Leo Tolstoy

[cherrysidecar]

I read in one of those Russian transliterations that Tolstoy's novels are the only ones with characters of all 16 types.

So what type is he??

[Pookie]

Well, clearly he's God, writing a book about himself.

[Beautiful sky]

Where Fyodor Dostoevsky's manner of speaking is more about imparting one's own view of the individual, the future, the spiritual side of man, Leo Tostoy's manner of speaking is more in general (instead of "a real gentleman" the idealization of a gentleman that Dostoevsky speaks of Tolstoy will say "all people"); this is quite an interesting contrast. I believe it takes a person out of the frame of mind of N and puts them in the territory of S because of this view they have about man.

[Absurd]

Leo Tostoy's manner of speaking is more in general (instead of "a real gentleman" the idealization of a gentleman that Dostoevsky speaks of Tolstoy will say "all people"); this is quite and interesting contrast. I believe it takes a person out of the frame of mind of N and puts them in the territory of S because of this view they have about man.

What are you trying to say?

[Beautiful sky]

What are you trying to say?

I'm not entirely certain; I'm still thinking of extrapolating functions from his quotes.

[Absurd]

I'm not entirely certain; I'm still thinking of extrapolating functions from his quotes.

I'm looking forward to it.

[cherrysidecar]

Where Fyodor Dostoevsky's manner of speaking is more about imparting one's own view of the individual, the future, the spiritual side of man, Leo Tostoy's manner of speaking is more in general (instead of "a real gentleman" the idealization of a gentleman that Dostoevsky speaks of Tolstoy will say "all people"); this is quite and interesting contrast. I believe it takes a person out of the frame of mind of N and puts them in the territory of S because of this view they have about man.

That's interesting, you're right. Tolstoy is extremely neutral when doing the "omniscient narrator" thing, while Dostoevsky filters through his values even when writing from 3rd person.

[Beautiful sky]

That's interesting, you're right. Tolstoy is extremely neutral when doing the "omniscient narrator" thing, while Dostoevsky filters through his values even when writing from 3rd person.

There are a lot of moral statements in his writing, values more individual endeavor over collective in terms of getting more moral action from the individual rather than a collective institution; he has a lot of faith in love as a worth while virtue; I believe that he has Fi valuing, Delta qualities, making him ISTp type.

[Esaman]

I don't have a personal judgment, but remember reading something convincing about him being EII.

[Beautiful sky]

something convincing about him being EII.

Why? because he can write? So can um...Mark Twain, maybe he's EII too?

[Absurd]

He's ethical to me. Read his The Kingdom of God Is Within You, Maritsa.

[Beautiful sky]

He's ethical to me. Read his The Kingdom of God Is Within You, Maritsa.

Why? because he speaks of ethics, because he writes about LOVE. Oh God forbid that a Thinker type should do the same?

Think about it, if he's ethical, where would that place him and in what quadra. by putting an F in there, you're not just changing his type, you're changing his SOCIETY.

[redbaron]

I have a biography on Tolstoy that I just started. I'll read it and give you my opinion.

[Absurd]

Why? because he speaks of ethics, because he writes about LOVE. Oh God forbid that a Thinker type should do the same?

Think about it, if he's ethical, where would that place him and in what quadra. by putting an F in there, you're not just changing his type, you're changing his SOCIETY.

You can write and speak as well and it makes you logical and what is his society?

[Beautiful sky]

You can write and speak as well and it makes you logical and what is his society?

His society is one which values the individual efforts as opposed to Collective; he isn't in favor of collective institutions, like corporations, ect. Delta

[Beautiful sky]

blocked with

Delta types have the philosophy that they will have to rely on their own industriousness to achieve their goals rather than on luck, speculation, group effort, or strong leadership.

Groups need to be focused on some specific productive activity or topic of discussion, or else they fall apart. In Delta groups, there is a lot of splintering and decentralization. This allows for more focused and productive interaction with only those who share your particular interests or sentiments.

[Absurd]

He preaches nonresistance to evil by violence, advises us to confine ourselves to the weapon of criticism, analyses the emotions of the representatives and defenders of the existing order - when he exposes all the intentional and unintentional hypocrisy of their constant references to the public good, one has to credit him with a great civic service, in other words, everything he writes is imbued with his moral and religious tendency plus some of Tolstoy’s followers consider themselves extreme revolutionaries refusing to do military service.

Somewhat of a Gandhi like figure to me when wanting to compare, I'm sure Gandhi is SLI in your book as well, Maritsa.

[Beautiful sky]

He preaches nonresistance to evil by violence, advises us to confine ourselves to the weapon of criticism, analyses the emotions of the representatives and defenders of the existing order - when he exposes all the intentional and unintentional hypocrisy of their constant references to the public good, one has to credit him with a great civic service, in other words, everything he writes is imbued with his moral and religious tendency plus some of Tolstoy’s followers consider themselves extreme revolutionaries refusing to do military service.

