Typing: Philosophy

Ren said:
Habermas is a Ti-dom! :p



Oh no, I remember the Russell typing :) I think he fits too, but there's a deeper emotional dimension to Bergon's work I think, which fits you more perhaps.

I love Russell but god is he über Rational!



61GFfHJcCwL._UX522_.jpg
Click to expand...
Hahaha...
44303234_539960749805791_8905747286841534715_n.jpg
 
Wyote said:
Wanting to be T and being T are quite different heh
Click to expand...

True. I wish I were T but I ain't no T. :p

Impact Character said:
Yes, exactly the point :p
Click to expand...

I didn't get it, sowwwwie. Habermas seems like a pretty cool thinker... I've been aware of him for a long time but I've only recently become more familiar with his philosophy.

Given that his body of work is largely centered around the importance of communication, I thought he was a good fit for you ;)
 
Ren said:
Oh! Let me think about it for a little bit :)
Click to expand...

Alright! :smile:

I'm super avoidant to other's philosophical ideas. So I stay away from reading philosophy all together. I'm somewhat avoidant to sociology as well. I don't find history particularly interesting in itself, but I appreciate short recaps. I love reading/learning psychology (wouldn't read Jung, Freud etc, but basic/concrete stuff), and I enjoy topics like biology and neurology, evolutionary biology/psychology.
 
Infjente said:
Alright! :smile:

I'm super avoidant to other's philosophical ideas. So I stay away from reading philosophy all together. I'm somewhat avoidant to sociology as well. I don't find history particularly interesting in itself, but I appreciate short recaps. I love reading/learning psychology (wouldn't read Jung, Freud etc, but basic/concrete stuff), and I enjoy topics like biology and neurology, evolutionary biology/psychology.
Click to expand...

Great! This makes my job easier. You are officially Charles Darwin. Look no further :D

flat,550x550,075,f.u2.jpg
 
Deleted member 16771 said:
Ooooh! :mclap:
Click to expand...

You are hard to type because you don't really fit any one philosopher's Weltanschauung, but my tentative conclusion is that you are Edmund Hegel.

Alternatively: G.W.F. Husserl. Yes, a somewhat intriguing mix between Hegel and Husserl. More about this when I'm back from the hairdresser's.
 
Ren said:
You are hard to type because you don't really fit any one philosopher's Weltanschauung, but my tentative conclusion is that you are Edmund Hegel.

Alternatively: G.W.F. Husserl. Yes, a somewhat intriguing mix between Hegel and Husserl. More about this when I'm back from the hairdresser's.
Click to expand...

Ok, I have shorter hair now so all went down quite well.

I guess Hegel is a good pick because he sought in a way to systematize the way that history unfolds and was very serious about that. He wasn't too concerned to ground his system in science, though; whereas Husserl was. In fact, he considered phenomenology to be a science, and to ground the sciences. I think the systematic historical vision and the seeking for scientific grounding are both aspects of your work, so there you go.
 
Ren said:
Ok, I have shorter hair now so all went down quite well.

I guess Hegel is a good pick because he sought in a way to systematize the way that history unfolds and was very serious about that. He wasn't too concerned to ground his system in science, though; whereas Husserl was. In fact, he considered phenomenology to be a science, and to ground the sciences. I think the systematic historical vision and the seeking for scientific grounding are both aspects of your work, so there you go.
Click to expand...
Hmm, interesting... its funny, too, because Hegel was responsible for the whole massive crisis in German philosophy that brought about the Neo-Kantians.

Full disclosure, I haven't read any of them. Well I read a bit of Phenomenology of Spirit about 10 years ago, but that's about it. I guess that means we can't be friends anymore :unhappy:
 
Infjente said:
:m155:

Why would Charles Darwin avoid others philosophical work? :smirk:
Click to expand...

Ren said:
Oh, I can tell you... when I'm back from the hairdresser's!
Click to expand...

If you like, Darwin's theory of evolution/survival of the fittest is a theory of world history that makes zero metaphysical claim and sees itself as solid because of that. There is no God-designed purpose, no telos, only the struggle for existence. There is no "reality beyond what we see": it's all right there — a rather uncommon view among philosophers, at least before Pragmatism. This is why you are a good Darwin.
 
Deleted member 16771 said:
Hmm, interesting... its funny, too, because Hegel was responsible for the whole massive crisis in German philosophy that brought about the Neo-Kantians.

Full disclosure, I haven't read any of them. Well I read a bit of Phenomenology of Spirit about 10 years ago, but that's about it. I guess that means we can't be friends anymore :unhappy:
Click to expand...

Hehe, I would say that you are more similar to Hegel in philosophical temperament than in the substance of your writings, current and future.

You obviously have a vastly different approach than his, but I see in your framework a certain tendency to seek to locate the "essence of process", the "predictability of change"; to "isolate contingency", which is very Hegelian in spirit I think.

PS. Oh, and I have just magnanimously decided that we can still be friends.
 
@Deleted member 16771 - This is an interesting chart actually, though I would have placed the INFJ more halfway between essentialism and existentialism.

"Open Monism" tries to formalize this halfway point, in a way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top