Sign Up | Log in |

Emmanuel Kant/Immanuel Kant MBTI

Myers Briggs type and personality details of 'Emmanuel Kant/Immanuel Kant'
Emmanuel Kant/Immanuel Kant MBTI type
Realm:
Reality

Category:
Psychology, Philosophy, Writing and Social Sciences

TOTAL MBTI VOTES: 58


INTP - 41
INTJ - 12
ISTJ - 3
INFP - 1
INFJ - 1

[Famous INTPs]

Log in to vote!

TOTAL ENNEA VOTES: 24


1W9 - 17
6W5 - 5
1W2 - 1
5W4 - 1

[Famous Enneagram 1]

Log in to vote!

Old (unmoderated comments)

Boring and more productive. I can't wait for the day.Well if all NPs are doomed to develop their Si, then I dread the day when I age into a boring person. /sand INFP are the least prodcutive to society INFP suckscotty is an INFP who suckerrr and says INFP are perfect bbut INFP are stupid who goes into tumblr and fanfic and SJW idiotsScotty, shut up.

MBTI type of Emmanuel Kant/Immanuel Kant

. You're just a moron who does not believe in the development of 3 functions. Probably think that is born and dies like, fuck you asshole.

Find out about Emmanuel Kant/Immanuel Kant personality type

. And still have the nerve to say that INFP's with superior Fi and inferior Te are more analytical and rational than INFJ's? Do you have some problem?Thomas the Tard, why must you talk to yourself? I don't even get what you are arguing about. Can you read? After I just got done explaining in some detail how people can develop, you ridicule me for some kind of a belief that people can't develop.Information about Myers Briggs Type Indicator of Emmanuel Kant/Immanuel Kant. The name Thomas the Tard suits you perfectly!Scotty is probably a loser INFP who does not believe in personal development and thinks that just because he is unable to self develop, he ends up thinking that all are also like him - Fi-Si negative.Scotty and what you say Walt Disney[ENFP]? He was educated by a ISTJ, so consequently developed enormous concentration and objectivism, explaining and applying all his ideas, a true visionary.Which of the 16 personality types is Emmanuel Kant/Immanuel Kant?. You think that Te is not strong? What I'm saying, you moron idiot who thinks is an INTP, is that there are people within a particular type that show extreme differences. There INTJ's depressive and idealists, just as there INTJ's more athletic and assertive; INFP there's bums and vegetables as there INFP's most dedicated, assertive and objectives; INTP there's more slow and random as there INTP's more organized, charismatic and idealistic; There ExTJ arrogant and totalitarian's like there's ExTJ calmer, idealistic and friendly; There ESFP's only think about sex just as there ESFP more ambitious and intelligent's. Anyway, fuck you, your retarded animal. you really are a goner.I agree Kant has to be Ti dominant with clear Si, which most developed and well functioning IN-Ps have.Lol Thomas The Tard strikes again. People evolve over time. So what? That doesn't validate function magic. It would make sense that people cover for their weaknesses as they get older, "regress to the mean". So yeah function magicians are going to feel the Forer effect. Also almost everyone including myself thinks Turing is an INTP. so I don't know if that's a great example to use for your cause... And those are the examples you chose to cherry pick. Pretty weak stuff, even though it's about the most thoughtful post I've ever seen from Thomas "The Tard" Jung.Scotty, you're some kind of autistic? Kant clearly shows Ti-Ne and has traces huge traces of Si and Fe, so many confuse with IxTJ and has even come to type it as INFJ. Kant is an INTP developed equal to Charles Darwin. If you read Charles Darwin's biography you will see that before he was quite introspective and rejected all kinds of contact and was a disorganized so then when he went to Amazon, he began to take an interest in understanding people and what was going the mind of them, and also with the shipping time, began to develop more concentration and focus, so that his father said that when he saw him he looked like someone else. And what you say Alan Turing? He is an INTJ and was able to develop great athletic skills, so it is a great marathon runner and had admitted that the activity made him feel in touch with the body and the outside world; You think inferior Se is not exposed and remains weak and confused with no contact? and as Arthur Schopenhauer [INFJ]? Do you think he had no contact with the Ti function?Not sure about more philosophical, a lot of old people just store up a bunch of information and go on automatic mode with philosophy, and don't really question things at all. Seems more like ISFJ, but I guess this is the wrong thread for that lol.Nevermind how much we disagree on the fundamentals, I guess that makes sense with INFJs often being called "old souls" in a way. >.< It makes sense that you become more introverted, philosophical, attentive to other people's needs and wants, and organized with the years.^^It would be silly to pretend like our expected MBTI test scores (by letters), or our use of different functions don't fluctuate across our lifetimes. For people like Kant, the best we can do is try to find the "best fit" with whatever system we use. Like if one type mildly conflicts with their earlier life and matches their later life, and another type matches their earlier life and greatly conflicts with their later life, you probably go with the former type. People probably get more IxxJ with age at the very least so when we talk about 70 year old ENFP, they are ENFP for a 70 year old, which may have different standards than ENFP for a 15 year old.I have a better question for you Scotty: If a person changes his behavior during his life-time, going from a lazy person to a more ordered person later in life, or from a shy one to a more sociable one, or vice-versa... do you think they change their type? Like going from a P type to a J type? Or do they develop their lower functions? Or you just don't think people can change like that in the first place?Ok, TTTJ, "Trust trends, experiences, and tactics" is such a vague statement, but the schedule thing is definitely an IxTJ trait, so it really just means: either you should rethink your typing of that person or they are more well-balanced (closer to a J type). Both Ni and Si can desire external order, Te is great for creating it, so in terms of functions you could really say that the person developed Ni, Si or Te, depending on the specifics.Scotty, let me simplify what I'm trying to explain, since its Si is influencing you in a negative way. Come on, a simple question: If a INxP begin to respect and follow schedules every day, and begin to trust trends, experiences and tactics, you think the Si is not influencing absolutely nothing?M aka Thomas "The Tard" Jung continues not only to know nothing, but also to attribute beliefs to me that I don't even have (people only using top 2 functions for example). INTJs seem to have been found the most methodical type of ALL according to an actual study, so if you are actually going to use the function magic of "Si" to turn methodical-ness into an INTP trait, just don't.Scotty is a widespread and limited person. It is true that INP's tend to escape routines and seek new, but with the maturity, the lower functions, especially tertiary, appears to complement. Si is a function that seeks to be predictable, repetitive and methodical, I know INP's who love to follow routines, but also like to be unpredictable, but even so, over time, learned to respect schedules and accomplish tasks. Scotty, note that you think all kinds only use two functions and the rest is totally ignored. Obviously, there are cognitive preference, but, like it or not, to tertiary and inferior may well influence the individual, it is the complement of ego. If types can only use two functions, then why do they not have the functions displayed only as Ti-Ne? Because you have to give to lucho show that has Si-Fe are practically invisible to functions that do not exist? I think you're confused tertiary and lower function with the shadow opposing functions, which are opposing, witch, and trickster demon.*makes chirping sound in some bush nearby*Better explaining not much, than providing a lot of misleading information, it is not?Heh, butterfly will always be the only true insect.The thing is, typing people by letter doesn't explain much about them. That's why we try to get at behind the letters. It's like seeing a philosopher and typing him a philosopher.So, we're like an ant-farm to you, Scotty? lolI think there is a lot more point of typing people by letter because at least it it has a connection with reality, however tenuous it may be, when function magic stuff actually directly conflicts with it.Yeah I guess I find observing people here pretty amusing, or I wouldn't keep coming back? I feel like I've got a lot of insight into psychology, more from watching how people type than any typology systems, and it's actually helped me in understanding certain other things.If we can just type people by letter like that, why do we even bother typing them in the first place? It's pointless. So, what are you doing here in the first place? Try to prove some people they're misguided?@bobnickmad, he would be closer to the P side, yes. P vs J is not a binary thing. Kant would probably be considered a weak P or weak J as he was, but if his lifestyle was different, that would tilt the balance to the P side more definitively.I guess in general people like their definitive answers so they would rather say stuff like "INTP with loop" than "somewhere between INTP and INTJ", which I think much more accurately describes Kant. It's just human nature though, but human nature is why some of these silly ideas like function loops are so prevalent.So if someone thought exactly like Kant but he was lazy and didn't have an ordered lifestyle, he would be INTP? That's all there is. Simple behavioral habbits? What's the point of even discussing MBTI if it's by letters. It would be something so easy we wouldn't need sites like this. So my point is Scotty: why bother in the first place?Basically I look at the idea of "strict routines and a predictable life" as evidence for IxTJ, and evidence against INTP. I think the whole tertiary function magic stuff is just used to conveniently bend around rules to pigeonhole complex people based off stereotypes when in reality there's nothing resembling 16 types, just you can do your best to come up with a best fit type. And INTPs do not like strict routines and a predictable life. In fact they hate them, early life, late life, whatever. It's against the nature of an INTP.FIne. The kant who had strict routines and a predictable life is mostly a myth exaggerated by his neighbors. During his young adult days he was very sociable and liked hanging around despite never finding a partner until much later. His strict routine developed later in his life when his Si developed. He didn't wrote much of his most important work until very late in his life. Besides his Si points more towards an INTP than an INTJ. Which evidence do you have outside of his philosophy?He's not an INTP poster boy because outside of his approach to philosophy, he was clearly much more of an INTJ. People who want to use his philosophy as a basis for typology have thus come up with function magic attempts of explaining how he totally didn't act like an INTP (see: Ti-Si loop).Kant is an INTP poster boy and he is rightfully so. He developed universal systems to explain the phenomena in the world and was obsessed with perfecting the precision of said systems. The INTP is sometimes called an architect due to Kantian architectonics being similar the the their way of thinking. Parting from simple principles and using deduction from there until reaching universal principles.Thanks for echoing what I said.Too much obsession with precision is Ti over Te. INTPs are the one obsessed with having very precise theories, INTJs are the ones thinking about translating abstract theory into something that will cause some change in the outside world.The way you type people doesn't make a theory valid. If you type people *using their G-B model tertiary function as one of your criteria* then of course you are going to end up with a lot of your typings demonstrating strong G-B tertiary functions. But identify the correct causation here. You type them due to their G-B tertiary function and then in a very circular fashion, loop back and point to their G-B tertiary function. It's just absurd.Kant has a lot of traits of people who test as INTJ, mainly being industrious, methodical, and deliberate. A very introverted INTJ will likely be more like Ni-Ti, because they are logical yet don't have much of a focus on the external world. Kant doesn't fit the profile of Ti-Ne mainly because Ne is opposed to being so methodical, just like he doesn't really fit the profile of INTJ because he has too much obsession with precision.Also, it should be mentioned that having your tertiary developed doesn't make one be in a loop. For example Descartes or Sartre probably weren't in a loop. Neither Kubrick or people like that. .Having your third function very developed helps one be more productive than types only with the first two functions developed, it makes sense. The fact that so many great personalities are typed with a very strong tertiary just makes the theory more valid. Also, we type people like Kant INTP because they're so obviously ones. So if people that fit the profile of Ti-Ne also show strong signs of Si, that means the whole Ti-Ne-Si thing has validity. Also, the difference between him and Nietzsche, are so clear INTP vs INTJ differences, it's not even funny.I know "loop theory" (bullshit) is all about special cases, supposedly unhealthy, dysfunctional ones, which seems to contradict how people type so many highly productive people in a loop, but where is any empirical backing of there being more of these special cases of INTPs who have immense "Si", than say, INTJs with immense "Si"?Chill out, Thomas "The Tard" Jung. First of all, to say it was "Si" in your model implies that he is INTP. Yet INTJs are known to be very methodical and planned, and your model says they have no "Si". From the MBTI manual itself: On personality trait measures, [INTJ] score as Discreet, Industrious, Logical, Deliberate, Self-Confident, and Methodical. Yet INTPs are Candid, Ingenious, Complicated, Independent, and Rebellious. ISTJs didn't even have "Methodical" as a trait. So, if you are going to use "Methodical" as an argument for INTP over INTJ, you will remain Thomas "The Tard" Jung. I'll just leave this guy as INTx, I don't know enough about him.So you think the methodical and planned way he acted had no connection with Si? lol I'm curious how you define Kant.So you think the methodical and planned way he acted had no connection with Si? lol I'm curious how you define Kant.So you think the methodical and planned way he acted had no connection with Si? lol I'm curious how you define Kant.The loop theory is bullshit, and your support of it is mega bullshit (pointing to one person)Kant is the best example of an INTJ in Ti-Si loop. For those who think the loop theory bullshit, should study about the personality of Kant and shut up. (Mostly Scotty)Kant's writing in infamously difficult for how how pain-stacking it is in order to prove the consistency of its logical frame-work.