Somewhat of a Gandhi like figure to me when wanting to compare, I'm sure Gandhi is SLI in your book as well, Maritsa.

Are these things type related or are they a necessity of society/upbringing?

[cherrysidecar]

blocked with

Delta types have the philosophy that they will have to rely on their own industriousness to achieve their goals rather than on luck, speculation, group effort, or strong leadership.

Groups need to be focused on some specific productive activity or topic of discussion, or else they fall apart. In Delta groups, there is a lot of splintering and decentralization. This allows for more focused and productive interaction with only those who share your particular interests or sentiments.

I'm not sure if you're talking about Tolstoy anymore with the Te blocked with Si, but I'm gonna go ahead and say he's TeNi. Intuitive guess based on Anna Karenina which is my fave book of all time, and War and Peace which I just started and is not nearly as good, but shows a lot about how he observes people.

Also, if I really enjoy Dostoevsky am I delusional or mis-typed? Quasi-identicals are not supposed to get each other's writing, supposedly, but I've never understood this. And tcauld just said I should reconsider my typing because of my love of ENFps.

[cherrysidecar]

Also sorry to third-wheel on the two of you here .. idk if this is already common knowledge in this forum, but SOMEONE likes to jump into my threads just to banter with Maritsa

[Beautiful sky]

Also, if I really enjoy Dostoevsky am I delusional or mis-typed? Quasi-identicals are not supposed to get each other's writing, supposedly, but I've never understood this. And tcauld just said I should reconsider my typing because of my love of ENFps.

No, neither one; many of my LSI friends enjoy Dostoevsky, they say because of how complex his characters are and because of their depth; I personally find it a bit boring because I relate to his writing so much; um, what I guess I'm looking for are some of the things that I can't produce like in Dumas, and in Newsweek, or fact related journals and publications. I like Data of Te/S and the stories of dynamic nature in Si/Fe. We seek out things to "unlock out subconscious" perception of things, so to say.

[Beautiful sky]

I'm not sure if you're talking about Tolstoy anymore with the Te blocked with Si, but I'm gonna go ahead and say he's TeNi. Intuitive guess based on Anna Karenina which is my fave book of all time, and War and Peace which I just started and is not nearly as good, but shows a lot about how he observes people.

That's certainly a very strong possibility. I'm thinking about it.

[redbaron]

yeah I think TeNi could be it. Gonna read this book anyway though. from what I understand, he had a bit of a god-complex.

[cherrysidecar]

That's certainly a very strong possibility, but does this sound like anything of TeNi??

"Tolstoy's relationship with his wife deteriorated as his beliefs became increasingly radical. This saw him seeking to reject his inherited and earned wealth, including the renunciation of the copyrights on his earlier works."

No, that sounds like TiNe.. LIIs would totally pull something like that on their wives. But then these artist types become senile when they get older and it's hard to tell if it's type-related at that point..

[redbaron]

No, that sounds like TiNe.. LIIs would totally pull something like that on their wives. But then these artist types become senile when they get older and it's hard to tell if it's type-related at that point..

he was also *heavily* influenced by a close friend/advisor who kind of poisoned him against his wife (urging him to give away his money instead of leaving it for his wife/children). It was a very difficult last few years of his life. WATCH THE MOVIE (The Last Station).

[Beautiful sky]

he was also *heavily* influenced by a close friend/advisor who kind of poisoned him against his wife (urging him to give away his money instead of leaving it for his wife/children). It was a very difficult last few years of his life. WATCH THE MOVIE (The Last Station).

Somehow people can let themselves be poisoned by relations. I'm going to stick with poor understanding of Se and I'm going to stick with Fi valuing and ISTp for now, especially after knowing that he was "poisoned" against his wife. But I'll take the consideration that his sanity may have influenced his personality a great bit and think about how that might factor into the possibility of LIE.

[Capitalist Pig]

I was gonna read one of the English translations of War and Peace once, until I found out it was an abridged version. Oh well.

[inconnu]

Ethical!

IMO ESI is very possible.

[cherrysidecar]

Somehow people can let themselves be poisoned by relations. I'm going to stick with poor understanding of Se and I'm going to stick with Fi valuing and ISTp for now, especially after knowing that he was "poisoned" against his wife. But I'll take the consideration that his sanity may have influenced his personality a great bit and think about how that might factor into the possibility of LIE.

I'm OK with considering ISTp..at first I thought no way because from a modern day ISTp author I would expect something way shorter and weirder/controversial, rather than a "broad tableau of contemporary life." But back then even introverts had a wide social circle (the one they were born into). And I think the Anna + Vronsky pairing is delta irrational dual but I can't really back that up, I just want them to be a dual pairing and I want it to be irrational.

