• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[NT] Romantic Love = Mental Problem?

TheLastMohican

New member
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
328
MBTI Type
ENTJ
You have created a false definition. Empiricism is the belief that experience and evidence, as derived from the senses, is the source of true knowledge. "Personal" is not part of the definition, so your explanation is false. We compare our experiences all the time, and it is for that reason we are able to progress. Whereas the rationalist argues that reason is the only source of knowledge. All the while ignoring the reality that reason is based upon observations which were derived from the senses. Reason is the tool of experience, not the other way around.



You think you can get close to obtaining 100% of knowledge? Rationalism, taken to the extreme as it often is by INTJs, is nothing but a defense mechanism designed to protect the ego from the external world. Thus, being "perfectly rational" means creating an objective reality in your head and denying any experience from the outside world which conflicts with it.

I think we passed each other in the dark here. I agree with most of what you are saying, except you say you are describing empiricism.
The Merriam Webster Dictionary definition:
empiricism



Main Entry: em
 

TheLastMohican

New member
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
328
MBTI Type
ENTJ
You have created a false definition. Empiricism is the belief that experience and evidence, as derived from the senses, is the source of true knowledge. "Personal" is not part of the definition, so your explanation is false. We compare our experiences all the time, and it is for that reason we are able to progress. Whereas the rationalist argues that reason is the only source of knowledge. All the while ignoring the reality that reason is based upon observations which were derived from the senses. Reason is the tool of experience, not the other way around.



You think you can get close to obtaining 100% of knowledge? Rationalism, taken to the extreme as it often is by INTJs, is nothing but a defense mechanism designed to protect the ego from the external world. Thus, being "perfectly rational" means creating an objective reality in your head and denying any experience from the outside world which conflicts with it.

Oh, shoot, somehow my extremely long post got cut off near the beginning when I tried to post it. I really can't stay up later here, so I'll have to continue tomorrow.
 

typo

New member
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
54
MBTI Type
INTJ
At least there's no such thing as unrequited Schizophrenia.
 

typo

New member
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
54
MBTI Type
INTJ
Is rationalism a defense mechanism?

You think you can get close to obtaining 100% of knowledge? Rationalism, taken to the extreme as it often is by INTJs, is nothing but a defense mechanism designed to protect the ego from the external world. Thus, being "perfectly rational" means creating an objective reality in your head and denying any experience from the outside world which conflicts with it.

I would define someone who is rational (to the extreme) as someone who withholds belief in anything not substantiated by evidence--a hardlined skeptic. It is an interesting question whether some people might become skeptics out of emotional comfort, but whether they do or not, I do not see how "denying experience" would have a genuine role in a skeptic's position--especially an extreme skeptic. Extreme skeptics avoid all attachments to particular views of the world "created in their heads" as you put it; that's exactly what they want to avoid. In order to have some confidence in what little they know (or more importantly to know what they do not know) everything else gets rejected. Still I had never thought of this position as being emotionally comforting before, but I think for me at least, it is comforting. And I am far from perfectly rational.
 
R

RDF

Guest
They pointed out how a lot of musicians and scientists hit the creative wall at about the point in time that they get married at, suggesting that much of your biological creativity is around so that you can attract yourself a mate.

That's the way I look at it. The purpose of brains and achievements is for attaining the best partner and the best love. Other than that, what the hell else are brains good for? ;)

At least there's no such thing as unrequited Schizophrenia.

:laugh:
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
I would define someone who is rational (to the extreme) as someone who withholds belief in anything not substantiated by evidence--a hardlined skeptic. It is an interesting question whether some people might become skeptics out of emotional comfort, but whether they do or not, I do not see how "denying experience" would have a genuine role in a skeptic's position--especially an extreme skeptic. Extreme skeptics avoid all attachments to particular views of the world "created in their heads" as you put it; that's exactly what they want to avoid. In order to have some confidence in what little they know (or more importantly to know what they do not know) everything else gets rejected. Still I had never thought of this position as being emotionally comforting before, but I think for me at least, it is comforting. And I am far from perfectly rational.

Your definition is one sided.

