# Se & Nietzsche's "Will to Power"



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

*Black (extroverted) sensing Se*

Perceives information about what might be called objects' "kinetic energy" — for example, information about how organized/mobilized a person is, his physical energy and power, and his ability to make use of his willpower or position and exercise his will in opposition to others'. This perception implies the ability to tell what reserves of "kinetic energy" people have and how useful they can be in getting things done. It defines the individual's ability or inability to exercise his willpower and energy in opposition to the will and energy of other people.
When this element is in the leading position, the individual possesses exceptional personal force/will. He is a born organizer of anything. He has the ability to mobilize people to achieve a goal and is able to make use of and manage animate and inanimate objects. Is able to work with things (objects) and reproduce almost any objects based on available samples. This is a reflection of his ability to organize material. These people are known for their striving to materialize their will, energy, and power, and for their desire to impose their will on others.

*The will to power:*





*
Thoughts?*


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

I always saw Nietzsche as Se dual seeking, mainly because what he "worships" as "will to power" seems close to socionics extraverted sensing. I have a hard time seeing Neitzsche as an Alpha or Delta sociotype because his ideal of will to power seems so similar to socionics Se.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

I have said before that Ni is like will to power. Hitler and Schopenhauer had it too. I have not read much Nietzsche but was actually talking about this recently. Nietzsche's "'man of action". 

Malcolm X is listed as an ESTP. In his autobiography he talks about reading Nietzsche and other guys in prison. He said they talked too much, and didn't do anything. Malcolm X is a man of action. 

Somebody made the comment that SP make great adventurer/hero's journey types. They adjust while on the journey. They implement the vision of the NJ. Malcolm X was the man of action in Elijah's Muhammad's dream.


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I have said before that Ni is like will to power. Hitler and Schopenhauer had it too. I have not read much Nietzsche but was actually talking about this recently. Nietzsche's "'man of action".
> 
> Malcolm X is listed as an ESTP. In his autobiography he talks about reading Nietzsche and other guys in prison. He said they talked too much, and didn't do anything. Malcolm X is a man of action.
> 
> Somebody made the comment that SP make great adventurer/hero's journey types. They adjust while on the journey. They implement the vision of the NJ. Malcolm X was the man of action in Elijah's Muhammad's dream.


While I agree that Nietzsche and Schopenhauer were not "men of action", not involved in the world aroud them, dictators are definateley "men of action", though I wouldnt argue they acted for the best.


----------



## Stendhal (May 31, 2014)

We have to remember that Nietzsche was actually a sickly intellectual loner who spent his time writing books and walking. While he was certainly a genius, some of his ideas are semi-insane, and I have the suspicion that he sent a lot of time crying through his clenched teeth.


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

Stendhal said:


> We have to remember that Nietzsche was actually a sickly intellectual loner who spent his time writing books and walking. While he was certainly a genius, some of his ideas are semi-insane, and I have the suspicion that he sent a lot of time crying through his clenched teeth.


I think people greatly exaggerate Neitzsche's "mental condition". The attribution of his ideas to "insanity" forgets the fact the he had syphillis the final/terminal state of which he entered at the period of his life he ceased to write. His ideas aerent a product of "insanity", since there is no loss of conact with reality before the final stage of syphillis to my knowledge. While he was physically ill most of his life, I doubt he wanted to be something other than a "loner". He also said many things out of provocation.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Typhon said:


> While I agree that Nietzsche and Schopenhauer were not "men of action", not involved in the world aroud them, dictators are definateley "men of action", though I wouldnt argue they acted for the best.


I like Tolstoy's description of power:

Arriving at this conclusion we can reply directly and positively to these two essential questions of history:
(1) What is power?
(2) What force produces the movement of the nations?
(1) Power is the relation of a given person to other individuals, in which the more this person expresses opinions, predictions, and justifications of the collective action that is performed, the less is his participation in that action.
(2) The movement of nations is caused not by power, nor by intellectual activity, nor even by a combination of the two as historians have supposed, but by the activity of all the people who participate in the events, and who always combine in such a way that those taking the largest direct share in the event take on themselves the least responsibility and vice versa.
Morally the wielder of power appears to cause the event; physically it is those who submit to the power. But as the moral activity is inconceivable without the physical, the cause of the event is neither in the one nor in the other but in the union of the two.
Or in other words, the conception of a cause is inapplicable to the phenomena we are examining.

There are two sides to the life of every man, his individual life, which is the more free the more abstract its interests, and his elemental hive life in which he inevitably obeys laws laid down for him.
Man lives consciously for himself, but is an unconscious instrument in the attainment of the historic, universal, aims of humanity. A deed done is irrevocable, and its result coinciding in time with the actions of millions of other men assumes an historic significance. The higher a man stands on the social ladder, the more people he is connected with and the more power he has over others, the more evident is the predestination and inevitability of his every action.
"The king's heart is in the hands of the Lord."
A king is history's slave.
History, that is, the unconscious, general, hive life of mankind, uses every moment of the life of kings as a tool for its own purposes.


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I like Tolstoy's description of power:
> 
> Arriving at this conclusion we can reply directly and positively to these two essential questions of history:
> (1) What is power?
> ...


Hmmmm, to be honest, I'm not sure how much I agree with this since it seems to be influenced by dialectical materialism, which either appeals to you, or it doesnt, lol. I do not really view humanity as a collective entity, nor do I view history as a playground for God's will. I tend to view the individual, as well as groups(which act like a large individual) to be the ones who reap the profits of history, humanity does not reap what its leaders sow in an equal or homogenous fashion, quiet to the contrary.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Typhon said:


> Hmmmm, to be honest, I'm not sure how much I agree with this since it seems to be influenced by dialectical materialism, which either appeals to you, or it doesnt, lol. I do not really view humanity as a collective entity, nor do I view history as a playground for God's will. I tend to view the individual, as well as groups(which act like a large individual) to be the ones who reap the profits of history, humanity does not reap what its leaders sow in an equal or homogenous fashion, quiet to the contrary.


I particularly like the point about how power works in practice. If a cop gives me a ticket, and I complain, he will often say he is just doing his job. He doesn't make the law. He is the one most involved, and has the most activity, but takes no responsibility. War is the same thing. Support the troops. They didn't choose to fight. Blame the politicians. Troops are the ones involved in most of the activity, but take the least amount of responsibility. 