(Ti-dom)Compare to Hegel, who's writing is infamously difficult for how vague it appear (Ni-dom). There's also nothing that suggest ''efficiency'' about Kant's rules in any way, his rules are an example of something that works good on paper but isn't practical in real life.The ''categorical imperative'' is not concerned with efficiency, but with the consistency of the principle, and in a very impersonal way (compared to Fi, which is about the consistency of the principle, but in a very personal way, championing certain values above else). Nietzsche's philosophy by comparison is much more pragmatical (''Will to Power'') and more personal in terms of values.INTPs are not Fi-ish in the slightest. The abhor personal sentiments when examining a topic and stick to impersonal analysis as much as possible. Ti looks for underlying principles in anything they examine, hence the principle itself is more important than anything else. You are correct that INTPs would examine enough data before coming up with refined principles on which the object work but once they have decided on it, the principle becomes overarching. Te and INTJ don't look for consistency in principle but rather its agreeableness with objective reality. They'll change their "logic/framework" as soon as measurable objectives demand it. INTJs values come from their tertiary Fi and not Ni because Ni in general is apathetic to value and principles. Kant now is a clear and wonderful example of Ti. And because in more than a few INTP logicians and philosophers, the Ti and Si comes out as more pronounced than Ne. Ne usually takes back seat in Kant's work. But the systematic categorization of Kant's work is based on internal consistency rather than external practicality.INTPs are not Fi-ish in the slightest. The abhor personal sentiments when examining a topic and stick to impersonal analysis as much as possible. Ti looks for underlying principles in anything they examine, hence the principle itself is more important than anything else. You are correct that INTPs would examine enough data before coming up with refined principles on which the object work but once they have decided on it, the principle becomes overarching. Te and INTJ don't look for consistency in principle but rather its agreeableness with objective reality. They'll change their "logic/framework" as soon as measurable objectives demand it. INTJs values come from their tertiary Fi and not Ni because Ni in general is apathetic to value and principles. Kant now is a clear and wonderful example of Ti. And because in more than a few INTP logicians and philosophers, the Ti and Si comes out as more pronounced than Ne. Ne usually takes back seat in Kant's work. But the systematic categorization of Kant's work is based on internal consistency rather than external practicality.INTPs are more "Fi-ish" in general than INTJ, in their hesitance to create overarching rules as Ti values precision and they would rather err on the side of not getting something wrong. An INTJ values efficiency more in a system and their Te is more likely to say "this system works even though it is flawed". Kant is difficult to type because the rules he did believe in were very cautious in a way that isn't really contradictory with INTP. However, a Te-aux of an INTJ can look like faux-Ti as it is very self-questioning and cautious in comparison to Te-dom.I always thought he was more of an ISTJ. His ethics is 100% ISTJ ideology incarnate. Duty for duty's sake. Love means fulfilling one's duty according to him. If not ISTJ, then I would think INTJ. He has to be judging. Kant's neighbors said he'd leave the house at the same time every day to walk to the store. Everything he did was regimented. So he HAS to be Judging.INTP but its only possible using Ti-Si loop model. Those who don't use proper concepts like functional loops often end up mistyping him as INTP.Yes. CT also has a Spinoza vs. Kant infographic and it does a good job illustrating INFJ vs. INTP.Dominant and tertiary functions loop can occur in all personality types actually.Yes I agree with you, just saying it goes to show letter-by-letter typing is simplistic and though it has its place, alone it's not always accurate.I think Kant is as INTP as it can get.I think the INTJ votes come from people who approach typology from a Keirseyan/letter-by-letter perspective, since behaviorally speaking Kant was very regimented, structured, and conscientious. So though he is the poster boy for INTP from a cognitive functions perspective, in letter-by-letter analysis he's paradoxically the poster boy for INTJ.I tend to think of Kant as the INTP poster boy. But when I see so many INTJ votes I think I understand better why there are so many self identified INTJs on the internet :-)Indeed that is so. It's definitely a Ti-Fe axis with an Ne-Aux. No Fi.