Rationalism divides into two perspectives. These are relativism and objectivism. Extreme relativists are skeptics. They hold that reason dictates that nothing in the world is knowable. Extreme objectivists believe in the infallibility of their reasoning. They believe, through reason, they can know everything in the world, and follow the idea of "enlightened self interest" which denotes the ego protection I was discussing earlier. INTJ rationalists are most commonly objectivists, and so that is why I made the argument in Duke of York's case that being "perfectly rational" means creating an objective reality in his head and denying any experience from the outside world which conflicts with it. This has nothing to do with "emotional comfort". The ego's main purpose is to keep the individual safe, and it does so by reasoning through the id's primitive impulses and the super ego's emotional impulses. Rationalism taken to the extreme is the ego seeking to justify not acting on altruistic impulses by arguing that such impulses are irrational and the individual can only help others by protecting themselves.

I believe my argument is the most realistic. People gather information through their senses, and from those observations they form perceptions of the world around them (experience). They then can share those perceptions with others, and through measurements and methodology (science), they can observe consistency from their observations and deduce truths (reason). Hence, reason is the tool of experience. Extreme rationalists, however, believe only in the process of reason and ignore the role of experience and science as necessary to understanding the world. Just like Duke of York, they believe the pinnacle of human existence is becoming completely rational. Sadly, being completely rational means being driven by your ego to protect yourself above all others and effectively denying yourself the experiences of being human. Hence why Duke of York is arguing that "love" is dangerous, because he wants a rational justification for avoiding the experience.
 

nemo

Active member
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
445
Enneagram
<3
I hear it's worth while too. To my knowledge, I've never been in love, but I know what it's done for others, how it makes them feel. Joining your energy to someone else's can be all the difference between making it and going under sometimes.

Me neither. I gather that not knowing makes it unlikely I've ever been in love. :huh:

But yes, I agree.

And as much as I hate to admit this, since it's contrary to some part of my inner-being, life is not rational. I wish it was. Terrible, horrifying things happen to amazing people for no discernible reason, while at the same time luck befalls those who've not toiled for its attention. Weird.

Life is just too irrecoverably shattered by differing human perception, putting a permanent, gaping chasm between people and anything approaching absolute truth. It is, on many levels, impossible to make sense of this senseless world; and I've found that, in practice anyway, order, unity, and continuity are ad-hoc human inventions imposed upon reality.

Not to get all post-modern on you guys, or anything.

But if you can find someone to forage your own meaning with, enjoy life in all it's absurdity and irony, someone with whom you can marvel at this beautiful spectacle of existence, and find happiness and endurance in the chaos of life -- well, then, I think that's about as close to the truth as you can be.

That's why I think you might as well enjoy those brief moments of insanity. As Pink said, they can be all the difference between making it and going under.

But to the OP: if you can live well enough alone and without that, more power to you. But I don't see any reason why you shouldn't at least try it. Love usually isn't fatal (ahem), and I personally don't think you'll necessarily "need it" after experiencing it.

And besides, if you do become addicted, they say that love is curable by marriage. ;)
 

TheLastMohican

New member
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
328
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Your definition is one sided.

Rationalism divides into two perspectives. These are relativism and objectivism. Extreme relativists are skeptics. They hold that reason dictates that nothing in the world is knowable. Extreme objectivists believe in the infallibility of their reasoning. They believe, through reason, they can know everything in the world, and follow the idea of "enlightened self interest" which denotes the ego protection I was discussing earlier. INTJ rationalists are most commonly objectivists, and so that is why I made the argument in Duke of York's case that being "perfectly rational" means creating an objective reality in his head and denying any experience from the outside world which conflicts with it. This has nothing to do with "emotional comfort". The ego's main purpose is to keep the individual safe, and it does so by reasoning through the id's primitive impulses and the super ego's emotional impulses. Rationalism taken to the extreme is the ego seeking to justify not acting on altruistic impulses by arguing that such impulses are irrational and the individual can only help others by protecting themselves.

I believe my argument is the most realistic. People gather information through their senses, and from those observations they form perceptions of the world around them (experience). They then can share those perceptions with others, and through measurements and methodology (science), they can observe consistency from their observations and deduce truths (reason). Hence, reason is the tool of experience. Extreme rationalists, however, believe only in the process of reason and ignore the role of experience and science as necessary to understanding the world. Just like Duke of York, they believe the pinnacle of human existence is becoming completely rational. Sadly, being completely rational means being driven by your ego to protect yourself above all others and effectively denying yourself the experiences of being human. Hence why Duke of York is arguing that "love" is dangerous, because he wants a rational justification for avoiding the experience.

