Yes, I have read Thus Spake Zarathustra. I have also read Psychological types.
You talk about the utility of typology. How does it enhance your understand of Nietzsche?
Well, first off: I understood Nietzsche long before I understood typology; I haven't read
too much Nietzsche for a good while; been there, done that; a great influence on my life; a kindred spirit if you will.
That being said, after taking an MBTI test several years ago (for the first time since elementary, or, perhaps, high school), I tested as INTJ (which I've tested as every time I've taken a test), and decided to read up on typology, and found the INTJ profile to be very accurate (far more accurate than any other profile, most of which don't fit me at all, some of which [ENTJ, then INFJ] fit me to a lesser extent).
Then, when I began studying up on the functions, I could see how much I identified with Ni, Te, and Fi, and in that particular order, and, to a lesser extent, Se (I could see how it is somewhat more difficult for me, something I have to consume more energy to engage in, and something which almost subconsciously rears its head in many background ways in my life). I also could see how Fe was something that I rather loathed. Ne, Ti, and Si, I have more complicated relationships with, which I need not go into here.
Then I joined this site, and got to see all the wide variety of characters, engage with different ones to different extents, and observe how our interactions played out.
Also, sometime around that time, I found out that Nietzsche is widely considered to be an INTJ.
Now, I had always (since about 6th grade) had a fascination with Nietzsche. For some reason, I felt drawn to him, compelled by him, since a very young age.
In college, this early compulsion finally had the opportunity to flower, as, in one of my fields of study, Nietzsche was one of the more prominent, highly held, and widely read figures.
So, I read him, over and over again, poring over every word, every sentence, every thought. I was consumed by him, probably for the better part of 3-5 years.
I had countless discussions about him, wrote countless papers about and critiquing his thought, and almost wrote an honors thesis about the Ubermensch.
So, in light of my fascination with, and what could reasonably be called obsession over, the man, I found it rather intriguing that both of us "were" INTJs.
So, to your question, how does my understanding of typology enhance my understanding of Nietzsche?
It offers possible insights into why so many of the things he wrote appeal to me, why he even wrote and thought them in the first place, why he saw certain things in certain ways, other things in other ways, and the same things in different ways. It offers possible insights into why he valued certain things, and did not value other things, and offers what I could say is strong evidence as to why he felt the way he did about many different topics:
1. Perspectivism (*cough* Ni *cough*)
2. Philosophers (*cough* Ti *cough*)
3. "The herd" (*cough* Fe *cough*)
...and many others.
Does that answer your question? Cuz I could go on, if you'd like me to.
You, of course, could take these observations in stride, or you could bury even deeper into your aforechosen hole, and, like a cornered rodent, gnash your teeth at everything I say.
Your choice...
What utility is there in 'knowing' that the ubermensch is INTJ...
I never said this.
...other than to reinforce your own ego through that association?
Nor am I doing this.
I literally have never even possessed the thought that the Ubermensch need be an INTJ.
I used to think that typology had meaning, then I saw that it's simply a way for immature minds to find some ego strength without having to do any self-searching or experiencing anything real.
This is reductionistic thinking.
See the bolded: that's where you become reductionistic.
Typology
can be used in that way.
But it needn't be.
Do you see the problem you're creating by being reductionistic?
Did you use typology in this way before (when you did believe in it), and so, having "learned your lesson", are now projecting this belief onto others?
Frankly, this is what it sounds like...
(I'm not sure whether that is the case -- I like to leave my mind open to alternate possibilities [a quality I have always possessed, but have since learned is characteristic of Ni-doms] -- but it sounds like this is what's happening...)
It's so much easier to 'circle the wagons' and rely on stereotypes and interpretation than to actually know who they are, or yourself.
I agree with this completely. It
is easier to do this.
But that doesn't mean that studying, learning, and using typology need be any of these negative things.
Any tool can be handled poorly, or it can be handled well.
Even a poor tool, when handled well, can be used to great benefit.
Same goes for typology...
You've gone on and on about what my type probably is...
Just a few quick posts, really...
I've spent much more time answering your questions in this post.
...as you've determined...
Not determined.
They're simply working hypotheses.
...through your elevated knowledge of typology...
Why thank you.
I'd have to say that my ability to accept this compliment depends entirely on your definition of knowledge.
But, based on the definition I would use in this instance, I would be willing to accept it.
...and yet, my original argument remains: you reduce another, and yourself, to a stereotype for completely self-referential purposes.
:zzz:
The fact of the matter is that, now, for the third time,
you are engaging in reductionistic thought, by simply assuming that I am reducing people to what you've said I am.
And, by doing so,
you are actually engaging in stereotyping more than anybody here has, by creating a category of "typology user" and "non-typology user", and simply deprecating the activities of anyone you deem a typology user.
You are only here, in this thread, to show what you ‘know’, the ultimate goal being ego strength.
Once again, my friend,
you are being reductionistic.
For now the
fourth time.
And once again, I've bolded for you the part where you start being so.
Also, pray tell how the same accusation could not squarely be laid against you: how are you
not here to show what you "know", and for "ego strength"?
Interestingly enough, and I almost noted this earlier, what you're really saying is that we're all (well, really, you only accused
me of it) only here for Will To Power.
And, even more interesting, is that, as much as I find Nietzsche's primary idea insightful and compelling, I also think he was a bit
reductionistic in his expounding of the matter.
So please, use your great intelligence to tell me how typology has enhanced your understanding of the ubermensch.
To be honest, as I mentioned earlier, I've never really cared to spend much time thinking about a relationship between typology and the Ubermensch.
I think the Ubermensch could possibly be of any type (not necessarily, though), and, in all honesty, based off my thinking of type, might even
transcend type.
I could see one making arguments that the Ubermensch would have to be an N, but I don't know if that's necessarily the case.
I could also see one saying that the Ubermensch would have to be an Ni-dom, or at least a high Ni-user, but I don't know if that's necessarily the case, either.
Most compellingly, I could probably see an interesting argument for the Ubermensch being someone who properly integrates their shadow, and this, actually, is a very compelling area of thought, in my opinion.
But, yeah, that's about as much energy and time I've really spent thinking about it, because, to be honest, I don't think about the Ubermensch nearly as much as I used to, and I don't find trying to make a link between a particular type and potential for Ubermenschitude all that interesting or compelling an idea.
As I more or less indicated at the beginning of this thread:
It is rather ironic that I, of all people, tend to really fucking hate these stupid Ubermensch threads...
Hell, Nietzsche himself more or less threw out the idea of the Ubermensch, in favor of Eternal Recurrence, so why should I care to draw some spurious correlation between that idea and one of the 16 types?