• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Question for other INFJs

Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
6
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
1w8
I have a question to pose to other philosopher INFJ's, as due to out MBTI we are the type most likely to be idealists. And I've noticed that with my own philosophical views. So I'd find it interesting to hear other INFJ's opinions on their favorite philosophers. My own being Plato and Karl Marx and would love to have a discussion on the matters of idealistic philosophers. This is mainly due to the fact anyone else I've talked with about philosophy has had a very different MBTI then myself and while appreciate arguments with them I can also find it a bit irritating for no one to ever be able to see things through the idealist point of view.
 

cafe

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
9,827
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
I'm an idealist, but I don't read much non-fiction. Sorry.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
How is idealism defined here? In typological terms or metaphysical? In terms of metaphysics I'm more a realist actually.
 

the state i am in

Active member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,475
MBTI Type
infj
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
haha yeah, marx is the opposite of idealist, philosophically speaking. turning hegel on his head.

J types can be idealist in general because they rely on abstract categories to mediate the world in almost every single thought process; they work with the representation as it can be communicated rather than the phenomenological experience more directly. universals vs particulars, etc.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
How is idealism defined here? In typological terms or metaphysical? In terms of metaphysics I'm more a realist actually.

I was thinking that myself actually, if you're an idealist wouldnt you be more of a Hegelian than interested in Marx or Plato, they're both materialists right?
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
haha yeah, marx is the opposite of idealist, philosophically speaking. turning hegel on his head.

J types can be idealist in general because they rely on abstract categories to mediate the world in almost every single thought process; they work with the representation as it can be communicated rather than the phenomenological experience more directly. universals vs particulars, etc.

This interests me a lot, this final line, I knew that about Marx but say more about this final line, I've been trying to read more on phenomenology lately as its one of the big undiscovered countries philosophically which I've less knowledge of.

I've been reading someone called Husserl, or something like that, and another guy called Mercel Mont Perly or something. They're all continental theoriests arent they? So far it seems overly complex, like a reinventing of the wheel.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
I was thinking that myself actually, if you're an idealist wouldnt you be more of a Hegelian than interested in Marx or Plato, they're both materialists right?

Hegelians are one kind of Idealists, Kantians and Berkley are other kinds. Marx was a materialist but Plato definitely wasn't. You maybe thinking of Epicurus.

I will admit a certain attraction to Idealists and certain themes of Idealism, but in the end I think it has too many flaws. Realism seems more up my alley, with perhaps some Idealists elements thrown in.

This interests me a lot, this final line, I knew that about Marx but say more about this final line, I've been trying to read more on phenomenology lately as its one of the big undiscovered countries philosophically which I've less knowledge of.

I've been reading someone called Husserl, or something like that, and another guy called Mercel Mont Perly or something. They're all continental theoriests arent they? So far it seems overly complex, like a reinventing of the wheel.
Yes Husserl is generally considered the father of Phenomenology. Related to this discussion, Husserl seems to have been more realist in his early days but later on became more idealist in inclination. So a huge dispute among phenomenologists is between those favoring realism and those favoring idealism.

Max Scheler was another major phenomenologist who might interest you.
 

the state i am in

Active member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,475
MBTI Type
infj
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
bracketing is another term for extroverted perception not mediated by meaning. merleau-ponty, i think, has his own category for this. i remember we read phenomenology of perception preface two or three times in undergrad.
 

Daenera

Rogue heart
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
356
I have a question to pose to other philosopher INFJ's, as due to out MBTI we are the type most likely to be idealists. And I've noticed that with my own philosophical views. So I'd find it interesting to hear other INFJ's opinions on their favorite philosophers. My own being Plato and Karl Marx and would love to have a discussion on the matters of idealistic philosophers. This is mainly due to the fact anyone else I've talked with about philosophy has had a very different MBTI then myself and while appreciate arguments with them I can also find it a bit irritating for no one to ever be able to see things through the idealist point of view.


Plato and Marx huh? Unusual combination.:huh: Why those two? I have trouble finding similarities between the two, on the contrary I see a lot of differences, also Marx is not an idealist, the Marxist theory is defined as dialectical materialism. Personally I have a taste for the existential and aesthetic questions mostly and I wouldn't say I have favorite philosophers, I like certain ideas from certain philosophers. Hooray for eclecticism. :laugh:
 

Typh0n

clever fool
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
3,497
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I was thinking that myself actually, if you're an idealist wouldnt you be more of a Hegelian than interested in Marx or Plato, they're both materialists right?

Plato is actually the "father" of idealism in the western philosophical tradition lol. Marx, though, was a materialist yes.


Anyways to answer the OP, I would differeciate between the idealist temperament and idealistic philosophy, the former may actually idealize a materialistic conception of the universe. Personally, I am an idealist in philosophy though. .:)
 
Last edited:

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Plato is actually the "father" of idealism in the western philosophical tradition lol. More idealistic than Hegel. Marx, though, was a materialist yes.

I didnt know that, I thought his theory of forms was an attempt to try and get to the true essence of things, like how the materialists sought to analyse things. I could be mistaken.
 

Typh0n

clever fool
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
3,497
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I didnt know that, I thought his theory of forms was an attempt to try and get to the true essence of things, like how the materialists sought to analyse things. I could be mistaken.

