Towards a Nietzschean Typology.

In The Antichrist, Nietzsche says:

  [size=95]In every healthy society there are three physiological types, gravitating toward differentiation but mutually conditioning one another, and each of these has its own hygiene, its own sphere of work, its own special mastery and feeling of perfection. It is [i]not [/i]Manu [the supposed author of [i]The Laws of Manu[/i]] but nature that sets off in one class those who are chiefly intellectual [[i]geistig[/i]], in another those who are marked by muscular strength and strength of temperament, and in a third those who are distinguished in neither one way or the other, the mediocre---the last-named represents the great majority, and the first two the select.
  [section 57, trans. Mencken, amended in part by yours truly.][/size]

I think said muscular strength follows from said strength of temperament, as those with a stronger temperament naturally exert themselves more. We have then two qualities: intellectuality and strength of temperament. The three types are then 1) those who stand out for the former quality; 2) those who stand out for the latter quality; and 3) those who stand out for neither.

The Laws of Manu says:

  [size=95]24. Know Goodness (sattva), Activity (ragas), and Darkness (tamas) to be the three qualities of the Self, with which the Great One always completely pervades all existences.
  25. When one of these qualities wholly predominates in a body, then it makes the embodied (soul) eminently distinguished for that quality.
  26. Goodness is declared (to have the form of) knowledge, Darkness (of) ignorance, Activity (of) love and hatred; such is the nature of these (three) which is (all-) pervading and clings to everything created.
  27. When (man) experiences in his soul a (feeling) full of bliss, a deep calm, as it were, and a pure light, then let him know (that it is) among those three (the quality called) Goodness.
  28. What is mixed with pain and does not give satisfaction to the soul one may know (to be the quality of) Activity, which is difficult to conquer, and which ever draws embodied (souls towards sensual objects).
  29. What is coupled with delusion, what has the character of an undiscernible mass, what cannot be fathomed by reasoning, what cannot be fully known, one must consider (as the quality of) Darkness.
  30. I will, moreover, fully describe the results which arise from these three qualities, the excellent ones, the middling ones, and the lowest.
  31. The study of the Vedas, austerity, (the pursuit of) knowledge, purity, control over the organs, the performance of meritorious acts and meditation on the Soul, (are) the marks of the quality of Goodness.
  32. Delighting in undertakings, want of firmness, commission of sinful acts, and continual indulgence in sensual pleasures, (are) the marks of the quality of Activity.
  33. Covetousness, sleepiness, pusillanimity, cruelty, atheism, leading an evil life, a habit of soliciting favours, and inattentiveness, are the marks of the quality of Darkness.
  [Chapter XII, trans. Bühler.][/size]

Ragas, usually spelled rajas, is usually translated as “passion”. We can say then that Activity (the “exertion” mentioned before) follows from passion/temperament.

But in The Laws of Manu there are four castes. These are traditionally understood as follows.

In the Brahmanas (priests), sattva predominates;
in the Kshatriyas (warriors), rajas predominates;
in the Vaishyas (peasants), rajas and tamas predominate;
in the Sudras (servants), tamas predominates.


in the Brahmanas, sattva predominates;
in the Kshatriyas, rajas predominates over sattva;
in the Vaishyas, rajas predominates over tamas;
in the Sudras, tamas predominates.

I think the reason it says “over sattva” and “over tamas” is that otherwise, there would be no distinction between Kshatriyas and Vaishyas. About the Brahmanas and the Sudras, on the other hand, it is not necessary to say “over”. But let’s do so anyway.

In the Brahmanas, sattva predominates over rajas;
in the Kshatriyas, rajas predominates over sattva;
in the Vaishyas, rajas predominates over tamas;
in the Sudras, tamas predominates over rajas.

There can be no combination of sattva and tamas, as these are opposites—just as in the classical elements, as traditionally understood:

in Fire, sattva predominates over rajas;
in Air, rajas predominates over sattva;
in Water, rajas predominates over tamas;
in Earth, tamas predominates over rajas.

