# Kant vs Nietzche a little exploration form a Jungian frame



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Kant vs Nietzche a little exploration



I've noticed that Kant a supposed INTP and Nietzsche a supposed INTJ
are at odds with each other.
Nietzche living after Kant attacked Kants writings very hard.
The whole clash of world understanding fasinates me,
I'm no expert on either of them and this serves as an intro presenting
my stance on things right now. 
I'm guessing that people more knowledgable about the subject will soon
come down hard on this thread soon to enlighten us all. =D


Being an ISFP I naturally fall down on the side of Nietzche.
What he says just feels right, without any need for much interpretation.
Kants works seem like some alien landscape where everything is
ripped out of the context of life and excist outside of every real thing
in an effort to intellectually control it.
(Just my own view of it.)
So yeas I'm biased on the side of Nietzche and will probably give
an unfavourable presentation of Kant.


Anyway here we begin.
Kants worldview seem to rest on his categorical imperative.


Categorical imperative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Nietzche has this to say about that.




> An action demanded by the instinct of life is proved to be right by the pleasure that accompanies it; yet this nihilist with his Christian dogmatic entrails considered pleasure an _objection_. What could destroy us more quickly than working, thinking, and feeling without any inner necessity, without any deeply personal choice, without pleasure--as an automaton of "duty"? This is the very recipe for decadence, even for idiocy. Kant became an idiot. -Nietzsche




From this I can deduce that what Nietzche feels Kant is doing is objecting to
pleasure, and putting duty as the only guideline to what action to be taken.


Firstly, is this an accurate interpretation of Kants stance?


If so I must say I deeply object to that worldview, such a cold barren world
I couldn't possibly consider excisting in. It reminds me of the movie Equilibrium.


Equilibrium (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



In this movie everything that is individual and subjective is hunted and destroyed
in order to save humanity against itself. But in the end if you destroy what
humanity is in the process, what is left to preserve?
Isn't humanity reduced to a process and shell without a subjective view?
Sure you can argue that Ti is a subjective, but if intellectual subjectivity
is the only game in town, how much expression has humanity not lost?








And that is where I stand on Kant if I've understand him correctly.
It is the INTP worldview carried into an utopic dream,
and as every utopia ends up an dystopia to it's oposite perspective,
namely me the ISFP. To me it describes a world of unmentionable horros.
Hell manifest.


I find this qoute by Jung fitting when we talk about going totally toward
one end of the spectrum to an utopian type dream.





> Instead of takingfor granted, as every rationalist and optimist is inclined to
> do, that a good state will be followed by a better, since everything tends towards
> "upward development", the man of blameless conscience and universally acknowledged
> moral principles makes a compact with Behemoth and his evil host, and even the divine
> ...


----------



## vosquoque (Jul 26, 2012)

I wouldn't generalize this to an INTP vs. INTJ conflict. INTJs also tend to acquire a fanatical devotion to logic, e.g. Ayn Rand, and INTPs can also be very existential, though not as strongly as do INJs because of their lack of Ni which seems to be the trigger for it, yet Kierkegaard was an INFP, so if Fi-Te/Ne-Si and Fe-Ti/Ni-Se is allowed, and Te-Fi/Ni-Se is allowed, so would Ti-Fe/Ne-Si, because if it were Ni that induces existentialism, INFPs wouldn't be existentialist, and if it were Fi-Te, INFJs wouldn't. So INTPs would, however less strongly, be existentialist in principle. What is in practice is left to Te.

Enough rambling for now. I guess the main difference in thought is that Ni-Te works deductively, while Ti-Ne works inductively.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

?←→Kant←→Schopenhauer←→Nietzsche←→Freud

As you might have noticed, I left Hegel out of the equation. I am aware.

Ask what ? is and you will understand that Nietzsche never really understood why Kant invented his philosophy.

Neither Nietzsche nor Kant had it right though because nothing is static. And therefore I am siding with Kant right now.


----------



## Mick Beth (Oct 19, 2010)

This is assuming that Kant is INTP and Nietzsche is INTJ...
I would argue that Kant is INTJ and Nietzsche is also INTJ –if not ENFJ.



hornet said:


> Being an ISFP I naturally fall down on the side of Nietzche.


How does being an ISFP make you naturally fall on his side?