And politicians and kings are blamed, like Napoleon and Hitler. But the "hive mind" of humanity that allows these people is never examined. The individual is. Jung said that Hitler was a "spiritual vessel". He was not a man, he was a nation. He didn't pop out of thin air. He was created by the conditions. He has to exist. He was constructed by realities, and perpetuated by realities. Which is similar to what Tolstoy was saying. Jung basically thought that you have to know yourself to avoid being pulled into that participation mystique. Humans have psychological inclinations for tribalism and projecting their shadow on others. Even in stuff like sports. People like to divide and conquer. Sports is a participation mystique where people can do that.


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I particularly like the point about how power works in practice. If a cop gives me a ticket, and I complain, he will often say he is just doing his job. He doesn't make the law. He is the one most involved, and has the most activity, but takes no responsibility. War is the same thing. Support the troops. They didn't choose to fight. Blame the politicians. Troops are the ones involved in most of the activity, but take the least amount of responsibility.
> 
> And politicians and kings are blamed, like Napoleon and Hitler. But the "hive mind" of humanity that allows these people is never examined. The individual is. Jung said that Hitler was a "spiritual vessel". He was not a man, he was a nation. He didn't pop out of thin air. He was created by the conditions. He has to exist. He was constructed by realities, and perpetuated by realities. Which is similar to what Tolstoy was saying. Jung basically thought that you have to know yourself to avoid being pulled into that participation mystique. Humans have psychological inclinations for tribalism and projecting their shadow on others. Even in stuff like sports. People like to divide and conquer. Sports is a participation mystique where people can do that.


I agree. It seems that people always blame someone else, someone in power, yet it is also them that allows these people to come into to power. It seems the people who elected Hitler should have read his words more seriously and thought "voting for him is insane". But they didnt, Hitler came into power at a time when Germany was ruined by a deep economic crises, one we have a hard time imagining even today. And times of economic crises need scapegoats, people need scapegoats, since it is easier to blame someone or something for hardship than just accept the hardship. Sometimes, there are factors to blame for hardship, but sometimes, noone is clearly to blame, and thats possibly the most frustrating thing in this life, that there is not always someone else "responsible" for our problems, sometimes, circumstances are just unfortuneate. That isnt though, to say there aerent solutions to these problems, just that its easier to look for blame than it is to look for a solution. I'm no psychologist, but I wouldnt be surprised if thats universally true.


----------



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

Always thought Nietzsches "Will to power" is a great example of low-positioned, but valued Se. Probably dual-seeking. He was to obsessed with power and force to be anything else. 
No to mention he had Ni experiences:


> Something profoundly convulsive…suddenly becomes visible and audible with indescribable definiteness and exactness…There is an ecstasy whose terrific tension is sometimes released by a flood of tears…There is a feeling that one is utterly out of hand…Everything occurs without volition, as if an eruption of freedom, independence, power, and divinity. The spontaneity of the images and similes is most remarkable; one loses all perception of what is imagery and simile; everything offers itself as the most immediate, exact, and simple means of expression.


Source. By one on those experiences he invented his eternal return idea. 

But I also think he valued Fi. Uber-mensch have to follow his own patch; authenticity is valuable and the group mentality is loathed. What people think is irrelevant, they are fools anyway. Life should not be filled with compassion (which is false), but with will to realize *your* goals, despite what most people want, and with creativity. I think Nietzsche was ILI. 

So, to answer OP's question: his "will to power" concept is definitely connected with Se; Se and Fi to be precise. Maybe he didn't wrote about "kinetic energy" and stuff, but his Se concept was filtered by his Ni, so he saw it as a some kind of philosophical "will" and creative energy instead.


--------
fun fact: romantic style: "victim"


* *


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Typhon said:


> I agree. It seems that people always blame someone else, someone in power, yet it is also them that allows these people to come into power. It seems the people who elected Hitler should have read his words more seriously and thought "voting for him is insane". But they didnt, Hitler came into power at a time when Germany was ruined by a deep economic crises, one we have a hard time imagining even today. And times of economic crises need scapegoats, people need scapegoats, since it is easier to blame someone or something for hardship than just accept the hardship. Sometimes, there are factors to blame for hardship, but sometimes, noone is clearly to blame, and thats possibly the most frustrating thing in this life, that there is not always someone else "responsible" for our problems, sometimes, circumstances are just unfortuneate. That isnt though, to say there aerent solutions to these problems, just that its easier to look for blame than it is to look for a solution. I'm no psychologist, but I wouldnt be surprised if thats universally true.


It is a messed up system. lol. You blame the cop, soldier or politician, but they can actually throw it back at you. I blame the cop, the cop blames the politician, the politician blames me. I created him. Thus creating the cop. Nobody can solve anything because of it. Where does it end or begin? It is a snake eating its tail. Time is a flat circle, like Nietzsche/Kohle said.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

wolf12345 said:


> But I also think he valued Fi. Uber-mensch have to follow his own patch; authenticity is valuable and the group mentality is loathed. What people think is irrelevant, they are fools anyway. Life should not be filled with compassion (which is false), but with will to realize *your* goals, despite what most people want, and with creativity. I think Nietzsche was ILI.


Hmm. I agree with the general consensus that he is Ni-dominant/Se-dual seeking. I've attempted to read some of his work and on every occasion I found myself shouting, "get to the fucking point, already!" XD

I like a bit of Nietzsche, but the way he writes hurts my head. I always thought he was IEI, but I could be wrong.


----------



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

Kintsugi said:


> Hmm. I agree with the general consensus that he is Ni-dominant/Se-dual seeking. I've attempted to read some of his work and on every occasion I found myself shouting, "get to the fucking point, already!" XD
> 
> I like a bit of Nietzsche, but the way he writes hurts my head. I always thought he was IEI, but I could be wrong.


It's funny, because he is such poster-child INTJ in MBTI, yet he is often typed as an INFp in Socionics. No to mention Jung typed him as an Ti-dom in _Psychological Types_. I'd stick with general Ni - Te to not complicate what's already complicated. :d

Dunno why you don't like his style. Maybe it's too poetic and stuff. 
If you don't like rambling you definitely shouldn't read Kant though.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

wolf12345 said:


> It's funny, because he is such poster-child INTJ in MBTI, yet he is often typed as an INFp in Socionics. No to mention Jung typed him as an Ti-dom in _Psychological Types_. I'd stick with general Ni - Te to not complicate what's already complicated. :d
> 
> Dunno why you don't like his style. Maybe it's too poetic and stuff.
> If you don't like rambling you definitely shouldn't read Kant though.


