Maximilien Robespierre

[Athenian200]

Maximilien Robespierre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was reading about the French Revolution recently, and I noticed something interesting. For some reason or other, I end up sympathizing with him rather than the people who stopped him, because most of what he said about things made sense to me. This leads me to suspect that he might be an NJ of some sort.

What type do you think he was?

 

[Lauren Ashley]

INTJ.

 

[Athenian200]

INTJ.

Huh. Well, I was thinking he might be an ENxJ of some kind, but I can see that too. I kind of thought he might be too political, ethically aware, and persuasive for a ITJ, but if he was one, he must have been an unusually charismatic and perceptive one.

 

[Lauren Ashley]

Definitely a NiTe type, Fe is completely out of the question (ever read Justification of the Use of Terror?). I'm somewhat interested in political leaders/tyrants, and I've read numerous pieces on him. All have described him as a bookish man, "strong, but silent." He was known as a timid and nervous child who lacked social skills and focused primarily on his studies.

 

[Lauren Ashley]

I kind of thought he might be too political, ethically aware, and persuasive for a ITJ, but if he was one, he must have been an unusually charismatic and perceptive one.

He wasn't very charismatic, IMO. He just laid down the law, and others were too afraid to oppose him.

 

[Athenian200]

He was known as a timid and nervous child who lacked social skills and focused primarily on his studies.

That could describe me, too.

I guess I just have trouble imagining a TJ as being timid and nervous. I always got the impression they were a lot more confident.

He wasn't very charismatic, IMO. He just laid down the law, and others were too afraid to oppose him.

Well, that was after he had power, though. Didn't he have to be somewhat persuasive/charismatic, or at least subtle and aware of how people see/react to things, to get into power in the first place?

It's just that a lot of what he says seems irrationally idealistic and rooted in a sense of ethics rather than simply being pragmatic. Which had me considering EFJ and ETJ, but I guess not, if he didn't have social skills.

Hmm... well, maybe I don't know INTJs as well as I thought I did, if he could be one.

 

[Lauren Ashley]

That could describe me, too.

...Wellll



Anyway, yes, that could go for an INFJ too. But his Te is quite clear.

I guess I just have trouble imagining a TJ as being timid and nervous. I always got the impression they were a lot more confident.

INTJs can be timid, especially when younger.

Well, that was after he had power, though. Didn't he have to be somewhat persuasive/charismatic to get into power in the first place?

He wasn't completely without persuasion, but he wasn't Hitler. France was divided at the time, and his ideas made sense (initially). He appealed to the commoners who made up the majority.

It's just that a lot of what he says seems irrationally idealistic and rooted in a sense of ethics rather than simply being pragmatic.

He was both. Ni is idealistic, Te is pragmatic. He led with his personal ideals, IOW Ni. And Ni is an irrational function.

This is a snippet of his speech at Louis XVI's execution:

This is no trial; Louis is not a prisoner at the bar; you are not judges; you are you cannot but be statesmen, and the representatives of the nation. You have not to pass sentence for or against a single man, but you have to take a resolution on a question of the public safety, and to decide a question of national foresight.

He is saying it is not a judgement of the King as right or wrong. But the king must be executed for the future health of the nation; it only made sense. It was a very logical deduction and easy to follow (Te): The king has been found to be one of the main causes of France's ills, let's get rid of him.

 

[Athenian200]

He was both. Ni is idealistic, Te is pragmatic. He led with his personal ideals, IOW Ni. And Ni is an irrational function.

This is a snippet of his speech at Louis XVI's execution:

He is saying it is not a judgement of the King as right or wrong. But the king must be executed for the future health of the nation; it only made sense. It was a very logical deduction and easy to follow (Te): The king has been found to be one of the main causes of France's ills, let's get rid of him.

Aha, that makes sense. And I guess the fact that he was concerned with the future health of the nation rather than his own personal gain... could still be within the range of an INTJs Fi.

I always wondered how someone could reconcile personal ideals with pragmatism... it really never made sense to me that an idealistic person could be pragmatic. Oh, well... I guess INTJs figure it out somehow.

 

[Lauren Ashley]

Aha, that makes sense. And I guess the fact that he was concerned with the future health of the nation rather than his own personal gain... could still be within the range of an INTJs Fi.

