Robert
Member
I've been thinking a lot about famous creative people, primarily writers, and wondering whether they're F's or T's. Rather than straight away outline my problem I'll consider two creative writers as an example.
Nabokov used to say quite frequently in interviews, though I've forgotten the exact wording and no doubt mine is inadequate, 'the exuberance of science, and the precision of art). Nabokov was obsessed with detail and considered art existed not in generalities such as plot or theme or exuberant emotional outbursts, but the specific rendering of emotion, event, character. Which is why he talks about the 'precision of art' rather than the 'precision of science', which (apart from natural science - he himself was a lepidopterist) is concerned with systems, which therefore generalize. There are lots of images in his art of butterflies, which suggests that he figured his cataloguing of different species of butterfly and his discoveries as a lepidopterist were not a million miles away from his work as a novelist. And he often spoke of Lolita as like his capturing butterflies and then killing them in order to study them - an act of violence mixed with an act of creativity.
Similarly, George Eliot, is obviously a 'feeling' artist. She makes it explicit in her novels that she intends through them to evoke a wider sympathy in her audience for their fellow men. She is almost incapable in them of condemnation of characters, working to generate sympathy for even the foulest (such as Bulstrode in Middlemarch). This is a characteristic typically attributed to INFPs. But the way in which she generates this sympathy is through an accurate and expansive delineation of motivation and character weakness ('to understand all is to forgive all', as Sebastian's friend said in defence of his drunkenness in Brideshead Revisited). This INTP profile here - http://www.intp.org/intprofile.html - which I think is in many ways marvellous, suggests,
Yet it seems to me there is as much if not much more logical detail in the accurate psychological depiction of a human character, which is infinitely more complicated than even the most abstract sci-fi premise. But it is this precisely that is what generates the feeling in Middlemarch. The identifying with those weaknesses in ourselves or those frustrated aims that are so brilliantly depicted generate much of the emotional effect.
I'll stop here with analysing authors, though I believe I could mention countless other examples in which there is much logical precision and detail, and sometimes indeed argument present as part of the art - I'd include most major writers actually.
My problem is it seems to me that it seems to me characterizing great artists as either 'feelers' or 'thinkers' seems utterly inadequate or even nonsensical. The problem, I admit, may be that I misunderstand the terms involved. For me logic is useful insofar as it is the most able method of accessing truth. When I have discussions with supposed 'feelers', I often find their emotional outbursts excessively childish. Incapable of facing reality and truth, they instead allow themselves to be led by what they wished reality was, and ignore logic and delineation, quite often choosing to prematurely end an unpropitious argument rather than pursue it further into dangerous realms. I recognize the same emotional wishes in myself, but subordinate them and am therefore capable of self-realization and knowing when I am merely wishing something was rather than seeing something as it is. It is logical argument and perception that allows me to do that. Surely all truly creative writers must be capable of such feats of logic and such intuitive perception?
Nabokov used to say quite frequently in interviews, though I've forgotten the exact wording and no doubt mine is inadequate, 'the exuberance of science, and the precision of art). Nabokov was obsessed with detail and considered art existed not in generalities such as plot or theme or exuberant emotional outbursts, but the specific rendering of emotion, event, character. Which is why he talks about the 'precision of art' rather than the 'precision of science', which (apart from natural science - he himself was a lepidopterist) is concerned with systems, which therefore generalize. There are lots of images in his art of butterflies, which suggests that he figured his cataloguing of different species of butterfly and his discoveries as a lepidopterist were not a million miles away from his work as a novelist. And he often spoke of Lolita as like his capturing butterflies and then killing them in order to study them - an act of violence mixed with an act of creativity.
Similarly, George Eliot, is obviously a 'feeling' artist. She makes it explicit in her novels that she intends through them to evoke a wider sympathy in her audience for their fellow men. She is almost incapable in them of condemnation of characters, working to generate sympathy for even the foulest (such as Bulstrode in Middlemarch). This is a characteristic typically attributed to INFPs. But the way in which she generates this sympathy is through an accurate and expansive delineation of motivation and character weakness ('to understand all is to forgive all', as Sebastian's friend said in defence of his drunkenness in Brideshead Revisited). This INTP profile here - http://www.intp.org/intprofile.html - which I think is in many ways marvellous, suggests,
The Ne-Ti axis is a particularly useful configuration for an interest in Science Fiction. The Ne provides a fascination for abstract ideas while the Ti loves analysing the scientific concepts presented. Many an INTP is a Trekkie, particularly because Star Trek pays a great deal of attention to logical detail.
Yet it seems to me there is as much if not much more logical detail in the accurate psychological depiction of a human character, which is infinitely more complicated than even the most abstract sci-fi premise. But it is this precisely that is what generates the feeling in Middlemarch. The identifying with those weaknesses in ourselves or those frustrated aims that are so brilliantly depicted generate much of the emotional effect.
I'll stop here with analysing authors, though I believe I could mention countless other examples in which there is much logical precision and detail, and sometimes indeed argument present as part of the art - I'd include most major writers actually.
My problem is it seems to me that it seems to me characterizing great artists as either 'feelers' or 'thinkers' seems utterly inadequate or even nonsensical. The problem, I admit, may be that I misunderstand the terms involved. For me logic is useful insofar as it is the most able method of accessing truth. When I have discussions with supposed 'feelers', I often find their emotional outbursts excessively childish. Incapable of facing reality and truth, they instead allow themselves to be led by what they wished reality was, and ignore logic and delineation, quite often choosing to prematurely end an unpropitious argument rather than pursue it further into dangerous realms. I recognize the same emotional wishes in myself, but subordinate them and am therefore capable of self-realization and knowing when I am merely wishing something was rather than seeing something as it is. It is logical argument and perception that allows me to do that. Surely all truly creative writers must be capable of such feats of logic and such intuitive perception?
finally another abnormal that understands