out there. The difference is we usually aren't as quick to do it and when we do we keep it to ourselves, while INTJs are a lot more comfortable with externalizing it. We also tend to reflect a lot more on our judgments. That doesn't mean anything in this context, however. He was writing critique books. Of course he has to externalize his judgments. The alternative is leaving every page blank. Also, INTPs believe they know the truth as much as any other type out there. So do INTJs. This is your own personal judgment. Ill go ahead and I say I believe you have done "anything but" read all his books. Or most. His "horrible perspectivism"? Anyway, that is exactly what an INTP would tend to do, and what an INTJ would tend to stay away from. The reason INTPs aren't as quick to judge (and to become comfortable with their judgment) as INTJs is exactly because the P makes you more subjective, whereas the J is objective and pragmatical. Also perspectivism does not equal "truth being found nowhere but in intuition". And keep in mind INTPs can be very different. I don't know so much about other types, so I can't talk about them, but there are at least 2 solidly regonizable types of INTPs out there. One is heavy N and P, and tends to be a lot more aloof and subjective, with a weaker T. The other usually has a very strong T with a recognizably weaker P. The latter can seem a lot more like INTJs when it comes to rationality, and is in fact irritated by extremely wild or imaginative ideas (because they seem to him way to irrational and he doesn't deal well with this), while the former isn't. I dont see how either of these conflict with being an INTP. Re-reading my post, I feel someone might perceive a little hostility, but I assure you I am not trying to be hostile (although I am bothered by you outright critiquing him without explaining to us why it is that some of his ideas seem so ridiculous to you)

I have read Also Sprach Zarathustra, Beyond Good and Evil, parts of The Antichrist and I-can't-remember-how-much-secondary-literature, both about his works and his biography. So not everything, but enough to make an informed judgement. (I am however intending to read The Genealogy of Morals in a while.) The reason I did not care to argue for my opinions is that I am not writing an academic paper here.

As to Nietzsche's worldview, I am not going to write an academic paper on it here either, but some general remarks:

1. His argument for perspectivism is, at least as far as I can remember, that objective knowledge is impossible since everyone bases their worldview on e.g. emotional arguments, so hence, the best we can reach is some kind of set of beliefs that everyone can agree upon. This seems unconvincing to me. Merely because people do not argue well, we cannot say that we should not longer try to be objective (to the extent that it is possible to be so) and utilize strong and rigorous scientific standards. After the scientific revolution, the claims he is making here seem very unconvincing.

2. He derides Darwinism, stating that it is his will-to-power that is the basis for all development. But the theory of evolution is of course much stronger a view than Nietzsche's speculative conception - in fact, at times Nietzsche even seems to hint at his will to power being found even in inanimate objects, which completely lacks evidence. Also, his idea of an eternal recurrence is (if interpreted as a substantive cosmological thesis) also empirically baseless. But even from his own epistemology, it follows that he does not know any absolute truths - which his arrogance and conviction however makes it seem like it does.

3. I still maintain his J-ness. While you are correct in that some of the things I mentioned are coherent with him being P rather than J, some other reasons are: (1) he argues a posteriori, i.e. from substantive matters (even though, in his hands, they are not very substantive as they lack epistemic justification) rather than from logic. (2) You also mentioned that his writing critique books makes his vicious style relevant to the context. This is actually false. The very fact that he was writing cultural and moral critique, rather than working on e.g. the problems of mathematics, displays a decidedly INTJ:ish attitude.

Also, you said that "INTPs are every bit as judging as INTJs". But this seems quite absurd: the open-endedness of Ps is what makes them differ from Js. (Note however that I deem his epistemology to be a flawed judgement, rather than an attempt at open-endedness. I think this is pretty clear from Nietzsche's general style of rather unreflected a posteriori, judging argumentation.)

[Aristocrat Porn]

Originally Posted by The Many To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I have read Also Sprach Zarathustra, Beyond Good and Evil, parts of The Antichrist and I-can't-remember-how-much-secondary-literature, both about his works and his biography. So not everything, but enough to make an informed judgement. (I am however intending to read The Genealogy of Morals in a while.) The reason I did not care to argue for my opinions is that I am not writing an academic paper here. As to Nietzsche's worldview, I am not going to write an academic paper on it here either, but some general remarks: 1. His argument for perspectivism is, at least as far as I can remember, that objective knowledge is impossible since everyone bases their worldview on e.g. emotional arguments, so hence, the best we can reach is some kind of set of beliefs that everyone can agree upon. This seems unconvincing to me. Merely because people do not argue well, we cannot say that we should not longer try to be objective (to the extent that it is possible to be so) and utilize strong and rigorous scientific standards. After the scientific revolution, the claims he is making here seem very unconvincing. 2. He derides Darwinism, stating that it is his will-to-power that is the basis for all development. But the theory of evolution is of course much stronger a view than Nietzsche's speculative conception - in fact, at times Nietzsche even seems to hint at his will to power being found even in inanimate objects, which completely lacks evidence. Also, his idea of an eternal recurrence is (if interpreted as a substantive cosmological thesis) also empirically baseless. But even from his own epistemology, it follows that he does not know any absolute truths - which his arrogance and conviction however makes it seem like it does. 3. I still maintain his J-ness. While you are correct in that some of the things I mentioned are coherent with him being P rather than J, some other reasons are: (1) he argues a posteriori, i.e. from substantive matters (even though, in his hands, they are not very substantive as they lack epistemic justification) rather than from logic. (2) You also mentioned that his writing critique books makes his vicious style relevant to the context. This is actually false. The very fact that he was writing cultural and moral critique, rather than working on e.g. the problems of mathematics, displays a decidedly INTJ:ish attitude. Also, you said that "INTPs are every bit as judging as INTJs". But this seems quite absurd: the open-endedness of Ps is what makes them differ from Js. (Note however that I deem his epistemology to be a flawed judgement, rather than an attempt at open-endedness. I think this is pretty clear from Nietzsche's general style of rather unreflected a posteriori, judging argumentation.)

It seems to me that he never meant to say that no one should try to be objective in their day to day life. That would be an impossible and illogical goal. He simply critiqued absolute truths which derive from objectivity.


Either way, you seem to be looking at the whole thing like a scientist. He was a philosopher, a lot of his ideas cannot be weighed on an empirical scale.


Aside from that, I don't see how your other points can be taken as evidence for him being an INTJ. It would seem to me you would have all INT mathematicians be INTPs, and all INT writers who criticize anything be INTJs.

There is no such thing which can really be stated as an INTJ "attitude" when you are talking about the individual. It might be most common in INTJs, but for specific cases this kind of information is not useful. It's like saying someone can't be an ENTJ because they were not ambitious and according to mbti ENTJs are supposed to be highly ambitious.

I explained why we are just as judging and that the difference is in the way we treat these judgments.


Either way, I don't want to argue this much further. It is certainly possible that he was an INTJ, although I do maintain that to me he seems like an absolute INTP.

I would have kant as an example of a definite INTJ.

[Kisai]

I haven't really read enough Plato to give a good judgement, but Socrates strikes me as being ENTP.