I see the Ni but I don't see the Te? I also found your argument for him being Fi-valuing fairly convincing...but...still...where is the Te? 

It's too poetic and rambling. I like things to be to-the-point, lol. An example of a philosopher who speaks my language would be Seneca; that dude does not hurt my head at all. He is very clear and concise. I approve. roud:

I've read bits of Kant, and yes, it _is _a challenge for me. Interestingly, I find myself nodding my head in agreement with him quite often so we clearly aren't worlds apart; it appears we just travel down different roads that somehow lead to the same destination.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Kintsugi said:


> Hmm. I agree with the general consensus that he is Ni-dominant/Se-dual seeking. I've attempted to read some of his work and on every occasion I found myself shouting, "get to the fucking point, already!" XD
> 
> I like a bit of Nietzsche, but the way he writes hurts my head. I always thought he was IEI, but I could be wrong.


I have not read much Nietzsche, but one thing that sticks out to me, is he despised pity. He said something like, a person loses all power when they pity another person. It is a form of control they try to get over you. I don't see much Fe in him. 

I think pity can give you strength. It can make you mad, and drive you to action. Hitler said something like that, the moral insensitivity that surrounded the plight of his people enraged him. Similar to Malcolm X, Bin Laden. They reflect the conditions around them. If Muslims are being oppressed, Bin Laden is being oppressed. He is not letting that slide. I have said before that typical cops and soldiers, often SJ types, are in hot zones, because they were ordered to be there. Bin Laden and Malcolm X can exist in no other place. They have to be there.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I have not read much Nietzsche, but one thing that sticks out to me, is he despised pity. He said something like, a person loses all power when they pity another person. It is a form of control they try to get over you. I don't see much Fe in him.
> 
> I think pity can give you strength. It can make you mad, and drive you to action. Hitler said something like that, the moral insensitivity that surrounded the plight of his people enraged him. Similar to Malcolm X, Bin Laden. They reflect the conditions around them. If Muslims are being oppressed, Bin Laden is being oppressed. He is not letting that slide. I have said before that typical cops and soldiers, often SJ types, are in hot zones, because they were ordered to be there. Bin Laden and Malcolm X can exist in no other place. They have to be there.


Hmm. I'm not sure if despising pity is exclusive to a lack of Fe?

I guess, I focus not on what is said, but the patterns in cognition. I believe two "opposing" types can have very similar views.


----------



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

Kintsugi said:


> An example of a philosopher who speaks my language would be Seneca; that dude does not hurt my head at all. He is very clear and concise.


My favourite philosopher is Marcus Aurelius for that matter, also clear and concise, and he was Ni - Fe I think, so maybe it's just not necessarily type related.



> where is the Te?


I don't see much Te either, but it might be just his esthetics (poetry is not very Te-friendly). But Fe is, like @FearAndTrembling said, completely out of place. He loathed any kind of objective feeling. Fe PoLR probably. Those who feel mercy are weak creatures who shall be punished. All ethics are inside of me, morality is subjective and it's for uber-mensch to decide what is moral and what is not. I think he said sth like that almost literally.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

wolf12345 said:


> My favourite philosopher is Marcus Aurelius for that matter, also clear and concise, and he was Ni - Fe I think, so maybe it's just not necessarily type related.
> 
> 
> I don't see much Te either, but it might be just his esthetics (poetry is not very Te-friendly). But Fe is, like @_FearAndTrembling_ said, completely out of place. He loathed any kind of objective feeling. Fe PoLR probably. Those who feel mercy are weak creatures who shall be punished. All ethics are inside of me, morality is subjective and it's for uber-mensch to decide what is moral and what is not. I think he said sth like that almost literally.


I love Aurelius, too! I thought maybe he was Se-dominant, but then, I am bias lol. XD

Interesting. Tbh, I haven't read enough Nietzsche to offer much of an opinion either way, but this conversation has made me curious....perhaps I'll go read some more now. ^_^


----------



## Stendhal (May 31, 2014)

Typhon said:


> I think people greatly exaggerate Neitzsche's "mental condition". The attribution of his ideas to "insanity" forgets the fact the he had syphillis the final/terminal state of which he entered at the period of his life he ceased to write. His ideas aerent a product of "insanity", since there is no loss of conact with reality before the final stage of syphillis to my knowledge. While he was physically ill most of his life, I doubt he wanted to be something other than a "loner". He also said many things out of provocation.


I wasn't attributing these qualities in his philosophy to his later madness, but rather that he was partly influenced by an inferiority complex. Of course, this along does not refute his ideas, and with most thinkers I would be wary of this psychologism (Nietzsche does it himself which is why I apply it to him). I also understand he was a provocateur, but even if we understand that he was not a proto fascist, we also have to realize he had certain fascistic impulses.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

wolf12345 said:


> My favourite philosopher is Marcus Aurelius for that matter, also clear and concise, and he was Ni - Fe I think, so maybe it's just not necessarily type related.
> 
> 
> I don't see much Te either, but it might be just his esthetics (poetry is not very Te-friendly). But Fe is, like @_FearAndTrembling_ said, completely out of place. He loathed any kind of objective feeling. Fe PoLR probably. Those who feel mercy are weak creatures who shall be punished. All ethics are inside of me, morality is subjective and it's for uber-mensch to decide what is moral and what is not. I think he said sth like that almost literally.


I'm not sure if you are implying this, but if you are, that Fe egos believe in objective morals, then you just undermined your own argumentation. In general, reaching a philosophical conclusion does not matter as much as its expression.


----------



## Aiwass (Jul 28, 2014)

It is important to emphazise how Nietzsche changed drastically during his career. I'm going to assume people here read his most famous stuff -- probably Thus Spoke Zarathustra or The Antichrist. 

By the time the guy wrote these books, he was already nuts. Clearly on a Ni overdrive but with little to no auxiliary function to support his visions. He is a perfect example of an INJ who cracked up -- he put his visions (Ni) above everything, even in expense of reality (Se).

His early works (such as Human, All Too Human) are much more objective, organized and concrete. I can see bits of Te there. 