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Oh gee... be careful what you wish for you just might get it. XD



vosquoque said:


> I wouldn't generalize this to an INTP vs. INTJ conflict. INTJs also tend to acquire a fanatical devotion to logic, e.g. Ayn Rand, and INTPs can also be very existential, though not as strongly as do INJs because of their lack of Ni which seems to be the trigger for it, yet Kierkegaard was an INFP, so if Fi-Te/Ne-Si and Fe-Ti/Ni-Se is allowed, and Te-Fi/Ni-Se is allowed, so would Ti-Fe/Ne-Si, because if it were Ni that induces existentialism, INFPs wouldn't be existentialist, and if it were Fi-Te, INFJs wouldn't. So INTPs would, however less strongly, be existentialist in principle. What is in practice is left to Te.
> 
> Enough rambling for now. I guess the main difference in thought is that Ni-Te works deductively, while Ti-Ne works inductively.


Yes Ayn Rands utopia while quite utopic/dystopic has a quite different flavour, 
but are surely as messed up taken to the extreme.
I'm not arguing about who has the most messed up utopia though we could explore the topic in a different thread if you like.
It seems to me that the elements colliding is both the civilizing aspects of Si with Se's more primitive approach,
and Fe's collective morals with Fi's everyone decides what is right for himself. Ni-Te, Ti-Ne kinda only seem to be at odds how to think about it, and I'm no expert on how to think about it.



All in Twilight said:


> ?←→Kant←→Schopenhauer←→Nietzsche←→Freud
> 
> As you might have noticed, I left Hegel out of the equation. I am aware.
> 
> ...


Well okay what is "?"?

Edit:
After having some cake after my quick reply I started to wonder if Jung = ?
Okay so you think Jung took Kant to the next phase or something?

Nothing is static so you side with Kant. That is interesting. It sounds like a very Ne perspective to say in this context.
I may be wrong, but it is the recognition of the Ne-Si perspective that makes you more inclined towards Kant?
I'm not sure what the arrows indicate between the different people at the top either.



Mick Beth said:


> This is assuming that Kant is INTP and Nietzsche is INTJ...
> I would argue that Kant is INTJ and Nietzsche is also INTJ –if not ENFJ.
> 
> How does being an ISFP make you naturally fall on his side?


Indeed it is assuming that. Why do you think he is INTJ and why on earth would nietzche be ENFJ?
Well what he says resonates with what I assume to be my Fi-Se side, plus his Ni-Te exploration of things leave me in awe.
The same feeling that Ayn Rand gives me.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

vosquoque said:


> I wouldn't generalize this to an INTP vs. INTJ conflict. INTJs also tend to acquire a fanatical devotion to logic, e.g. Ayn Rand, and INTPs can also be very existential, though not as strongly as do INJs because of their lack of Ni which seems to be the trigger for it, yet Kierkegaard was an INFP, so if Fi-Te/Ne-Si and Fe-Ti/Ni-Se is allowed, and Te-Fi/Ni-Se is allowed, so would Ti-Fe/Ne-Si, because if it were Ni that induces existentialism, INFPs wouldn't be existentialist, and if it were Fi-Te, INFJs wouldn't. So INTPs would, however less strongly, be existentialist in principle. What is in practice is left to Te.
> 
> Enough rambling for now. I guess the main difference in thought is that Ni-Te works deductively, while Ti-Ne works inductively.


Dawkins is a fanatical INTP and so was Milton Friedman and so many others. INTPs are fanatic about logic, whereas INTJs about ideas, but since both have logic and ideas operating in tandem, there is no difference virtually. The difference is subtle between Ni/Ne and Ti/Te


----------



## Mick Beth (Oct 19, 2010)

hornet said:


> Indeed it is assuming that. Why do you think he is INTJ and why on earth would nietzche be ENFJ?
> Well what he says resonates with what I assume to be my Fi-Se side, plus his Ni-Te exploration of things leave me in awe.
> The same feeling that Ayn Rand gives me.


