Irrational

## 1. Etymology

**Irrational** names what is **not grounded in reason**—not because it is illogical, but because it is beyond reason. Compare [rational](/index/rational/). Related: [sensation](/index/sensation/); [intuition](/index/intuition/); chance; elementary existential facts.

---

## 2. Plain summary

Jung’s **irrational** is empirical, not “unreasonable.” [Sensation](/index/sensation/) and [intuition](/index/intuition/) find fulfillment in absolute perception of the flux of events; they attune to the contingent and therefore lack rational direction. Thinking and feeling, by contrast, fulfill themselves in harmony with reason’s laws.

Elementary facts—that the earth has a moon, that water freezes at a given temperature—and chance itself fall into this category. Irrational types subordinate judgment to perception; they base themselves on experience. Related to [typology](/index/typology/)’s irrational pair and to [compensation](/index/compensation/) when judgment is starved.

**Examples (exhaustive house list for this Index lemma — common irrational motifs named across Jung’s essays and standard Jungian lexica; not a claim that Jung’s CW contains only these):**

not grounded in reason; beyond reason ≠ illogical; sensation + intuition as irrational functions; absolute perception of flux; contingent / chance; elementary existential facts; empirical not unreasonable; vs [rational](/index/rational/) judging pair; [typology](/index/typology/) irrational class; [function](/index/function/) model.

---

## 3. Academic elucidation

---

## 4. Lexicon

**Sharp (1991)**

> Irrational. Not grounded in reason. (Compare rational.) … In Jung’s model of typology, the psychological functions of intuition and sensation are described as irrational. … Merely because [irrational types] subordinate judgment to perception, it would be quite wrong to regard them as “unreasonable.” It would be truer to say that they are in the highest degree empirical.

(Sharp, 1991, p. [provisional — unverified])

> typology … an irrational pair (sensation and intuition).

(Samuels, Shorter, & Plaut, 1986, pp. **153–155**)

---

## 5. CW concordance — sample, not exhaustive

> The irrational is an existential factor which, though it may be pushed further and further out of sight by an increasingly elaborate rational explanation, finally makes the explanation so complicated that it passes our powers of comprehension…

(Jung, 1921/1971, CW 6, p. 629, ¶775)

> … intuition and sensation are functions that find fulfilment in the absolute perception of the flux of events. Hence, by their very nature, they will react to every possible occurrence and be attuned to the absolutely contingent, and must therefore lack all rational direction.

(Jung, 1921/1971, CW 6, pp. 629–630, ¶776)

> I call the two preceding types irrational for the reasons previously discussed, namely that whatever they do or do not do is based not on rational judgment but on the sheer intensity of perception.

(Jung, 1921/1971, CW 6, p. 519, ¶616)

---

**See also:** [rational](/index/rational/); [function](/index/function/); [sensation](/index/sensation/); [intuition](/index/intuition/); [typology](/index/typology/); [compensation](/index/compensation/).

## References

Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological types. In H. Read, M. Fordham, G. Adler, & W. McGuire (Eds.), *The collected works of C. G. Jung* (R. F. C. Hull, Trans.) (Vol. 6, pp. 519, 629–630, ¶¶616, 775–776). Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1921)

Samuels, A., Shorter, B., & Plaut, F. (1986). *A critical dictionary of Jungian analysis*. Routledge.

Sharp, D. (1991). *Jung lexicon: A primer of terms & concepts*. Inner City Books.

---