Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

Starbucks

"An honest man is always a child"

Greetings friends,

I am new to this website but it seems that I might have found a family that I can relate to. Finally!

I am probably going to be way to intense but I figured that if not here than where!

I've written a piece that is part of way more but I don't know how acceptable it is and if it is of any intellectual value. So I would like to hear any and all thoughts and criticisms. Also if you are kind of a grammar nazi you might get a hart attack but your corrections will be highly appreciated. (I'm not native english) It is hard to explain something really complex in my mind and when I try I usually sound below average intelligence.

Here it is:

"An honest man is always a child." -Socrates

A couple a weeks ago I was thinking of a theory of men in their purest state. I basically build the underlying structure that Socrates had written so poetically. An honest man is always a child. I stated that innocence is the most valuable thing a human possesses and should be protected at all times. A child is innocence above all, when this innocence get compromised it becomes dark and cold. We have talked about dark spots before and I shall present how this is all interwoven into each other. First we need to define what innocence is. For this we shall make our own clear definition. It is the state of a person which is least compromised. With compromised I mean that their mind has not been touched by black spots. From the quote and theory we do not talk from a child's perspective but from a grown man. The more a child is exposed to compromising situations the more dark spots it will form when not treated. This is when you have a healthy child, innocent, and give him a gun to kill a horse his mind will form a big dark spot and his behavior will never come from that innocent place anymore but from a compromised one, one that makes decisions that are influenced by darkness. An example of this would be that he would kick the dog because he finds it amusing or start fighting his friend because his tiny mind lives in such great darkness and clouds his judgment. This darkness however can be treated and make him healthy again but there will always be a scar in the form that he will never be so ignorant toward the world as he used to be. I think that it might even a positive thing, like a sick child building up resistance for the future. So why is an honest man always a child? He is talking about the uncompromising innocence. That man might have suffered a lot but an honest man is in a uncompromising state. His thought process is not clouded and lives in no shadow. This state is what everyone is looking for in, religion, spiritual guides, money and power, etc. It is total peace within and always making the right decision. When I look around I see sick minds everywhere. No one is healthy and all are suffering. When a man has to make a decision in a compromised state he will have most likely chose the wrong thing. If you have been beaten as a child that specific part has been clouded with dark spots and it will be most likely that is if not treated he will do the same to his child. When you have dark spots it is more likely that you will make the choice to do drugs of any kind to escape the pain you live in. It is when you have to kill a human it would be easier if you have already killed hundreds before, you already have a clouded spot in your mind. When you see a someone using drugs you automatically think that he will make other bad decisions. It is the clouded mind, dark spots feeding of each other. That is why an honest man is always a child.

Uncompromised, honest and pure.

(Note: I haven't mastered the rules of when to use an or a.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm interested in what you're saying, but perhaps you could use paragraph and line breaks to space out your words and make your argument easier to read?

--- After reading ---

Okay, after reading I have just a few comments/questions.

I wonder if you believe that innocence can be slowly regained throughout one's life. I believe it can.

Also, when the man kicks the dog, could this behaviour be explained that he is so innocent that he doesn't realise his actions have the potential to harm others, or that others even truly exist and are worthy of consideration?

Perhaps losing some level of innocence could be a good thing, as it allows us to have the empathy required to commiserate with the pain of others.

Overall, though, I like it. I believe having an innocent heart is important too, and not a detriment. Can wisdom and innocence coexist in the same person?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your opinions appear similar to these people's opinions on the value of honesty and proactive caring, for the well being of self and others.

They have some free docs that require registration and I expect that you'd like their books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect a decent number of INTP end up like this :)

You can be intelligent and have a fairly pure heart with good intentions. But keeping it, in the wrong kind of environment, takes skill. Negative emotions can be unproductive however, so its often a good idea to make sure you don't end up learning to use them a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only be as honest as the other person, neither more nor less. Erring on either side, makes one a liar or a child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cycles of dishonesty/defensiveness/betrayal perpetuate themselves and expand to bring other people into the cycles... There is some value in being better than the other guy.

Only a demon can really hurt a saint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes an honest person can be honest out of the wrong motives, so I don't think that is quite true. However, it takes a childlike mind to be honest for honesty's sake, so in that case the statement can be considered to have merit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only be as honest as the other person, neither more nor less. Erring on either side, makes one a liar or a child.

What do you begin with?

Honesty rarely needs to be compromised ("he went thataway", etc.). Disclosure requires containment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For starters, Welcome!