Firstly, Kant’s philosophy is holistic (something he shared with Descartes) in that he starts with the big picture and works his way down (something characteristic of iN in first position). Both Descartes and Kant tried to apply logic to their works, but it’s apparent they already had something in mind. Secondly, I believe Nietzsche is INTJ, but my second choice is ENFJ as he is a weak example of an INTJ in my opinion. Most of his hypotheses were based on observations of other people and external factors (something characteristic of extroverts.) He didn’t use geometry or physics like Descartes or Kant. Also, his philosophy is more like a series of impressions and expressions (something characteristic of extroverted feeling) than a strategy (for example, ENTJs). If you read any biographical information about him, he is often described as being extremely talkative and over-emotional. Anyways, I think it is possible for him to have those characteristics and be INTJ, but my second bet would be on ENFJ. I don’t want to start an argument with my next statement, but hear me out. Ayn Rand is not a philosopher. She was a genius of ranting. Her philosophy is one of hatred and personal biases. I would type her as ENFJ (for the same reason I typed Nietzsche as ENFJ), but I think that’s a slander on other ENFJs (and Nietzsche). The only reason why she got the attention she did was because of certain groups of people such as the early twentieth-century feminists; but, if you look closer, she was only a feminist because she did not want to be associated with other females who she deemed as weak –not because she thought there was hope for them.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Boolean11 said:


> Dawkins is a fanatical INTP and so was Milton Friedman and so many others. INTPs are fanatic about logic, whereas INTJs about ideas, but since both have logic and ideas operating in tandem, there is no difference virtually. The difference is subtle between Ni/Ne and Ti/Te


Well it would seem to be so, but what about the totally different etichal perspective underlying all of it?
INTJs have tert Fi and INTP have inferior Fe.
Fe vs Fi is nothing to be sneezed at no matter where in the stack it is placed.

Inferior anything will manifest itself in pretty immature ways, this if the reason that every utopia become dystopic.
The inferior comes in and messes it all up, with it's totally imature perspective.

Tert is pretty childish and though it isn't inferior, the INTJ have it's own Se inferior to deal with leading to other issues.
It is hard to erect a castle in the sky when you are run by base desires.

As for the T being = logic... Well no...

The Ni-Te is pragmatic about deep deep ideas.
Ti-Ne want to nitpick many shallow ideas.
To put an equal sign between that and treat it as irrelevant is highly suspect.
As is to be expected by a person who every time I see him shifts from INTJ to INTP.
Just because you treat those two types as equal doesn't mean that they are.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

hornet said:


> Well okay what is "?"?
> 
> Edit:
> After having some cake after my quick reply I started to wonder if Jung = ?
> ...


I am glad that you are asking this without judging first.
Maybe you have noticed the chronological pattern. Kant's philosophy encompassed a few radical changes in thinking: Sapere aude which roughly translates as: "you gotta have the guts to use your own mind." That's according to Kant the credo of the enlightenment period. He is referring to the fact that humanity has been conditioned and cultivated from the moment he was born but was not able to free himself from that. Therefore man is never free (in his way of thinking). So Kant proposed a next question: "HOW can we know?" As you might have noticed, HOW is quantitative which was a novelty. He is basically questioning his philosophical predecessors: the (British) empiricists and the cartesians and their sloppy way of investigating/questioning.
So ? is Descartes. 

But where Kant invented a whole new way of thinking, Nietzsche did not. However, Nietzsche actually influenced Freud and I actually suspect that Freud plagiarized Nietzsche. Nietzsche is a genius but was never fully understood up until today I suspect.

I see a lot of people commenting on his work "Also sprach Zarathustra" but no one here has ever read the Avesta and never investigated properly who this Zarathustra really was.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Mick Beth said:


> Firstly, Kant’s philosophy is holistic (something he shared with Descartes) in that he starts with the big picture and works his way down (something characteristic of iN in first position). Both Descartes and Kant tried to apply logic to their works, but it apparent they already had something in mind. I believe Nietzsche is INTJ, but my second choice in ENFJ, as he is a weak example of INTJ in my opinion. Most of his hypotheses were based on observations of other people and external factors (something characteristic of extroverts.) He didn’t use geometry of physics like Descartes of Kant. Also, his philosophy is more like a series of impressions and expressions (something characteristic of extroverted feeling as opposed to strategy, for example, ENTJs). If you read any biographical information about him, he was described as being extremely talkative and over-emotional. Anyways, I think it is quite possible for him to have those characteristics and be INTJ, but my second bet would be on ENFJ. I don’t want to start an argument with my next statement, but hear me out. Ayn Rand is not a philosopher. She was a genius of ranting. Her philosophy is one of hatred and personal biases. I would type her as ENFJ (for the same reason I typed Nietzsche as ENFJ), but I think that’s a slander on other ENFJs (and Nietzsche). The only reason why see got the attention she did was because of certain groups of people such as the feminists of the early twentieth century, but if you look closer, she was only a feminist because she did not want to associated with other females who seem deemed as weak, not because she thought there was hope them.


