User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 38

  1. #21
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Ah, so basically you're saying that Socrates didnt really have much of a higher purpose. He argued to piss people off and to seek adventure. The reason why he seemed like an INTP while doing this (as if he had a higher purpose) is because Plato romanticized him.
    I call "straw man" on this arguement. (I would really think straw man arguments would be considered beneath one so logic oriented.) Perhaps you merely misunderstand my point so let me clarify.

    Socrates did have a higher purpose to "truth". To undertand it, to live it, and to inspire others to believe in it. This is what you would expect from an ENTP philosopher. An INTP philosopher would seek understanding of "truth" above acting on this understanding to both live "truth" and inspire others to do so.

    Socrates clearly did all three. He sought to understand truth, to live truth, and to inspire others to believe in it. The essence of our argument is to where he placed the greatest importance of his "higher purpose". Was it primarily to understand "truth", or did he understand truth because his "higher purpose" was to live "truth" and to inspire others to do so as well? I believe it is the latter, but one might see the "higher purpose" to be focused on understanding the truth since the story is told through the perspective of an introvert.

    That is certainly a theory. But what reason do we have to suspect that Plato did not represent Socrates the way he really was? After all, all the people that conversed with Socrates in Plato's dialogues were alive when Plato published his writings. Unless he'd want to spend a lot of time at the courts, I'd think it would be wise of him to tell the story like it was as he intended it as a historical documentary, not fiction. If Socrates wasnt the magnanimous being that Plato painted him as, dont you think that others would take issue with such a rendition?
    Well he did represent Socrates' actions as they really were. They were the actions of an ENTP. But he is also teaching a lesson in his writings. The ENTP actions are being used to teach an introverted lesson.

    It is much like the stories told today that go, "There once was a boy who worked hard by persistantly shooting freethrows every day. And that boy grew up to be Micheal Jordan. So if you want to be like Micheal Jordan you need to work hard and be persistant". This story is not fiction, but it is not a biography either. It's a story based on true events that is used to illustrate a point. This is essentially how all of Plato's writings about Socrates go. (Obviously Plato is a better story teller than the people telling these stories though.)

    Socrates behaved like an INTP, only resembled an ENTP on a very superficial level.
    Before you said "Socrates being ENTP is a claim of merit". Now you say he "only resembed an ENTP on a very superficial level". Their seems to be inconsistency in your reasoning. If you are to be as committed to truth as Socrates then you should be consistent in your reasoning.

    The only way Plato may have misrepresented the ENTP Socrates as an INTP is if he told the story differently from the way it really was.
    I wouldn't say that Plato misrepresented him. I would say that the reader might get the wrong idea by confusing Socrates actions with the points that Plato is trying to make through his writings.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  2. #22
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    I call "straw man" on this arguement. (I would really think straw man arguments would be considered beneath one so logic oriented.) Perhaps you merely misunderstand my point so let me clarify.

    Socrates did have a higher purpose to "truth". To undertand it, to live it, and to inspire others to believe in it. This is what you would expect from an ENTP philosopher. An INTP philosopher would seek understanding of "truth" above acting on this understanding to both live "truth" and inspire others to do so.

    Socrates clearly did all three. He sought to understand truth, to live truth, and to inspire others to believe in it. The essence of our argument is to where he placed the greatest importance of his "higher purpose". Was it primarily to understand "truth", or did he understand truth because his "higher purpose" was to live "truth" and to inspire others to do so as well? I believe it is the latter, but one might see the "higher purpose" to be focused on understanding the truth since the story is told through the perspective of an introvert.


    Well he did represent Socrates' actions as they really were. They were the actions of an ENTP. But he is also teaching a lesson in his writings. The ENTP actions are being used to teach an introverted lesson.

    It is much like the stories told today that go, "There once was a boy who worked hard by persistantly shooting freethrows every day. And that boy grew up to be Micheal Jordan. So if you want to be like Micheal Jordan you need to work hard and be persistant". This story is not fiction, but it is not a biography either. It's a story based on true events that is used to illustrate a point. This is essentially how all of Plato's writings about Socrates go. (Obviously Plato is a better story teller than the people telling these stories though.)


    Before you said "Socrates being ENTP is a claim of merit". Now you say he "only resembed an ENTP on a very superficial level". Their seems to be inconsistency in your reasoning. If you are to be as committed to truth as Socrates then you should be consistent in your reasoning.



    I wouldn't say that Plato misrepresented him. I would say that the reader might get the wrong idea by confusing Socrates actions with the points that Plato is trying to make through his writings.
    Okay we are drifting of course now.

