|public myers-briggs votes||(19/03/23 21:45) tman: INTJ|
|(19/02/11 10:39) phsc: INTJ|
|(19/05/12 22:23) Jacobus: INxJ|
|(18/11/10 18:07) tch: INTJ|
|(18/07/08 02:13) Zethmal: INTJ|
|(18/06/24 07:38) LVNA: INTJ|
|(19/03/22 07:45) Diobono: INTJ|
|public function votes||(19/05/12 21:41) Jacobus: INFJ|
|(19/03/23 21:15) tman: INTJ|
|(19/02/11 10:39) phsc: INFJ|
|(19/01/02 23:19) tch: INFJ|
|(18/07/10 04:44) fg: INFJ|
|(18/06/24 10:55) Diobono: INFJ|
|public enneagram votes||(19/03/23 21:15) tman: 5w4|
|(19/02/11 10:39) phsc: 5w4|
|(19/05/12 22:17) Jacobus: 1w9|
|(18/07/08 02:13) Zethmal: 5w4|
|(18/06/24 07:38) LVNA: 5w4|
|(18/06/24 10:56) Diobono: 5w4|
|public instinctual variant votes||(19/10/16 17:35) phsc: sx/sp|
|(19/10/07 11:08) Tman: sx/sp|
|(18/12/28 23:17) Jacobus: sx/sp|
|(18/06/24 07:38) LVNA: sp/so|
|(18/06/24 10:56) Diobono: sx/sp|
|public tritype® votes||(19/03/26 13:30) tman: 514|
|(19/02/22 20:34) phsc: 514|
|public sociotype votes||(19/10/21 00:36) tch: LII|
|(19/05/07 08:49) Avalonia: LSI|
|(19/11/29 12:12) Tman: ILI|
|(19/02/11 10:39) phsc: LII|
|(19/01/09 21:12) Jacobus: LSI|
|(18/07/10 04:44) fg: LII|
|(18/06/24 07:38) LVNA: LII|
|public psychosophy votes||(19/11/10 20:07) Tman: VLEF|
|(19/10/15 20:42) Jacobus: VLEF|
|(19/10/15 14:12) phsc: LVEF|
|public hexaco votes|
Jacobus INFJ 4w5 sx/sp EIE|
Wittgenstein and Russell show the differences between VLEF and LVEF rather clearly, but Witty was the VLEF and Russell the LVEF. Wittgenstein could be a tyrant, he demanded a lot out of his associates and his students. In an argument with Popper he brandished a poker at him and when he was a teacher in an Austrian village he beat a student unconscious. In matters of religion, he was basically an agnostic theist, claiming that he was unable to "bend the knee" to religion (which Afanasyev says is typical of 1st V).
Russell, on the other hand, had a much more democratic character and worldview. He claimed that he would refuse to die for his beliefs, as he wasn't sure if he was right (L>V). His relationship with Wittgenstein became more and more constrained as the latter moved further away from the logic of the Tractatus toward what Russell saw as mysticism.
2019-11-10 12:57:14pm (post #7383)
I think by "of that which one cannot speak, one must remain silent" Wittgenstein is saying that there are things of the world that cannot be reduced to logic and empiricism. To try and speak of these things you will always miss the mark and be caught in a language game, therefore you must remain silent about them. Then idea is then that you don't talk about them, but you show them, somehow. All the things that can be reduced to logic are mere tautologies and everything else, all the things we cannot speak about, are the truly valuable and meaninful things in the world. This certainly does not seem Te to me, however the logical positivists of the Vienna Circle took from the Tractatus that the only meaningful statements were those that could be expressed in language, which was appalling to Wittgenstein. As for remaining silent about one's own important meaningful experiences, which I believe Wittgenstein would consider to be something you cannot speak about - and it does sound like Fi on the surface, perhaps - the point isn't that you must simply keep it to yourself, but show it by some means that doesn't get caught up in the limitations of language. This keeps reminding me of a Zen koan, where the 'solution' or 'expression' of the koan - I use those terms very awkwardly - is not about the language at all but about moving beyond language into pure experience. Rather aspirational Se I suppose. Anyway, those are just some of my thoughts on the matter.
2019-10-03 12:05:19am (post #7189)
Tman INTP 5w4/1w9/4w5 Sp/Sx ILI|
Your foucsing on Wiginstine the mystic. But what of Wigienstine the empericsit and logicain? "Of that which one can not speak, one must remain silent." An emphases on being able to tell show your ideas empericly and logicly. Dose that sound like someone whos Te blind? And what about this, that one must remaine silent about ones most important meanfull peronsal experinces? Dose that sound like Fe to you? Or Fi?
2019-09-05 10:37:32pm (post #7053)
Jacobus INFJ 4w5 sx/sp EIE|
MBTI-wise there's nothing Te or Fi (or Ne or Si, for that matter) about him. Look at what he wrote in his journals, in correspondences, etc.
"The World and Life are one. Physiological life is of course not "Life". And neither is psychological life. Life is the world.
The thinkers he admired most were NF types (in both MBTI and Socionics): Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, Augustine, and so on.
2018-12-13 02:29:23pm (post #4217)
Hmm to me he’s like more or less a Ti sorta response to the very Te cannon that’s Anglo-American philosophy. I don’t really see him as being lost in his imagination/contemplative images or something like that. He could still be INTP by letters though perhaps.
2018-07-10 04:18:04pm (post #2039)
diobono int 5w4 ili|
I don't see why lii> Ili. I am not super familiar with his work but it's is less about constructing a system and more about deconstructing things almost like it would be a "car engine " in a way. This seems very creative Te to me.
There is not necessarily a Ti framework of Laws from which a system is created but more of Ni first mental imagery which seems strong to me from what i have read of him. He did rely strongly on mental imagery if i recall and was not overly schematic. He changed his mind too often to be a lii and after the tractatus he sort of steered direction in his work in a way a socionics Ti dominant is not likely to do . For Example Noam Chomsky and Plato who are clear LIIs. Even if their work was shifting in the course of their lives they never really just completely changed direction. Of course this is super hypothethical given i am not too familiar with him.
2018-07-10 12:21:32pm (post #2016)
Diobono int 5w4 ili|
Pure ni-ti that would fit into Idr's Infj like Plato and Spinoza. But would never test as a f at all in any way. (Reminds me of my type that is similar)
2018-06-24 10:58:13am (post #1449)