From the point of view of Jungian typology, I can't see Nietzsche being anything but an INTJ. He uses too much Ni and Fi. Those two functions are basically the essence of his philosophy.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Stendhal said:


> I wasn't attributing these qualities in his philosophy to his later madness, but rather that he was partly influenced by an inferiority complex. Of course, this along does not refute his ideas, and with most thinkers I would be wary of this psychologism (Nietzsche does it himself which is why I apply it to him). I also understand he was a provocateur, but even if we understand that he was not a proto fascist, we also have to realize he had certain fascistic impulses.


Fascism is actually something Nietzsche would have despised & it is a gross misinterpretation of the will to power as life as will to power implies a duality (those who overcome & the overcome). Life is constantly overcoming itself, this implies evolution through conflict.

Fascism eventually becomes an obstacle that must be overcome & as history has shown it is precisely what has happened. Power is in flux, it cannot stagnate, it implies *the conflict of wills*.

*Freedom* is the will to power of the oppressed & this means the will to power eventually leads to overcoming the oppressors. One can't overcome force with force without loss, the only way to win is to combine with it or use it's force against itself, which is why cooperation is the easiest path to power & greater number of wills imply more power.

^^; the will to power inevitably leads to the class struggle with the goal being the elevation of every constituent member to sovereign master status. Conscious of it or not every living organism strives for power, everyone wills to be a master as far as society is concerned.

Conflict is inevitable & constant. Gaining power at the expense of others turns one into an obstacle others seek to overcome. This means oppressing others leads to a loss of power eventually, which again implies that cooperation is the only way to maintaining & expanding power.

The human organism is powerful precisely because of this fact. It is composed of many smaller organisms cooperating aka its the collective will to power of these.

*Humanity is similar, this means the only true way to power is what we'd call anarchy. Nietzsche said that those with abundant power seek the love of humanity as their means of maintain said power.*

*A lion is not afraid of a mouse, there is no point in oppressing others if one is strong. Only the weak seek to increase their own power by diminishing that of others. Power is not a zero sum game.*

The easiest way to tap into the essence of The will to power & Se is to watch Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann (天元突破グレンラガン (I'm serious) : 










@Amaterasu knows what I mean.

This is also why Nietzsche saw pity as a tool of the weak to make use of the powerful. Being weak in general is not a virtue yet we often attempt to show it in that light.

Relying on a government is a sign of weakness (begging)  and not something to be tolerated by the strong.
*
The will to power not only leads to reactive Aristocratic Radicalism, but also to Active re-evaluative Anarchism.*

Look at Post-humanist Anarchism aka Postanarchism.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

@_FreeBeer_ but I've never watched Gurren Lagann, if that's what you mean 

Were you referring to something/someone else?


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

Aiwass said:


> From the point of view of Jungian typology, I can't see Nietzsche being anything but an INTJ. He uses too much Ni and Fi. Those two functions are basically the essence of his philosophy.


And Ti....


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Amaterasu said:


> @_FreeBeer_ but I've never watched Gurren Lagann, if that's what you mean
> 
> Were you referring to something/someone else?


o.o damn it, thought you did. Recommend doing so. Its fun.



Kintsugi said:


> And Ti....


I'd say he doesn't use Fi as Nietzsche arrives to his will to power ethics through logic....Ti dom is very possible.

:/ however weakness in others for example does make me angry & my weakness is the source of my own anguish & envy. Nietzsche is essentially correct imo that some concepts we find good, such as compassion are not necessarily virtues & pain isn't necessarily bad either.

Through pain one grows if one isn't weak & that is admirable & enviable. To be pitied always felt to me at least as some sort of insult that goes along with my own self contempt that I find myself in that state..>.> however these are also useful in driving people to better themselves.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

@FreeBeer

I think I agree with you. I need to read some more though.


----------



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

Inguz said:


> I'm not sure if you are implying this, but if you are, that Fe egos believe in objective morals, then you just undermined your own argumentation.


What u mean?



> In general, reaching a philosophical conclusion does not matter as much as its expression.


And u think that because...?



Aiwass said:


> It is important to emphazise how Nietzsche changed drastically during his career. I'm going to assume people here read his most famous stuff -- probably Thus Spoke Zarathustra or The Antichrist.
> 
> By the time the guy wrote these books, he was already nuts. Clearly on a Ni overdrive but with little to no auxiliary function to support his visions. He is a perfect example of an INJ who cracked up -- he put his visions (Ni) above everything, even in expense of reality (Se).
> 
> ...


Good points. I'd add that he wasn't really that reclusive misanthrope before he went mad. I've read bits of his biography and it seems that he was rather proactive in early stages of life.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

wolf12345 said:


> What u mean?
> 
> 
> And u think that because...?


Having it as easy as "People who value Fe believe in objective morals, people who value Fi doesn't believe in objective morals" would be ridiculous, and not to mention lacking in understanding of what the two IMEs are in Socionics.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Jung spends quite a bit of time on Nietzsche in Psychological Types. Nietzsche was interested in personality, and how people formed. He also scolded Nietzsche for being consumed by ego or something. He mistook the ego for the self. 

*He must surely be reckoned as an intuitive type with an inclination towards the side of introversion. As evidence of the former we have his pre-eminently intuitive, artistic manner of production, of which this very work The Birth of Tragedy is highly characteristic, while his master work Thus Spake Zarathustra is even more so. His aphoristic writings are expressive of his introverted intellectual side. These, in spite of a strong admixture of feeling, exhibit a pronounced critical intellectualism in the manner of the French intellectuals of the eighteenth century. His lack of rational moderation and conciseness argues for the intuitive type in general Under these circumstances it is not surprising that in his initial work he unwittingly sets the facts of his own personal psychology in the foreground. This is all quite in harmony with the intuitive attitude, which characteristically perceives the outer through the medium of the inner, sometimes even at the expense of reality. By means of this attitude he also gained deep insight into the Dionysian qualities of his unconscious, the crude forms of which, so far as we know, reached the surface of consciousness only at the outbreak of his illness, although they had already revealed their presence in various erotic allusions.

**It is, I think, characteristic of our psychology that the present epoch was, as it were, ushered in by two minds who were destined to have immense influence upon the hearts and minds of the younger generation; Wagner, the advocate of love, who in his music sounds the whole scale of feeling from Tristan down to incestuous passion, and from Tristan up to the loftiest spirituality of the Grail, and Nietzsche, the advocate of power and of the victorious will of the individuality. In his last and loftiest utterance Wagner took hold of the Grail legend, as Goethe selected Dante, while Nietzsche chose the image of a lordly caste and a lordly morality, an image which had found its embodiment in many a fair-haired heroic and knightly figure of the Middle Ages. Wagner breaks the bonds that stifle love, while Nietzsche shatters the “tables of value” that cramp the individuality. They both strive after similar goals, while at the same time creating irremediable discord, for, where love is, individual power can never prevail, while the dominating power of the individual precludes the reign of love.*


----------



## Aiwass (Jul 28, 2014)

@FreeBeer @Kintsugi I'm yet to meet a Ti-dom who argues so passionately about authenticity and identity as Nietzsche did.

