Wittgenstein is INFJ. Confused, abstract, guided by whims to a degree that INTJs are not
which begs the question: would an INTJ ever say something like that? (that is; knowingly concede that his position wasn't optimal?)Kant was so idealistic (Fi) that he would say something like that, and then turn around and say something like this: “I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith.”
an INTJ rationalizes his position to be the best because the INTJ lives his position through ego-driven feeling (Fi)
so Kants statement indicates an interchange with faith (Fe). he can slip in and out of his dealings with faith in the same manner than an extroverted function can be stimulated of dormant, whereas an introverted function is always on. if kant was Fi-driven he could not make room for faith, because he would simply live his faith, allowing no distance from or to it
if we compare the two statements:
“I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith.”
"once we have disciplined human reason to stay off that theoretical path, we are then in a position to make an affirmation of God on the basis of what he terms the practical, i.e., moral, use of reason"
these do not mean the same.
the key to understanding this is asking ourselves what "that path" is. then we will have the meaning of the second statement:
"once we have disciplined human reason to stay off [theoretical paths that rationalist metaphysics had claimed will lead to a proof of God's existence], we are then in a position to make an affirmation of God on the basis of what he terms the practical, i.e., moral, use of reason"
now in everyday view, there's nothing "practical" about kant's "practical reason. practical reason is simply reason that interacts with the wold in any way. in kantian terminology, it practical reason does not have any of the properties that we would consider "applied reason" and as such, Te
the reason that pure reason should not venture into the questions of faith is not because there is an idealistic darling to be protected (Fi), in fact, if anything, *if* kant had applied pure reason to the questions of faith he would have concluded that god *did* exist on these grounds. the reason that pure reason should not adress the questions of faith is because pure reason cannot prove claims about god without interacting with the world, thus becomming practical reason. kant knew this from hume, and had he not read hume he would - by his own account - have remained in the "metaphysical slumber" of pure reason
i used to think that marx was an INTJ, but in fact we was a very analytic, disinterested type, concerned more with analysing scholary data than actual revolution. - still, he might be an INTJ though my money is on P