Maximilien de Robespierre

[Dioklecian]

I promise to actually argue for this claim. My guess for now is ISTP.

Maximilien Robespierre Quotes

A nation is truly corrupt, when, after having, by degrees lost its character and liberty, it slides from democracy into aristocracy or monarchy; this is the death of the political body by decrepitude.

Again, it may be said, that to love justice and equality the people need no great effort of virtue; it is sufficient that they love themselves.

Any institution which does not suppose the people good, and the magistrate corruptible, is evil.

Any law which violates the inalienable rights of man is essentially unjust and tyrannical; it is not a law at all.

Atheism is aristocratic; the idea of a great Being that watches over oppressed innocence and punishes triumphant crime is altogether popular.

Crime butchers innocence to secure a throne, and innocence struggles with all its might against the attempts of crime.

In the system of the French revolution that which is immoral is impolitic, and what tends to corrupt is counter-revolutionary. Weaknesses, vices, prejudices are the road to monarchy.

Is it to be thought unreasonable that the people, in atonement for wrongs of a century, demand the vengeance of a single day?

Pity is treason.

Terror is only justice: prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing wants of the country.

The general will rules in society as the private will governs each separate individual.

The king must die so that the country can live.

The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant.

The warmth of zeal is not perhaps the most dangerous rock that we have to avoid; but rather that languour which ease produces and a distrust of our own courage.

To punish the oppressors of humanity is clemency; to forgive them is cruelty.

What is the end of our revolution? The tranquil enjoyment of liberty and equality; the reign of that eternal justice, the laws of which are graven, not on marble or stone, but in the hearts of men, even in the heart of the slave who has forgotten them, and in that of the tyrant who disowns them.

[implied]

most -IJ, ever.

[UDP]

Terror is only justice: prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing wants of the country.
Maximilien Robespierre

....


To punish the oppressors of humanity is clemency; to forgive them is cruelty.
Maximilien Robespierre

He could be an LII who had been traumatized and snapped in regard to seeing injustices, as his emphasis on "terror" and corporal punishment does not seem LII.

Extraverted Sensing Block Of superego*ya-ya Position * Mobilization Function * "VOLITIONAL SENSORIKA"
Robesp'er is intolerant to any manifestation of violence and arbitrariness, since it considers as the their original cause of injustice and, consequently, also by the original cause of all misfortunes.

The intolerant enemy of the wrong, in his opinion, based on the violence dictatorships Of robesp'er everywhere spreads the "dictatorship of validity", based on the training the "ethical valid" of self-consciousness.

Violence is applied only to those, who cannot bring up in itself such ethical quality, i.e., only with respect to the "predators". Robesp'er considers that the volitional action is justifiable, if it is correct. Abuse of force, by authority, by the influence Of robesp'er condemns. It does not suffer the arm-twisting, authoritarian behavior, command tone. It resists any attempt at the forced influence - and volitional, and ethical.

[Not A Communist Shill]

He was almost certainly a ISTj or a INTj, though it's hard to tell due to the uniqueness of the events. He was harsh at times, but he was also racked with uncertainity about whether he was doing the right thing. E.g. he was against the king being executed as a matter of principle, but then decided that the king would always symbolise the continuity of the monarchy if he was to continue living, and that therefore it was a necessary evil to execute the king, for the sake of progress. He did go onto execute a lot of people left, right and centre though...so I don't know. Maybe he was able to shift from his original position for the sake of the revolution?

From wikipedia, about how he saw his god (i.e. his ideology?)

In this speech, Robespierre made it clear that his concept of a Supreme Being was far different from the traditional God of Christianity. Robespierre's Supreme Being was a radical democrat, like the Jacobins,

"Is it not He whose immortal hand, engraving on the heart of man the code of justice and equality, has written there the death sentence of tyrants? Is it not He who, from the beginning of time, decreed for all the ages and for all peoples liberty, good faith, and justice? He did not create kings to devour the human race. He did not create priests to harness us, like vile animals, to the chariots of kings and to give to the world examples of baseness, pride, perfidy, avarice, debauchery, and falsehood. He created the universe to proclaim His power. He created men to help each other, to love each other mutually, and to attain to happiness by the way of virtue."