We have then four types, symbolised by the classical elements. This is common in typology.

But why does Nietzsche say there are three types, when The Laws of Manu says there are four? Originally (i.e., before the Aryans invaded and conquered the Hindu Valley civilisation), there were three; and the surviving vanquished were simply added at the bottom of the pyramid, as servants. But originally, the then-lowest caste must already have been servants in a sense, as without those there can be no culture-pyramid:

  [size=95]Culture, which is chiefly a genuine need for art, rests upon a terrible basis [...]. In order that there may be a broad, deep, and fruitful soil for the development of art, the enormous majority must, in the service of a minority, be slavishly subjected to life's struggle, to a greater degree than their own wants necessitate. At their expense, through the surplus of their labour, that privileged class is to be relieved from the struggle for existence, in order to create and to satisfy a new world of want.
  [Nietzsche, 'The Greek State'.][/size]

The above still holds even if we don’t agree that culture is chiefly a genuine need for art (but instead, for example, for philosophy—but then, is genuine philosophy not “the highest kind of poetry” (Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind, ‘Values’)?).

Vaishyas and Sudras are then simply specialisations of the third and lowest caste—in principle, at least.

A few years ago, I wrote:

  [size=95]In Hindu thought there are the three [i]gunas[/i], or modes of nature. They are rajas, sattva, and tamas. The highest of these is sattva, the lowest, tamas. Let us first consider the middle one, rajas. [u][i]Rajas [/i]is cognate with the Latin [i]rex[/i], the English "ruler".[/u] It is the "lust to rule" or "passion for power" ([i]Herrschsucht[/i]) praised by Zarathustra in his speech Of the Three Evils. It is the will to power - the will to dominion (lordship).

  "Will" is a resultant. It results from a coordination of forces, which stimulate each other. If these forces are not well coordinated, or if they are simply lacking, the result is a chaos or absence of forces, respectively. In both cases, the result is [i]tamas[/i], inertia. So tamas is the lowest level of will to power - the impotence to power, as Nietzsche calls it in The Antichristian.

  Sattva on the other hand is the highest level of will to power.


The part I underlined is false, but that doesn’t really harm my association: Nietzsche says the will to power is a pathos, after all (WP 635).

Also in The Will to Power, it says:

  [size=95]The teaching [i]mêden agan[/i] ["nothing in excess"] applies to men of overflowing strength---not to the mediocre. The [i]enkrateia [/i]["temperance"] and [i]askêsis [/i]["exercise; asceticism"] is only a stage toward the heights: the 'golden nature' is higher.
  "Thou shalt"---unconditional obedience in Stoics, in the Christian and Arab orders, in the philosophy of Kant (it is immaterial whether to a superior or to a concept).
  Higher than "thou shalt" is "I will" (the heroes); higher than "I will" stands "I am" (the gods of the Greeks).
  The barbarian gods express nothing of the pleasure of restraint---are neither simple nor frivolous nor moderate.
  [[i]WP [/i]940, trans. Kaufmann, entire.][/size]

The men of overflowing strength are of course the warriors. Through enkrateia and askêsis, these can dam the overflow of their strength and temper their temperament. This is how I understand sattva: as the curbing of rajas—the will to power—by itself. Compare:

  [size=95][A]n ascetic life is a self-contradiction. Here a ressentiment without equal is in control, something with an insatiable instinct and will to power, which wants to become master, not over something in life but over life itself, over its deepest, strongest, most basic conditions; here an attempt is being made to use one’s force [[i]Kraft[/i]] to block up the wells of one's force[.]
  [Nietzsche, [i]GM [/i]III.11][/size]

Of course this does not wholly apply to what Nietzsche says about askêsis (see Kaufmann’s footnote to WM 940)—the aim is not to block up the wells of force, but to curb overflowing force (the word translated by Kaufmann as “strength” is probably also Kraft; I will verify this later). Still, it allows us to see that sattva, Nietzscheanly understood, is not qualitatively different from rajas.

