Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Philosophers and personality types

  1. Jun 10, 2004 #1
    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.


    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 prefered 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?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 10, 2004 #2
    Just took the test. I am INTP.
  4. Jun 10, 2004 #3
    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.
  5. Jun 11, 2004 #4
    hehe, and Bubblefish is a madman, remember?
  6. Jun 11, 2004 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Most of us here come out INT-something. I am INTJ.
  7. Jun 11, 2004 #6
    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.
  8. Jun 11, 2004 #7
    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...

  9. Jun 12, 2004 #8
    That's weird being pegged down so accurately, I feel like a machine with a 4 letter program running my life.
  10. Jun 12, 2004 #9
    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: Jun 12, 2004
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook