Recollectingphilosophy.wordpress.com Website Review

Jungian typology has become popular worldwide. Especially with the development of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). However it’s reputation among academics is not very good. One common reason for disapproval is its lack of scientific evidence. As I’ve argued in convincing. But it is a complicated topic, which will easily be misunderstood. As I’ve also argued before, I don’t approve of the MBTI either. In this post I do some further investigation of what I consider to be special about Jungian typology – trying to deal with some common presuppositions, and open up for new perspectives. Is Jungian typology philosophy? And some words about philosophical approach – – A quick philosophical background, Kant and Wittgenstein – two different views The problem with “subjective bias” The problem with categorizing, labeling and explanation The idea of a non-hierarchical order – – 1. The idea of that one function excludes its opposite – – 2. The idea of different kinds of cognitive talent The non-reductionism in Jungian typology and non-reductionism in. IS JUNGIAN TYPOLOGY PHILOSOPHY? AND SOME WORDS ABOUT PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACH. Sometimes I come across the opinion that Jungian typology is merely pseudo-science. And I’ve been told that “The Big Five” is a better theory. However, that kind of claims hardly makes sense to me, as Jungian typology and The Big Five appears to me as two entirely different things. I’d be tempted to say that Jungian typology is interesting from a philosophical point of view, while The Big Five is not, regardless of their scientific status. However I’m also inclined to say that to say such a thing is problematic. What right do The general view is quite contrary, Jungian typology belongs to the field of Psychology and not the field of Philosophy. I would not neccessarily dispute that clas*ification either. I’m fine with that Jungian typology belongs to the field of psychology, but I’d say one could also add it to the field of philosophy – but then with slightly different aims and different perspectives (as argued in