_“The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.”_
- Beyond Good and Evil

_“Become who you are”_
- Thus Spoke Zarathustra 

These are clear expressions of Fi. Nietzsche was an outright individualist –- one of the reasons why he criticized Christianity so ferociously was because he saw it as an obstacle that kept the individual away from his true desires (Fi). 

Compare Nietzsche's philosophy and writing style with Descartes', a Ti-dom, for example –- Descartes was much more concerned with “finding the truth” in an analytical, detached way, distant from value judgements. Nietzsche didn't reject value judgments. He was obsessed with how morality (more specifically, religious morality) corrupted the individual and attacked this view of morality mercilessly. Not a healthy expression of Fi, but Fi nonetheless.

...But anyways, I'm curious to understand your points of view. What makes you think Nietzsche used Ti? Philosophy itself is heavily associated with Ti and sometimes it may be difficult to separate the personal characteristics of the individual from what is associated with his occupation.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Freeman Dyson is a good example of a Ti dom. INTP I think. He reminds me of Jung. His thought is more clear than Nietzsche. I also think Ti-Fe is more flexible than Te-Fi. Ti-Fe speaks with more qualifiers and caveats. It puts a more human touch on the individuals being discussed. It tries to balance too. Dyson is just like Jung in that way. They show the dichotomy, but show how each type has value, and is necessary. Dyson is also open ended, unlike Nietzsche. Jung and Dyson go out of their way to be understood. A guy like Dyson drives Te crazy.

Friends and colleagues describe Dyson as shy and self-effacing, with a contrarian streak that his friends find refreshing but his intellectual opponents find exasperating. "I have the sense that when consensus is forming like ice hardening on a lake, Dyson will do his best to chip at the ice", Steven Weinberg said of him. His friend, the neurologist and author Oliver Sacks, said: "A favorite word of Freeman's about doing science and being creative is the word 'subversive'. He feels it's rather important not only to be not orthodox, but to be subversive, and he's done that all his life."

Nietzsche is all about the one, Dyson is about the many:

Dyson has won numerous scientific awards but never a Nobel Prize. Nobel physics laureate Steven Weinberg has said that the Nobel committee has "fleeced" Dyson, but Dyson himself remarked in 2009, "I think it's almost true without exception if you want to win a Nobel Prize, you should have a long attention span, get hold of some deep and important problem and stay with it for ten years. That wasn't my style.

Dyson uses personality theory to type scientists. He said there are two types of scientists. Unifiers and diversifiers. He talked about unification through diversification. 

Him on the differences in scientists:

Great scientists come in two varieties, which Isaiah Berlin, quoting the seventh-century-BC poet Archilochus, called foxes and hedgehogs. Foxes know many tricks, hedgehogs only one. Foxes are interested in everything, and move easily from one problem to another. Hedgehogs are interested only in a few problems which they consider fundamental, and stick with the same problems for years or decades. Most of the great discoveries are made by hedgehogs, most of the little discoveries by foxes. Science needs both hedgehogs and foxes for its healthy growth, hedgehogs to dig deep into the nature of things, foxes to explore the complicated details of our marvelous universe. Albert Einstein was a hedgehog; Richard Feynman was a fox.

Some mathematicians are birds, others are frogs. Birds fly high in the air and survey broad vistas of mathematics out to the far horizon. They delight in concepts that unify our thinking and bring together diverse problems from different parts of the landscape. Frogs live in the mud below and see only the flowers that grow nearby. They delight in the details of particular objects, and they solve problems one at a time. I happen to be a frog, but many of my best friends are birds. The main theme of my talk tonight is this. Mathematics need both birds and frogs. Mathematics is rich and beautiful because birds give it broad visions and frogs give it intricate details. Mathematics is both great art and important science, because it combines generality of concepts with depth of structures. It is stupid to claim that birds are better than frogs because they see farther, or that frogs are better than birds because they see deeper. The world of mathematics iss both broad and deep, and we need birds and frogs working together to explore it.

I am myself a Christian, a member of a community that preserves an ancient heritage of great literature and great music, provides help and counsel to young and old when they are in trouble, educates children in moral responsibility, and worships God in its own fashion. But I find Polkinghorne’s theology altogether too narrow for my taste. I have no use for a theology that claims to know the answers to deep questions but bases its arguments on the beliefs of a single tribe. I am a practicing Christian but not a believing Christian. To me, to worship God means to recognize that mind and intelligence are woven into the fabric of our universe in a way that altogether surpasses our comprehension.



*. Perhaps the universe is constructed according to a principle of maximum diversity.*


*The principle of maximum diversity says that the laws of nature, and the initial conditions at the beginning of time, are such as to make the universe as interesting as possible. As a result, life is possible but not too easy. Maximum diversity often leads to maximum stress. In the end we survive, but only by the skin of our teeth.*


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Aiwass said:


> @FreeBeer @Kintsugi
> These are clear expressions of Fi. Nietzsche was an outright individualist –- one of the reasons why he criticized Christianity so ferociously was because he saw it as an obstacle that kept the individual away from his true desires (Fi).


Hmm, could be. I can't help but think he fails at ethics due to his inability to consider action & reaction or the external point of view >.> which is why he sometimes makes some very flawed conclusions...however he also didn't have access to Te knowledge of today. Dunno. 



> Compare Nietzsche's philosophy and writing style with Descartes', a Ti-dom, for example –- Descartes was much more concerned with “finding the truth” in an analytical, detached way, distant from value judgements. Nietzsche didn't reject value judgments. He was obsessed with how morality (more specifically, religious morality) corrupted the individual and attacked this view of morality mercilessly. Not a healthy expression of Fi, but Fi nonetheless.


True.



> ...But anyways, I'm curious to understand your points of view. What makes you think Nietzsche used Ti? Philosophy itself is heavily associated with Ti and sometimes it may be difficult to separate the personal characteristics of the individual from what is associated with his occupation.