[Expat]

I have argued in the past that he was more likely ISTj than INTj, but now I think INTj is more likely.

I've been reading a new biography, Fatal Purity by Ruth Scorr, and she writes that Robespierre did not go to watch the executions. His flat was just around the corner from the Place de la Revolution where they took place, and the condemned were driven literally below his window on the way, but he always locked himself up, especially on the day of the execution of the king. So he took a Ti satisfaction from the executions, but he did not enjoy at all the Se-Si aspects of the actual event.

She also writes that he did not seem keen on looking after himself well in terms of eating etc. As a young provincial lawyer, it was his sister who made sure he fed himself well. In Paris, it was the women of the family where he lodged, who "adored" Maxime and enjoyed taking care of him. It looks like he needed an ESFj.

[UDP]

That sounds like an interesting book - perhaps if I come across it I will read it and give a report about type observations.

[mikemex]

INTj. My father is one and I can testify that they can become quite ruthless if they see injustice.

Idealistic. ISTj are not idealistic.

[Exodus]

Of all the INTjs out of history, they pick Robespierre.

IMO it's pretty obvious why: picking a non-intellectual would avoid typical INTj (or Introverted Logical Intuitive) stereotypes. But of course it has the potential to go the other way, too...

[Dioklecian]

I have argued in the past that he was more likely ISTj than INTj, but now I think INTj is more likely.

I've been reading a new biography, Fatal Purity by Ruth Scorr, and she writes that Robespierre did not go to watch the executions. His flat was just around the corner from the Place de la Revolution where they took place, and the condemned were driven literally below his window on the way, but he always locked himself up, especially on the day of the execution of the king. So he took a Ti satisfaction from the executions, but he did not enjoy at all the Se-Si aspects of the actual event.

She also writes that he did not seem keen on looking after himself well in terms of eating etc. As a young provincial lawyer, it was his sister who made sure he fed himself well. In Paris, it was the women of the family where he lodged, who "adored" Maxime and enjoyed taking care of him. It looks like he needed an ESFj.

If he needed an ESFJ, France would certainly be the best place to find one I think. I admit it's not clear that he is not INTJ but my impression is that he is too casual in his undertakings.

[Expat]

If he needed an ESFJ, France would certainly be the best place to find one I think.

And he did find one, or more, in the family he was lodging with.

I don't see your point, if you have any that is.

[Dioklecian]

If he needed an ESFJ, France would certainly be the best place to find one I think.

And he did find one, or more, in the family he was lodging with.

I don't see your point, if you have any that is.

Ooohh personal attacks then

[UDP]

What Dio is really saying is that, undoubtedly, Picard is an INTj.

[Expat]

If he needed an ESFJ, France would certainly be the best place to find one I think.

And he did find one, or more, in the family he was lodging with.

I don't see your point, if you have any that is.

Ooohh personal attacks then

It's not a personal attack -- the problem is that you don't really back up your arguments.

Anyway, you promised to argue for ISTp. Let's hear it.

[Dioklecian]

The case for not being INTJ:

First of all he strikes me as WAAAY too violent and too random to be INTJ. From the beginning when I first read about the French revolution, in elementary school, that was my impression of Robespierre, that he was not very efficient.

Also he didn't have any theoretical ideas of his own but rather borrowed heavily from Rousseau, who was INTJ IMO.

As he had grown into manhood Robespierre had become a fanatical devotee of the social theories of the French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau.

His views of how the state should be run, seem too ad hoc for an INTJ, for instance the difference between constitutional monarchy and democratic republic:

In June 1791 King Louis XVI and Queen Marie-Antoinette attempted to flee from France in order to seek refuge with powers opposed to the revolution - they were however recognised and detained at Varennes. Robespierre had hitherto been content with the sort of constitutional monarchy that had been in operation in France. The King's attempted defection altered the way he was perceived by Robespierre and others.

His reasons for seeking the execution of the king were pragmatic rather than ideological:

Robespierre spoke at King Louis XVI's trial as follows:-

"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. It is with regret that I pronounce a fatal truth: Louis ought to perish rather than a hundred thousand virtuous citizens; Louis must die that the country may live."