Time out: I looked up "rationalist," and discovered I am not a true one, but closer to your description of the "empiricism tempered by reasoning," given a certain definition of "tempered by reasoning."
I had written a long post on this that disappeared (argh)...I don't want to fill this thread with posts about Rationalism vs. Empiricism or whatever else might come up, so shall we take the the discussion to a new thread?
Oh, and I should cover the love part on this thread: As I said earlier, I am seeking insight from others about their logic and why they seek love. I am not declaring you all irrational, but I am trying to find out why you subject yourselves to an irrational state. And I did not look for a rational justification to avoid the experience, it is just there, and I want to know what way the rest of you have found around it. *sigh*
Now, how about that new thread? Your call.
 

Priam

New member
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
272
MBTI Type
INTP
And as much as I hate to admit this, since it's contrary to some part of my inner-being, life is not rational. I wish it was. Terrible, horrifying things happen to amazing people for no discernible reason, while at the same time luck befalls those who've not toiled for its attention. Weird.

Life is just too irrecoverably shattered by differing human perception, putting a permanent, gaping chasm between people and anything approaching absolute truth. It is, on many levels, impossible to make sense of this senseless world; and I've found that, in practice anyway, order, unity, and continuity are ad-hoc human inventions imposed upon reality.

Not to get all post-modern on you guys, or anything.

I would both agree and disagree, as is my wont to do. Life and this world are absolutely not rational or logical, but they are reasonable. The crucial thing for a thinker to accept is that reason does not equal logic, but they both still serve to explain phenomena. Everything done in this world by humanity is done for a reason, however warped and twisted that might be, and seeing deeply into it allows one to come closer in knowing the cause and/or, sometimes more importantly, the prevention of it in the future. The fundamental break, and what makes stereotypical NFs so much better at dealing diplomatically than stereotypical NTs, is acceptance that things making no rational sense can nevertheless be true, pertinent and useful.

But if you can find someone to forage your own meaning with, enjoy life in all it's absurdity and irony, someone with whom you can marvel at this beautiful spectacle of existence, and find happiness and endurance in the chaos of life -- well, then, I think that's about as close to the truth as you can be.

That's why I think you might as well enjoy those brief moments of insanity. As Pink said, they can be all the difference between making it and going under.

But to the OP: if you can live well enough alone and without that, more power to you. But I don't see any reason why you shouldn't at least try it. Love usually isn't fatal (ahem), and I personally don't think you'll necessarily "need it" after experiencing it.

And besides, if you do become addicted, they say that love is curable by marriage. ;)

Precisely.
 

TheLastMohican

New member
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
328
MBTI Type
ENTJ
I think the OP might be a little misrepresentative. Dopamine is the culprit here. It's the neurotransmitter that is found in high quantities in those who are schizophrenic and those who are in love. Dopamine is associated with the pleasure center of the brain; the area that has to deal with rewards and motivation. It also controls the flow of information in the frontal lobes, which is the center of our neurocognitive functions.

Dopamine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Avoiding love would be like trying to avoid classical conditioning. It just isn't possible.

Impossible. That is a little unsettling, but it might very well be true. It would be nice if I had absolute control over such things, but I know that I don't. However, if you simply avoid the person you think you might be fallingin love with, and don't see the person for a long time, wouldn't your condition go away?
 

Priam

New member
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
272
MBTI Type
INTP
Impossible. That is a little unsettling, but it might very well be true. It would be nice if I had absolute control over such things, but I know that I don't. However, if you simply avoid the person you think you might be fallingin love with, and don't see the person for a long time, wouldn't your condition go away?