In this world, a paleo-Nietzschean cobbling together of old and mostly discredited and debunked ideas like these seems both amazing and ridiculous. After all, psychology and typology has advanced far beyond those wrongheaded theosophist and Nazi views of race and caste. Thus I could understand taking the view that this typology must be coming from the Nebenwelt where the Nazis and the Axis powers win the war, a master-slave mentality takes over, and humans are regarded as specimens to be studied and manipulated to make them good Nazi slaves all in the service of their noble, higher masters who seek to control the world for the sake of a pure race.

Taking the work of Goebbels and extending it to psychology and typology would then be the natural next step, and that would mean taking the work of Nietzsche and the theosophists and forcing it into the typology that would fit the Aryan mold and the Hindu caste system. It makes me wonder whether beings or thought-forms from the Nebenwelt have entered this universe and just don’t realize certain uncomfortable facts: the Allies won the war; Hitler and Stalin did not remain allies for the sake of a Communist totalitarian state and Hitler decided in favor of a fascist one; and that Jung came along with more humanistic and holistic ways of describing psychology and typology, followed by Gurdjieff on the Enneagram and Oscar Ichazo who brought it to the West.

The association with ‘Nazis’ is entirely your own.

This thread is dedicated to an attempt at a Nietzschean typology. Then again, it has been plain to see that you reject the whole essence of Nietzsche’s philosophy.

[size=95]And do you know where I found the concept of the Self I used in order to allude to this mystery? In the greatest psychologist of all time: in Nietzsche, your ‘Wounded King’, who was the first to discover it, using the German word Selbst.
[Jung, in a private conversation with Serrano, as recorded in the latter’s NOS: The Book of Resurrection, ch. ‘Another Turn of the Wheel’.][/size]
Of course you can dispute whether Jung really said this (Serrano was actually a ‘Nazi’), but I think he should have, in any case. In Jung’s exoteric (i.e., public) writings on Nietzsche, he sells him, has to sell him, as a psychological ‘case’. This is because Jung had to be careful to be politically correct (thus in the same chapter, the book records Jung as saying, “[if I would not have been prudent like that], I would have lost the little that I had salvaged”). Whoever believes in the exoteric Jung in matters like this is a moron; and if the exoteric Jung was the real Jung, he was a moron! Which is a possibility I cannot completely rule out… But I think it quite improbable.

This correspondence is closed.

You know very well that it’s not plain to see any such thing. What is plain to see is how you desire to manipulate typology to fit in with a neo-Nazi view of Nietzsche in order to further the notions of a pure race, a caste system, and typological rankings. As I said before, this is either thought processes coming from the Nebenwelt or localized wish-fulfillment based on the insanity inherent in projecting visions of superiority out on the world by way of Nietzsche and seriously deranged manipulations of Hinduism and already discredited theosophism.

Jung never really lost his humanity like many other Nazis did, including Heidegger. This again represents selective quoting for purposes of manipulation. Jung himself was misquoted and misrepresented by the Nazis, and he made some effort to set the record straight as soon as he got the chance. The truth is that he did not hate anyone and was always interested first and foremost in healing. And by the way, Nietzsche was selectively quoted and misrepresented by his sister and the Nazis as well. It took a long time for good scholarship to catch up and represent Nietzsche accurately. However, those rank and file neonazis can still manipulate his work for their own purposes. That they still do so, or even wish to, is a sad commentary on the way people can still lose their humanity these days along with any common sense whatsoever. In your case, Sauw, you cannot take any works on their own merits without needing to put them through your own paleo-Nietzschean neonazi lens so that they come out as something that supports your notions of class, caste, rank, nobility, racism, and so on. This is a very sad business because the typologies that have grown through Jung and other great thinkers stand up well enough on their own as they describe or help us understand the psyche and the complex behavior of humans.

