• 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.

Plato's/Socrates' Type

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Well I'm not sure how much stock you put in the 8 cognitive functions test, but my fuctions turned up in an order more like this.

Ne ... excellent
Ti ... excellent
Fi ... good
Ni ... good
Te ... average
Se ... average
Fe ... poor
Si ... poor

My Fi is really developed, but my Fe is not really developed at all. Sharing, bonding through experience, social ettiquette, etc... never really did much for me and still doesn't. On the other hand I have a fairly well developed sense of personal values. My Fi is much stronger than my Fe regardless of what the theory says it is supposed to be.

I'm not really saying that Ti is only good for analyzing, because I use it a lot. It's extremely practical. But I could never define myself by my ideas. Even before I knew about MBTI I envisioned myself as a great introverted thinker, i.e. an INTP type, but eventually I realized that it really wasn't me. The ideas have to be applied in some practical manner, and I didn't have a sense of purpose about how to apply these ideas, until I developed a personal morality.

I tried getting my core from Ti, but I really think that only works for IxTP's. My identity seems to come more from wanting to have an impact on the world around me. I need a sense of purpose to do this and that comes from my Fi. Ti has always been insufficient in providing me with an identity.

P.S. I really think Socrates is an ENTP rather than INTP.


Ah yes, the cognitive functions test gave me a high Fi score and a high Ti score for INFPs.

I think the case here is that its my Ti being influenced by Fe and thus resembling an Fi, and vice versa for INFPs.

I agree that an ENTP is unlikely to find a sense of higher purpose with Ti alone, his aim must be externalized. When an ENTP finds a higher purpose, Ne will play a salient role, so will Fe. Though again, in order to start seeking the higher purpose, he must turn inwards, and that will likely be through Ti. There he will learn to implement Fe and Ne externally to meet the higher purpose that Ti has conjured, Fe will back Ti up. And in the same fashion as for the INTP, will resemble an Fi because it manifests primarily through Ti.

Moreover, INTPs tend not to derive their sense of inner purpose through their ideas alone. But through the activity of passing assessments of the world internally. Spinoza was a great example of this. His chief doctrine on this matter was an intellectual love of god. Being a pantheist he believed that god was all, and hence infinite. Thought and imagination are properties of the infinite realm and hence we can access the infinite realm through a certain depth of thought. Henry David Thoreau has managed to find his higher purpose with Ti, though in a much less intricate fashion. Much of the same could be said for Jung's spirituality and how he took an impersonal approach to construct his views on eschatology.

Spinoza's utterance on this matter sums it up well for the Ti oriented search for higher purpose. Faith can only insantiate obedience, but it does not give us truth. We can only truly believe in something strongly enough to devote our entire lives to if we see a reason to think that what we believe in is true.

Hence, no belief can reasonably be expected to be held infallible till the end of time, so there isnt a particular philosophy that we can have absolute faith in forever. Contrary to what religions would like for us to believe. Yet, what we can do on this matter is make the search for truth our perennial quest.


Socrates was an ENTP and not an INTP? That is certainly a claim of merit.

Why would somebody say this?

First of all, he was a great conversationist. Adaptable extremely well. Always had a sharp retort in nearly any dialogue without taking the time to ponder things like INTPs often need to. And most of all, he sought to influence others on a profound level.

Well, we should also say that he cherished truth beyond all else. This was more important than influencing others. Pursuit of a higher purpose was seemingly a perennial quest for him which he never abandoned in favor of exploring new options like an ENTP may have in his shoes.

Moreover, he was not very image conscious. Often he would stand in the markets in his reveries for hours alone, and when others would ask him why he came as he never buys anything--he'd answer.."I am astounded by all the things that they have that i dont need'..He always wore the same outfit..and everybody in town agreed that he was ugly and he was not in the least disturbed by this..All he wanted to do, seemingly was argue about philosophy, even when it was obvious that noone else is interested. He never bothered to take care of practical concerns, the search for truth is all that he knew...He was always impecunious because he never worked and as for his wife, he said that it builds your inner stamina to live with a capricious wife..When he saved his old friend in battle, he claimed he was driven by an internal purpose, he knew that this was the fair thing to do..And when his friend was later reviled, most people in his shoes would have regretted having saved him and renounced that person as a friend in their eyes..Yet Socrates stood firm by his word..and was not in the least worried about how he is disliked..seemingly hardly affected him at all..whilst an ENTP may have had some issues with fickleness and being overly opportunistic..and would likely be concerned with their public image, wouldnt want to let their reputation go down the drain as they at least want to be liked enough to be listened to. Influencing others is quite important.

He refused to cooperate with tyrannical politicians and always did what he thought was right, what others thought seemingly had no value to him. And when he stood trial, he held firmly to his principles, even to the point where it came to a sink or swim time..All he had to say that he will pay a fine and he would have been released..but no..that went against his inner being. And in prison, he also could have escaped, but he chose to stay loyal to his principle that maintained the necessity to obey certain laws of authority under certain circumstances even if they make your circumstances unpropitious. Yet, an ENTP would likely be much more opportunistic here.

