Philosophers and personality types

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joeman
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between personality types and philosophical aptitude, particularly focusing on whether certain personality traits are necessary for effective philosophical thinking. Participants explore various personality frameworks, especially Jung's typology, and consider how these traits may influence philosophical practice and thought processes.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that a good philosopher is likely to be introverted, as introverts may benefit from solitary reflection, which extroverts might not engage in as effectively.
  • Another participant agrees with the idea that intuitive thinking is essential for philosophers and proposes that thinkers are preferred over feelers.
  • Some participants identify as INTP or INTJ after taking a personality test, indicating a trend among contributors towards these types.
  • A participant notes that while many great philosophers were eccentric or reclusive, their ideas were not necessarily "crazy," contrasting this with the notion of producing "absurd rubbish."
  • One participant argues that dismissing ideas as "rubbish" without objective critique is not logical, emphasizing the importance of rational discourse.
  • Another participant posits that a great philosopher should be adaptable, able to switch between different personality traits as needed to understand and incorporate various perspectives.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of specific personality traits for philosophers, with some advocating for the importance of introversion and intuitive thinking, while others argue for a broader understanding of philosophical capability that includes adaptability across personality types. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views present.

Contextual Notes

Some claims about personality types and their implications for philosophical thought are based on subjective interpretations and personal experiences, which may not universally apply. The discussion includes varying opinions on the nature of philosophical genius and the characteristics that contribute to it.

Joeman
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi all, this is my first post.

Do you think a certain personality type is required to be a good philosopher?

For example, here is a description of Jung personality types.

http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JungType.htm

I think a good philospher is probably introverted. Introverts can learn from spending time alone reflecting from one's own thoughts and experience, which extroverts don't do very well.

I think intuitive thinking is a essential.

Thinkers are preferred over feelers.

Perceiving seems more suitable for philosophers than judging.

Therefore I think the best personality type is INTP. Those who other personality types are probably better off with a different hobby. What do you think?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Just took the test. I am INTP.
 
Well ideally philosophy would be accessible to most any educated individual but yes it does indeed require introspection and various other traits. Those who have been considered the greatest philosophers have historically been known as eccentric if not hermits. Kierkegaard was crazy. Kant was a recluse. Hegel, was just out there. Marx was belligerant. The list goes on.
*Nico
 
Nicomachus said:
Kierkegaard was crazy. Kant was a recluse. Hegel, was just out there. Marx was belligerant. The list goes on.

hehe, and Bubblefish is a madman, remember?
:biggrin:
 
THANOS said:
Just took the test. I am INTP.

Most of us here come out INT-something. I am INTJ.
 
Well, I will make one exception. Their ideas were for the most part not crazy which is unlike what I wrote of yours. As well, the only one I said was "crazy" was Kierkegaard and I don't take him at all seriously. There is a difference between being a madman and producing absurd rubbish and being a recluse and producing brilliance. You sir are a madman and that is the end of the discourse.
*Nico
 
Nicomachus said:
Well, I will make one exception. Their ideas were for the most part not crazy which is unlike what I wrote of yours. As well, the only one I said was "crazy" was Kierkegaard and I don't take him at all seriously. There is a difference between being a madman and producing absurd rubbish and being a recluse and producing brilliance. You sir are a madman and that is the end of the discourse.
*Nico

no sir it is not the end of the discourse, sorry.

I assume you once again are referring to OS 012 as 'rubbish' but all you gave it was poor opinionated commentary such as 'rubbish', 'ridiculous', and other such artistic expressions without one objective observation.

You cannot defeat the axioms and propositions that it contains by just saying it is 'rubbish'. Sorry. That is not logical nor rational. And you called me a madman and other such things as proof that OS 012 was 'rubbish', and, your case in point, being a madman, if I am such a thing, does not make it rubbish, nor does your quite incomplete and irrational commentary or approach. You sir, are thinking with your knee jerk reactions and that does not serve you nor does it make for an objective conclusion.

When you do so, in a place of public media, you lie without even realising it...and I would much rather be a madman seeking understanding than a liar claiming to have it...

Moonrat
 
That's weird being pegged down so accurately, I feel like a machine with a 4 letter program running my life.
 
INTJ. I think a great philosopher would actually be able to flip his own characteristics in times of need. For example: In a situation you may need to feel things. In another you may need to judge in order to establish any outcome. A great philosopher would have to account for the fact the other personality types are needed as well. He would therefore have to base his theory's on others and to do so he would need to understand how other's think and do as they do.

The characteristics you listed above work fine for a good philosopher. He comes up with the theories and the judging people decide if they are correct. However a superior philosopher may not require any assistance to finalize his theory's.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • Poll Poll
MBTI type (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) -- Jung Typology Personality Test
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • Poll Poll
Introversion/Extroversion's role in leadership ability
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Myers-Briggs Test: Is it Informative or Garbage?
  • · Replies 89 ·
3
Replies
89
Views
20K
I Wish to Give Away a Textbook Set on The Calculus
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
Starfield: New First-Person Epic Role-Playing Game by BGS
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
What do you think of the "Don't get good grades" advice?
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
As old as blood. The conflict between thinkers.
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Advice for 35+ year old wanting a Physics PhD
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
Is there such a thing as Objective Probability ?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Engineering Pursuing Research in Engineering Versus Hobby Projects
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K