Not necessarily. Infatuation is rather more about the idea of a person, not the reality. Many people stay quite obsessed regardless of the partner's presence.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
Time out: I looked up "rationalist," and discovered I am not a true one, but closer to your description of the "empiricism tempered by reasoning," given a certain definition of "tempered by reasoning."
I had written a long post on this that disappeared (argh)...I don't want to fill this thread with posts about Rationalism vs. Empiricism or whatever else might come up, so shall we take the the discussion to a new thread?
Oh, and I should cover the love part on this thread: As I said earlier, I am seeking insight from others about their logic and why they seek love. I am not declaring you all irrational, but I am trying to find out why you subject yourselves to an irrational state. And I did not look for a rational justification to avoid the experience, it is just there, and I want to know what way the rest of you have found around it. *sigh*
Now, how about that new thread? Your call.

I was merely commenting on what I perceived as disturbing thoughts. Valuing reason above experience proves to be unhealthy. But the reality is that falling in love is almost never a choice. It is an unconscious process. In fact, those who look for love find it very difficult to fall in love. As Mr. Twig on South Park said, "We can't choose who we fall in love with. If we could it would be a whole lot easier, but it would be a lot less magical." ;)
 

TheLastMohican

New member
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
328
MBTI Type
ENTJ
I was merely commenting on what I perceived as disturbing thoughts. Valuing reason above experience proves to be unhealthy. But the reality is that falling in love is almost never a choice. It is an unconscious process. In fact, those who look for love find it very difficult to fall in love. As Mr. Twig on South Park said, "We can't choose who we fall in love with. If we could it would be a whole lot easier, but it would be a lot less magical." ;)

It is hard to define "valuing" reason or experience. Experience can mislead you, since it is not representative. Reason, as long as it is correctly applied, is foolproof. What makes me not a true Rationalist is that I do not believe that reason alone can provide full understanding. The principles of reason must have basis in fact, which is proven through a large sample of experience (example: gravity is fact, because we have never seen it fail).

(Speaking of that, you said my definition of empiricism was made-up and false; how so? I looked up the dictionary definition, and I did add "personal," but how does that change the meaning? You do not have experience outside of your personal experience.)

I am starting a new thread, where you can continue if you like.
I will post the link here...

http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...20-rationalism-empiricism-etc.html#post164244
 
Last edited:

TheLastMohican

New member
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
328
MBTI Type
ENTJ
That's the way I look at it. The purpose of brains and achievements is for attaining the best partner and the best love. Other than that, what the hell else are brains good for? ;)



:laugh:

Hm. So I suppose if don't have a girlfriend, and don't want one, then I might as well jump off a cliff?

Love is the least of our priorities. How about using our brains to solve the mysteries of the universe?
 

Wandering

Highly Hollow
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
873
MBTI Type
INFJ
Whoa, I did sound like some kind of verbose professor in paragraph.
I guess that is why you found my being an NT so funny?
I didn't find your being an NT to be funny. What I found funny was how *obviously* you are an NT: not the same thing ;)

Well, I would have a greater understanding of human thought. But is it worth it? I could also have a greater understanding of a homicidal psychopath's mind if I was caused to think like him for a month or two, but I simply do not want to understand it. If something is irrational, all there is to understand is that you don't want to be so corrupted as to be able to understand it.
How can you hope to solve the mysteries of the Universe if you don't even understand how your neighbour is thinking ;) ?

Okay, next: The highest form of living. Those who are irrational probably enjoy life more most of the time. Ignorance is bliss for those who suffer from it. In my case, though, I would know what I once had, and would feel the loss of my rational quality.
Yes, but how do you know you wouldn't enjoy what love brings you? You don't know that. Maybe this loss of your rational quality would be *worth* it?

Being afraid to fall in love because you will be slightly unreasonable for a few months, is like being afraid to go swimming because you won't be able to walk on the floor. No you won't be able to walk, but you will discover about swimming. Is it worth it? Nobody knows before they try. Some people hate swimming, others love it, and you can't know where you'll fall on that spectrum until you actually try it. Saying "nah, I won't like it because I won't be able to walk" is unreasonable: you don't KNOW that.

All right, I understand your point. People like to be in love. But then they complain when it doesn't work out, and a great deal of emotional upheaval results when the love is over. What if it causes more pain than pleasure? Overall, would most people have been happier if they hadn't gotten into the vicious circle in the first place?
Maybe, maybe not. But we'll never know. Because nobody can have it both ways. Maybe you'll be happier if you stay away from love - or maybe you'll live a life that, no matter how grand it is, will be comparably miserable next to what could have been if you had let love in. You'll NEVER know, because you have to choose one OR the other. Statistics can't help you, reason can't help you, logic can't help you, because you have only ONE life, and thus must make a choice.