Lastly, when the oracle told him that he is the wisest man in town, he couldnt believe it untill he could find evidence for this in hard reasoning for himself. That is why he went on to argue with people to see if that was really true. And when they have become agonized at him, he continued to speak what he thought was the truth. That he is wiser than them because he at least is wise enough to know that he is an ignoramous, whilst they are still under the illusion that they know something. An ENTP would likely be smoother than this and certainly wouldnt push it to the point where it may cost them exile or their life just for the sake of ensuring that they stay by their principles.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets look at David Hume as a representative of the ENTP type, the greatest of ENTP philosophers.

He was devoted to his principles and was repulsed by anything that doesn't involve in depth thinking.

He was very externally focused and students of philosophy are often disappointed to discover that philosophy wasn't his life. He spent more time applying philosophy than philosophizing.

Very eclectic. He was an eminent historian and a master of literature(this was one of his many hobbies). That is why he was one of the few philosophers who could style. He was also very politically active and in nearly everything he wrote, he wrote to influence. Writing for the sake of pondering ideas left him uninspired. Even when he wrote his philosophy, he always wrote for impact, he wrote to the general intelligent man, not some ivory tower academic. That is why he decided to become a man of letters and an essayist.

He had many acquaintances and among them the famous INTP economist, Adam Smith. Who perhaps was one of the few, if not the only his close friend. Many acted like they were also, yet if we look further into the issue they were not, and Hume was not much disturbed by this. At one point he has made a friendship with a neurotic ISFP Rousseau, who would accuse him of plotting against him frequently, he suffered from persecution mania. Every time Rousseau apologized, Hume said he forgave him..Yet in his letters to his friends we often see him vent about how much of a madman Rousseau was and how he could hardly stand him..and in the end he says that he could respect him for his whole life..

Hume followed his inner principles, but much more loosely than Socrates..he was a man of the world, and his principles served to build an inner identity so he would be more adept at making a difference...if he thought that he could go against his principles to win in the external world, he'd do it..so long as the discrepancy was not too grave. Moreover, Hume loved chaos theory beyond all else. He did not seek the absolute truth, he just wanted to play around with ideas and intellectual disorder fascinated him. He came to the conclusion that he can not reasonably know anything. That everything in the world is arbitrary, and all our delusions about how we know something boils down to no more than human psychology and unwitting self-deception. He wasnt disturbed in the least, he just moved on to writing history.




To an INTP this would be unacceptable, as the purpose of getting involved in the world is strictly reinforcing the internal quest of finding this best principles possible and the most sound inner identity possible.

Hume was also somewhat vain and finicky. He openly sought literary fame and was willing to compromise his interests in favor of winning admiration of others. That is why he quit philosophy to write history.
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
Socrates was an ENTP and not an INTP? That is certainly a claim of merit.

Why would somebody say this?

First of all, he was a great conversationist. Adaptable extremely well. Always had a sharp retort in nearly any dialogue without taking the time to ponder things like INTPs often need to. And most of all, he sought to influence others on a profound level.

I would like to add that as far as we know he didn't write anything. Everything we know about Socrates essentially comes through Plato. I would think an INTP would be sure to write his ideas down. Also he seemed willing to approach relative strangers and challenge their thinking. He has a lot of things painting him to be an ENTP (which is why I think he as an ENTP). :)

Well, we should also say that he cherished truth beyond all else. This was more important than influencing others. Pursuit of a higher purpose was seemingly a perennial quest for him which he never abandoned in favor of exploring new options like an ENTP may have in his shoes.

While INTP philosophers seem content to "know" the truth, Socrates was intent on "living" the truth. I do believe that ENTP's can focus singularly on one goal especially one as open-ended as the pursuit of truth. But they will approach it from many different perspectives. They will talk to many different types of people and seek many different experiences (which is what Socrates did).

Moreover, he was not very image conscious. Often he would stand in the markets in his reveries for hours alone, and when others would ask him why he came as he never buys anything--he'd answer.."I am astounded by all the things that they have that i dont need'..He always wore the same outfit..and everybody in town agreed that he was ugly and he was not in the least disturbed by this..All he wanted to do, seemingly was argue about philosophy, even when it was obvious that noone else is interested. He never bothered to take care of practical concerns, the search for truth is all that he knew...He was always impecunious because he never worked and as for his wife, he said that it builds your inner stamina to live with a capricious wife..When he saved his old friend in battle, he claimed he was driven by an internal purpose, he knew that this was the fair thing to do..And when his friend was later reviled, most people in his shoes would have regretted having saved him and renounced that person as a friend in their eyes..Yet Socrates stood firm by his word..and was not in the least worried about how he is disliked..seemingly hardly affected him at all..whilst an ENTP may have had some issues with fickleness and being overly opportunistic..and would likely be concerned with their public image, wouldnt want to let their reputation go down the drain as they at least want to be liked enough to be listened to. Influencing others is quite important.