No problem. I really dislike dealing with neonazi manipulations and confused history.

The word translated by Kaufmann as “strength” in WP 940 is indeed Kraft, “force”.


A. Nietzsche says that, in every healthy human society, there naturally arise three physiological, and hence psychological, types: 1) those who stand out for intellectuality; 2) those who stand out for strength of temperament; and 3) those who stand out for neither.
B. These three types can be understood in terms of the three Hindu gunas: 1) sattva, 2) rajas, and 3) tamas.
C. The three Hindu gunas can be understood as the three main levels of strength of will-to-power in human beings: 1) the highest (see The Will to Might), 2) the middle, and 3) the lowest.
D. Sattva seems to be the self-moderation of the will to power (rajas).

It is to elaborating on the last of these points that this post is dedicated.

In his The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, William Blake wrote:

[size=95]Without Contraries is no progression. Attraction and Repulsion, Reason and Energy, Love and Hate, are necessary to Human existence.
From these contraries spring what the religious call Good & Evil. Good is the passive that obeys Reason. Evil is the active springing from Energy.
Good is Heaven. Evil is Hell.

[…] Energy is the only life and is from the Body and Reason is the bound or outward circumference of Energy.

Those who restrain desire, do so because theirs is weak enough to be restrained[.][/size]
Though Blake is in ways a Nietzschean avant la lettre, I still think he was fundamentally wrong.

“Weak” is a relative term. And how does one restrain desire? Whereby does on restrain it? There cannot be any doubt: one does so by another desire—all there is is desire (erôs/will-to-power), after all.

We therefore have to correct Blake as follows:

“Those who restrain desire do so because their desire to do so is stronger than the desire they restrain.”

This is the basis of sattva. “The most intellectual human beings” (Antichrist 57) are thus in a sense even stronger in ‘temperament’ than the second caste:

[size=95]The most intellectual human beings [are] the strongest[.]
(For Nietzsche, all strength is strength of will, and all will is will to power.)

P.S.: I first accidentally posted this post as an edit to the OP. Fortunately, I was able to restore that; hence the edits.

Meh. I am not saying Sauw’s comments of your post are spot on, but I don’t see any (plain) evidence of trying to make it fit a “neo-nazi” view (of nietzche), nor a belief and desire to maintain/grow a “pure race”. He is referring to a caste system… but it’s because he’s interpreting personality types in light of historical caste categories.

I will say I find his descriptions of types, as if there ARE 4 types of people, to sound a little too objective ( not strictly functional categories), though.

But as I said, he’s interpreting them according to a caste system hierarchy that is shaped like a pyramid–one who is “above” another, those at the “top”, is not necessarily a statement of their being better (types of) people, but rather they are more rare (higher on the pyramid).

I mean, quotes he was using stressed a majority of “lower” types in order to maintain culture. Those people are valued for their work and it is said they should be the majority; there’s nothing about killing them off to create a society of the pure race.

I do think the quote about the majority having to be slavishly subjected to life’s struggle has poor connotations, however, which don’t translate well to today’s standards. However, I think “slavishly subjected to life’s struggles” ought to be seen as relative to the experiences of the majority. It is not so much they are actually slaves as most of us imagine slaves to be, doing what we imagine slaves to do, but that their labor is more continuous and focused–the work they do has less freedom of action. For example the “servants” are always physically performing exactly what they have been told to do (this isn’t much different from most low income jobs today), the “peasants” have to do exactly what they must in order to produce a certain amount (like farmers today, low level managers in chains and “white collar” employees), the “warriors” have to take in certain information and then creatively act to manipulate those conditions and the changing environment (the military, but also stock brokers, real estate agents, stock brokers, etc.), the “priests” have to regularly take in various forms of information and see possible outcomes, come up from possible solutions and use reason to decide what works best–their job REQUIRES they are free to pursue constant changes in task when deemed relevant (scientists and academics and high offices in government).