As far as I understood Nietzsche was a loner & mostly worked out his ideas alone by thinking. Very little influence from the outside. Isn't that Ti? You may be right however, he does have some strong biases that work themselves into his logic and as I said earlier I think he derails himself. Either that or I'm wrong & I'm drawing different conclusions from the will to power then he did...which are :/..well he is of the dark side you know ^^;.

For example I'd disagree about oppression & hierarchy simply based on the clash of wills. Oppression is amoral to me because I'd invite backlash from the oppressed. Its basic empathy. So if I want to expand my power I'd need to avoid oppressing that of other people or I risk becoming an obstacle that needs to be overcome, a process that potentially may end up in power loss to me. It similar to common sense of not painting a target on oneself.

In my mind Nietzsche fails at empathy quite often & fails at pattern recognition. *Bad Ne & Fe.* >_> very one sided & self-ish, which is why* Fi in a non creative position* would work.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

Aiwass said:


> ...But anyways, I'm curious to understand your points of view. What makes you think Nietzsche used Ti? Philosophy itself is heavily associated with Ti and sometimes it may be difficult to separate the personal characteristics of the individual from what is associated with his occupation.


Reading his work hurts my head. That's my only reason, really. Wow, such insight here. :laughing:


----------



## Stendhal (May 31, 2014)

FreeBeer said:


> Fascism is actually something Nietzsche would have despised & it is a gross misinterpretation of the will to power as life as will to power implies a duality (those who overcome & the overcome). Life is constantly overcoming itself, this implies evolution through conflict.
> 
> Fascism eventually becomes an obstacle that must be overcome & as history has shown it is precisely what has happened. Power is in flux, it cannot stagnate, it implies *the conflict of wills*.
> 
> ...


I should clarify that I was not implying that Nietzsche was a fascist, only that he had fascist impulses. He could not possibly have been fascist since he was a. not a nationalist (which stands in he favor) and b. not a statist. I would say however that while the anarchist position you describe is interesting, it is definitely not Nietzsche's. The fact is that Nietzsche considered anarchism to be a manifestation of slave morality, along with feminism, liberalism, socialism etc. All these where for him secularizations of Christian slave morality (the fact Nietzsche hated Christianity but also feared its fall helps demonstrate he was a real philosopher and not some ideologue). I actually think Nietzsche's critique of Christianity should be taken seriously, but it should also be remembered that whatever some anti-religious anarchists might tell you, anarchism is in some ways a very Christian idea. 

As for the will to power, I will concede that the overman has its virtues as an ideal (particularly on the individual level) and that idea of the will to power is needed in certain quantities to allow liberation struggles to take place. However, too much will to power will only lead to dictatorship or chaos. I should also had that while will and desire can be very good things, they are extremely dangerous without a strong accompaniment of reason. I should also add that in my view at least, reason, not instinct, is the well of freedom.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Stendhal said:


> I should clarify that I was not implying that Nietzsche was a fascist, only that he had fascist impulses. He could not possibly have been fascist since he was a. not a nationalist (which stands in he favor) and b. not a statist. I would say however that while the anarchist position you describe is interesting, it is definitely not Nietzsche's. The fact is that Nietzsche considered anarchism to be a manifestation of slave morality, along with feminism, liberalism, socialism etc. All these where for him secularizations of Christian slave morality (the fact Nietzsche hated Christianity but also feared its fall helps demonstrate he was a real philosopher and not some ideologue). I actually think Nietzsche's critique of Christianity should be taken seriously, but it should also be remembered that whatever some anti-religious anarchists might tell you, anarchism is in some ways a very Christian idea.
> 
> As for the will to power, I will concede that the overman has its virtues as an ideal (particularly on the individual level) and that idea of the will to power is needed in certain quantities to allow liberation struggles to take place. However, too much will to power will only lead to dictatorship or chaos. I should also had that while will and desire can be very good things, they are extremely dangerous without a strong accompaniment of reason. I should also add that in my view at least, reason, not instinct, is the well of freedom.


True. They are mine, not his. Where others see fascism I see Nietzsche's ideas lead to individual sovereignty, perpetual self improvement & to a way above master-slave morality. The will to power followed to it's logical conclusion can not lead to oppression or stagnation as that would result in eventual loss by turning one into a target that must be overcome.


----------



## Stendhal (May 31, 2014)

FreeBeer said:


> True. They are mine, not his. Where others see fascism I see Nietzsche's ideas lead to individual sovereignty, perpetual self improvement & to a way above master-slave morality. The will to power followed to it's logical conclusion can not lead to oppression or stagnation as that would result in eventual loss by turning one into a target that must be overcome.


It's an interesting way of following the logic. I tend to read master-slave morality in a Marxist (I'm not one of these lunatics who believes Marx and Engels where gods who got everything right, and I could easily bore you with critiques of many of there ideas) way where the ideas are produced by the master and slave's position in society. This leads to what I think Nietzsche (perhaps just his right-wing followers) got wrong about secular liberalism, socialism and anarchism. While I will grant that all revolutionaries (and the first liberals where revolutionaries) carry elements rage and a longing for a new world within them, a revolution, if it is to work, must destroy the consciousness of slavery as sharply, and as brutally, as it destroys the consciousness of domination. Thus the slave revolt must conduct a transvaluation of values, and conclude that your reading is correct if you follow the Nietzsche's logic rather than Nietzsche's own statements; although perhaps they should avoid going all the way to anarchism since full on anarchism might be impractical.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Stendhal said:


> It's an interesting way of following the logic. I tend to read master-slave morality in a Marxist (I'm not one of these lunatics who believes Marx and Engels where gods who got everything right, and I could easily bore you with critiques of many of there ideas) way where the ideas are produced by the master and slave's position in society. This leads to what I think Nietzsche (perhaps just his right-wing followers) got wrong about secular liberalism, socialism and anarchism. While I will grant that all revolutionaries (and the first liberals where revolutionaries) carry elements rage and a longing for a new world within them, a revolution, if it is to work, must destroy the consciousness of slavery as sharply, and as brutally, as it destroys the consciousness of domination. Thus the slave revolt must conduct a transvaluation of values, and conclude that your reading is correct if you follow the Nietzsche's logic rather than Nietzsche's own statements; although perhaps they should avoid going all the way to anarchism since full on anarchism might be impractical.