Well standing in a crowded public area and arguing with people is more in line with ENTP behavior than INTP. Both INTP's and ENTP's are known for appearing unconventional, but ENTP's are more likely to be obvious about it. Both can be lazy, non-working types. Valor is more of an ENTP trait though. You are right in that ENTP's are concerned with their public image, but often it is to go against authority and accepted norms. ENTP's want to stand out and be a spectacle, and they will go against the grain to do so.

He refused to cooperate with tyrannical politicians and always did what he thought was right, what others thought seemingly had no value to him. And when he stood trial, he held firmly to his principles, even to the point where it came to a sink or swim time..All he had to say that he will pay a fine and he would have been released..but no..that went against his inner being. And in prison, he also could have escaped, but he chose to stay loyal to his principle that maintained the necessity to obey certain laws of authority under certain circumstances even if they make your circumstances unpropitious. Yet, an ENTP would likely be much more opportunistic here.
Again ENTP is more likely to make a spectacle of himself. Also Ne is so detached that it makes the ENTP somewhat fearless to the point of defying common sense. The ENTP can go ahead and drink hemlock, thinking objectively that it is the right thing to do. Even an INTP would consider against this type of behavior more than an ENTP.

Lastly, when the oracle told him that he is the wisest man in town, he couldnt believe it untill he could find evidence for this in hard reasoning for himself. That is why he went on to argue with people to see if that was really true. And when they have become agonized at him, he continued to speak what he thought was the truth. That he is wiser than them because he at least is wise enough to know that he is an ignoramous, whilst they are still under the illusion that they know something. An ENTP would likely be smoother than this and certainly wouldnt push it to the point where it may cost them exile or their life just for the sake of ensuring that they stay by their principles.
Depends on the ENTP. Some ENTP's want to maintain a good image. Others just want to argue with people and piss them off just to prove a point. Socrates falls in the latter category. INTP's are not known to seek people out are argue with them. That is really ENTP behavior.

In regards to David Hume you say:
He came to the conclusion that he can not reasonably know anything.

This is very similar to Socrates. The point of "The Apology" is that no one is wise. The difference is that at least Socrates knew that he was not wise. This conclusion is not all that different from the one you say about David Hume.

Socrates really has all the signs of an ENTP. If you compare him to Aristotle an INTP of the roughly same culture, you see that their outlooks on life and their approach to things are considerably different.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I would like to add that as far as we know he didn't write anything. Everything we know about Socrates essentially comes through Plato. I would think an INTP would be sure to write his ideas down. Also he seemed willing to approach relative strangers and challenge their thinking. He has a lot of things painting him to be an ENTP (which is why I think he as an ENTP). :)



While INTP philosophers seem content to "know" the truth, Socrates was intent on "living" the truth. I do believe that ENTP's can focus singularly on one goal especially one as open-ended as the pursuit of truth. But they will approach it from many different perspectives. They will talk to many different types of people and seek many different experiences (which is what Socrates did).



Well standing in a crowded public area and arguing with people is more in line with ENTP behavior than INTP. Both INTP's and ENTP's are known for appearing unconventional, but ENTP's are more likely to be obvious about it. Both can be lazy, non-working types. Valor is more of an ENTP trait though. You are right in that ENTP's are concerned with their public image, but often it is to go against authority and accepted norms. ENTP's want to stand out and be a spectacle, and they will go against the grain to do so.


Again ENTP is more likely to make a spectacle of himself. Also Ne is so detached that it makes the ENTP somewhat fearless to the point of defying common sense. The ENTP can go ahead and drink hemlock, thinking objectively that it is the right thing to do. Even an INTP would consider against this type of behavior more than an ENTP.


Depends on the ENTP. Some ENTP's want to maintain a good image. Others just want to argue with people and piss them off just to prove a point. Socrates falls in the latter category. INTP's are not known to seek people out are argue with them. That is really ENTP behavior.

In regards to David Hume you say:


This is very similar to Socrates. The point of "The Apology" is that no one is wise. The difference is that at least Socrates knew that he was not wise. This conclusion is not all that different from the one you say about David Hume.

Socrates really has all the signs of an ENTP. If you compare him to Aristotle an INTP of the roughly same culture, you see that their outlooks on life and their approach to things are considerably different.



Before we proceed, let me make sure I understand your argument properly.

Proposition: Socrates is an ENTP

Why?

I would like to add that as far as we know he didn't write anything.

So, because he didn't write anything it seems like he was more of a conversational learner than academically minded one. ENTPs learn better through discussion and INTPs through reading, writing and contemplating.

