In his discussion of Abélard and Luther in Psychological Types, Jung focuses on distinctions between nominalism – which he properly ascribes to medievalist Abélard – and realism/sensualism which he attributes in contrast to Luther’s position. It is the book’s major theme that personal type and philosophical inclination are deeply intertwined. In fact, they refer to archetypal approaches. Is this a reductive view of personality and of philosophy? I’d propose that it grows from an understanding of rhetoric that ascribes drives to philosophical positions. I propose here to investigate Jung’s argument and the rhetorical strategies that accommodate both the personality and the philosophy of the figures Jung appraises. His is an innovative viewpoint, and he starts by setting out the dilemma. I propose that he manages to avoid psychologising the philosophy, and over-stating a metaphysical scope for the drives.