I do know for certain, though, the character Levin is supposed to be semi-autobiographical of Tolstoy, and he does seem like Si leading.

[strrrng]

LSI-Se. initially thought ESI-Se, then considered EII-Fi, but he's much different from dostoevsky, as maritsa noted. the focus is a bit more ideological (devoting entire chapters to these mathematical/philosophical maxims that underpin the activity of troops/citizens in various situations), and while morality plays an important role, it's more of a reactive espousal, not something laden in everything he says, like the sentimentality of dostoevsky; tolstoy seems more concerned with the devolution of ethics on a collective level (discussing how the french troops faded and turned on one another after taking moscow, interspersed with scenes of the idle ballroom chatter in petersburg) than any specific defects of his characters (he'll use trivial objects as symbols, like snuff boxes, or phrases of speech -- a very Se/Ni way of encapsulating broader attitudes). the central issue throughout war and peace is what really moves and shakes worlds; how it is that with the most intricate and organized set of social planning, people still seem to fall back into certain roles, propelled by forces not fully in their grasp; his annoyance with how historians embellish events that in essence had no real structure or meaning is colored by these kind of speculations (modeling the spirit of an army as the 'hidden variable' in a simplified equation). TiSe is showcased in the occasional repetitiveness of certain points, explaining in three different ways why the russians didn't completely sack the french, who were already destroyed, during the retreat, before diving into another mystic exploration. also, his descriptions of the upper class's social gatherings carry the sensitized distaste I've observed in virtually every beta habituated to delta formalities.

[cherrysidecar]

TiSe is showcased in the occasional repetitiveness in certain points, saying in three different ways why the russians didn't completely sack the french, who were already destroyed, during the retreat, before diving into another mystic exploration.

I thought Ti was sensitive to repetitive information? As in, they don't like it? But that might be because W&P was published in installments and he had to be repetitive.

also, his descriptions of the upper class's social gatherings carry the sensitized distaste I've observed in virtually every beta habituated to delta formalities.

Very interesting, I agree and do the same with my mostly delta family gatherings. Never thought it would fit neatly into quadras though.

[stray]

also, his descriptions of the upper class's social gatherings carry the sensitized distaste I've observed in virtually every beta habituated to delta formalities.

Delta formalties? What is that? Me not shaking your hand and closing my door to be left alone?

And I thought Beta NFs were the "noble"/upper class types.

[strrrng]

that's the thing, betas are acutely aware of the nuances of those kinds of things, but there's still always an implicit boundary that keeps them from ever being fully invested in them. for example, at family gatherings, which usually occur at my dad's picket fence mansion, my EIE-Ni friend and I will invariably greet each other with a somewhat scandalous glance amidst the prelude chatter, like we know it's just another dance and whatever. delta formalities aren't social as such, they're like the boundaries of social interaction, how a specific program is to be met, whereas betas, while tending to a more grim kind of a formality in their closer-knit interactions, always structure it around each others' inner states, the personal meaning of certain expressions that solidify the reason they're there; it isn't this mechanized quid pro quo. granted, this view is intensified in beta due to the need for social structure, but that's the point.

as for the Ti repetitiveness, it's twofold. on the one hand, Ti is prone to condensing things; however (and I've noticed this especially with beta Ti), when a point is deemed obvious, there can be a rigor in the explanation that carries redundancy to ensure that it's been addressed in the most complete way. in the example of how the russians didn't fully sack the french, he didn't so much rehash details as slightly reframe the premise of what he was saying, to repulse whatever deluded notions the historians may have had about napoleon's genius and whatnot, and thereby prove that such events in fact don't have that kind of majestic order. I've done this before with people if they ask a stupid question, trying to show every angle so that such redundancies can be avoided.

[stray]

that's the thing, betas are acutely aware of the nuances of those kinds of things, but there's still always an implicit boundary that keeps them from ever being fully invested in them. for example, at family gatherings, which usually occur at my dad's picket fence mansion, my EIE-Ni friend and I will invariably greet each other with a somewhat scandalous glance amidst the prelude chatter, like we know it's just another dance and whatever. delta formalities aren't social as such, they're like the boundaries of social interaction, how a specific program is to be met, whereas betas, while tending to a more grim kind of a formality in their closer-knit interactions, always structure it around each others' inner states, the personal meaning of certain expressions that solidify the reason they're there; it isn't this mechanized quid pro quo. granted, this view is intensified in beta due to the need for social structure, but that's the point.

I didn't understand half of that, but I'll take your word for it.

I've only read Anna Karenina a long awhile back, so I can't really comment on type. I liked his non fiction/Christian activist work ("The Kingdom of God is Within You"). Maybe that he had such close ties and was an influence to Gandhi might put him in the Beta camp.

[cherrysidecar]

I can see why SLI might disagree with the formality thing, in my experience my very close SLI friend could care less about presenting himself properly in a social setting; afterwards I would lecture him on it from an entirely Fe point of view and he would again tune me out.