Exactly. Ni-Fi.

I always wondered how someone could reconcile personal ideals with pragmatism... it really never made sense to me that an idealistic person could be pragmatic. Oh, well... I guess INTJs figure it out somehow.

All NJs do, to an extent. They're Ns but also Js...making dreams a reality.

 

[Halla74]

He is the first to use the term "terrorism." I just took an "Introduction to Terrorism" class, in which this quote was listed:

Robespierre:

"If virtue be the spring of a popular government in times of peace, the spring of that government during a revolution is virtue combined with terror: virtue, without which terror is destructive; terror, without which virtue is impotent."

One pissed of fellow he was! :horor:

 

[Lauren Ashley]

Robespierre:

"If virtue be the spring of a popular government in times of peace, the spring of that government during a revolution is virtue combined with terror: virtue, without which terror is destructive; terror, without which virtue is impotent."

One pissed of fellow he was! :horor:

He wasn't pissed off (per se, he was a revolutionary and radical). He just wanted to bring equality to France, in line with his personal visions of what France could be. And he had the dogged persistence/steamrolling tendencies to accomplish that. I would say he is a good example of how to achieve goals (actually, he is to me), but he faced the guillotine in the end, as well.

 

[Halla74]

Dear Lauren,

Time to split some atoms...

He wasn't pissed off (per se, he was a revolutionary and radical). He just wanted to bring equality to France, in line with his personal visions of what France could be. And he had the dogged persistence/steamrolling tendencies to accomplish that.

(1) OK, so without a time machine neither of us can prove beyond a reasonable doubt EXACTLY what type of mood Robespierre was in when he decided to begin his great regin of terror. BUT - Consider this:

1. Terrorists are intolerant.
2. Terrorists believe in moral absolutes.
3. They draw broad conclusions.
4. They have their own codes of conduct.
5. They formulate new language to support their belief system.
6. Terrorist use extraordinary violence to achieve their political/religious goals, and to desire to have a psychological impact broader than the immediate victims of an attack.

Do the characteristics above seem like those adhered to by calm, politically righteous, and rational people, OR do they seem like those of a "pissed off" person?

I would say he is a good example of how to achieve goals (actually, he is to me), but he faced the guillotine in the end, as well.

(2) Are you saying that you believe terrorism is a GOOD way to achieve goals OR are you saying terrorism is an EFFECTIVE way to achieve goals?

To me, there is a vast difference between the two. I myself cannot advocate the killing of innocent civilians via acts of extraordinary violence to achieve a political objective, but if you're cool with that...well...you do have a right to your own opinion.

Smooches!



-Alex

 

[Athenian200]

I myself cannot advocate the killing of innocent civilians via acts of extraordinary violence to achieve a political objective, but if you're cool with that...well...you do have a right to your own opinion.

Smooches!



-Alex

Thanks, glad to hear it.

. . .

Viva la Revolucion! Mwahaha!

(Hey, come on... if I'd consider killing thousands of innocent people to secure a job for myself, how much more do you think I'd do it for a meaningful political objective? Luckily for most of you, I'm not into politics or personal risk. )

 

[cinema]

Link: Logical-intuitive introvert (Robespierre, The Analyst)

Russian socionics people seem to think this guy was the ultimate example of INTJness. Search for the (badly translated from Russian) LII type descriptions on wikipedia.


Edit: nuther link

Link: bad translation

 

[Athenian200]

Link: Logical-intuitive introvert (Robespierre, The Analyst)

Russian socionics people seem to think this guy was the ultimate example of INTJness. Search for the (badly translated from Russian) LII type descriptions on wikipedia.

Oh, yeah, that's right... he was the LII archetype. I forgot.

What's funny is, I always test as LII in Socionics despite always testing as INFJ in MBTI. That could be because my F is only around 60%, and thus the subtle differences in definition are enough to result in a shift for me. Weird, but I guess stranger things happen.

On top of that, they seem to remove the elements of INTJ that I don't identify with from LII descriptions. Specifically, it's because that belligerent, consistently blunt, crass, willful streak that turned me off of INTJ in the first place is removed, and the emphasized effort to adhere to social rules to maintain the appearance of politeness is added.