It is many interesting arguments you come with here. 
That Rand is about hatred and bias is clear, and that same thing can just as well be said of Nietzche.
They where not happy people, that is very clear! XD

As for Rand not having the label philosopher becomes a very futile discussion I agree.
I don't care where we draw the line between philosophy and ranting.
Still her books are very thought provoking and points the finger at Fe in a way that I can hardly say an ENFJ could
make herself do. It just don't make sense to me that a Fe dom in the grip or otherwise would be able to think like that.
Not yet anyway, maybe I need a new perspective?

The Nietzche ENFJ perspective is a bit baffling too as Jung also put him as an INT.
I think Nietzche probably got in the grip from time to time, acting like an ESFP might make you act like that.
You should see me when I act like an ENTJ, you wouldn't think I had an ounce of ISFP with me.
Then again maybe Nietzche was an extremely miserable ESFP?
I feel that is more likely than ENFJ cause you jump from one axis Te-Fi to another Fe-Ti.
Like where is his want for unity in his perspective? 
He stands to me as one of the most outspoken opponents of the collective, along with Rand...
It would be a bit odd if he then was an ENFJ. XD
If I have misunderstood something please elaborate.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

All in Twilight said:


> I am glad that you are asking this without judging first.
> Maybe you have noticed the chronological pattern. Kant's philosophy encompassed a few radical changes in thinking: Sapere aude which roughly translates as: "you gotta have the guts to use your own mind." That's according to Kant the credo of the enlightenment period. He is referring to the fact the humanity has been conditioned and cultivated from the moment he was born but was not able to free himself from that. Therefore man is never free (in his way of thinking). So Kant proposed a next question: "HOW can we know?" As you might have noticed, HOW is quantitative which was a novelty. He is basically questioning his philosophical predecessors: the (British) empiricists and the cartesians and their sloppy way of investigating/questioning.
> So ? is Descartes.
> 
> ...


Well I'm not comming at this from an emotional frame.
I'm just doing this to further my understanding of the book "Psychological types".
It is a hard nut that is for sure.

I see cronologically, I was lost in trying to pin some meaning to each of the different people.
So Kant basically tried to find a new angle to attack things from.
He tried and found it.
While Nietzches arguments wasn't new, old arguments, but very well put forth.

Freud plagiarized Nietzche, that I could buy into.
Since they both had a very big distaste for the "religious" in a way.

Avesta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Zoroaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I realized that Jung where talking about a different Zarathustra also, when he talked about Nietzche.
Thanks for that! =D


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

hornet said:


> Well it would seem to be so, but what about the totally different etichal perspective underlying all of it?
> INTJs have tert Fi and INTP have inferior Fe.
> Fe vs Fi is nothing to be sneezed at no matter where in the stack it is placed.
> 
> ...


That is the David Keirsey version which is more in line with mainstream MBTI defining INTJs "Engineers" and INTPs as "Scientists" (people generally confuse the two terms Scientist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -Scientists versus engineers). There is a difference between them with "scientists" caring more about the neatness (nitpicking) of abstract phenomena and "engineers" caring more about the utility of abstract phenomena. The function positions matter since they show the difference I agree.

Anyway the definition of the functions I'm coming from is the more Jungian version here, which sees the difference as "subtle". Personally this works more for me since despite being strongly a NiTe(FiSe) valuing type, I also relate to TiNe tendencies: logical consistency and a creative explosion in ideas, which also goes in hand with my Enneagram type 5w6 3w4 1w9.


Abraxas said:


> My understanding of Ne and Ni is based on my interpretation of Jung from Psychological Types.
> 
> 
> To understand intuition is not very difficult. Intuition is essentially an unconscious sort of pattern recognition that allows you to anticipate and imagine where a pattern set is going. It is kind of like knowing the next number in a sequence of numbers, but used in a much broader way with everyday experience. You "just know" what's going to happen next or what someone is "really" thinking or feeling or what something "actually" means.
> ...


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

hornet said:


> Well I'm not comming at this from an emotional frame.
> I'm just doing this to further my understanding of the book "Psychological types".
> It is a hard nut that is for sure.
> 
> ...


Hi! 

I wouldn't put my faith in the Wikipedia articles, I checked them for you  Just consider it as an introduction to...

However though, Nietszche never opposed religion and neither did Kant but they opposed the dogmatic beliefs and traditions. He, Nietzsche, really feels sorry for Jesus Christ because he is so misunderstood. Most people turn, according to Nietzsche, to religion because they are too weak to confront themselves with their boring and cruel lives. It became an escape based on fear so they are corrupting religion. 
Kierkegaard did the same - criticizing the co called Christians - and he invented the term "Sunday Christianity" : Jesus Christ either died on the cross for your sins or he did not. So you either 'believe" in him or not and not just only on Sunday.