An INTP would prefer to further his thought experiments privately through writing and reflecting rather than discussion. Yet, again INTPs are also not interested in writing unless something captured their interest as communication tends not to be their strong aspect. Though your point is well taken, the not having written anything aspect applies better to ENTPs rather than INTPs. INTP


While INTP philosophers seem content to "know" the truth, Socrates was intent on "living" the truth. I do believe that ENTP's can focus singularly on one goal especially one as open-ended as the pursuit of truth. But they will approach it from many different perspectives. They will talk to many different types of people and seek many different experiences (which is what Socrates did)

So, if Socrates was an INTP, he would not be so expressive about his lifestyle. And the way he approached the matter emphasized Ne more than Ti. He was more concerned with reviewing the matter from many perspectives rather than narrowing it down to find the most sound ideas possible. Seems to me however. An INTP would be more interested in living out the life of a rationalist than an ENTP because the Ti is stronger. The ENTP would be much more eclectic about their lifestyle and hence the rationalist aspect would be significantly less notable. Yet, however much of it they had would be more visible than that of an INTP (who may be more of a rationalist than an ENTP because of the Ti primacy), as again they are more in tune with the external world and have a need to be expressive about their inner agenda. I'd argue that INTPs are not less likely than ENTPs to live out the life of a rationalist. Spinoza, Descartes, Aristotle and Einstein were certainly dedicated not to living the truth, as you say, but rather being as candid of thinkers as possible and this manifested externally only incidentally.

Now if we compare these men to devoted ENTP rationalists like David Hume and Bertrand Russell. We will see that these two actually made a conscious effort to externalize their rationalism oriented lifestyle, but this aspect was significantly weaker than in the INTPs. Their sense of inner purpose was weaker. They were also more eclectic. Both of these men were politically active and held intense interests in fields like arts, literature and history , whilst INTPs did not. In short, INTPs are more dedicated to living out the life that they want to live, yet ENTPs are more expressive about it. Hence, the notion that ENTPs want to orient their life around philosophical rationalism more than INTPs do is illusory. INTPs are questors like INFPs. They wish to devote their lives to the higher purpose they have discovered for themselves. Unlike the Extroverts, they believe that this higher purpose is to be discovered and followed through upon internally in the realm of mind. Whilst ENTPs would think that the inner purpose must manifest itself directly externally. If Socrates was an ENTP his inner purpose would manifest directly in a form of him going to the market specifically to the end of sharing his wisdom with others. If he was an INTP, he would hardly think about his external ventures at all. All he'd say to himself is that he has ideas to ponder and he wants to further his thought experiments by discussing them with others. It seems that this is what he was doing. Going to the market was means to the end of his internal goals, yet for an ENTP it would be an end in itself. Influencing people is a direct objective to be met, yet for the INTP it is not important and may arrive only incidentally, an INTP would be satisfied if his inner thought experiments were received the desired treatment--as he then would have met his inner standards.

Well standing in a crowded public area and arguing with people is more in line with ENTP behavior than INTP. Both INTP's and ENTP's are known for appearing unconventional, but ENTP's are more likely to be obvious about it. Both can be lazy, non-working types. Valor is more of an ENTP trait though. You are right in that ENTP's are concerned with their public image, but often it is to go against authority and accepted norms. ENTP's want to stand out and be a spectacle, and they will go against the grain to do so.)

I would argue that valor is a property of a strong Thinking personality. Introverted Thinking is as 'T' as it gets. If we accept this premise, it follows that INTPs are higher on valor, yet ENTPs seem to be more not because they are more courageous, but becuase they are more expressive about how courageous they are. They would have less 'valor points', because their T is lower.

I would think, however, an ENTP would go to the markets to engage in the social scene. Much like ENFPs (Ne dominant), they enjoy interplaying with the external environment for the sake of influencing it. Yet Socrates had little desire to influence. He was content just standing back and quietly analyzing the situation. Seems like he argued not to put on a stunt or entertain people, but to further his thought experiments. He was driven by his inner purpose, whilst an ENTP would be driven by the inner purpose to a significantly lesser extent. They may engage in behaviors similar to that of Socrates for the purposes of adventure. The distinction to take note of here is that ENTPs tend to be more of risk takers because they think things through less, though less self-confident because their T is weaker. You can argue that valor has more to do with a dominant Ne rather than T, yet this would sound highly unpersuasive because ENFPs, also dominant Ne type, are much less comfortable with taking risks that NTPs do, likely due to their lack of T.


Again ENTP is more likely to make a spectacle of himself. Also Ne is so detached that it makes the ENTP somewhat fearless to the point of defying common sense. The ENTP can go ahead and drink hemlock, thinking objectively that it is the right thing to do. Even an INTP would consider against this type of behavior more than an ENTP..)