 I noticed something interesting, Nietzsche's ideas seem to be describing the Neutral D&D position quite accurately, looking out for nr. one without screwing others over unless absolutely necessary. Life in danger and alternatives have been exhausted? Use party members as meat shields >.> oh yes!

..also agreed on the marxian side of anarchists, however I consider the anarcho-capitalist position equally flawed due to the nature of capitalism. The profit motive specifically is the problem as it undermines the free market. It matters little if we have capitalism & government or no government & capitalism, the end goal is the same, the means may differ.

PS: Se seems easy to comprehend from a Ne pattern recognition perspective :/ as long as I can spot it I can apply it if I force myself thorough it.


----------



## Stendhal (May 31, 2014)

FreeBeer said:


> I noticed something interesting, Nietzsche's ideas seem to be describing the Neutral D&D position quite accurately, looking out for nr. one without screwing others over unless absolutely necessary. Life in danger and alternatives have been exhausted? Use party members as meat shields >.> oh yes!
> 
> I'm not sure what you are getting at hear to be honest, would you please clarify?
> 
> ...


----------



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

Inguz said:


> Having it as easy as "People who value Fe believe in objective morals, people who value Fi doesn't believe in objective morals" would be ridiculous, and not to mention lacking in understanding of what the two IMEs are in Socionics.


I believe Fe *is* in fact objective feeling where's Fi is subjective; what I don't believe is that it can be easily discerned on the outside, and certainly not through banal methods like "Fi speaks in first person Fe don't". Placing Nietzsche in certain historical context, with all his views, though...
But I don't really like going into long derailing theoretical post now; fortunately I haven't got much of your perspective either, so I don't feel obliged to :tongue:


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Typhon said:


> Perhaps, but it's still inspired by it. Schopenhauer got his idea of the world "as will and idea" from Hinduism/Buddhism. Neitzsche got his idea of "will to power" from Schopenhauer's concept of "pure will", will as the driving force behind all things that exist in nature. But you are right, in Schopie's system, the ego stood in the way of the will, Nietzsche saw the ego, the individual will, as an extension of the impersonal will of the cosmos which defines Schopie's system. So basically, Vinniebob's remark was'nt too far off: Eastern systems directly influenced Schopenhauer, who in turn directly influenced Neitzsche. The difference being that for Schopenhauer it was "the will" while for Neitzsche it was "the will to power".
> 
> 
> 
> I still don't see how this "pragmatism" is more indicative of Te than Ti. Ti is practical too, in its own way. So I don't see how this is more connected to Te than to Ti.


I disagree, Ti is less concerned with what works and more concerned with the truth. I think Te believes whatever works is truth, just as Fe believes whatever maintains social pleasantry is moral. I know that's a simplification, but Je is a more "shallow" broad function, where as Ji wants to go deeper and question, but may do so more narrowly. I think Ti would likely find such "bottom line" judgment for the sake of order a bit appalling. Ti is more likely to attempt to get into the very systemic roots of a problem, at least in theory. 

People can be sexist for any number of reasons, a more Fe reason would be something like the Bible says so, while Te would look around and as long as their individual Fi wasn't terribly troubled by it (and Fi in TJ is frequently more child like and self serving) and say but look here, this works. This keeps a rational order, and so it is called "good" or actually in the case of Te "correct" or "self evident" (though what is self evident may differ through an Se or Si lens).

One of the things most detestable about Nietzsche is his self aggrandizing elitism, his Superman is a very Western idea of a "better person" while in the East a more enlightened person is not measured by such external things, but their ability to set aside ego.


----------



## reptilian (Aug 5, 2014)

I havent read beyond page 4 but I think Nietzsche is a typical sign of an 


> ISTP/INFJ: Ti/Ni or Ni/Ti--Schizoid Personality Disorder. These types are socially incompetent for lack of trying, because they see little to no value in significant interaction with others. They live in their own abstract worlds, constantly second-guessing themselves as Ti poses a framework for a problem and Ni shoots it down as too definitionally precise. Without any real external input, these two functions will dream up all sorts of elaborate systems and implications for them, only to repeat their own self-defeating behavior, never bothering to emphasize putting any of its intense ideas into practice. Frequent disregard for rules, laws and other forms of behavioral standards is common, as no function provides any significant sense of external influence. If Se/Fe were doing its job, the user would recognize the value of connecting with others and of paying attention to their needs, preferences, habits and appearances.


http://personalitycafe.com/articles/25205-dominant-tertiary-loops-common-personality-disorders.html


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Thalassa said:


> I disagree, Ti is less concerned with what works and more concerned with the truth. I think Te believes whatever works is truth, just as Fe believes whatever maintains social pleasantry is moral. I know that's a simplification, but Je is a more "shallow" broad function, where as Ji wants to go deeper and question, but may do so more narrowly. I think Ti would likely find such "bottom line" judgment for the sake of order a bit appalling. Ti is more likely to attempt to get into the very systemic roots of a problem, at least in theory.
> 
> People can be sexist for any number of reasons, a more Fe reason would be something like the Bible says so, while Te would look around and as long as their individual Fi wasn't terribly troubled by it (and Fi in TJ is frequently more child like and self serving) and say but look here, this works. This keeps a rational order, and so it is called "good" or actually in the case of Te "correct" or "self evident" (though what is self evident may differ through an Se or Si lens).
> 
> One of the things most detestable about Nietzsche is his self aggrandizing elitism, his Superman is a very Western idea of a "better person" while in the East a more enlightened person is not measured by such external things, but their ability to set aside ego.


That is why Hitler is an NTJ. Nature works. Why did we get away from it? Fe is always talking like this:

Humanitarianism is the expression of stupidity and cowardice.

Germany will either be a world power or will not be at all.

I do not see why man should not be just as cruel as nature.


It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge.

Mankind has grown strong in eternal struggles and it will only perish through eternal peace.

It is not truth that matters, but victory.

NFJ? Fe? Not even a feeler. 

Hitler is an INTJ, and Nietzsche is an INFJ. Nietzsche talks more like Jung and Goethe:

You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.


The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.


All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.

It is the Bruce Lee argument all over again. ISTP or INFJ. 