***

However, if you simply avoid the person you think you might be fallingin love with, and don't see the person for a long time, wouldn't your condition go away?
Never worked for me :laugh:

***

Love is the least of our priorities. How about using our brains to solve the mysteries of the universe?
And? What good will that do to anyone? How will it make people HAPPIER? Especially when compared to good ol' LUUUURVE ;) ?
 

Nameless

New member
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
105
MBTI Type
ENFP
Hm. So I suppose if don't have a girlfriend, and don't want one, then I might as well jump off a cliff?

Love is the least of our priorities. How about using our brains to solve the mysteries of the universe?

Isn't love one of the mysteries of the universe?
 

cafe

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
9,827
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Most of your best investments carry some sizable risk. Different people have different levels of risk tolerance.

Myself, I attempted to reduce risks where I could. There is a lot of study done on factors that contribute to successful long term romantic relationships, so the data is out there. The infatuation lasts only a few months to a few years, a tiny portion of a lifespan, so it isn't that huge a deal. Just because you have strong feelings about someone does not mean you cannot analyze the concrete factors and act intelligently. You don't lose all power of will.

Being in a happy partnership has many long term physical and mental health benefits and it is also extremely pleasant. But it is an investment and, of course, there is risk. Each person has to decide if and what they are willing to invest.
 

Seanan

Procrastinating
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
954
MBTI Type
INTJ
Isn't love one of the mysteries of the universe?

Yeh, kinda like the God debate.... can't actually prove it exists... just personal experience, rhetoric from others... have to view the results of the intangible and take it on faith that it does.
 

Judous

New member
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
79
MBTI Type
INTP
Love isn't a mystery; also it is not illogical or irrational. I think that a lot of people do not approach it the way they should

I basically look at it like this. If I feel I love that person then I ask myself... do they enrich my life? Do I only love them because I’m looking for someone to love? Would we be able to make it a long time with each other? I ask myself these questions because the feeling of love is not the only thing dictating whether or not you should be with someone, which is merely one of the aspects. Though an important one obviously.

I usually approach love like I would a poker game. I fold if I know I don't have a great chance at winning. When I have the best possible hand that’s when I start making big bets. Because even though you’re gambling a lot of what you have, that big pot can you back a lot more.
 
Last edited:

TheLastMohican

New member
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
328
MBTI Type
ENTJ
I didn't find your being an NT to be funny. What I found funny was how *obviously* you are an NT: not the same thing ;)


How can you hope to solve the mysteries of the Universe if you don't even understand how your neighbour is thinking ;) ?


Yes, but how do you know you wouldn't enjoy what love brings you? You don't know that. Maybe this loss of your rational quality would be *worth* it?

Being afraid to fall in love because you will be slightly unreasonable for a few months, is like being afraid to go swimming because you won't be able to walk on the floor. No you won't be able to walk, but you will discover about swimming. Is it worth it? Nobody knows before they try. Some people hate swimming, others love it, and you can't know where you'll fall on that spectrum until you actually try it. Saying "nah, I won't like it because I won't be able to walk" is unreasonable: you don't KNOW that.


Maybe, maybe not. But we'll never know. Because nobody can have it both ways. Maybe you'll be happier if you stay away from love - or maybe you'll live a life that, no matter how grand it is, will be comparably miserable next to what could have been if you had let love in. You'll NEVER know, because you have to choose one OR the other. Statistics can't help you, reason can't help you, logic can't help you, because you have only ONE life, and thus must make a choice.

***


Never worked for me :laugh:

***


And? What good will that do to anyone? How will it make people HAPPIER? Especially when compared to good ol' LUUUURVE ;) ?

You sound a bit like my INFJ mother. :) (I don't mean that in a bad way.)

I appreciate your advice. My one objection is that when you go swimming, you know you can get out of the pool whenever you want to.

I think the prospect of my potential achievements being lessened by marriage is something want to avoid at all costs. I do not care how enjoyable the other choice might be; I care about my legacy (especially the way I view my purposefulness in my own head).
 
Top