Yes, I like how you put it. An ENTP is more likely to make a spectacle of himself. ENTP has more of this natural performer aspect to him and tends to enjoy shock value more. Again, as mentioned, an ENTP is more likely to take risks like drinking hemlock on an intuitive spur of a moment. Yet it seems to me that Socrates wasnt acting on a spur of a moment. He was dedicated to his inner purpose, and his courage came from a strong Ti nature. Socrates was behaving the way he was behaving not to put on a show, but merely as an entailment of his inner mindset.


Even an INTP would consider against this type of behavior more than an ENTP..)

If this higher purpose that we speak of here is what INPs live and die for, then they should be willing to lay down their lives for that. As again, the behavior of Socrates was an entailment of his inner beliefs. He was not just acting out, it was a well thought out action. That is why he purposefully chose not to escape prison when he had a chance to, and why he didnt opt to pay a fine instead of taking a sentence. He explained this in a way that his beliefs lead him to think that it is righteous to obey the particular laws of society that are imposed on him right now under the circumstances that he is under at this point. This was a thoroughly thought-out action, not a stunt, and not an EP spur of a moment act.


Depends on the ENTP. Some ENTP's want to maintain a good image. Others just want to argue with people and piss them off just to prove a point. Socrates falls in the latter category. INTP's are not known to seek people out are argue with them. That is really ENTP behavior.

Once more, Socrates wasnt just going on adventures. He was arguing with people to further his thought experiments. He did not think about how this would piss them off, unlike an ENTP who would be poignantly aware of this.

INTP's are not known to seek people out are argue with them.

I understand how you could claim that ENTPs are more likely to challenge people in debates than INTPs simply because they are more outgoing. Yet the case here is that the behavior of Socrates was an entailment of a higher purpose. Moreover, I would maintain that INTPs are more of challengers because of a stronger Ti nature. They engage others in debate almost strictly for the purpose of being challenged first and foremost, and challenging others. Whilst ENTPs would do this more for the sake of adventure and exploring ideas, challenging and being challenged is of lesser priority. This is why INTPs almost always enjoy their ideas questioned and going head to head with others in debates, yet ENTPs at times get irritated by others challenging them because this precludes them from exploring ideas and reviewing multiple perspectives. They tend to dislike the challenger aspect in this case because it may entail dismissal of ideas, and ENTPs as a dominant N type dont want to dismiss anything as they want to review all that can be reviewed with as open of a mind as possible. Socrates argued to challenge and be challenged, external circumstances like pissing others off or thinking of how this may impact him later or how his persona would be influenced by this played little role. This is typical of a radical Introverted Type (too intense of an inner focus and hence lack of an awareness of an external environment. ENTPs tend to be most poignantly aware of their external environment, often cant help but be aware, yet INTPs can easily shut it off in favor of their inner purpose which is seemingly what socrates did. His inner purpose was search for truth and inner clarity and consistency which he sought to advance towards by challenging and being challenged by others.)

In regards to David Hume you say:


This is very similar to Socrates. The point of "The Apology" is that no one is wise. The difference is that at least Socrates knew that he was not wise. This conclusion is not all that different from the one you say about David Hume.

The difference between Hume and Socrates is that Hume started off as a chaos theorist. He was more of an Intuitonist than an analyst. His visions convinced him of the veracity of his radical skepticism and then he used logic as means to the end of showing how his ideas ring true.

Socrates started off as an analytical system builder who came to the same conclusions as Hume for a very different reason. Socrates did not believe that he didn't know anything untill he thoroughly analyzed the matter and then decided on it. Yet Hume started off thinking that he knew nothing before having thought things through.

Ti was subordinate to Ne for Hume, yet for Socrates Ti was preponderous over Ne. Seeking the truth and challenging others and being challenged was seemingly all that his life was about. Bertrand Russell once famously said that he used philosophy as means to the end of making his life more interesting. He was inspired by Hume to forge such an outlook on life. Essentially Hume philosophized to help him become a better visionary and more adept in the external world. Yet for INTPs philosophizing as an end in itself.


Socrates really has all the signs of an ENTP. If you compare him to Aristotle an INTP of the roughly same culture, you see that their outlooks on life and their approach to things are considerably different.

They differed in appearance, yet at the essence both of these men were primarily driven by the search for truth(analogously to INFP Milton's search for paradise) and perfection of their nature (competence) one of ways in which they aspired to attain by challenging and being challenged by others.
 

lastrailway

New member
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Messages
508

I am not sure if I understand very well the typo dynamics and all that, but I have an objection on Socrates being either ENTP or INTP:

Socrates was a person too concerned with inner values, what is right and wrong, morality and morals, etc. He was debating issues like virtue, justice, etc.
The "inner voice" or conscience doesn't strike me as a TP characteristic.

Wouldn’t these characteristics define more an XSFJ?
 

proteanmix

Plumage and Moult
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,514
Enneagram
1w2
There is nothing myopical about turning every discussion into a philosophy discussion because nothing escapes the province of philosophy.

If I really thought about how others would react to this, perhaps I'd notice. But again, I dont see why that should matter as I am driven only by my sense of inner/higher purpose.

