[MBTI General] you must love yourself before anyone else can love you.

[elfsprin]

this is one of those "old adages" that i can't remember the exact phrasing for, it's something along the lines of the thread title, though.

personally, i've heard this adage frequently over the years. it would be incorrect to say that i found it silly, or wrong, or objectionable. however, it was always, for me, something that i found vaguely disquieting; it was something i never really understood, or could evaluate with regards to its truth- this made me highly suspect of the adage, and the people who would parrot it, without really knowing why i felt that way.

just lately, while thinking about love and relationships, i came to an unhappy conclusion and immediately thereafter thought of this adage: it was my 'aha, now i get it' moment.

however, i think my understanding of what this adage means is not really what's generally intended. it strikes me, in fact, that this adage might indeed be true for all people, but for different reasons depending on MBTI type.

the conclusion i came to that lead me to lend credulity to this adage was this: i don't love myself, and because i don't, i would be ashamed to present "who i am" to someone that i was in love with. i would be afraid of that rejection. hence, until i am happy with who i am and love myself, no one else whom i am really interested in will be able to love me- i won't give them the chance. on the other hand, anyone who thinks that they love me (romantically) probably has a misconception about who i really am, and therefore loves the idea they have of me, but not me.

it strikes me that this is a very INTP sort of thing to say, and that other types might not identify with it at all, but that they still might find that the adage holds true- for a different reason.

i wanted to ask you all: what do you think about this adage? have you experienced its truth in your life? is it for a reason similar to mine, or something completely different?

 

[disregard]

Isn't it "you must love yourself before you can love another"?

 

[Kaizer]

just lately, while thinking about love and relationships, i came to an unhappy conclusion and immediately thereafter thought of this adage: it was my 'aha, now i get it' moment.

it strikes me that this is a very INTP sort of thing to say, and that other types might not identify with it at all, but that they still might find that the adage holds true- for a different reason.

'moment of dawning' moments are very INTPish moments, & the must be a construct courtesy Ne, reaching full, complete & wholesome form and hence make meaningfully resonating sense etc.

i wanted to ask you all: what do you think about this adage? have you experienced its truth in your life? is it for a reason similar to mine, or something completely different?

being self critical is more of an INTP hallmark than any other. so I wouldn't phrase it this way, just that maturity isn't a science its an art and it isnt formulaic its organic.

 

[Kollin]

I'm somewhat ambivilant about the statement. I have not really found any reason to believe it is necessarily true. People usually say this to people who are whining that they can't find anybody to love...which to me doesn't seem like a very compassionate response...
though the only earthly reason I can think of for it being true is that when you take care of yourself well can you take care of another...

on the other hand I think it has become a pat answer for those who have become frustrated in the dating game but that's different ball of wax there...

great topic btw!!

 

[elfsprin]

Isn't it "you must love yourself before you can love another"?

that's possible, but i'm pretty sure i've heard it this way as well. or i could be hallucinating.

being self critical is more of an INTP hallmark than any other. so I wouldn't phrase it this way, just that maturity isn't a science its an art and it isn't formulaic its organic.

interesting. but i'm not sure that i would say that loving yourself is a function of maturity in general; i could see INTPs going both ways (having to age up a bit before they were at peace with who they were) or to the contrary, being completely ego-maniacal and really loving themselves whilst also being annoyingly immature. i also think that other types who are more emotionally mature/adept may love themselves a lot, say at age 12, and therefore (because of their age) have a very immature and flimsy concept of their identity- and it does seem to me that this adage does require that you have a firm concept of identity, or at least a strong goal in mind for where you want to go, and who you want to become, in your life. i mean, if it didn't take this into account, then two 12 year olds who love themselves could fall in love with each other, and then as they grow up and find that different (and mutually exclusive) life paths appeal to them, they would then cease to love each other. but then, that 12 year old love, can it really be real, true Love? hmm.

i wonder what other types have experienced here. for example, one concept thrown around a lot in american film is 'redeeming love.' now, if someone loves you and that love helps to inspire you, or to make yourself aware of a desire and a will to become a better person, it seems that someone else was actually able to love you before you were 'loving yourself.' you might reply to that "well, just because this person was bad in blah blah blah way before, perhaps they still loved themselves, and therefore they did love themselves before someone else loved them."

however, the very concept that someone else's love for you would inspire you to change suggests that this person's love, in some way, took into account a future change in you. i mean, if that other person really loved you for this certain bad quality, why in the world would their love for you inspire you to change said quality? they may have loved you 'in spite of' the quality, but then the fact that you became unhappy with yourself as you used to be, and therefore sought change, should have had some effect on their love for you (reciprocity).

it seems to me that there are other instances where someone else can love you in a romantic fashion, even when you really don't love yourself very much at all. but this is all conjecture on my part, which is why i would like other type's perspectives: when it comes to love, especially romantic love, i really have a lot of ineptitude, and a lot of 'i don't know' floating around. so i have this hunch that other types might experience love in different ways, but still find this adage to be true? for a completely different reason than i do?

 

[nolla]

the conclusion i came to that lead me to lend credulity to this adage was this: i don't love myself, and because i don't, i would be ashamed to present "who i am" to someone that i was in love with. i would be afraid of that rejection. hence, until i am happy with who i am and love myself, no one else whom i am really interested in will be able to love me- i won't give them the chance. on the other hand, anyone who thinks that they love me (romantically) probably has a misconception about who i really am, and therefore loves the idea they have of me, but not me.

This is very smart adage, because it can be interpreted in various ways. I'll list a few (I don't remember if it was your version or disregard's):

1) If I don't love myself, the one who I think I love is mostly projection, thus not real.
2) If I don't love myself, I can't love anyone else unconditionally, so it isn't the "purest form" of love.
3) If I don't love myself, I cannot be loved because I don't reveal myself.
4) If I don't love myself how can I expect that anyone would?
5) No matter how much you love someone, you should love yourself more.

No matter how I interpret it, it always comes down to staying real.

 

[nolla]

i wonder what other types have experienced here. for example, one concept thrown around a lot in american film is 'redeeming love.' now, if someone loves you and that love helps to inspire you, or to make yourself aware of a desire and a will to become a better person, it seems that someone else was actually able to love you before you were 'loving yourself.' you might reply to that "well, just because this person was bad in blah blah blah way before, perhaps they still loved themselves, and therefore they did love themselves before someone else loved them."

Well... when you are miserable, depressed and suicidal, are you really you? I don't think you are. So, the redeemer didn't really love you. Most likely the redeemer is pretty messed up because it would be crazy to love a self-loathing guy. You ever seen Leaving Las Vegas?

 

[Misty_Mountain_Rose]

I always took it to mean that you cannot give to another entirely until you accept who you are and learn to live on your own, as a complete entity.

If you are looking for someone else to fulfill missing gaps in yourself you will end up in unhealthy relationships, subconsciously trying to find what you are missing, rather than seeking that balance from within.

Once you reach that point of being content with your own company, accept who you are and create a life of your OWN without leaning on someone else, you will attract the kind of partner that you truly want/need/deserve.

Anything less only creates disaster in my opinion.

 

[nolla]

I agree with you Misty, but I just realized that this is a typical introvert interpretation. I wonder what the Es think about this.

 

[Kaizer]

however, the very concept that someone else's love for you would inspire you to change suggests that this person's love, in some way, took into account a future change in you. i mean, if that other person really loved you for this certain bad quality, why in the world would their love for you inspire you to change said quality? they may have loved you 'in spite of' the quality, but then the fact that you became unhappy with yourself as you used to be, and therefore sought change, should have had some effect on their love for you (reciprocity).

yes, this is also something I think I was alluding to cause depth of perception can be Ne inspired led by Ti. If Si & the inferior Fe can be developed to make for a more wholesome personality (step 1 cause the shadow is another story), then this is likely to be one of the ways in which maturity manifests itself. This I think would manifest itself in all people albeit the propensity to get to this point and the point in time and life is likely to vary given natural propensities of innate qualities and abilities/shortcomings, and circumstances etc

 

[runvardh]

Hmmm.... to truly love someone, faults and all.

 

[elfsprin]

"Love is at first not anything that means merging, giving over, and uniting with another (for what would a union be of something unclarified and unfinished, still subordinate-?); it is a high inducement to the individual to ripen, to become something in himself, to become world, to become world for himself in another's sake."
-Letters to a Young Poet

"So whoever loves must try to act as if he had a great work: he must be much alone and go into himself and collect himself and hold fast to himself; he must work; he must become something!"
-Letters to a Young Poet

"Love is something difficult and it is more difficult than other things because in other conflicts nature herself enjoins men to collect themselves, to take themselves firmly in the hand with all their strength, while in the heightening of love the impulse is to give oneself wholly away."
-Letters to a Young Poet

"The demands which the difficult work of love makes upon our development are more than life-size, and as beginners we are not up to them."
-Letters to a Young Poet

"All companionship can consist only in the strengthening of two neighboring solitudes, whereas everything that one is wont to call giving oneself is by nature harmful to companionship: for when a person abandons himself, he is no longer anything, and when two people both give themselves up in order to come close to eachother, there is no longer any ground beneath them and their being together is a continual falling."
-Letters to a Young Poet


i wanted to add these to this thread, as i have them in the back of my mind whenever i think or write about love. they're all from Rilke, and when i read them i think 'YES!' i really see a lot of validity in what he has to say about the need to 'become something' before entering into love. but again, i wonder if other types would identify as strongly, and as positively, with these quotes. is it so?

i ask because it seems to me that other types might naturally focus more on change, and changing. hopefully, a person's identity is never static- it is always growing, expanding, and filling out. however, while i do acknowledge this and strive to be always adapting and growing, i have to admit that my strongest focus is always on the idea of a 'finished product,' and i think that may be something that is closely tied to INTP. therefore, i think different types would have a different subconscious 'criteria' which they would strive to acheive before they really 'loved themselves,' and this criteria would differ based on what you focused on: having already become something, or the process of becoming something continually for your whole life. thoughts?