"An honest man is always a child." -Socrates

My initial thoughts tend to be rather abstract. I interpreted that a truly honest voice would be considered an immature behavior. Not to say being honest is a bad thing, but maybe people tend to not accept honesty when it is negative. It usually creates a great deal of conflict when spoken, so a degree of discretion is needed as an adult when your responsibilities outweigh your individual freedoms. Thus, it is more mature to be diplomatic rather than 100% honest.

As I read though your interpretation, I could see your logic. Although, I must admit, I got a little lost in technical language. I mean no offense, only that I am not good with that form of language.

After reading your interpretation, my thoughts on the quote are similar to yours. However I am sure if it is simply paraphrasing what you said. Anyway, I get the feeling the quote speaks of bias. As we age we gain attachments to people, thoughts, believes etc., our truth changes to support that which we are attached to, regardless of the absolute truth behind it. As a child, you haven't established your values, believes and morals. You have attachments towards people, but you haven't experienced as much to make you question the validity of those thoughts. Thus, you would have a much more honest perspective without bias.

When I look around I see sick minds everywhere. No one is healthy and all are suffering.

I think this is the only part of your argument that I find difficult to accept: I feel like the the words "sick" and "unhealthy" imply abnormality. When you say no one is healthy, it loses the abnormality because everyone is. Thus, the statement seems like a contradiction of itself.

All in all, I think it was an interesting read that sparked many interesting thoughts and perspectives. I hope you plan on posting more like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many people's posts on this thread are interesting... I, personally, don't really see any point in lying. It just causes problems later and also I do feel guilty when I lie. Even about little things. I did have a hard time growing up. My mum was depressed so I had to look after her and my brother while also trying to do well in school. It got so bad to the time when I even thought of killing myself. I don't understand why an honest person is a child. I think it's the opposite. A "liar" is a child. They don't, generally, understand the consequences of their actions. And why a person being a child such a bad thing? Does that make them a "bad" person? Despite what I went through I am quite naive and gullible because I don't see the "point" in lying and I don't get why people would lie to me. Even after through all that if that makes me a child then so be it :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While children are lovely, they're about as self-centric as a human being can get, even to the degree of sociopathy. In this, I disagree with the premise of the concept expressed in the opening post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, pure innocence implies one knows no evil, therefore one who is truly innocent does not know right because it does not know wrong. Therefore, it does not think that anything it does is wrong. The child that shoots the horse doesn't feel regret if it doesn't know that killing is bad and particularly if the child's behavior is justified and rewarded by its role models. Anyone who knows an infant knows that it quickly learns to cry for attention when nothing is really wrong.

I agree that an honest man is at peace, has unclouded thoughts and makes the right decision--the problem is that it will always be relative to what he thinks is right and wrong (analogous, but not exactly alike the purely innocent child and what it knows/doesn't know of right and wrong). You say you see sick, unhealthy people who likely think that they are healthy and potentially think that you are sick instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for the comments and the warm welcome!

I feel like I'm amongst like minded people and I admit it's nice for a change.

I want to answer as many of your comments but it's my first time on a forum so I might do somethings a bit clumsy.

From Apricots:

I wonder if you believe that innocence can be slowly regained throughout one's life. I believe it can.
ME: It's not about slowly regaining innocence, innocence is not bound to time. It takes "curing of the mind" if you would to get into an accident and lose all your memory you would be in a uncompromising state. It is not time that will cure you but self analysis, somthing that Freud did in his later years.

From Apricots:

Also, when the man kicks the dog, could this behaviour be explained that he is so innocent that he doesn't realise his actions have the potential to harm others, or that others even truly exist and are worthy of consideration?
ME: A child or an adult in a uncompromised state will love animals because they evoke an emotional response. Childeren however are the first few years of their life egocentric because certain parts of their brain have not yet been developed to rationalize their behaviour that is why in many cultures and religions have a rite of passage also called age of accountability it's when a boy knows right from wrong. This is why parents teach you it's wrong because even though as a child you don't understand it it still affects the mind. This can also be seen when mom and dad are fighting and a young child grabs the gun dad hides under his bed and the child shoots the dad when he was hurting mom. He doesn't understand what he just did and the consequences but it will hunt him the rest of his life. And we should account for the people with mental disorders but we are talking for the healthy developed body.

From Apricots:

Can wisdom and innocence coexist in the same person?
ME: I think without wisdom you'll have a hard time being pure and innocent.

To Zsych: thank you, I can not see the link yet but I thank you in advance.

To titi monkey: I haven't hear of the "Noble Savage" before but I am happy you got me acquainted.

From Daniel86:

Only be as honest as the other person, neither more nor less. Erring on either side, makes one a liar or a child.
ME: Honesty is something you do for yourself and should not be dependable of others. I didn't get the last part but I thank you for your comment.