The reasons for the Terror, seem to have been pragmatic rather than wellplaned. Robespierre saw murder as a political means, he doesn't seem to have wanted to convince his political opponents by means of discussion.

France was in turmoil, and with the aim of restoring order and reducing the danger of invasion from abroad, Robespierre, backed by the committee, proceeded to ruthlessly eliminate all whom he considered to be enemies of the Revolution, both extremists and moderates. This policy led to the so-called Reign of Terror and to the execution of the revolutionary leaders Jacques René Hébert (March 24th 1794) and Georges Jacques Danton (April 6th 1794). Both Hébert and Danton were politicians whose preferred policies were inconsistent with the pure Rousseauism that was Robespierre's guiding principle.

Overall, he seems to have been a faithful if ruthless IMPLEMENTER of the ideas of Russeau.

On May 7th, at Robespierre's insistence, the National Convention proclaimed as an official religion the Cult of the Supreme Being, which was based on Rousseau's theory of Deism.

Also he does not seem to ahve been a very skillful politican (compare to Napoleon), as demonstrated by his execution.

On July 27th 1794 Robespierre was accused of tyranny, barred from speaking at the National Convention, and was placed under arrest as were several key supporters. Although these captives were promptly rescued by soldiers loyal to the Commune of Paris and brought to the Hotêl de Ville the Convention ordered the National Guard to move to recapture Robespierre who subsequently received a gunshot wound to the lower jaw during his recapture.

On July 28th Robespierre together with his closest associates Louis Saint-Just and Georges Couthon and nineteen other supporters died on the guillotine.
Eighty more followers of Robespierre were executed the next day.

[Dioklecian]

If he needed an ESFJ, France would certainly be the best place to find one I think.

And he did find one, or more, in the family he was lodging with.

I don't see your point, if you have any that is.

Ooohh personal attacks then

It's not a personal attack -- the problem is that you don't really back up your arguments.

Anyway, you promised to argue for ISTp. Let's hear it.

Well what do you think?

[UDP]

I think this is yet another example of your pathological tendency to 'pass the (reasoning) buck' on to someone else. If you had to consider a reason for your thoughts before actually tossing them out, then you probably would not present yourself in such an air-headed way. You cannot really expect that kind of response to work for you.

[Dioklecian]

I think this is yet another example of your pathological tendency to 'pass the (reasoning) buck' on to someone else. If you had to consider a reason for your thoughts before actually tossing them out, then you probably would not present yourself in such an air-headed way. You cannot really expect that kind of response to work for you.

That is just BS IMO. You are the one who is not adding anything in this case.

[Dioklecian]

I think someone is afraid of a hard discussion

[UDP]

The ISTp, presented repeatedly with a task, would then complete it efficiently and in haste, so as to return to its former state of undisturbed Si.

[Dioklecian]

I think someone is afraid of a hard discussion

This is meant for Expat by the way.

[Expat]

The reasons for the Terror, seem to have been pragmatic rather than wellplaned. Robespierre saw murder as a political means, he doesn't seem to have wanted to convince his political opponents by means of discussion.

The problem is your thinking you know a lot about Robespierre, and you still get it so wrong.

How do you think Robespierre even rose to that position of power? Precisely due to his speeches and the strength of his ideas.

[Dioklecian]

The reasons for the Terror, seem to have been pragmatic rather than wellplaned. Robespierre saw murder as a political means, he doesn't seem to have wanted to convince his political opponents by means of discussion.

The problem is your thinking you know a lot about Robespierre, and you still get it so wrong.

How do you think Robespierre even rose to that position of power? Precisely due to his speeches and the strength of his ideas.

Robespierre rose to taht position in the chaos of the revolution, I don't know of any books he could have writen to propagate his ideas. And speechmaking is famously non INTJ, in fact Plato makes fun of speechmakers by calling them sophists.

Plus I don't see any evidence of for what you are saying. I don't have to accept your word for it.

And there is no need to use personal attacks, stay focused on the task at hand.

[Expat]

Robespierre rose to taht position in the chaos of the revolution, I don't know of any books he could have writen to propagate his ideas. And speechmaking is famously non INTJ, in fact Plato makes fun of speechmakers by calling them sophists.