 

[nomadic]

personally, i've heard this adage frequently over the years. it would be incorrect to say that i found it silly, or wrong, or objectionable. however, it was always, for me, something that i found vaguely disquieting; it was something i never really understood, or could evaluate with regards to its truth- this made me highly suspect of the adage, and the people who would parrot it, without really knowing why i felt that way.

Yeah, i never understood this phrase either.

how do you love yourself? give yourself a hug?

i get thinking of yourself first, but loving yourself? not sure what that means... give yourself flowers and pour yourself a glass of wine and become romantic with yourself? (huh?) respect your own needs before others if you are too giving? ( I get that...)

 

[nolla]

Be selfish first, that is how I understood it.

 

[Skyward]

I always took it to mean that you cannot give to another entirely until you accept who you are and learn to live on your own, as a complete entity.

If you are looking for someone else to fulfill missing gaps in yourself you will end up in unhealthy relationships, subconsciously trying to find what you are missing, rather than seeking that balance from within.

Once you reach that point of being content with your own company, accept who you are and create a life of your OWN without leaning on someone else, you will attract the kind of partner that you truly want/need/deserve.

Anything less only creates disaster in my opinion.

I learned this from an E friend of mine, the old adage is just a coined term for it

I just say: 'If I were a bed, only if I could sleep on me would I let someone else sleep on me'

 

[nolla]

I must say, beds don't live very fulfilling lives.

 

[kiddykat]

Be selfish first, that is how I understood it.

That's how I initially took it when I first heard this line. After that, I learned the hard way.

My take on it now is- in order to be happy with someone else, we have to be happy with ourselves first. Far too often, people who get into rebound relationships don't realize that they actually do need time to heal, in which they don't, so they hop from one relationship to another. They find themselves getting hurt in the same situation again. It's not until they wake up and realize that they've lost so much of themselves- so they couldn't really give 100% to the relationship. End result, the relationship fails. and they end up feeling more disenchanted, even more disillusioned. Therefore, it's important to focus on loving ourselves first, to take time off to make ourselves whole again before we jump into the next relationship. By then, we're finally ready- so to speak.

 

[elfsprin]

I'm somewhat ambivilant about the statement. I have not really found any reason to believe it is necessarily true. People usually say this to people who are whining that they can't find anybody to love...which to me doesn't seem like a very compassionate response...
though the only earthly reason I can think of for it being true is that when you take care of yourself well can you take care of another...

on the other hand I think it has become a pat answer for those who have become frustrated in the dating game but that's different ball of wax there...

great topic btw!!

yeah- before my 'grand realization,' part of that disquiet i mentioned feeling definitely had to do with feeling like this must in some way be sort of a cliche that bordered on being an excuse.

thanks

 

[elfsprin]

This is very smart adage, because it can be interpreted in various ways. I'll list a few (I don't remember if it was your version or disregard's):

1) If I don't love myself, the one who I think I love is mostly projection, thus not real.
2) If I don't love myself, I can't love anyone else unconditionally, so it isn't the "purest form" of love.
3) If I don't love myself, I cannot be loved because I don't reveal myself.
4) If I don't love myself how can I expect that anyone would?
5) No matter how much you love someone, you should love yourself more.

No matter how I interpret it, it always comes down to staying real.

yes- now that i'm a bit older, have had some more romantic experience, and have found a way to view this adage positively, i would also agree that its greatest claim to truth is its call for one to be authentic- and not just to be authentic, but to have your true self be something that is honestly accessible to others. a daunting task!

 

[elfsprin]

Well... when you are miserable, depressed and suicidal, are you really you? I don't think you are. So, the redeemer didn't really love you. Most likely the redeemer is pretty messed up because it would be crazy to love a self-loathing guy. You ever seen Leaving Las Vegas?

this brings up an interested second perspective on the issue. an example scenario:

what if someone was actually pretty great, but due mostly to the influence and input of others with malicious intent they had come to perceive of themself as worthless and broken. i don't want to paint a picture here of someone who is timid and victimized, but rather of someone who has a strong character, who acts on this negative concept of themself by putting themself continually 'through the ringer' in their attempts to become a better person. what could redemptive love look like in that scenario, what kind of a person would the redeemer have to be? this seems like a plausible scenario to me.