An interesting contrast. Do you think the tendency to have an abstruse writing style is a peculiarity of Ni? Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason wasn’t regarded as the most accessible text, especially before its revision.
Kant wrote too rigorously, was too abstract and used figurative language on occasion (you just sense that he wanted for better words then) but it was more mathematical speak than poetic language.
And if what you’re saying is the case, Karl Popper and Machiavelli were INTJ too. Popper, Machiavelli and Nietzsche were writing under curious circumstances: Popper was the World War and the subjugation of personal sovereignty and human reason, Machiavelli had been tortured and Florence was in tumultuous times, people were also not being independent, Nietzsche was disgruntled that personal sovereignty was being lost.
Are you addressing us? Or Desmond? :)
Both of you. I think Desmond’s point is worthwhile so you can lump both together and answer.
We are not sure we have understood your point correctly, but no – Ni can lend itself to both good and clear writing, as well as obtuse and poor writing. We think that it may have more to do with the tradition: Machiavelli had no tradition to write into (or if he did it would be the clear and plain language of Livy). Nietzsche was influenced by Schopenhauer, a clear and compelling prose writer. In Popper, it is in fact the force of the personality coming through, compelling him to write in clear language – he could have taken up the monolithic means of expression that was popular in the German speaking world, and in his youth he actually did to some degree (Logik der Forschung). But as the years progressed, his personal, histrionic, disposition led him towards greater linguistic clarity.
“In Popper, it is in fact the force of the personality coming through”
You didn’t understand because I didn’t make reference to the particular point I was talking about. Took it for granted that you’d glean it from the context. My bad.
Comments are closed.