All he’s saying is that certain functions to keep a society going require “personality types”/“skills” that relatively few people have, and in order to ensure they do those the best they can, they shouldn’t be spending time doing other societal functions (necessary for everyone’s well being… like building homes, repairing and building tools, producing food, maintaining sanitation, etc.) that many other people can do, and would do (with their kind of “personality type”) far better than them.

Moving on to Sauw,


This doesn’t seem right to me. I would think:

In the Brahmanas - air
in the Kshatriyas - fire
in the Vaishyas - earth
in the Sudras - water

matthatter, I generally agree with your reply to jonquil. As for your correspondence table:

This seems to be a rather ‘intuitive’ list of associations. I was basing my associations on what is traditionally held about the ratio of the gunas in the classical elements in Hinduism. In the meantime, I found a few sources that associated the castes and the elements like this:

Brahmanas - Water;
Kshatriyas - Fire;
Vaishyas - Earth;
Sudras - Air.

Almost the same as yours (in fact, I have sometimes thought that perhaps the connotations of Water and Air ought to be switched around, in general). But I think this is inconsistent with the traditional Hindu understanding of the presence of the gunas in the classical elements and in the castes.

I have an issue with trying to force fit a typology into a caste system. That takes a lot of manipulation and willingness to promote false ideas both about the inherent nature of humans and of the types themselves.

If Sauwelios were to stick strictly and only with Nietzsche’s view of what he considered the types to be, that would be one thing. That would give you an idea of Nietzsche’s own psychology and the perspective he took during the second half of the 19th c.

However, you have to be pretty well educated in later psychology and typology to see the distortions that Sauwelios is superimposing on them in order to get an idea of what is really going on with his views. Not only that, but he can’t take a challenge to these views. He simply gets huffy and closes the correspondence.

As I said before, some very serious critical thinking needs to occur when reading Nietzsche and considering the way that the human psyche works. In a very oppressive society where people are abused, disempowered, and treated inhumanly, it is easy to fall into the kind of psychic distress that seeks to move over to the side of the oppressor, one who can feel superior to others and then figure out ways to create divisions so that one doesn’t have to deal with other human beings humanly. That’s what Nietzsche did, and it certainly appears to have a certain attraction to susceptible people even to this day… in spite of the fact that history tells us we should know better.

Also, I don’t enjoy this kind of thing at all. It’s ugly and reminiscent of the kind of mindset that made monsters out of potentially good people in Nazi Germany… and it’s clearly infected the minds of several people who post here. In fact, I have as much of a problem with this mindset as PK Dick did when he was trying to write the sequel to The Man in the High Castle but couldn’t get past the second chapter because it would mean having to think like a Nazi and he had had enough of it. That’s exactly how I feel, and I sympathize with Dick’s idea of the Nebenwelt, an alternate universe where the Allied powers won WWII. In the case of this world and this conversation, of course, the Nebenwelt would be the world where the Nazis and the Axis powers won. People who think like Nazis make me want to think of them as unreal people who cannot be from this planet in this universe, but I expect that they are. That shows just how serious oppression is and how difficult it is to deal with it psychically, typology notwithstanding.

For the record, I have no idea where in this thread I have referred to existing typology, except here in my OP:

A few comments. One, it is not common for the types to be symbolized by the classical elements. If you wish to make such a connection, then you do so eccentrically; but it could be interesting.

Two, if you can stick strictly to what Nietzsche said about the types in order to open up that viewpoint, fine. But if you then take Nietzsche’s typology and extrapolate from that to superimpose it on more modern typologies and what it means to be a human being, then we have a problem.