So if you're trying to get a cat out of a burning tree you think it's a good time to start talking about (insert philosopher here)?

And you're basically saying that other people are just receptacles for the sound waves of your voice. Doesn't matter if they want to hear it, only that you want to say it. So you just like hearing yourself talk?
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
So if you're trying to get a cat out of a burning tree you think it's a good time to start talking about (insert philosopher here)?

And you're basically saying that other people are just receptacles for the sound waves of your voice. Doesn't matter if they want to hear it, only that you want to say it. So you just like hearing yourself talk?


Tell me what you know about Introverted Judgment before we continue this discussion..having things as they are..it doesnt look like we are getting anywhere..

As I already told you..it doesnt matter what anybody thinks or what the external environment is like..it is only the inner essence that matters which can not be assessed by any external standard...you're running into the incommensurability problem here.
 

proteanmix

Plumage and Moult
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,514
Enneagram
1w2
Tell me what you know about Introverted Judgment before we continue this discussion..having things as they are..it doesnt look like we are getting anywhere..

As I already told you..it doesnt matter what anybody thinks or what the external environment is like..it is only the inner essence that matters which can not be assessed by any external standard...you're running into the incommensurability problem here.

Let me look up "incommensurability" and I'll get right back to you. ;)

ETA:
my op ic
1. Ophthalmology. pertaining to or having myopia; nearsighted.
2. unable or unwilling to act prudently; shortsighted.
3. lacking tolerance or understanding; narrow-minded.

I think your unwillingness to acknowledge that some external standards are useful and beneficial leads you to your myopic belief of the bolded part above.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I am not sure if I understand very well the typo dynamics and all that, but I have an objection on Socrates being either ENTP or INTP:

Socrates was a person too concerned with inner values, what is right and wrong, morality and morals, etc. He was debating issues like virtue, justice, etc.
The "inner voice" or conscience doesn't strike me as a TP characteristic.

Wouldn’t these characteristics define more an XSFJ?

SFJs are driven by social conscience. Doing what you're supposed to do or doing what is right by external standard.

INPs are driven by an inner standard. Their values are not concerned with what society considers right, but with higher morality. INFPs are concerned witht the more person-centered values like compassion and harmony of feelings, yet INTPs with the higher philosophical virtues. Like honesty, clarity of thought and impartiality.

Rene Descartes (INTP) once stumbled across Rembrandt an ISFP painter..and he asked him..what are you looking at...and Descartes having snapped out of his reveries replied in an awkward INTPish fashion...uh...so they talked..and in the end Rembrandt says..--You philosophers suck the very soul out of people and I am going to give it back to them!

Rembrandt was implying that Philosophers are impersonal and make it impossible for people to have strong personal values..

Yet towards the end of his life he reconsidered that proposition and in one of his paintings the theme was why philosophers talk in such abstruse, incomprehensible words..and he came to think that this is because they are seeking another world...just like John Milton was seeking his paradise..their values derive from their impersonally inclined search for a higher purpose.

TPs are not any less focused on values than FPs, the common ground is introverted judgment. Just because they are less expressive about their values does not mean they are any less devoted to them as they are often more resolute and tough-minded about their inner purpose than FPs.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Let me look up "incommensurability" and I'll get right back to you. ;)

ETA:
my op ic
1. Ophthalmology. pertaining to or having myopia; nearsighted.
2. unable or unwilling to act prudently; shortsighted.
3. lacking tolerance or understanding; narrow-minded.

I think your unwillingness to acknowledge that some external standards are useful and beneficial leads you to your myopic belief of the bolded part above.

I am not saying ignore the external standard altogether, just make sure that it be no more than a serf of your inner principles.

I dont think that I am being myopic here, looks like it is the other way around. I only dismiss what you say untill I've thought about it (Ti), and can explain why I am dismissing it. Yet, you on the other hand are dismissing right away because what was said that does not come to terms with your external standards.

By and large being myopic is a problem that Js are more likely to be afflicted with than Ps. Especially EJs.

And remember, you can say whatever you want so long as you can back it up with sound reasoning, if you cannot, i dont see how you'd be in a position to accuse me of being myopic for dismissing what you said. As there is no reason why a claim for which we have no reason to assume to be true should not be dismissed.

Yet the difference between Introverted Judgment and Extroverted Judgment is as follows; Introverted Judgment first thinks things through and if at that point it has found the propounded idea to be unacceptable it is dismissed. Extroverted Judgment does not think things through, just measures up the propounded idea to the external standard (orthodox dogma), and if it doesnt line up it is immediately dismissed.
 

lastrailway

New member
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Messages
508
SFJs are driven by social conscience. Doing what you're supposed to do or doing what is right by external standard.

INPs are driven by an inner standard. Their values are not concerned with what society considers right, but with higher morality. INFPs are concerned witht the more person-centered values like compassion and harmony of feelings, yet INTPs with the higher philosophical virtues. Like honesty, clarity of thought and impartiality.