How is he in any way a perceiver?

It's hard to say. He is absolutely a 1w9 without question. In terms of his MBTI type, anybody who has read or dabbled in The Critique of Pure Reason, the pleonastic verbosity of the text is hard to follow without the reader scratching his or her head constantly. All that suggests INTP... Then again, we have accounts that say Kant left his house at the same time every day and followed the same schedule with painstaking scrupulosity. That all sounds very ISTJ-ish in behavior. But his prolix works are definitely the mark of an INTP. Plenty have assumed Kant is an ISTJ based on his development and proclamation of the Categorical Imperative. But there is no reason that Kant (as a possible INTP) couldn't still have developed a highly disciplined lifestyle due to his belief in a deontological moral universalism, stemming from the Categorical Imperative.... It's just hard to see an ISTJ writing this much. Nevertheless, he definitely does have Si as a function, which is why he can't be INTJ. So INTP seems like a good option, as stereotypical as that may be for the majority of philosophers.

Honestly I'd expect an INTJ to display more traits of MBTI's Si than an INTP, as an IxxJ type. Why must it be between INTP and ISTJ? If he must be intuitive then INTJ at least has more in common with ISTJ than INTP does. I also don't understand why an ISTJ couldn't have written as much as he did.

let's compare Kant (ISTJ),Descartes (INTP) and Hegel (INTJ). Kant want to categorize the faculty of the mind, show the opposition between empirical knowledge and knowledge who came out of our experience (Si detail and comparison +Te classification). Descartes made a philosophy focused on possibility (Ne) and rationnality(Ti) Hegel have a clear vision about what future will be (Ni) and made one of the most complete philosophy about society organization (Te)

the hegel comparison can be applicate also to marx (another INTJ)

Clear INTJ in all letters.  I find it funny most people type him 1w9 since most people also seem to say his moral philosophy proceeds from his view of the mind and not the other way around (would seem to indicate 5 over 1).  Don't really understand 6w5 votes.  I actually agree with 1w9 though because I think his moral telos colored the way he went about categorizing the minds' functions.  1w9-5w6-4w5 probably though the heart thing I only put as that to tack on some more 5.

Even though Hegel certainly is INTJ he's a Jung Ti who actually moves fairly well into Te territory in constructing his all encompassing theory (I don't understand this NJ "Ni all encompassing" business because even the most INxJ heavy in all letters will probably not be driven to create such an all encompassing theory on things outside the self because it's focus is highly subjective).  Jung saw Hegel as Ti with mixed intuition and contrasted this with Kant who was pure thinking introversion and Nietzsche who was Ni mixed with Ti.

Nietzsche does not have any Ti. his philosophy is totally opposed to socrate's Ti desire of finding the idea/eternal truth. we can see his Te in Human all to Human, he explained why hard work and planning was the most important part in art. his philosophy inspired by ancient greek perfectionnism is also very Te

If he thinks like an INT but is very systematic, he's INTJ fair and simple. "detail and comparison" is thinking, not Si, Si is subjectivity in processing life experiences The "Si" talked about in function axis MBTI is really Judging: being methodical and duty-based is a caracteristic of Judging, not sensation. The exemplary ISTJ is a person characterized by methodology and principles above all, thus by thinking dominance. Kant is clearly characterized by thinking dominance but is also intuitive (no S will spend that much time perfecting theories inside their head), so he's INTJ.

He's used as the exemplary Ti type by Jung btw, almost as if Jung had Kant in mind when describing Introverted Thinking. Either 5w6 or 1w9, probably strong enough on both to switch between then.

Crutique of Pure Reason is condensed Ti. It's like an average INTP ideas compressed 10x and put in a can.  I can't simply see Te anywhere.

Wasn't the book like 1000 pages long? How is that condensed lmao