Plato's essences are not to be confused with Aristotle's substances. Yes, they attempt to get to the true essence of things, but the true essence of things is the idea. For instance, the idea of a chair is superior to any specific chair, be it of wood, metal, plastic(nowadays) etc, it is the "first form" of all chairs since all chairs, being what they are, conform to the idea of the chair. This is why Plato said that painting and drawing being "arts of imitation", do not educate, since they bring us further from the idea, contrary to abstract thought, which brings us closer to it. The "supreme" idea, then, was the "good" and it was the highest emanation of all being. This is where the spiritual notion that ethics are in a different sphere than the material comes from; all ethics/morals are an emanation of the idea of good, and belong to the realm of ideas. Plato was more concerned with ethics then with analyses of things for its own sake though.
 

sorenx7

New member
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
227
This interests me a lot, this final line, I knew that about Marx but say more about this final line, I've been trying to read more on phenomenology lately as its one of the big undiscovered countries philosophically which I've less knowledge of.

I've been reading someone called Husserl, or something like that, and another guy called Mercel Mont Perly or something. They're all continental theoriests arent they? So far it seems overly complex, like a reinventing of the wheel.

I don't know much about Husserl, but he was one of Martin Heidegger's professors. Heidegger dedicated the original version of "Being and Time" to him. It appears, however, that they had a troubled philosophical relationship.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
I don't know much about Husserl, but he was one of Martin Heidegger's professors. Heidegger dedicated the original version of "Being and Time" to him. It appears, however, that they had a troubled philosophical relationship.

Was it not something to do with Husserl being a Jew and Heidegger being a Nazi?
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
I have a question to pose to other philosopher INFJ's, as due to out MBTI we are the type most likely to be idealists. And I've noticed that with my own philosophical views. So I'd find it interesting to hear other INFJ's opinions on their favorite philosophers. My own being Plato and Karl Marx and would love to have a discussion on the matters of idealistic philosophers. This is mainly due to the fact anyone else I've talked with about philosophy has had a very different MBTI then myself and while appreciate arguments with them I can also find it a bit irritating for no one to ever be able to see things through the idealist point of view.

But....if everyone agreed with you, how would you ever learn to respect, or at least become aware of, the other sides of the metaphorical coin? Besides I think it is naive to assume that sharing a type means sharing the same ideals.
 

sorenx7

New member
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
227
Was it not something to do with Husserl being a Jew and Heidegger being a Nazi?

This is something I kept up with to some extent ten years ago or so. I think that may have very well been an issue. But there seem to be quite a few interpretations of what actually happened. Based on what I read, I always got the impression that Heidegger was ungrateful to Husserl. However, I think it was most likely over genuine philosophical differences. Heidegger seemed to highly value his own interpretation of philosophy regardless of who was involved. I don't particularly like, for instance, the way he first seemed to value Kierkegaard's thought, then pretty much dismissed him. There is also the real issue of how much Heidegger was or was not connected to Nazism. Maybe somebody actually knows, but this doesn't seem to be something which is clear-cut to me. I may have something to learn from his philosophy, but I'm not so sure how great he was as a person. I've read both positive and negative things he did in regard to Nazism. In some cases, he seemed to stand against it and in other cases he didn't. His relationship to Hannah Arendt is also interesting. She did seem to have a positive view of him. However, I've read so many conflicting things about Heidegger, I hardly even know what to believe anymore.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
I can also find it a bit irritating for no one to ever be able to see things through the idealist point of view.

Too right mate! Idealists are the most dangerous people in the world.

Plato was anti-democratic, and Marx said whole peoples will need to be destroyed, and they were.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
Too right mate! Idealists are the most dangerous people in the world.

Plato was anti-democratic, and Marx said whole peoples will need to be destroyed, and they were.

I think we should have a 'Questions for Victor' I know I would enjoy it.
 

Typh0n

clever fool
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
3,497
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Too right mate! Idealists are the most dangerous people in the world.

Plato was anti-democratic, and Marx said whole peoples will need to be destroyed, and they were.

Plato was anti-democratic because democracy is indeed dangerous. It is the opposite pendulum swing of tyranny. In Plato's time, and this is still true in Europe today, political regimes oscillate between democracy and tyranny. I think this is harder for Americans to understand, as they've not had this problem. Maybe thats because of America being a representative democracy, rather than a direct one, I dont know. In any case all no great thinker, including the founding fathers of the American revolution, has ever viewed democracy as anything other than mob rule.

Just food for thought.;)
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
This is something I kept up with to some extent ten years ago or so. I think that may have very well been an issue. But there seem to be quite a few interpretations of what actually happened. Based on what I read, I always got the impression that Heidegger was ungrateful to Husserl. However, I think it was most likely over genuine philosophical differences. Heidegger seemed to highly value his own interpretation of philosophy regardless of who was involved. I don't particularly like, for instance, the way he first seemed to value Kierkegaard's thought, then pretty much dismissed him. There is also the real issue of how much Heidegger was or was not connected to Nazism. Maybe somebody actually knows, but this doesn't seem to be something which is clear-cut to me. I may have something to learn from his philosophy, but I'm not so sure how great he was as a person. I've read both positive and negative things he did in regard to Nazism. In some cases, he seemed to stand against it and in other cases he didn't. His relationship to Hannah Arendt is also interesting. She did seem to have a positive view of him. However, I've read so many conflicting things about Heidegger, I hardly even know what to believe anymore.

He's one academic whose philosophy I think was shite, I dont dislike him as much as Satre though.

I think there's more chance that he was sympathetic towards the Nazis than there is that Jung was, although the with the passage of time I think it becomes harder and harder to understand how anyone could have had any view of the Nazis and Hitler as reasonable or sympathetic but at one time a lot of fairly intelligence and smart people did.

Even during and at the end of the war there were anti-Hitler figures among the Nazis and military who were willing to try to make some peace with the rest of the world which would have left some sort of dictatorship intact and people in the west who thought that would be a good idea having always considered the bolsheviks or Stalin as the bigger problem.
 
Top