Furthermore, I enjoy seeing typology opened up through other symbological systems like astrology, alchemy (classical elements), the Tarot, Hinduism, the Cabala, whatever. But I will categorically state that any such enrichment be free of neonazi shit, caste systems, ranks, and so on. What I want to see is a richer way of viewing the psyche and scenarios that show humans being human and acting humanly. Sure, this can involve the shadow and reveal the dark side, so to speak; but any such revelations need to be made with thought and care that they are not enmeshed with psychically englamoured visions of “supermen,” a superior noble caste, or “higher men” at the expense of the knowledge that these are inhuman shadows created by a psyche in severe distress or psychosis.


I second that.

And I third it. Ugh to all neonazi shit.

I should add. Sauwelios, you had a real opportunity to offer some really interesting takes on typology. But no, instead, you just offer more paleo-Nietzschean stuff that really just recycles the ideas coming out of Nietzsche’s severe distress and psychosis. That is really too bad.

First you assume meanings into his words that aren’t evident, and call his post ridiculous and accuse him of having a Nazi ideology, and then you ignore all explanations to the contrary, merely repeating the same unfounded accusations…

and then you have the impudence to say that?

"You had a real opportunity . . . but no, instead . . . "? What the hell is that? How did he have a real opportunity to do what he clearly couldn’t/wouldn’t do, consider the OP he did write?

You misinterpret him, and then insult him, and now you try to make him feel guilty for not writing something that you would like, when clearly he made the thread because it interests him and it’s new to him, so he wants to open it to discussion? “That is really too bad”…

seriously, who the fuck do you think you are? You disgust me, pretending to be a humanitarian when for you it is nothing more than a high horse for you to sit on.

If you think it’s so important for people to offer some interesting takes on typology, of which you will approve, write them yourself, since you seem to know so much about the topic.

Say it is amazing and ridiculous how somebody today could actually write the OP… and then say “you had an opportunity”, as if he easily could have but is intentionally limiting himself to boring old outdated views…


All he did was take a Nietzsche quote describing three “physiological types”, and then compare them to the characteristic of four types describes in the Laws of Manu. Each type being the characteristics of a caste.

That is all he did, he didn’t say he supported the caste system, and he didn’t say anything about one being more superior.

You read “caste” and then you went crazy, that’s your bad.

I say that any form of discrimination which hints at there being any sort of inequality between any 2 people be eliminated. Such gradations imply unfortunate realities which I would prefer not to confront and serve to make me feel resentful and fearful towards those to whom I cannot measure up.

The most insidious form of this prejudice is demonstrated above by the Nietzschean neo-nazi loon. How dare he presume to judge an individual by their personality, subject as it is to the whims of chance; the product of the standard social science model, the Tabula Rasa.

This is a form of bigotry whereby ones natural inclinations (ones very identity!) cause one to be treated unfairly and unjustly by an evil elite which seeks to exploit innocents for its own benefit by constructing an “artificial” hierarchy wherein I am at the bottom. It is not my responsibility that I am a nobody who accomplished nothing with his life and have no drive to do so. I am equal to those who did and have because I possess intrinsic rights which serve to redirect my self-hatred and resentment; rights which exist to flatter me and to console my inadequacies… No! To prove! that at base we are all equal and I do not have to feel shame before a greater being.

In order for people to “work together” in a more “constructive” manner, all notions of distinction must be “surpassed”. In order to “progress”, society must realize a situation where no individual can come to be “exploited” by another, no matter how infirm his Will, slack his wits, or how ignorant of the consequences of his own actions he has become.

I don’t want to be told what to do; this implies that I do not already know myself and offends me. I do not want to be offended; it upsets me and gives me indigestion. Then I need to find a group of fellow retards to console me and to reaffirm my delusions.

We don’t need leaders anymore. Humanity has matured beyond that.

:banana-dance: ](*,) :^o [-X

Are you trying to ‘find’ yourself Sauw? what with all the different typology tests you’ve been doing lately - I found that doing such tests made it clearer in my mind who I was/affirmed my character.