Plus I don't see any evidence of for what you are saying. I don't have to accept your word for it.

No, but you should read some books, or even websites, especially on Robespierre's speeches and his political career.

[Dioklecian]

I have studied the French revolution in excruciating detail and nowhere have I come accross any book by Robespierre.

His main "theoretical" contribution seems to be the justification of terror.

TERROR IS JUSTIFIED

[Dioklecian]

Also Robespierre is widely considered to be the radical part of the French revolution, not the mainstream.

A controversial figure in the history of the French Revolution, Maximilien Robespierre was the head of the radical Jacobin Club.

[Dioklecian]

These lyrics seem fiting for Robespierre:

Tool Eulogy lyrics
He had alot to say.
He had alot of nothing to say.
We'll miss him.
We'll miss him.
He had alot to say.
He had alot of nothing to say.
We'll miss him.
We're gonna miss him
We're gonna miss him
So long.
We wish you well.
You told us how you weren't afraid to die.
Well then, so long.
Don't cry.
Or feel too down.
Not all martyrs see divinity.
But at least you tried.
Standing above the crowd,
He had a voice that was strong and loud.
We'll miss him.
We'll miss him.
Ranting and pointing his finger
At everything but his heart.
We'll miss him.
We'll miss him.
We're gonna miss him.
We're gonna miss him.
No way to recall
What it was that you had said to me,
Like I care at all.
But you were so loud.
You sure could yell.
You took a stand on every little thing
And so loud.
I'm too smart when you're invisible by the bone and the symbol on you. So he bashes his skull through the window while over looking the sea. Twilight amber ego. We were amused by this
Standing above the crowd,
He had a voice that was strong and loud and I
Swallowed his facade cuz I'm so
Eager to identify with
Someone above the ground,
Someone who seemed to feel the same,
Someone prepared to lead the way, with
Someone who would die for me.
Will you? Will you now?
Would you die for me?
Don't you fuckin lie.
Don't you step out of line.
Don't you step out of line.
Don't you step out of line.
Don't you fuckin lie.
You've claimed all this time that you would die for me.
Why then are you so surprised when you hear your own
eulogy?
He had alot to say.
He had alot of nothing to say.
He had alot to say.
He had alot of nothing to say.
Come down.
Get off your fuckin cross.
We need the fuckin space to nail the next fool martyr.
To ascend you must die.
You must be crucified
For our sins and our lies.
Goodbye!!!


Tool Eulogy lyrics

[Logos]

Fine! He's an ISTp, but for the rest of the world who cares about Socionics, Robespierre will now, forever, and always be an INTj.

[Dioklecian]

Fine! He's an ISTp, but for the rest of the world who cares about Socionics, Robespierre will now, forever, and always be an INTj.

I am not sure that is ISTP, he could be. As to INTJ I am pretty sure he is not, if only for the fact that he was such a vocal political leader.

The rest of the world doesn't even know what types are let alone the type of Robe. I think the Russian socionists got this wrong the same way they got Ceasar wrong. I agree very much with Expat that Ceasar is ENTJ prob, and not ESFP.

[Ezra]

Regardless of what Dioklecian is or was, or what he thought about Robespierre's type, I agree with him that Robespierre was not LII. I've just been reading about him on Wikipedia, and I just don't think an LII would be concerned with revolutionary change in the way he was, or so driven a dictator as he, or so vocal of such black and white views as "Louis must die".

I believe Beta is far more fitting for Robespierre, and that LSI would be a better suggestion of his type. There's no reason to doubt either Ti base or IJ temperament, but I highly doubt a Se PoLR could ever even consider doing or saying the kind of things said and did. Read Wikipedia to see what I mean. If you have any disagreements after this, I'd be happy to discuss them.

If I am indeed right, this might spark something off with the Russian socionists' incorrect typings. Think about it; Napoleon has recently been typed as an SLE as opposed to an SEE, the type of which he became a mascot (essentially). If Robespierre follows the same trend, then the LII, too, may have to be renamed as, say, Kant, about whom there is no doubt that he is an LII.