    My claim: The reason to believe that Socrates was an INTP is grounded in how Socrates behaved in Plato's story. It has nothing to do with Plato's commentary. We are going only by what Plato SHOWED, and not what he told.

    Not sure what role Plato teaching a lesson plays here, unless this somehow interfered with the way Socrates was represented. The case here must be either that Plato did tell the story entirely like it was, or his circumstances (as for instance his need to teach a lesson) got in the way. It is one of the two. Either he did represent him accurately or he did not. The reason to believe that he did is because he would have been reproached by others who he claimed spoke to Socrates in his dialogues. All of those people were alive.

    (I dont think there was a straw man fallacy there. I only made your argument SEEM weaker because of my attitude towards it, but the content of your premises was preserved in its entirety. That Socrates was not influenced by a sense of inner purpose to the extent that I suggest he was, and that his inner purpose didnt make him as internally focused as an INTP would be expected to be.)

    Okay. So, lets assume for the sake of the argument that Plato told the story as it really was.

    My claim: Socrates focused primarily on his higher purpose of search for truth. His external actions were not part of his agenda, they were merely an entailment of his inner mindset.

    Your response: Socrates did put a high premium on a higher purpose, but was not influenced by the higher purpose to the extent that I claim he was. He consciously made an effort to impact others externally.

    My response: Socrates was driven by a sense of higher purpose because we notice that philosophy was an end in itself for him. This was his main problem with the sophists. They thought that its better to convince your opponent to agree with you than to know the truth. Yet the crux of the teaching of Socrates was about how to discover the truth. ENTPs like Russell and Hume often taught about the external and ostensible benefits of being a truth seeker, and how you can use philosophy to make yourself happier. Socrates had none of this. All he taught was that you need to know the truth and thats period, basically, dont worry about what happens afterwards as he'd tell you.

    Yes, Socrates did also preach and inspire others. But again, the difference between him and Hume is that Hume saw influencing others as an end in itself. Yet for Socrates it was merely an entailment of his inner mindset. Before he died, Plato reports, he claimed that he would go to another realm where he could argue with people incessantly who would always take his claims seriously just so he can finally grasp the precious truth. Yet, an ENTP in his shoes, I'd speculate would envision himself learning about what is true for the purpose of sharing it with others. Influencing people would be more important than just knowing the truth. Yet with the way Socrates phrased that one, it sounded like he was saying that he sees arguing as an end in itself, and it wasnt important to him if others really bought into it so long as he learned something. ENTPs certainly would find this unacceptable, as an unresponsive audience is undesirable and the purpose of learning the truth goes back to no other end than sharing it with others.

    In the end, I contend that arguing and truth seeking was an end in itself for Socrates, presentation was not. As we see in many of his dialogues he lost his audience. Euthyphro ran off on him the other day and Socrates was chasing afterwards .."You still havent told me what Virtue is!" And when he was on trial, he didnt seek to persuade or take the matter seriously, he took it as another one of his philosophy lessons where he presented not to influence people but to work through his thought experiments..yes to work through his thought experiments..as we often see in his dialogues others say "Yes Socrates..I understand you..whatever you say Socrates.." And he was hardly perturbed by this...Again, an ENTP would make extra sure that their message is coming through clearly..even at the expense of their own learning..that is why..I'd think David Hume and Bertrand Russell arguably were the clearest writers of philosophy..

    I do not think that there is a contradiction in saying that Socrates seems like an ENTP only on a superficial level and saying that to argue that he was an ENTP had much merit..As investigating this matter in detail tends to be difficult..especially if we consider that we have little access to his inner life based on the way Plato told the story.

    Another comment to add on this matter is that Socrates actually spent more time alone than in dialogue with others, and this detail is difficult to notice unless one has read most of the dialogues very carefully..

    He often would retreat in his inner world for hours often over 10 consecutive hours..completely oblivious to his external environment..(it is difficult for an ENTP to be unaware of the external environment because of the dominant Ne).he also had a great discipline of mind..Could meditate for long periods of time in brutally cold weather...that is a property of Ti..intense dedication to inner purpose..ENTPs could also do this, though less proficiently because Ti is less developed..Socrates was also devoid of problems in regards to being overly scattered and flakey as ENPs tend to be...Certainly ENPs can overcome this by developing Introverted Judgment and learning to focus intensely. Yet for the INPs it comes more naturally..ENPs would struggle with this a lot untill they'd overcome that, yet INTPs would hardly struggle at all..hence such intense concentration and discipline of mind came to Socrates seemingly naturally, whilst for an ENTP this would be more of a learned skill.

