Are xSTPs the best types?

Uhw asked: If you are a Intj, you should know the meaning of life, which is enjoy the life (considering that the life of a human being is 80 years and he takes nothing beyond).

So, you agree that istp and estp are the best types of the world?

You do recall that I am studying philosophy at university level, right?

Your syllogism is sound, but invalid. Let me explain by taking it apart for you.

  1. If I am an INTJ, I will know that the meaning of life is to enjoy life
  2. I am an INTJ

Therefore I can conclude that xSTPs are the best MBTI types

First of all, we have not established between us that the meaning of life is to enjoy life, so your first premise is called into question. Secondly, you have none of your premises suggest that xSTPs enjoy life more than say xSFPs, so you cannot conclude based on either premise that xSTPs are the “best” (you have also not defined “best”).

That considered, I believe the meaning of life is much more complicated than you might suggest and has more to do with morality than to do with enjoyment.

18 thoughts on “Are xSTPs the best types?

  1. Dear whoever writes this (sorry I don’t know much yet!)
    After about two minutes of browsing this is my favorite blog ever. Books, MBTI, Sherlock and Doctor Who, well they are all my favorite thing EVER. Thank you for writing this blog!
    Random Person Who Stumbled Across This Website And Loved It

    Liked by 1 person

  2. You say that the meaning of life has more to do with morality. Could you elaborate on this view please? Do you think that moral knowledge is possible, in the sense of of knowable, objective, existing moral truths?


    • I tend to lean towards epistemological skepticism. I believe that people are incapable of complete, undeniable knowledge of most things, but I don’t believe that there are no truths. I simply see the human mind as too irrational to “know” anything with absolute certainty. This in no means excuses anyone from moral responsibility.

      I do believe people are capable of acquiring adequate evidence for belief in certain truths, and that sometimes we are right in our beliefs. I suppose you could say that moral truths exist, but that humans simply have a hard time recognising them as “knowledge.” We’re not completely incapable of it –simply very nearly so. Because moral truths exist, I would make the normative claim that we’re responsible for seeking after those truths in the form of belief regardless of whether we can know them for absolute certain or not. The few truths that we do stumble upon must be sought through reason and experience (which I could give you pages and pages of reasons for…but for the sake of time, I won’t).

      In terms of Akrasia and moral knowledge, I agree with Socrates that ignorance is vice, but I also agree with Aristotle when he says that vice stems from a passive requisition of moral knowledge (where there ought to be an active maintenance of moral principles).

      For these reasons (among myriads of others), I believe the purpose of life is to acquire correct moral beliefs. A very simplified summary of what I believe might be that man exists to make mistakes, and that the purpose of making mistakes is for us to gain correct moral beliefs.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I find it useful to relate truth to a coordinate plane. The y-axis is truth, with the absolute truths at the integers, and the x-axis is logic. Thus, think of thought as a function divided by some power of X such that there is a hole at every y-integer. Assuming that logic is valid (which is a whole other topic, though somewhat related), we can take a limit of truths, even though there is no Y value (absolute knowledge). Does that make sense, and is that what you’re trying to say?


        • It sort of makes sense, sort of doesn’t, since it’s arguable as to whether all truths can be divined mathematically. But, if I understand you correctly, that is more or less what I intended to say.


        • I wasn’t trying to say that all truths can be defined mathematically. Were you trying to bring up that possibility?


        • The first time I read your comment, that was the idea I got from it, but upon a second reading, I realized that wasn’t what you were trying to say at all.


        • I wasn’t trying to say that all truths can be defined mathematically. Were you trying to bring up that possibility?


  3. Not being a hedonist (or whatever they’re called in philosophy these days) I got a good snicker out of your response to this. :p



Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s