But even he treated people with formality in a very external sense - this person's position requires this much of an attention/greeting, whereas that person could be ignored - this was based on Te and people who ignored those boundaries would annoy him.

Betas know all this and follow the same conventions, but they want to wink at someone after they've done it.. which I think strrrng was also saying.

[silke]

ENFj sx/so 1w9


His type is dynamic, Ni/Se-valuing. He very aptly delineates external dynamics in his works and advocates a unity of meaning despite the variance of external form. By all accounts he was an extravert. He loved claiming the center of attention at social gatherings and was said to quite enjoy verbal sparring in public.

There was an entire article on his typing. I haven't read through it yet, but skimming through the author has arrived at same conclusion - http://translate.google.com/translat...Fdp-tolstoy%2F

A few quotes by him -

Art is a human activity having for its purpose the transmission to others of the highest and best feelings to which men have risen.

Everything comes in time to him who knows how to wait.

The strongest of all warriors are these two - Time and Patience.

Respect was invented to cover the empty place where love should be.

There can be only one permanent revolution — a moral one; the regeneration of the inner man.
How is this revolution to take place? Nobody knows how it will take place in humanity, but every man feels it clearly in himself. And yet in our world everybody thinks of changing humanity, and nobody thinks of changing himself.

In historical events great men - so-called - are but labels serving to give a name to the event, and like labels they have the least possible connection with the event itself. Every action of theirs, that seems to them an act of their own free will, is in an historical sense not free at all, but in bondage to the whole course of previous history, and predestined from all eternity.

Go - take the mother's soul, and learn three truths: Learn What dwells in man, What is not given to man, and What men live by. When thou hast learnt these things, thou shalt return to heaven.

'What dwells in man" I already knew. Now I learnt what is not given him. It is not given to man to know his own needs.

To love life is to love God. Harder and more blessed than all else is to love this life in one's sufferings, in undeserved sufferings.

In order to feel complete love, we can either delude ourselves that some imperfect object of our love is “perfection” or we can love perfection, which is God.

War is not a courtesy but the most horrible thing in life; and we ought to understand that, and not play at war. We ought to accept this terrible necessity sternly and seriously. It all lies in that: get rid of falsehood and let war be war and not a game. As it is now, war is the favourite pastime of the idle and frivolous.

Judging from VI his posture on photographs is congruent with EJ temperament; he positions himself in this sort of expansive, spacious manner. Compare these pictures to the EJ photos here.

[cherrysidecar]

Judging from VI his posture on photographs is congruent with EJ temperament; he positions himself in this sort of expansive, spacious manner. Compare these pictures to the EJ photos here.

Right so back to TeNi then. I'm not sold for ENFj

[silke]

this is interesting ... apparently Tolstoy was in correspondence with Gandhi and had a formative effect on Gandhi's ideas of non-violent resistance ... i never knew that

In 1908, Tolstoy wrote A Letter to a Hindoo outlining his belief in non-violence as a means for India to gain independence from British colonial rule. In 1909, a copy of the letter fell into the hands of Mohandas Gandhi who was working as a lawyer in South Africa at the time and in the beginnings of becoming an activist. Tolstoy's letter was significant for Gandhi who wrote to the famous writer seeking proof that he was the real author, leading to further correspondence between them. Reading Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You also convinced Gandhi to avoid violence and espouse nonviolent resistance, a debt Gandhi acknowledged in his autobiography, calling Tolstoy "the greatest apostle of non-violence that the present age has produced". The correspondence between Tolstoy and Gandhi would only last a year, from October 1909 until Tolstoy's death in November 1910, but led Gandhi to give the name, the Tolstoy Colony, to his second ashram in South Africa. Besides non-violent resistance, the two men shared a common belief in the merits of vegetarianism, the subject of several of Tolstoy's essays.

Right so back to TeNi then. I'm not sold for ENFj

what makes you think Te > Fe for him?

[cherrysidecar]

what makes you think Te > Fe for him?

The attention to detail. Not on various emotional states changing between characters, but solid, factual details, everywhere - and this is the catalyst to any change in emotions, usually at the end of the chapter. I'm not considering the letters and biographies, though I guess I should.

[strrrng]

a few other Se-LSIs, donald sutherland and singer sting (no it isn't the facial hair).

I wouldn't say it's uncommon for Se-xSIs to have a spacious presence. the key difference between them and their Ni-xIE counterparts is how the space is occupied. the former has a contained weightiness, whereas the latter feels more aggressive and expansive, anchoring vs. magnetizing. also, in the facial structure/expression of LSIs, there's a more direct stolidity, like they're holding back just enough without giving any ground; Ni-xIEs on the other hand seem to 'look through' things, there's a similar directness but it's more active and encompassing in its energy.