    And again, to recapitulate. It is not that Socrates did not wish to inspire others at all, it is just that it was of a lower priority to him than it would be to an ENTP. And as I have previously answered in my longer post, living out the truth is very much an INP quality. An INTP would want to make sure that everything that he does is somehow tied down to the higher purpose of seeking the truth as it is in that case. He would argue to ensure that he is looking specifically for the truth and nothing else. Yet an ENTP would be more shifty as Introverted Judgment is weaker. Behavior of such an INTP is much analogous to John Milton's perennial search for human goodness (search for paradise) and Soren Kierkegaard's longing for faith..perennial quest to erect an archetype of a magnanimous Christian. So living out the truth is very much a property of INP. More of a property of an INP psyche than ENP because it is a property of Introverted Judgment. Introverted Judgment is stronger in INPs than it is in ENPs.

    Let me know if I misunderstood your argument..I think I have fairly represented it this time though..
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  3. #23
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    11,925

    Default

    Here are the types for both of them: DEAD. That's what would show up under their avatars.

    I think they were both INFJs.

  4. #24
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing
    I do not think that there is a contradiction in saying that Socrates seems like an ENTP only on a superficial level and saying that to argue that he was an ENTP had much merit..As investigating this matter in detail tends to be difficult..especially if we consider that we have little access to his inner life based on the way Plato told the story.

    Another comment to add on this matter is that Socrates actually spent more time alone than in dialogue with others, and this detail is difficult to notice unless one has read most of the dialogues very carefully..
    Hmmm...I think I'll have to put this discussion on hold for now. It's been a while since I've read Plato, and some of your points seem to rely on subtle details within the writings. I'll have to do some reading and reconsider if he really is INTP. I think we can both agree though that if he is INTP, his type is not as clear as some others like Aristotle, Descartes, Einstein, etc....
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  5. #25
    Senior Member Blackwater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ERTP
    Posts
    454

    Default

    i will go with socrates as an entp as well for reasons previously stated on this board.
    best collection of philosopher typings online

    http://www.celebritytypes.com/philosophers/

  6. #26
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Must have been an intensely internally focused ENTP. But then again, what exactly makes him an ENTP if he, by his nature seemed to be more comfortable with logical systemizing and search for the inner purpose than with External Intuitions. He seemed like a good conversationist who could influence people? He hardly enjoyed doing that and was arguing with people just so he could figure out his ideas and he was never even good at it, not nearly as good as Hume, Voltaire and Russell were.

    He certainly wasnt the kind to make philosophy practical and many of his ideas were so distant from the concrete world that they seemed mythological. Can hardly imagine an Extrovert coming up with something of the like. As Socrates paved the way for the notion of the Platonic Idea of how truth, virtue and justice are essences up in the heavens that you can grasp only with your mind, and when you do they will transform you from within. And there are no clear-cut concrete manifestations for this, let alone any practical applications. And death, Socrates taught, isnt to be feared because if you're sharp enough you get to go live in the realm of platonic ideas, there they dont kill you for asking questions. If worse comes for worst you'll be in a dreamless sleep.

    Absolutely no comforting thoughts to those whom death is about to befall, and hardly anything on the way of how you can make your knowledge of truth and wisdom practical or how you can use it to become happier in the external world. That is in sharp contrast with Bertrand Russell, who quit academical philosophy to write philosophy to a general intelligent man. In one of his books--the conquest of happiness, he argues for how a logical man is more likely to become happy because he can rid himself of unreasonable fears and complexes by being as unsuperstitious and independently minded.


    Or how about Hume, who once said 'fine be a philosopher, but DESPITE, your philosophizing, still be a man'. And philosophy was never Hume's life, he was more of a man of the world than a thinker despite that he wrote great philosophy. He once confessed that his purpose of studying philosophy was making his life more interesting, and Russell thoroughly adapted this attitude and managed to live it out. Knowing the truth was important to Hume and Russell, but less important than using the truth to make their lives sound. Socrates didnt think you need to apply the truth, you just have to know the truth, and you can trust the 'spirit' of having acquired the truth to transform you. Just like a Platonic Idea, which this was one of..
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  7. #27
    Senior Member Blackwater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ERTP
    Posts
    454

    Default

    hehe, the view of antiquity was that socrates brought philosophy from the heavens down to earth. that his was a philosophy of the good life.