Rene Descartes (INTP) once stumbled across Rembrandt an ISFP painter..and he asked him..what are you looking at...and Descartes having snapped out of his reveries replied in an awkward INTPish fashion...uh...so they talked..and in the end Rembrandt says..--You philosophers suck the very soul out of people and I am going to give it back to them!

Rembrandt was implying that Philosophers are impersonal and make it impossible for people to have strong personal values..

Yet towards the end of his life he reconsidered that proposition and in one of his paintings the theme was why philosophers talk in such abstruse, incomprehensible words..and he came to think that this is because they are seeking another world...just like John Milton was seeking his paradise..their values derive from their impersonally inclined search for a higher purpose.

TPs are not any less focused on values than FPs, the common ground is introverted judgment. Just because they are less expressive about their values does not mean they are any less devoted to them as they are often more resolute and tough-minded about their inner purpose than FPs.

I will not then insist on the N and T point. But as for the J point: Socrates strong sense of morality, of a set of values which should be taught and commonly accepted, his belief that true is absolute and independent of options, the tactics of dialectic and elenchus, are not likely to refer to a J? He seems a person not flexible in his quest for thuth, not likely to be open to all sort of options.
And, talking about quest: Christ is often typed as an INFJ. But the way you describe INTPs and their relation with inner purpose and values seems to fit to Christ
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I will not then insist on the N and T point. But as for the J point: Socrates strong sense of morality, of a set of values which should be taught and commonly accepted, his belief that true is absolute and independent of options, the tactics of dialectic and elenchus, are not likely to refer to a J? He seems a person not flexible in his quest for thuth, not likely to be open to all sort of options.
And, talking about quest: Christ is often typed as an INFJ. But the way you describe INTPs and their relation with inner purpose and values seems to fit to Christ

Strong sense of morality is a P essence, not a J.

J is about external morality. Socrates was 'all about' higher morality.

IPs have strongers principles than EJs because they internalize their ethic. They value their principles because it applies to them personally and not to the group.

The reason why Js seem like they have a stronger sense of morality than Ps because they exteranlize their ethic, yet Ps keep it on the inside.

And yes, INPs are not flexible at all about their inner principles. They are flexible about external trivialities (they down play the external world quite a bit) and are flexible only to the point where one of their principles is violated.

Difference between Christ and Socrates is that Christ was concerned with external morality. What is to be deemed appropriate and what values society should endrose. Yet Socrates was mostly concerned with inner values pertaining to the individual. That is why, unlike FJs and Christ, he hated to preach. When he was talking about his values, he was merely informing, not imposing like the Js.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Half the people on this forum (technically) should have an Introverted Judging function guiding them.

BW, you're the only one who talks endless to an audience that isn't paying attention.

Remarkably, the other Ti/Fi'ers can figure out when their soliloquy is appropriate to the conversation at hand.

That's the meat of this. You don't need to develop a philosophical argument as to why your behavior is somehow appropriate or typical or expected. It's all just obfuscation of the truth that you're not really speaking to any audience (or are aiming your discourse at any other audience) but yourself.

And in that case, why not either indulge yourself in private somewhere, or else tailor your conversation in a way that people can respond to?
 

lastrailway

New member
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Messages
508
Strong sense of morality is a P essence, not a J.

J is about external morality. Socrates was 'all about' higher morality.

IPs have strongers principles than EJs because they internalize their ethic. They value their principles because it applies to them personally and not to the group.

The reason why Js seem like they have a stronger sense of morality than Ps because they exteranlize their ethic, yet Ps keep it on the inside.

And yes, INPs are not flexible at all about their inner principles. They are flexible about external trivialities (they down play the external world quite a bit) and are flexible only to the point where one of their principles is violated.

But would a P try to apply their inner principles to a whole society? Would they try to teach them and make them accepted? Or they would try and live up to their inner values but would not need to see other people accept them as well?
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
But would a P try to apply their inner principles to a whole society? Would they try to teach them and make them accepted? Or they would try and live up to their inner values but would not need to see other people accept them as well?

A P would not try to teach them or try to make them acceptable. A P would only offer/inform. INPs hate to preach. They want for their life to be their teaching.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Half the people on this forum (technically) should have an Introverted Judging function guiding them.

BW, you're the only one who talks endless to an audience that isn't paying attention.

Remarkably, the other Ti/Fi'ers can figure out when their soliloquy is appropriate to the conversation at hand.

That's the meat of this. You don't need to develop a philosophical argument as to why your behavior is somehow appropriate or typical or expected. It's all just obfuscation of the truth that you're not really speaking to any audience (or are aiming your discourse at any other audience) but yourself.

And in that case, why not either indulge yourself in private somewhere, or else tailor your conversation in a way that people can respond to?