Do you see the correlations? I am sorry, My Ne is mostly all over the place because I've got too much stuff going on in my head


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

All in Twilight said:


> Hi!
> 
> I wouldn't put my faith in the Wikipedia articles, I checked them for you  Just consider it as an introduction to...
> 
> ...


No worries I linked to those to be sure I had found the right Zarathustra. 

I do see what you say, but it is a mouthful and I will probably stay up all night to get my head around it. XD
The issue that confronts me is that I stand before endless piles of books and authors.
Who should I pick to research further?
I could spend lots of time to read all Nietzche, Kant, Goethe, Jung and so on have written...
I'm trying to draw a map over the relevant stuff and the must understands... XD
The task is enourmous, but very interesting...


----------



## Madam (Apr 1, 2012)

I've always found it quite... ironic? that the worst philosophers - Nietzsche and Rand - are the most popular among masses.

It's not so much about what they wrote vs. what Kant wrote. As this thread is about Nietzsche, I'll just focus on him, even though there's not much to say anyway.

Kant based his works on logic and arguments, he was systematic, he had a very good knowledge about what was going on in his day in science, jurisprudence etc., whereas Nietzsche had none of these things, he didn't even concern himself with proof too much. When greatest philosophers are named, such as Kant and Hegel etc., Nietzsche's name never comes up and for a good reason. Actually Nietzsche's name hardly ever comes up even when discussions involve less significant/known philosophers, or at least I never hear him being mentioned in lectures, conferences, books by other philosophers etc.



hornet said:


> In this movie everything that is individual and subjective is hunted and destroyed
> in order to save humanity against itself.


I can only wonder how you got from categorical imperative to this.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

Ps. Kant is an INTP→system builder but with a lot of f*cking Ne. He is too introverted though to be an ENTP. He never left his birth village for example.

Nietzsche was an ENFP. Is Ne is literally all over the place and so is his Fi and Te. He was not a healthy persona because he envied Hegel a lot and couldn't stand the fact that it was his sister who had to take care of him during his last days.

Maybe, but maybe he is an INFP but with a Ne of grandeur.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Madam said:


> I've always found it quite... ironic? that the worst philosophers - Nietzsche and Rand - are the most popular among masses.
> 
> It's not so much about what they wrote vs. what Kant wrote. As this thread is about Nietzsche, I'll just focus on him, even though there's not much to say anyway.
> 
> ...


Your value judgments are noted.
Anything else you like to add?
Besides that you look down upon me for being part of the masses...



All in Twilight said:


> Ps. Kant is an INTP→system builder but with a lot of f*cking Ne. He is too introverted though to be an ENTP. He never left his birth village for example.
> 
> Nietzsche was an ENFP. Is Ne is literally all over the place and so is his Fi and Te. He was not a healthy persona because he envied Hegel a lot and couldn't stand the fact that it was his sister who had to take care of him during his last days.
> 
> Maybe, but maybe he is an INFP but with a Ne of grandeur.


Hmm that is an interesting typing of Nietzche, I'll keep it in the back of my mind.


----------



## Mick Beth (Oct 19, 2010)

hornet said:


> If so I must say I deeply object to that worldview, such a cold barren world
> I couldn't possibly consider excisting in. It reminds me of the movie Equilibrium.


You'd have to define "pleasure" for me to know if this is an accurate interpretation of Kant's categorical imperative.




All in Twilight said:


> Ask what ? is and you will understand that Nietzsche never really understood why Kant invented his philosophy.


Hume?


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

Mick Beth said:


> Hume?


Smart!! Cool points for you.

I have already given the answer though: Descartes. But it could as well be D. Hume in a way.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Mick Beth said:


> You'd have to define "pleasure" for me to know if this is an accurate interpretation of Kant's categorical imperative.


Pleasure is everything sensory that gives me "dopamine" (any chemical high).
Also everything that is experienced as meaningful is pleasurable.
Without dopamine highs and meaning there is only pain both mental and physical.
If there was no meaning, there would be no reason not to be a drug junkie.

In other words life is a series of pains and pleasures, with moments of subjective meaning sprinkled inbetween.
I live for my subjective meaning, it is the only thing that keeps me going.


----------