From Beav58:

My initial thoughts tend to be rather abstract. I interpreted that a truly honest voice would be considered an immature behavior. Not to say being honest is a bad thing, but maybe people tend to not accept honesty when it is negative. It usually creates a great deal of conflict when spoken, so a degree of discretion is needed as an adult when your responsibilities outweigh your individual freedoms. Thus, it is more mature to be diplomatic rather than 100% honest.
ME: The level of maturity has nothing to do with honesty.This might be confusing since the quote is about a honest child. It is not about being a child of age but to posses the purity of a child which can also be found in an adult. Also being an adult does not mean you are mature of mind and diplomatic behaviour has nothing to do with being mature or immature. And a wise man knows when to be silent and when to speak truth. (I want to say more about it but it's too vast a subject.

From Beav58:

I think this is the only part of your argument that I find difficult to accept: I feel like the the words "sick" and "unhealthy" imply abnormality. When you say no one is healthy, it loses the abnormality because everyone is. Thus, the statement seems like a contradiction of itself.
ME: I think we have not yet defined what the normal state of a human is (I'm working on that). However I do see symptoms of suffering and I stongly accept the beliefs of the stoic philosophers. They believed that a human when in a "healthy state" would not suffer of emotions. And I see everyone suffering of their emotions so I came to the conclusion that no one is healthy. (with the exception of maybe 1% give or take.

From Beave 58:

All in all, I think it was an interesting read that sparked many interesting thoughts and perspectives. I hope you plan on posting more like this.
ME: thank you so much for you comment, questions and kind words. I will post more if people want to read them.

---------- Post added 07-14-2012 at 03:23 PM ----------

True, pure innocence implies one knows no evil, therefore one who is truly innocent does not know right because it does not know wrong.

I think you've mixed innocence with ignorance.

Ignorance is a state of being uninformed.

Innocence is a lack of guilt. Where you can do no wrong, while knowing right from wrong.

You say you see sick, unhealthy people who likely think that they are healthy and potentially think that you are sick instead.

I like to think a balanced mind is a healthy mind so it's not an opinion based on emotions.

I believe that I have not stated yet that I was healthy. (correct me if I am wrong) Also when people think that they are healthy and I am not that doesn't sound objective and not an universal truth but more an individual opinion based on the emotional state. I only seek truths that are mind independent whatever they may be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honesty smooths human interactions, hence its status as a virtue.

Excessive honesty is bad, due to naivety and curtness issues. However, people don't really like to be deceived or sidetracked, so honesty is a worthwhile virtue I feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This piece lacks the depth of man. It plays in the shallows, leaving vast depths of what is to be interpreted by readers/listeners. It speaks not of how one excepts/accepts permanent marks upon the mind and moves forward into a life free of chains. It lacks strength of word and boldness of idea. It is a great start to a grand finish. Keep up the good work. (I am not trying to be mean; I only wish to push you deeper.)

As to the idea itself: I cannot give you a clear answer without it being wrapped in ignorance; because I feel (as you have already stated) I only have pieces to a large puzzle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the original post's main point that the honest man is innocent, and a child is innocent, thus the honest man is a child? If so, why mention "dark spots"?

Two question for clarity:

1) what are "dark spots"?

2) what relevance do they have to innocence?

You say that a man or boy who is made to shoot a horse will then have a dark spot. Why? Will he? Do you mean this will cause him pain? Are you saying 'pain = dark spot'? And if so, what does that have to do with innocence? The opposite of innocence is guilt, but just because someone expierences pain doesn't mean they're guilty. So do you instead mean that someone who expierences pain will be more likely to act in a way that results in them being guilty? If so, why do you think that is the case...plenty of people live through pain and remain honest, the enfp who posted earlier is an example.

To the contrary, and as the infj at the top was saying, expierencing pain deepens our soul and humanizes us. It's only after some people have been truly lonely that they come to value the happiness of every other person.

Also, welcome to the forum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is the original post's main point that the honest man is innocent, and a child is innocent, thus the honest man is a child? If so, why mention "dark spots"?

Two question for clarity:

1) what are "dark spots"?

2) what relevance do they have to innocence?

You say that a man or boy who is made to shoot a horse will then have a dark spot. Why? Will he? Do you mean this will cause him pain? Are you saying 'pain = dark spot'? And if so, what does that have to do with innocence?

No, a honest man is not a child it just has the uncompromised innocence of a child.

1) Dark spots is a word I coined for lack of a better one. I've written a piece about it describing what it means so I am sorry for all the confusion.

2)In a horrible and simple explanation dark spots are events that shape your life. They do not necessarily have to be bad in our eyes because it is for each individual to interpret events in their own way. It also does not mean that if you got raped as a child that you become an evil person but it will affect your life in a major way if you have not treated it yet. I call the untreated emotional burden of an event a dark spot. ( I still have to work on it and define it better.)