 

[heart]

Compare him to Thomas Jefferson, a man I feel fairly sure was INFJ. My supporting information at the link.

Quote:
Jeffersonian Legacies‎ by Peter S. Onuf
p.129

"He was by nature sensitive to criticism and averse to direct conflict. Yet, as was his nature, he transformed his inclinations into maxims, and when they
Applied to public affairs, they became part of an emergent political culture...

 

[Lauren Ashley]

First of all LMAO at an ESTP trying to teach me about what's morally "right" and "wrong." I can do that myself quite nicely, thank you.

(1) OK, so without a time machine neither of us can prove beyond a reasonable doubt EXACTLY what type of mood Robespierre was in when he decided to begin his great regin of terror.

So then why did you say that he was pissed off, since we can't know?

And I only said he wasn't because it seemed as if you were remarking on him being generally a pissed off person (which wasn't the case according to historical documents), and using that quote as an example.

*terroristcrap*

Do the characteristics above seem like those adhered to by calm, politically righteous, and rational people, OR do they seem like those of a "pissed off" person?

So we are trying to discern his emotional state (at any given point in time, which is what I disagreed with in the first place)? Let me know when you make up your mind.

(2) Are you saying that you believe terrorism is a GOOD way to achieve goals OR are you saying terrorism is an EFFECTIVE way to achieve goals?

Neither. Read clearly. I wasn't referring to his actions themselves, but the manner in which he went about them.

To me, there is a vast difference between the two. I myself cannot advocate the killing of innocent civilians via acts of extraordinary violence to achieve a political objective

That's nice. Want your "I am a kind and caring person" sticker?

 

[Halla74]

Lauren Ashley falls into my trap...

I had to regurgitate what I learned in class this semester at you as I love your retorts. It's been a while since I needlessly irritated you; I couldn't resist.

I do so love heckling INFJs!

The life of Robespierre as well as the French Revolution are not topics which I have delved into with any depth. His quote was on a PowerPoint slide in the class I just took, so I decided to lob that at you with some other bullet points to see what happened.

LMAO at my new sticker!
I have another sticker that I'll couple this one with; I'll place them on a T-shirt as follows:

"Even though I don't give a shit about you...
...I am a kind and caring person"

Cheers to you!

-Alex

 

[Trovador]

I believe that this shows how different is Socionics from MBTI. The archetype of LII, Robespierre, was very, very theistic and moralist, enforcing his ideas over others by force. He tried to enforce his Cult of Supreme Being over the freedom of religion, always justified his actions "for the good of People" and for the preservation of Virtue, and justified the opression and lack of freedom that the Terror brought to ensure "Virtue and Justice".

More than the credulous and very moralistic views, that are really opposed to the INTJ archetype, the valorization of Virtue over Freedom is the destruction of one of the "INTJ basis": the liberty of thought and the contempt of values, Virtue being one of them.

Robespierre sounds me like a power-mongering NFJ, despite not having the "right functions". He is something like a self-intituled Prophet, trying to save humanity from its errors by himself - ignoring his antecedents, he sounds me exactly like a ENFJ unhealthly leader.

Finally, he was moved by what is "good or bad", not by what is "true or false", "useful or not", "efficient or not". This is F, and this was his main motivation.

--

By the way, which type do you think for Russeau and Voltaire? I'm not sure for the first one, but Voltaire seems really INTJ for me.

 

[Lauren Ashley]

I had to regurgitate what I learned in class this semester at you as I love your retorts. It's been a while since I needlessly irritated you; I couldn't resist.

You don't irritate me. Didn't I say in one of our first conversations that I wouldn't be taking you seriously? People only irritate me when I have a reason to take their comments into serious consideration.

The life of Robespierre as well as the French Revolution are not topics which I have delved into with any depth. His quote was on a PowerPoint slide in the class I just took, so I decided to lob that at you with some other bullet points to see what happened.

IOW, you know next to nothing on the man or the subject. Why am I not surprised. Hint: this is why I can't take you seriously.

But thanks for playing.

I have another sticker that I'll couple this one with; I'll place them on a T-shirt as follows:

Nice. I would say to wear it on your forehead so everyone can see just what a nice person you are. But alas, your dunce sticker might be taking up too much space there...