Maybe, but it’s a bit disingenuous as he is always trying to fit all typologies into a neonazi, paleo-Nietzschean caste system framework.

The typologies offered by Jung, Meyers-Briggs, Socionics and the Enneagram are very interesting and provide a framework by which to think more about the psyche and oneself. Sauwelios had the chance to build an interesting schema based on these typologies but instead found little online questions and decided to turn them into caste system and ranking formations instead because that, apparently, is what Nietzsche would have done with his typologies. Not much critical thinking or genuine, honest scholarship is being applied here. It takes quite a bit of twisting of facts and history, along with some mathematical and geometrical hokery-pokery to get a neonazi caste system out of the types.

Well, I’ve actually not been doing that many tests. Rather, I’ve been trying to analyse several typological systems. Unfortunately, I’ve found that they are irrational, or at least I could not find any rationale for them (and nobody else seems to have looked for one!).

According to the Enneagram and the Keirsey Temperament Sorter (which latter is related to the MBTI), there are types whose most basic concern is to ‘find’ themselves: these are the Enneagram type 4 and the KTS Idealist temperament (MBTI NF types). At least according to the KTS I don’t think I’m such a type, but rather a Rational temperament (MBTI NT). According to Keirsey, this temperament is not so much concerned with personal growth and development, as with problem-solving, “particularly if the problem has to do with the many complex systems that make up the world around us.” ( Perhaps this would correspond with the Enneagram type 5.

The problem I’ve been trying to solve lately is the problem of typology, particularly the MBTI and the like. I’ve been seeking to reduce it to as few elements as possible, and then clearly define those elements. However, this appears to be almost impossible to me. I was therefore thinking of rejecting them all on this basis, but as it is a rational basis, that paradoxically means the KTS, at least, is right about me.

As for the KTS, the problem I’m trying to solve now concerning it is this:

In what way is NT = SP and NF = SJ?

For according to the KTS, the first two are both ‘utilitarian’ and the last two ‘cooperative’. As it provides no other factor determining temperament than the MBTI N/S, T/F, and P/J dichotomies, there must be a way in which NT = SP and NF = SJ. And if there isn’t, it is irrational.

jonquil was right, by the way, that the association of the types with the classical elements is not common in typology—at least not the direct association of the two. But from Jung to Keirsey, the types have been associated with the four humours, and these, in turn, are traditionally associated with the classical elements.

If we take all the associations I’ve mentioned in this thread together, except those with the gunas, we get the following correspondence table:

Brahmana - Water - Phlegmatic - Rational - NT
Kshatriya - Fire - Choleric - Idealist - NF
Vaishya - Earth - Melancholic - Guardian - SJ
Sudra - Air - Sanguine - Artisan - SP

Though it makes sense to me that what Nietzsche calls “the nobles” (Antichrist 56) be both N types and the “majority” (ibid.) consist of S types, I find it strange that the Idealists be the Kshatriyas (according to Keirsey, by the way, the S types form indeed the great majority—about 85% of all people). I type jonquil as an Idealist, for one. Then again, perhaps we can say she is a warrior for what she regards as ‘justice’—namely, equality…

The problem of the Brahmana, the Rational, then, lies in convincing the Kshatriya, the Idealist, that the head (T) should rule over the heart (F—not to mention the spirit (N) over the senses (S)). This is the problem of what Plato’s Socrates called “the ancient quarrel between philosophy and poetry” (Plato, Republic). Ultimately, that is the problem I seek to solve. It thus turns out to be the perfect follow-up to my previous problem, that of the necessary step from philosophy to political philosophy.—

I want to thank matthatter for saying precisely what I was thinking, and much better than I could have said it.

One only understands you when they get to know you Sauw… as I have had to do, as I found that you live your life by different guidelines to the rest of us - the answers are out there some where, we just have to look for them in-order for us to understand ourselves better and live a more fulfilling life.