    and to the 20th century existentialists, socrates was the man who made a philosophy of existence possible. prior to that, that protoexistentialist, kierkegaard wrote his dissertion on socrates, i believe
    best collection of philosopher typings online

    http://www.celebritytypes.com/philosophers/

  8. #28
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackwater View Post
    hehe, the view of antiquity was that socrates brought philosophy from the heavens down to earth. that his was a philosophy of the good life.


    and to the 20th century existentialists, socrates was the man who made a philosophy of existence possible. prior to that, that protoexistentialist, kierkegaard wrote his dissertion on socrates, i believe
    Yes, Kierkegaard wrote his dissertation on Socratic irony. Though I believe in a very different way than you're thinking about it. Kierkegaard's idea was that we should stop looking for the truth in the universe the way that philosophers define it (2 plus 2 is 4), by taking care of whatever contradictions that we come across, but rather leave the contradictions as they be. Forget about the quest to understand the world, and focus more on finding a higher personal purpose in life. That is what he meant by 'truth is subjectivity'. He used the word 'truth' synonymously with a higher purpose. And subjectivity, he meants that you can only find it within yourself since the external universe is meaningless. Realizing that the 'truth' is not to be found in the external world and turning your search inwards was the cornerstone of existentialism that was first established here.

    And the part where Kierkegaard steps in with his personal irony is where he challenges Hegel's systematic philosophy. "Hegelians shall say we understood the system, but we don't even know if we are human beings". Hence, the satire here is that even though we find the 'truth' in a way that speculative philosophers think of it, what good does this truth do us if we still have not found a higher purpose?

    “There is something missing in my life, and it has to do with my need to understand what I must do, what I must know-except, of course, that a certain amount of knowledge is presupposed in every action. I need to understand my purpose in life, to see what God wants me to do, and this means that I must find a truth which is true for me, that I must find that Idea for which I can live and die. For what would it profit me if I found the so-called ‘objective truth’, if I worked through all the systems of philosophy and were able to analyze them and expose their inconsistencies; what would it profit me to develop a political theory and combine all the intricate details of politics into a complete whole, and so construct a world for the exhibition of others but in which I did not live; what would it profit me if I develop the correct interpretation of Christianity in which I resolved all the internal problems, if it had no deeper significance for me and for my life; what would it profit me if truth stood before me cold and naked; indifferent to whether I recognized her or not, creating in me paroxysms of anxiety rather than confident devotion?’’.



    Socrates brought philosophy down to earth in an also seemingly very different way than you seem to be thinking of it. He didn't make it practical. But rather he made it more logical, he gave it a sense of rigor. This way philosophy is more than an intellectual joke of some kind or an outlet for our imaginations, as it was with many pre-socratics. With Socrates, philosophy became more like an exact science (i realize this is anachronistic, though does well to depict the influence of Socrates on philosophy) where we can expect to find clear-cut answers.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  9. #29
    Member IntrovertedThinker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Must have been an intensely internally focused ENTP. But then again, what exactly makes him an ENTP if he, by his nature seemed to be more comfortable with logical systemizing and search for the inner purpose than with External Intuitions. He seemed like a good conversationist who could influence people? He hardly enjoyed doing that and was arguing with people just so he could figure out his ideas and he was never even good at it, not nearly as good as Hume, Voltaire and Russell were.
    I do think that Socrates seemed to have a predominant propensity to continuously seek the highest logical truths (Ti), regardless of some of is actual expressed pattern of behavior (which does seem a bit more Ne dominant, and therefore, ENTP). He sough to question and challenge others on the grounds that they did not seem to question their own decisions, knowledge, actions, and overall judgments sufficiently. This seems to me to be the work of Ti examining the external community (via Ne), evaluating society's values and customs (and indeed anything which can be analyzed at all). And although Socrates seemed to enjoy open verbal debate (which also seems more ENTP than INTP), it seems as though this was merely a means to actively seek the truth, rather than to test a theory or argument for the sake of argument. Socrates seemed to see argument, debate, and rational discussion merely as a means to unveil some hidden truth about the world; an ENTP would seem more inclined to argue for various other reasons not necessarily tied to the seeking of an ultimate truth. Additionally, ENTP's are often known for their ETP charism and charm (similar to ESTPs) and they are often well-liked by others. Socrates did not seem to have this charm in the slightest; instead, he was very hyper-critical, persistent and annoying with his pesky inquiry, and therefore, greatly disliked by the people with whom he came into contact. In fact, it's said that he was regularly spit on and regularly had objects thrown at him, having pestered and frustrated his fellow citizens with his consistent interrogation and no doubt numerous (and probably greatly irksome) questions. And if know about his trial, it's clear that he didn't win any votes with his blunt honesty (another INTP hallmark).

