| Author |
 Topic  |
|
thomg
Member
1197 Posts |
 Posted - 13 Aug 2012 : 06:04:45 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by the_eye
Oh, I got it now, what you meant by saying Socrates was "Plato's puppet".
Having seen his physiognomy and having read more about his life, especially about his role in the Athenian army, I'm more inclined to say that Socrates was in fact an 8.
I don't think it's really possible to type Socrates, for the reasons I mentioned. But I would say either Soc-first 8 (most likely) or soc-first 1.
For Socrates, ethics was at the heart of philosophy, epistemology being secondary. This fits with both 1 and SO 8.
|
 |
|
|
thomg
Member
1197 Posts |
Posted - 13 Aug 2012 : 06:12:01 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Veiled One
Heidegger is an intellectual 6w5....physically speaking he was more robust/less fragile than a 5w4, and had the hardened touch of a Six.
I have mentioned several times that the scholar archetype is 6w5 not 5. Most philosophers who managed to dwell comfortably in the academia are not Five, though there are obviously exceptions.
Quine was a 9w1, if I recalled correctly.
Wittgenstein I think sp/sx. I never thought him as a sx-first. Probably one of those Ian Curtis sp/sx's. He also seemed to have a 3w4 fix.
Re: Wittengstein. Of course, he had a deeply unstable genius temperament, somewhere between what psychiatrists would call cyclothymia and bipolar. But his epic seething intensity, restlessness, suicidality all make me think sx/sp. Your reference to Ian Curtis is well taken in that regard.
The thing about most of the ppl in the OP is that they are rampagingly original iconoclasts. Heidegger saw himself as singlehandedly overpowering the entire philosophical tradition. I thought Heidegger was a 6w5 when I first read about him and read his early work. When you see his later stuff, it privileges poetry above all. This to me is a classic 5w4 move; 'reducing' everything (though of course it's not a reduction at all) to poetry.
VO, I'd be interested to get your typing on Rorty. I've changed my mind to sp/sx, but still think 5w4 with 4w3 fix.
|
|
|
|
thomg
Member
1197 Posts |
Posted - 13 Aug 2012 : 06:16:19 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by dnimon
quote:
Originally posted by thomg
what identifies type is an habitual/default mode of thinking or feeling etc, not the capacity for thought and feeling.
I agree, but ye will know them by their fruits. Head fixes most likely to want to express that common inherent capacity.
perhaps you misunderstand me?
If you're going to tell people the truth, be funny or they'll kill you.
- Billy Wilder
If you're saying - all types have the capacity to do philosophy, not just head types - I of course agree. I'm just also arguing that great philosophers are most likely to be headtypes.
What I'm saying is that the ruts in which head types find themselves are exactly the ruts of the philosophical tradition itself, or at least significant aspects of it. A 2 or 3 might be a genius, and thus have capacity, but they will not be motivated to do philosophy, let alone mastering it and adding something to the tradition, precisely because they lack the 'habitual/default mode of thinking' that chimes with philosophy.
Bear in mind, I'm very interested in philosophy, but don't see it as a master or ur-discipline. Mostly, it's often just how constipated competent types (5 and 1 in particular) find a way to express themselves - as opposed to writing brilliant fiction like 8's or 4's or 9's do. |
Edited by - thomg on 13 Aug 2012 06:20:45 AM |
|
|
|
dnimon
Member
Australia
5985 Posts |
Posted - 13 Aug 2012 : 06:42:31 AM
|
I disagree, perhaps this is an etypes principle; that head types are more thinky than emotional types, and emotional types are more feely and less thinky, while the latter is convenient and a simple way of categorizing, i don't regard it as true. The existence of very emotional deep thinkers suggest that an intellectual triad would need to consist of gut influenced thinky types, emotionally influenced thinky types and pure thinky types.....within the constraints of this model, and to some extent we find that with the 7,6 and 5 head types.
......but since the emotional character of an emotionally thinky type also varies; within the constraints of this system; eg sixes that are more 2ish, 3ish or 4ish, the structure doesnt support this kind of distribution......for this reason, to address this, i believe, tritypes was invented.
In any case reading and listening to the great philosophers we would expect heart types, gut types and head types since ultimately understanding is a function of theory, practicum and emotional functions. Amongst the existentialists, there is a world of type difference between dostoevsky and kant (although he was a forefather of existential thought) for instance, and then between existentialism and romanticism........all however express very well intellectually.
This leaves us with little alternative than to consider that the quality of emotion, or thinking etc is key to type difference, not capacity, depth and intellectual coherency or brilliance, in regard to philosophers or anyone else. Hemmingway by way of another example was brilliant, highly intelligent in expression, deeply philosophical and also an emotional type
edit...... your case works for desert dry philosophers of a 5 bent, but one could hardly call dostoevsky dry and one would imagine much more emotional consideration from 6 type philosophers
If you're going to tell people the truth, be funny or they'll kill you.
- Billy Wilder
|
Edited by - dnimon on 13 Aug 2012 07:28:08 AM |
|
|
|
Veiled One
Member
5590 Posts |
Posted - 13 Aug 2012 : 06:53:01 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by thomg
Re: Wittengstein. Of course, he had a deeply unstable genius temperament, somewhere between what psychiatrists would call cyclothymia and bipolar. But his epic seething intensity, restlessness, suicidality all make me think sx/sp. Your reference to Ian Curtis is well taken in that regard.
I have always thought his resignation to silence as a sp/sx move. sx/sp does not resign to silence so easily (unless they went bat-[blocked] crazy like Nietzsche or Hölderlin).
quote:
The thing about most of the ppl in the OP is that they are rampagingly original iconoclasts. Heidegger saw himself as singlehandedly overpowering the entire philosophical tradition. I thought Heidegger was a 6w5 when I first read about him and read his early work. When you see his later stuff, it privileges poetry above all. This to me is a classic 5w4 move; 'reducing' everything (though of course it's not a reduction at all) to poetry.
And how is rampagingly original iconoclasm exclusive to 5w4s? Alain Robbes-Grillet was 6w5. Andre Breton was probably 6w5 too. Iconoclast-composer-supreme Igor Stravinsky was 9w1.
quote:
VO, I'd be interested to get your typing on Rorty. I've changed my mind to sp/sx, but still think 5w4 with 4w3 fix.
I am completely unfamiliar to him. I will need to watch vids later.
8w7 soc/sx, because sexual fives suck |
|
|
|
dnimon
Member
Australia
5985 Posts |
Posted - 13 Aug 2012 : 06:54:52 AM
|
I would imagine that all types can be brilliant philosophers, and that the difference would reside only in the angle of approach, the type pov, and motive
If you're going to tell people the truth, be funny or they'll kill you.
- Billy Wilder
|
|
|
|
Veiled One
Member
5590 Posts |
|
|
thomg
Member
1197 Posts |
|
|
the_eye
Member
Romania
5063 Posts |
Posted - 13 Aug 2012 : 09:27:20 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by thomg
I don't think it's really possible to type Socrates, for the reasons I mentioned.
I think that's ultimately correct. We can only try a few stabs in the dark, but there's just not enough accurate information to base a solid appraisal of his type on.
I realize now my arguments on him being either a 5 or an 8 are pretty weak.
|
|
|
|
skunk
Member
5208 Posts |
Posted - 13 Aug 2012 : 11:30:43 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Veiled One
Preliminary photo search on Rorty suggested no Four component.
Preliminary photo search on Alain Robbes-Grillet produced some pretty hot pics:
 |
Edited by - skunk on 13 Aug 2012 11:39:11 AM |
|
|
|
Veiled One
Member
5590 Posts |
Posted - 13 Aug 2012 : 12:17:04 PM
|
Just a quicky after watching the interview with Rorty:
5w6 sp/sx with a 3w2 heart fix.
I happened to have met someone who vibed close to him: the rhythm and cadence of their voices were remarkably similar.
8w7 soc/sx, because sexual fives suck |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
philosophers' types