[crazedrat]

he is INTj. He lived in a different time and culture, and so the content of his thoughts is different and foreign to you. That is what is getting you confused. (this seems to happen very easily with you)

[Slacker]

In Russia, he's used as the archetype of INTjs.

http://www.socioniko.net/en/1.1.types/index.html

[jason_m]

If Robespierre follows the same trend, then the LII, too, may have to be renamed as, say, Kant, about whom there is no doubt that he is an LII.

Could that be why LIIs are sometimes referred to as 'Descartes'? Perhaps some socionists see a flaw in the Robespierre typing...

Jason

[Phaedrus]

Could that be why LIIs are sometimes referred to as 'Descartes'? Perhaps some socionists see a flaw in the Robespierre typing...

No, they don't see a flaw in it. It is just that most people on this forum have a view on LIIs that is totally different from how Russian socionists view them. This forum is a sub-culture where the majority of its members have a totally incorrect understanding of what it is like to be an LII. The Russian socionists are right, and the idiots on this forum are wrong.

[crazedrat]

Could that be why LIIs are sometimes referred to as 'Descartes'? Perhaps some socionists see a flaw in the Robespierre typing...

Jason

perhaps maybe they've had similar thoughts!?

[Logos]

No, they don't see a flaw in it. It is just that most people on this forum have a view on LIIs that is totally different from how Russian socionists view them. This forum is a sub-culture where the majority of its members have a totally incorrect understanding of what it is like to be an LII. The Russian socionists are right, and the idiots on this forum are wrong.

If the Russian socionists have a correct understanding as to what an LII entails, why do they not see Jung as being an LII?

[Phaedrus]

If the Russian socionists have a correct understanding as to what an LII entails, why do they not see Jung as being an LII?

Because they haven't studied Jung enough.

[Logos]

Because they haven't studied Jung enough.

How do you know? They know the LII well enough. As you say, there is no mistaking an IP temperament for an IJ one. Nor is there no mistaking the appearance of Te-thinking and Ti-thinking when it occurs. But the Russian socionists, who you say clearly understand the LII, have not typed Jung as such; that should be an impossibility, but it is so. If they correctly understand the LII, then they should not be misidentifying Jung as an ILI. You barely know your left from your right anymore, Phaedrus.

[crazedrat]

which russians identified jung as ILI?

[Phaedrus]

But the Russian socionists, who you say clearly understand the LII, have not typed Jung as such; that should be an impossibility, but it is so. If they correctly understand the LII, then they should not be misidentifying Jung as an ILI.

You really are that dumb, aren't you? You really are as stupid as you come across. There is a huge and extremely important difference between understanding a type correctly and being able to type other people who are that type correctly.

I understand the ILI type perfectly, and I understand the LII type very well too, but I am still not 100 % sure, for example, whether Kurt Gödel was an LII (most likely) or an ILI. I know that he was one of those two types of course, but in order to be certain you have to make a really thorough reasearch on the person's life, what he has written, and what others have said about him. Neither am I totally certain whether Ludwig Wittgenstein was an LII or an ILI, and no socionist seems to be 100 % certain of that either.

It is totally obvious that there are many totally incorrect typings of famous people made by Russian socionists. That is very irritating, and it demonstrates very clearly that many socionists are doing a very bad job when they type famous people. They don't consider all the empirical evidence but instead focus -- just like many idiots on this forum -- on only their favourite aspect of the types while ignoring the rest. They use unreliable typing methods and jump way too easily to conclusions.

[Phaedrus]

which russians identified jung as ILI?

We have for example the this site: http://ru.laser.ru/

As you can see there are some incredibly idiotic, almost insane typings on that site among the correct ones (yes, some of them are correctly typed too).

Dmitri Lytov also thinks that Jung was an ILI. Lytov has written many good things on Socionics, but his typing skills are not very good. For example, he doesn't understand V.I., and he doesn't use that typing method, which has resulted in typing mistakes on his part. He has also suggested that David Keirsey could be an SLE, which is exactly as stupid as it sounds. I have great respect for Lytov's knowledge of Socionics, but I have much less respect for his typing skills. He simply makes too many mistakes there.