The relevance they have to innocence is that they take your healthy balanced mind out of balance. I suppose in legal terms a suffering man can be innocent but in a philosophical and poetry kind of way a man does himself a great disservice. A balanced mind can always make the right decision and does not suffer in any kind. An honest and innocent man is not yet a child he also has to be pure. It does not suffer of dark spots that will cloud his judgement.

pain= dark spots?

No, let's say that dark spots are an unbalance of the mind in which way it does not matter. And they will affect the outcome of your thoughts and actions. In a philosophical kind of way it is the greatest sin you can commit to yourself.

I feel that I might not have given a satisfying answer, in that case just reply to me and I shall do the same.

And thank you for the welcome!

---------- Post added 07-15-2012 at 04:09 AM ----------

This piece lacks the depth of man. It plays in the shallows, leaving vast depths of what is to be interpreted by readers/listeners. It speaks not of how one excepts/accepts permanent marks upon the mind and moves forward into a life free of chains. It lacks strength of word and boldness of idea. It is a great start to a grand finish. Keep up the good work. (I am not trying to be mean; I only wish to push you deeper.)

As to the idea itself: I cannot give you a clear answer without it being wrapped in ignorance; because I feel (as you have already stated) I only have pieces to a large puzzle.

I truly appreciate your honesty and clearness of it.

My biggest fear is that it has no depth and lack of strenght. The part of how to live "free of chains" I actually have written that down in a much larger piece but it still need a lot of work.

It is rather unfair of me to ask for criticism when only showing one piece of the puzzle but I will post more frequently with the remainings and new work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked this a lot, I understood the meaning behind the metaphor of dark spots exactly as I was reading through.

It describes a part of the mechanics of my thought processes when I deal with people, I don't visualize dark spots or have a name for them but when I notice negative behavior there definitely is a weighing up of the person that operates on something along these lines.

I can't help but read into everything people say and do, this gives me something that could be described as a 'dark spot' rating system for them.

My main problem, my darkest area, is that I've been utterly writing people off for the slightest tarnish and removing the title of human from them. I've stopped this recently because of one person I've known for only a short while making such an impression on me that it's opened my eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark spots

Whats the difference between "dark spots" and negativity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whats the difference between "dark spots" and negativity?

Dark spots is a word I coined for lack of a better one. Negativity is too much a broad sense of the word. And to call a behaviour or thought negative can differ between people. The mind is like a scale and always seeks balance (happyness) and when you have dark spots they are little weigt bells that put your mind off balance. Whatever situation you've had in your life that has given you emotional baggage will counterbalance by going to the other spectrum of your mind to try and level in the middle. (this is impossible)

Lets make a clear and extreme example; a women was raped as a child and now she cannot commit to a relationship and changes partners very fast. This is a very clear example of how the mind counter balances itself. This is to say that if she would see a psychologist that will guide her to enter that darkspot (emotional weights) she can releave it and make a more balanced choice without beining influenced by dark spots.

I hope I have given you a clear answer, if not reply to my message and I shall do the same.

---------- Post added 07-16-2012 at 04:54 AM ----------

I can't help but read into everything people say and do, this gives me something that could be described as a 'dark spot' rating system for them.

My main problem, my darkest area, is that I've been utterly writing people off for the slightest tarnish and removing the title of human from them. I've stopped this recently because of one person I've known for only a short while making such an impression on me that it's opened my eyes.

This sound a bit like the thought process of nietzsche with his ubermensche and untermensch.

Now a lot of INTJ suffer from this that is why the motivational posters of world domination are so funny to us.

I also suffered because of other people but I got addicted to philosophy and I see the world a lot clearer now. You suffer because you lack control of your own mind. When you have full control they can only cause you physical pain but your mind stays untouched. Neitzsche probabaly suffered also from lack of control and wisdom. His writings are so full of anger which is a dark spot as I described. His thought process is not clear but filled with darkness and has build up this anger and irritation trowards the Untermensch. It is however a fact that happyness and peace are found within and if you are angry or irritated or anything else it's because you create that world in your mind.

A depressed man shall walk through the city and thinks that everybody hates him and think he is ugly.

Besides him there walks a happy man he thinks the world loves him and smiles at every person he meets face with.

You precieve the world as you create it in your mind.

I am sorry if I went off topic and this might not have helped you at all. (not that you asked for advice)

But I thank you for your comment and kind words!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

similar to the concept of the id, maybe not the same... but i suspect there is an ever-present immature part of the psyche. so despite whatever accumulated experiences in life, it may lay dormant, but can still be activated under certain circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now