S
Sniffles
Guest
I'm willing to consider François-René de Chateaubriand, the father of French Romanticism, a possible INFP or at the least XNFP. This is based upon what I know about him, and especially upon reading excerpts of his famous work The Genius of Christianity.
Chateubriand wrote the work in wake of Napoleon's restoration of the Catholic faith, and sought to defend its tenets against the notions upheld during the Enlightenment. It's form of argumentation is largely emotional based, and it's commonly joked that despite its beautiful prose - it never actually proves anything.
I think that's rather unfair, but I can see how one can come to that conclusion.
A perfect example is this:
"There is a God. The plants of the valley and the cedars of the mountain bless his name; the insect hums his praise; the elephant salutes him with the rising day; the bird glorifies him among the foliage; the lightening bespeaks his power, and the ocean declares his immensity. Man alone has said, 'There is no God'."
Beautifully written, but I reluctantly must admit it doesn't prove God's existence at all.
His basic argument was that Christianity is true because it's beautiful. In its wake it produced wonderful Catherdals, inspiring chants, and masterpieces of art, etc. Again, I agree as to the argument here as far as culture goes, but it doesn't prove that Christianity is actually the true religion.
I also wish to present two other statements of his that to me seem to point to INFP:
"Long experience has proved to me that religion is the one true thing on earth."
"As it grew, my religious conviction has devoured my other convictions, (but) in this world there is no more believing Christian and no more doubting man than I."
The second statement seems to point to Ne.
These are just my preliminary thoughts. If somebody has a different opinion, I'm more than willing to hear it.
Chateubriand wrote the work in wake of Napoleon's restoration of the Catholic faith, and sought to defend its tenets against the notions upheld during the Enlightenment. It's form of argumentation is largely emotional based, and it's commonly joked that despite its beautiful prose - it never actually proves anything.
I think that's rather unfair, but I can see how one can come to that conclusion.
A perfect example is this:
"There is a God. The plants of the valley and the cedars of the mountain bless his name; the insect hums his praise; the elephant salutes him with the rising day; the bird glorifies him among the foliage; the lightening bespeaks his power, and the ocean declares his immensity. Man alone has said, 'There is no God'."
Beautifully written, but I reluctantly must admit it doesn't prove God's existence at all.
His basic argument was that Christianity is true because it's beautiful. In its wake it produced wonderful Catherdals, inspiring chants, and masterpieces of art, etc. Again, I agree as to the argument here as far as culture goes, but it doesn't prove that Christianity is actually the true religion.
I also wish to present two other statements of his that to me seem to point to INFP:
"Long experience has proved to me that religion is the one true thing on earth."
"As it grew, my religious conviction has devoured my other convictions, (but) in this world there is no more believing Christian and no more doubting man than I."
The second statement seems to point to Ne.
These are just my preliminary thoughts. If somebody has a different opinion, I'm more than willing to hear it.