Thomas Kuhn

[Orangey]

Hannah Arendt? A "kind of banal" thinker?
What is it supposed to mean?
Has he *really* read her works? Has he really put them into context: why, when, how, and who?

I agree. This is why I think some people are not properly prepared to read certain texts, even if they have read them 100% through.

 

[Blackwater]

my op was obviously not meant to be taken as an exhaustive case for kuhn as enfj. that somebody would believe that i simply refuse to believe. strawman!

i read his tsosr and i got the impression from the sentiments contained in the text and the manner of presentation that these were indicative of ENFJ. i knew full well that this impression was imcomplete, and I can prove it by the very fact that if I had hought it was complete i would not have started a thread on it

i still hold that arendts work is banal but by all means, do educate me

 

[SolitaryWalker]

i still hold that arendts work is banal but by all means, do educate me

Has it ever occured to you that the banality may not be indicative of a personality trait but rather conformity to the demands of the readers? Furthermore, even if it was a manifestation of a personality trait, what reason is there to suppose that this quality pertains to temperament rather than resultant of a person's non-typological character idiosyncrasies or mere personal experiences?

 

[Blackmail!]

i still hold that arendts work is banal but by all means, do educate me

To be honest, I think that you have never read any Arendt works, and never put them into context -because she was the first to say things that weren't that "obvious" before her-.

All you have is a motto, probably left by the reading of a superfical article about the "banality of evil". Hence the word "banal" you repeat without understanding its real meaning.

 

[Sniffles]

Sometimes the method is more important than the conclusion (I know, that's my Ti bias! :rolli.
The journey is more important than the destination.

Sometimes, sure. But overall truth should not be confused with methodology.

 

[Blackwater]

Has it ever occured to you that the banality may not be indicative of a personality trait but rather conformity to the demands of the readers?

yearh sure, but these dont rule each other out. hume loved to twist the knife in the wound that was causation theory. yet he also loved attention and so supressed som of his wilder ideas. though he aims to please, i dont get any banal vibes from reading hume.

Furthermore, even if it was a manifestation of a personality trait, what reason is there to suppose that this quality pertains to temperament rather than resultant of a person's non-typological character idiosyncrasies or mere personal experiences?

if we agree that functions are subconcious dispositions these dispositions would actually tilt life experience to concur with their nature. the whole principle behind typology is that people are different and that they react differently to similar experiences and input. still, i agree that it is possible for someone who in written material and biography walks like an enfj and talks like an enfj is actually something else. my purpose is not to generate claims that are beyond dispute, but to illustrate how subconcious functions play out in the intellectual domain. i have already stated that in this thread

i think bluewing, what might be happening here is that you are revising your views of typology and comming to terms with the fact that typology does not have as much to say about a personality as you once thought. thats entirely cool with me but i feel like you are fighting some former incarnation of yourself rather than fighting me, for i made my peace with that realization a long time ago

To be honest, I think that you have never read any Arendt works, and never put them into context -because she was the first to say things that weren't that "obvious" before her-.

i say is banal, not was. for that same reason i dont read a lot of medieval philosophy because it strikes me as well, banal (and i say this as an avid reader of philosophy)

even so, i am not even convinced that arenedt wasnt banal for her own time. i recently read this: Essays in Understanding, 1930-1954: Formation, Exile: Amazon.co.uk: Hannah Arendt, Jerome Kohn: Books and it was - uhm - to say the least - banal

would arendt even be included amongst philosophers if she had been a man?

i suspect we differ on philsophy quite a lot, blackmail. i also think sartres moral philosphy is banal and that doesnt go beyond a rehashing of kant. but probably believe that all philosophy is relevant if taken in the proper context and by all means feel free to do so. just dont expect me to

 

[Sniffles]

Sartre is a rehashing of Kant? I've never heard that claim before.

 

[JHBowden]

Kuhn was a conceptual schemer, liked to look at things holistically in terms of visions and paradigms. He was pretty impersonal too. I'd tentatively say INTJ; he doesn't show many extroverted tendencies, like nominalism, deflationism, et cetera.

And no, Arendt's work definitely isn't banal. Like Marcuse, she's one of those thinkers that needs to be understood in the shadow of Heidegger. Arendt had far more this-worldly concerns than the other-worldly Heidegger, which probably suggests extroversion. Not sure how the other blanks fill in.