I have not invented a "new style," composite, modified or otherwise that is set within distinct form as apart from "this" method or "that" method. On the contrary, I hope to free my followers from clinging to styles, patterns, or molds. Remember that Jeet Kune Do is merely a name used, a mirror in which to see "ourselves". . . Jeet Kune Do is not an organized institution that one can be a member of. Either you understand or you don't, and that is that.
There is no mystery about my style. My movements are simple, direct and non-classical. The extraordinary part of it lies in its simplicity. Every movement in Jeet Kune Do is being so of itself. There is nothing artificial about it. I always believe that the easy way is the right way. Jeet Kune Do is simply the direct expression of one's feelings with the minimum of movements and energy. The closer to the true way of Kung Fu, the less wastage of expression there is. Finally, a Jeet Kune Do man who says Jeet Kune Do is exclusively Jeet Kune Do is simply not with it. He is still hung up on his self-closing resistance, in this case anchored down to reactionary pattern, and naturally is still bound by another modified pattern and can move within its limits. He has not digested the simple fact that truth exists outside all molds; pattern and awareness is never exclusive. Again let me remind you Jeet Kune Do is just a name used, a boat to get one across, and once across it is to be discarded and not to be carried on one's back.

Man, the living creature, the creating individual, is always more important than any established style or system.

Lee is Nietzsche's uberman destroyer. 

In primary freedom, one utilizes all ways and is bound by none, and likewise uses any techniques or means which serves one's end. Efficiency is anything that scores. 

The highest technique is to have no technique. My technique is a result of your technique; my movement is a result of your movement.

One should not respond to circumstance with artificial and "wooden" prearrangement. Your action should be like the immediacy of a shadow adapting to its moving object. Your task is simply to complete the other half of the oneness spontaneously.

In combat, spontaneity rules; rote performance of technique perishes.


*“The primitive stage is the stage of original ignorance in which a person knows nothing of the art of combat. In a fight he simply blocks and strikes instinctively without concern as for what is right and wrong. Of course, he might not be so-called scientific, but he is, nevertheless, being himself.

The second stage, the stage of art, begins when a person starts his training. He is taught the different ways of blocking and striking, the various ways of kicking, of standing, of moving, of breathing, of thinking. Unquestionably he is gaining a scientific knowledge of combat, but unfortunately his original self and sense of freedom are lost, and his action no longer flows by itself. His mind tends to freeze at different movements for calculation and analysis. Even worse, he might be “intellectually bound” and maintaining himself outside the actual reality.” -

The third stage, the stage of artlessness, occurs when, after years of serious and hard practice, he realizes that, after all, gung fu is nothing special and instead of trying to impose his mind on the art, he adjusts himself to the opponent like water pressing on an earthen wall, it flows through the slightest crack. There is nothing to “try” to do but be purposeless and formless like water. Nothingness prevails; he no longer is confined.

**
When one has reached maturity in the art, one will have a formless form. It is like ice dissolving in water. When one has no form, one can be all forms; when one has no style, he can fit in with any style. 

*


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

Thalassa said:


> I disagree, Ti is less concerned with what works and more concerned with the truth. I think Te believes whatever works is truth, just as Fe believes whatever maintains social pleasantry is moral. I know that's a simplification, but Je is a more "shallow" broad function, where as Ji wants to go deeper and question, but may do so more narrowly. I think Ti would likely find such "bottom line" judgment for the sake of order a bit appalling. Ti is more likely to attempt to get into the very systemic roots of a problem, at least in theory.


Somewhat true. I do agree that Ti has an interest in "truth" as they call, getting to the bottom of something and investigating to uncover the "truth". Te is not unconcerned with truth, but but motsly focuses on known facts, rather than discovering the truth. As far as Te thinking that "whatever works is true" , thats where I differ, I mean, in physics for example, you quantum mechanics which works but we have no explanation as to why it works and no LIE scientist will tell you it is more "true" on a theoretical basis than classical mechanics. The thing is, "truth" is a notion of philosophy and the word "truth" actually doesnt make much sense when used in a non-philosophial context, but thats off topic, lol. I'm also saying that Te has to answer to Fi, which means that just because it works, doesnt justify from an ethical basis.


----------



## Aiwass (Jul 28, 2014)

Inferior Se manifests itself VERY differently in INTJs when compared to INFJs. Because INTJ's tertiary is Fi, inferior Se here is much more animal, competitive, individualistic. Ayn Rand, Sartre, Nietzsche, those are all people who reject morality as it is commonly understood by society.

Show me an INFJ with an understanding of morality that is at least slightly similar to Nietzsche's.


----------



## socionicssssss (May 22, 2015)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I have said before that Ni is like will to power. Hitler and Schopenhauer had it too. I have not read much Nietzsche but was actually talking about this recently. Nietzsche's "'man of action".
> 
> Malcolm X is listed as an ESTP. In his autobiography he talks about reading Nietzsche and other guys in prison. He said they talked too much, and didn't do anything. Malcolm X is a man of action.
> 
> Somebody made the comment that SP make great adventurer/hero's journey types. They adjust while on the journey. They implement the vision of the NJ. Malcolm X was the man of action in Elijah's Muhammad's dream.


World Socionics Society has Malcolm X as LSI-ISTj, the dual of Martin Luther King Jr. EIE-ENFj


----------



## westlose (Oct 9, 2014)

I just started to read "Thus spoke Zarathoustra", and I must admit that I've seen a lot of Ti right here.

At the beginning of this post, I thout that Nietzsche was ILI too. When I heard about how he was emphasizing individuality and stuff.
But IEIs aren't gentle and kind people that only care about the well being of the group. Just because we are ethic people doesn't mean that we don't have those kind of thoughts. In "Zarathoustra", he talks about how he tried to teach "Ubermensch" to people, and how they were making fun of him for that. He spend a lot of time in solitude, contemplating nature, and thinking about life. This is quite an IEI way of thinking. I've not seen any Te, but I've seen the Ni and Ti. Detached from the present, he was only thinking about how human could evolve, and he's described them as "a rope from animals to Ubermensch", which is a very dynamic point of view. His reflection was oriented toward humans, even he was so alone and out of the world.
Well... This is Zarathoustra. But I guess that he was somewhat describing himself in this character, am I wrong?

I see no logic of action here, but a lot of thematics that are Ti oriented (What is good? What is wrong? What is love?)

And IEIs are the first to struggle with pity I guess. Less than ILIs. I understand why he said that pity stops you from power.

Anyway, I need to read more from him, but that was my first impression.

PS : Hitler is a struggle too, but he seems clearly Beta.


----------



## socionicssssss (May 22, 2015)

I would say that IEI is a pretty likely typing for Friedrich Nietzsche. WSS currently holds this typing for him on their Benchmark.


----------