Appropriate, typical, expected..thats all Extroverted Judgment business that I have no regard for...I didnt write anything on that matter in this thread..

My argument was that Introverted Judgment is less likely to be myopic than Extroverted...that was the essence, nothing else.

Protean's comment is irrelevant because our discussion was about ENTP/INTP dynamic.


And in that case, why not either indulge yourself in private somewhere, or else tailor your conversation in a way that people can respond to?

The discussion was between Laser and I and railway and I. (Two seperate discussions) the confusion began with protean's derailment. (We were talking about the ENTP/INTP dynamic, and how it relates to the chameleon aspect and typology in general and she came out with a statement about how I just have to bring philosophers into this..it had nothing to do with what we were talking about and the fact that these men were philosophers was only incidental..we just had to find examples in history of how people of those types behaved and what we can learn from that about typology..)
 

lastrailway

New member
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Messages
508
A P would not try to teach them or try to make them acceptable. A P would only offer/inform. INPs hate to preach. They want for their life to be their teaching.

Interesting. My viewpoint on P and J definition was clearly different.
Then you say Socrates was not trying to pass his values to his students, or that the fact he did criticise the politics and the sociable acceptable morals by suggesting his ideals instead is not a J characteristic? Or you say Socrates lived his life up to his ideals and his teaching was a discussion in order to help others to find the way to his conclusions?
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Interesting. My viewpoint on P and J definition was clearly different.
Then you say Socrates was not trying to pass his values to his students, or that the fact he did criticise the politics and the sociable acceptable morals by suggesting his ideals instead is not a J characteristic? Or you say Socrates lived his life up to his ideals and his teaching was a discussion in order to help others to find the way to his conclusions?


Socrates criticized the government because it disagreed with his principles. He wasnt trying to force change. He was just expressing his views. And sharing ideas was an end in itself for him. He wasnt trying to have his students conform to his views like a J may. He was having an informal discussion with them most of the time.
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
Before we proceed, let me make sure I understand your argument properly.

Proposition: Socrates is an ENTP

Why?

...

Well I could answer this exceedingly long post point by point arguing how each element really describes Socrates as an ENTP. Then you will likely respond point by point that Socrates is really INTP....

From your post it seems that you agree that Socrates did many things that an ENTP would do, but the reason why he did these things is because he is an INTP. Instead of answering point by point let me present to you this hypothesis. The reasons that Socrates did the things he did is actually Plato's explanation of Socrates behavior. After all "The Apology" is clearly not simply a biography about the death of Socrates. It is clear that it is a document used to instruct about wisdom. (And really all of Plato's writings about Socrates are like this). So while Plato is telling the story about what Socrates did, he is inserting much of his own (introverted) views about why Socrates did the things he did.

Socrates acted like an ENTP, because he was an ENTP. But the reasons behind his actions look like an introvert's reasons, because Plato is an introvert.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Well I could answer this exceedingly long post point by point arguing how each element really describes Socrates as an ENTP. Then you will likely respond point by point that Socrates is really INTP....

From your post it seems that you agree that Socrates did many things that an ENTP would do, but the reason why he did these things is because he is an INTP. Instead of answering point by point let me present to you this hypothesis. The reasons that Socrates did the things he did is actually Plato's explanation of Socrates behavior. After all "The Apology" is clearly not simply a biography about the death of Socrates. It is clear that it is a document used to instruct about wisdom. (And really all of Plato's writings about Socrates are like this). So while Plato is telling the story about what Socrates did, he is inserting much of his own (introverted) views about why Socrates did the things he did.

Socrates acted like an ENTP, because he was an ENTP. But the reasons behind his actions look like an introvert's reasons, because Plato is an introvert.

Ah, so basically you're saying that Socrates didnt really have much of a higher purpose. He argued to piss people off and to seek adventure. The reason why he seemed like an INTP while doing this (as if he had a higher purpose) is because Plato romanticized him.

That is certainly a theory. But what reason do we have to suspect that Plato did not represent Socrates the way he really was? After all, all the people that conversed with Socrates in Plato's dialogues were alive when Plato published his writings. Unless he'd want to spend a lot of time at the courts, I'd think it would be wise of him to tell the story like it was as he intended it as a historical documentary, not fiction. If Socrates wasnt the magnanimous being that Plato painted him as, dont you think that others would take issue with such a rendition?

Socrates behaved like an INTP, only resembled an ENTP on a very superficial level. NTPs on the surface seem similar because we are dealing with their extroverted Intuition. The difference between the two consists in how much they are influenced by Introverted Judgment. Socrates was influenced by introverted judgment more than all, I would risk to say, eminent ENTP men of history were.

We see reasons to believe that Socrates was led by Introverted Judgment as much as I think he was based on the way Plato told the story. Not based on Plato's personal commentary on the matter. The only way Plato may have misrepresented the ENTP Socrates as an INTP is if he told the story differently from the way it really was.
 
Top