    Thus, while he does have ENTP traits, he seems more internally driven to seek truth (which seems to indicate a stronger Ti). Perhaps this is because his Ne was also greatly developed, so that particular ENTP traits would shine through, which means even if he seemed ENTP in many ways, it wouldn't ignore the notion that he did seem more driven to investigate the world above all else.

    Or how about Hume, who once said 'fine be a philosopher, but DESPITE, your philosophizing, still be a man'. And philosophy was never Hume's life, he was more of a man of the world than a thinker despite that he wrote great philosophy. He once confessed that his purpose of studying philosophy was making his life more interesting, and Russell thoroughly adapted this attitude and managed to live it out. Knowing the truth was important to Hume and Russell, but less important than using the truth to make their lives sound. Socrates didnt think you need to apply the truth, you just have to know the truth, and you can trust the 'spirit' of having acquired the truth to transform you. Just like a Platonic Idea, which this was one of..
    Indeed. For Hume, what one reasons should be displaced from one's actual physical living. When he came to a realization which seemed entirely contradictive to his daily engagements and worldly pleasures, he simply left them alone in his study and pursuit of philosophy, only to be utilized when in his thinking mode. He seemed to hold that instinct and practical living should be separated from reason and theory. For an INTP, this is simply not the ideal. For INTP's, reason and theory are inseparable from actual living, and indeed instinct and practicality take a backseat for the INTP. In Socrates case, it seemed thinking was the entire point of his life, so that all else should suit that purpose and not the other way around.

    Thus, he was either ENTP with an extremely well developed Ti (which I think is less likely), or an INTP with a highly developed Ne. Considering his distinct and clear obsession with truth-seeking, I would think INTP overall fits better, if we're going to look solely at cognitive functions rather than expressed behavior. Good post, SW.

  10. #30
    Member IntrovertedThinker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lastrailway View Post
    I am not sure if I understand very well the typo dynamics and all that, but I have an objection on Socrates being either ENTP or INTP:

    Socrates was a person too concerned with inner values, what is right and wrong, morality and morals, etc. He was debating issues like virtue, justice, etc.
    The "inner voice" or conscience doesn't strike me as a TP characteristic.

    Wouldn’t these characteristics define more an XSFJ?
    Not necessarily. Right and wrong, proper and improper action is not merely the focus of a Feeler type. Look at Immanuel Kant: his entire focus in life was to understand and explain morality philosophically. As a result, he has been highly influential in the thinking of Western Civilization. Kant was super critical in his thought and held a logical sense that is utterly striking. Based on the reasoning which he employed in his writing, it's difficult to imagine he wasn't a Thinking type. And therefore, you're overlooking the possibility that morality is actually a matter of inner conscience and something which we can attempt to understand intellectually (e.g. the philosophical study of morality, Ethics). Therefore, that Socrates was concerned with morality doesn't at all necessarily indicate that he was a Feeler.

    Additionally, justice -- as a concept -- is often attributed to Thinking types, not Feeling types. Mercy, tolerance, and compassion are often attributed to Feeling types. Justice often implies a strong logical sense of right and wrong which cannot be overwhelmed by feelings of compassion and mercy. True justice is what reason ultimately dictates, and that is how Socrates most likely saw justice in his pursuit of it. And I do think virtue is also a concept which many Thinkers have dealt with. It's about integrity and consistency in your character which stands upright and firm -- a rational propriety.

    All in all, Socrates most likely wasn't a Feeler. A Feeler probably wouldn't seek verbal challenges (conflict), aggressively engage others for the sport of argument (to derive understanding), or confront that which everyone else seems to fear questioning. Socrates was bold and daring and didn't seem to fear the same sort of things others did. He followed his reason wherever it led. A Feeler, I'd imagine, is more apt to avoid confrontation, conflict, and challenges in order to retain a sense of harmony, both internal and external. Socrates had no such need for harmony. He only wished to understand and unlock the secrets of the world.

Similar Threads

  1. Each type in 3 words.
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 11-02-2016, 07:32 AM
  2. No Type
    By paulwhy in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-05-2015, 09:01 PM
  3. Help figuring out your type?
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 354
    Last Post: 09-25-2012, 12:12 PM
  4. Socrates' Type
    By Mal12345 in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 08-16-2012, 02:53 AM
  5. [NF] What sort of topics are NF type topics?
    By Alienclock in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 06-23-2007, 09:39 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO