The Doctor Query

[Cavallier]

Which is it?* Also, please discuss your answer.

1. Live entirely independently with self-reliance and the ability to do anything you want without having to first confer with another. You will be alone however since you cannot have complete freedom and self-reliance if you have to worry about the happiness/input of another person. There is loneliness.

OR...

2. To have a companion with whom you can share everything. You can have a truly happy relationship but you are limited in some respects as to what you can do or where you can go since you must concern yourself with your companion's happiness. There is a limit to your freedom.


*You do not have to be INTP to answer this question.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Trying to to find a compromise between the two is impossible, unfortunately.

Relationships (in my observation) only rarely absolve loneliness and sometimes even exacerbate it. So I'd pick 1 without hesitation, I'd rather be lonely then imprisoned by the fickle nature of another.

 

[Black Rose]

A worthy companion but a lack of total independence.

If only.

 

[Fukyo]

#2.

A "worthy" companion would certainly not make me a slave to their happiness, moods or whims. Equally distributed relationships require some amount of compromising for the benefit of all involved. Can we even indulge in complete freedom and independence? There will always be circumstances and other people that will limit us.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I would seriously like to know the philosophy / goal / purpose of someone who choses option #1.


I, personally, see no use for freedom if there's no higher purpose. To have a higher purpose, to me, means to be devoted to or involved in something. The highest purpose then, is the highest form of devotion or involvement. I'd have no reason to exist if I had to live entirely independently without another person / cause. In other words, I could not and would not live for myself.

 

[Fallenman]

Certain people bother me this goes without saying, but all people are not born equally, as clearly indicated by this forum (based on typology, and yet within the type we still see a variety of characters throughout, with interests and beliefs that vary quite broadly).

I value independence immensely, this goes without saying, but I could never commit myself to a life of solitude. What is more, I've found that there are a variety of people that I would love to share my life with, people with lives i would loved to be involved in. And the only pursuit that interests me solely is self-improvement, which will only take me so far, and my interest in self-improvement is often only amplified by being able to contrast and interact with others (seems rather petty, but that's life).

I couldn't possibly pick #1, for all the things in the world.

 

[Black Rose]

I couldn't possibly pick #1, for all the things in the world.

 

[Solitaire U.]

#1 is a delusion, which makes #2 a foregone conclusion, and not simply in the sense of sharing digs with a romantic partner. I equate adults who retain that three-year old mentality of "I did it all by myself" to coming in third place at the Special Olympics. It's like "You sure did and I'm so proud of you for choosing to do it the hard way for no good reason whatsoever and succeeding! Now bend over and let mommy wipe your ass..."

 

[Deleted member 1424]

I, personally, see no use for freedom if there's no higher purpose. To have a higher purpose, to me, means to be devoted to or involved in something. The highest purpose then, is the highest form of devotion or involvement. I'd have no reason to exist if I had to live entirely independently without another person / cause. In other words, I could not and would not live for myself.

There are millions of better purposes then love and millions more ethically sound. Do you know why 'love' is so tantalizing to pretty much everyone? Biology. Your body wants you to reproduce and to ensure the survival of your offspring. That is what the family unit, what love and pairbonding, revolves around. Not some higher purpose, that's delusional. Think about it, ensuring the survival of your genes (and memes really) is about the most selfish thing you can do.

Billions of our ancestors have participated in the rituals associated with pair bonding and mate guarding. It's not special, it's not even valuable anymore. It's waste. It's distraction. Why don't you do something that actually matters? Something that will leave a mark and change things for the better. Something progressive or morally laudable? Apply yourself intellectually, create an AI, master a new language, volunteer your time, be unconditionally compassionate, adopt and nurture an abused child. Anything, but don't claim moral superiority when all you have is a biological imperative and a nihilistic void to fill. Your claims ring hollow. not aimed entirely at you icy, a bit generalized



I wonder sometimes if the lovelorn kind is physically blind, if you cannot see. Look around you, look at 'love.' Tell me, do you really think somehow you'll be different? That somehow you'll be the one who actually attains the ideal? Do you think that you'll never regret it, that your love will never be tainted or damaged? That's all vanity my friend, you are no different. The same things that drove them, drives you now. You are not special, you are not exempt. You are only a new generation of Sisyphus compelled to push the same goddamned rock.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

You think holding fast to something as feeble as 'love' makes you morally superior?

Here, you have already gone off track. For one, I made no mention of morals or love. Two, no, I do not think it makes it makes me morally superior. I suppose I should inform you of my intents for asking for an explanation.

I, personally, cannot live like that, in option #1. I cannot imagine doing so, I just can't. Not because of haughtiness, but because of a necessity to be attached. I need something to live for. I don't judge others by my own criteria and so what may have seemed like haughtiness was merely an inability to understand.

Do you know why 'love' is so tantalizing to pretty much everyone? Biology. Your body wants you to reproduce and ensure the survival of your offspring. That is what the family unit, what love and pairbonding, revolves around.

Agreed.

Not some high purpose, that's delusional.

Delusional? Because you cannot understand what is not rationally defined? How can you subject irrationality to rational standards? Claiming that love and procreation are biological and nothing more is the real delusion, in my opinion. How arrogant man must be to claim nothing exists beyond what he cannot conclude with logical thinking. Even if there was no "true higher purpose", what gives you the almighty authority to declare such a statement, especially when we can never know beyond human reasoning?

Think about it, ensuring the survival of your genes (and memes really) is about the most selfish thing you can do.

I'm already aware, though procreation was not yet introduced in my own initial post.

Billions of our ancestors have participated the rituals associated with pair bonding and mate guarding. It's not special, it's not even valuable anymore. It's waste. It's distraction.

This has nothing to do with the subjective situation. Sure, society this and society that, what about "I"? Just because events occurred in the past that does not make them any less significant for the ones who have yet to witness and experience them.

Why don't you do something that actually matters? Something that will leave a mark and change things for the better. Something progressive or morally laudable?

Another oversight on the subject.

Apply yourself intellectually, create an AI, master a new language, volunteer your time, be unconditionally compassionate, adopt and nurture an abused child.

These are causes, did not you see in my post where I stated I wanted a cause to live for?

I, personally, see no use for freedom if there's no higher purpose. To have a higher purpose, to me, means to be devoted to or involved in something. The highest purpose then, is the highest form of devotion or involvement. I'd have no reason to exist if I had to live entirely independently without another person / cause. In other words, I could not and would not live for myself.

You are mistaken in your words.

Anything, but don't claim moral superiority when all you have is a biological imperative and a nihilistic void to fill. Your claims ring hollow.

This is subject to the first response.

I wonder sometimes if the lovelorn kind is physically blind, if you cannot see. Look around you, look at 'love.' Tell me, do you really think somehow you'll be different? That somehow you'll be the one who actually attains the ideal? Do you think that you'll never regret it, that your love will never be tainted or damaged? That's all vanity my friend, you are no different. The same things that drove them, drives you. You are not special, you are not exempt. Only a new generation of Sisyphus, but the same goddamned rock.

Also subject to previous responses.


Overall, you misunderstood my position.

 

[Minuend]

Puzzling, I was considering changing my title to "you'll never forget your first doctor"

I'm halfway through season 2 and this is one of the greatest series I've even seen!

I liked the guy in season 1 better than that guy in s2. He is too noisy.

Oh, #2 btw. I've tried #1 my entire life and still long to be enslaved by others to gain their approval. Ah, such is the life of pack animals.

Though if I had to choose between the TARDIS and my love...... That's more difficult. I think I would have to choose the TARDIS. So, #1?

 

[Black Rose]

This has nothing to do with the subjective situation. Sure, society this and society that, what about "I"? Just because events occurred in the past that does not make them any less significant for the ones who have yet to witness and experience them.

John 10:30

I and the Father are one.

Prepare for act 3.​

YouTube - Transformers 3 Dark of the Moon Trailer - Official (HD)

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I haven't even seen Transformers 2 lol.

Was that Unicron?

 

[Black Rose]

I haven't even seen Transformers 2 lol.

Was that Unicron?

Could be?

But good must fight evil, and yet can we save ourself from ignorance?

Save all whom you can.

YouTube - The Day After Tomorrow

 

[snafupants]

Most people have a secret yearning to be understood, even in a small way, and I am no different.

Happiness is a strong, maybe intimidating, word. Contentment, however, for me follows option two. What good is freedom is you're not challenging yourself?

One would hope at some point, regarding number two, that happiness and giving to the other person would not be mutually exclusive. This all sound idealistic now.

 

[sammael]

How about:

1) Total independence but without a worthy companion to share it with.

2) A worthy companion but a total lack of independence.

Originally how i interpreted (misread) the question, thereby causing me to choose #1. However perhaps more relevant to us independant intp's..?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

How about:

1) Total independence but without a worthy companion to share it with.

2) A worthy companion but a total lack of independence.

Originally how i interpreted (misread) the question, thereby causing me to choose #1. However perhaps more relevant to us independant intp's..?

This would have to enter semantics. There's nothing wrong with codependency, it's more than what people usually assign to it(neediness, care-giving etc).

 

[Darby]

How about:

1) Total independence but without a worthy companion to share it with.

2) A worthy companion but a total lack of independence.

What would constitute "total" lack of independence? Being forced to wear a shock collar that goes off every time we do something wrong? or being forced to exist in a body that is outside of your control, but you still exist within (because this would be an awful lot like the one and only time I got high)?

By my secondary definition I would have to go with #1, but even something like a shock collar I could live with, I would just be in an awful lot of pain all the time.

EDIT: The assumption being that this thing/person I got to be a part of would be infinitely awesome if I chose #2.

 

[Black Rose]

What would constitute "total" lack of independence? Being forced to wear a shock collar that goes off every time we do something wrong? or being forced to exist in a body that is outside of your control, but you still exist within (because this would be an awful lot like the one and only time I got high)?

By my secondary definition I would have to go with #1, but even something like a shock collar I could live with, I would just be in an awful lot of pain all the time.

EDIT: The assumption being that this thing/person I got to be a part of would be infinitely awesome if I chose #2.

Don t push him to far.

@sammael

Would it not be better to be loved than hated ~ to give and take with equal measure and with all peoples.

 

[sammael]

How about:

1) Total independence but without a worthy companion to share it with.

2) A worthy companion but a total lack of independence.

Originally how i interpreted (misread) the question, thereby causing me to choose #1. However perhaps more relevant to us independant intp's..?

This is a choice of quite impossible extreme absolutes. The understanding of connotation is not particularly relevant, unless it is to define 'total independence' or 'total lack of independence' as Darby pointed out.

There's nothing wrong with codependency, it's more than what people usually assign to it(neediness, care-giving etc).

I do agree. However this does not necessarily make it (codependency) a good thing either.

@sammael

Would it not be better to be loved than hated ~ to give and take with equal measure and with all peoples.

A fascinating question, would not this also depend on personal situation and priorities of the individual..?

 

[Black Rose]

A fascinating question, would not this also depend on personal situation and priorities of the individual..?

How else must we live our lives than by that very standard.

No one is above salvation if we allow.

All are welcome, All shall be forgiven.

Come home.

But remember, non but Love (in all things/All religions) is the one true God.

 

[sammael]

Would it not be better to be loved than hated ~ to give and take with equal measure and with all peoples.

Love and hate is relative, and not necessarily dependant on either what you are doing for someone, or what you are not doing for someone. Being loved does not make one good, nor does being hated make one bad. What is implied by giving and taking with equal measure..? That sounds suspiciously like doing good unto those who do good unto you...

How else must we live our lives than by that very standard.

No one is above salvation if we allow.

All are welcome, All shall be forgiven.

Come home.

But remember, non but Love (in all things/All religions) is the one true God.

Total independence without a worthy companion does not imply anything to the contrary. I am a little curious as to what your understanding of that statement (#1) is..?

 

[Black Rose]

Love and hate is relative, and not necessarily dependant on either what you are doing for someone, or what you are not doing for someone. Being loved does not make one good, nor does being hated make one bad. What is implied by giving and taking with equal measure..? That sounds suspiciously like doing good unto those who do good unto you...

As a morphophonemic term it can be applied however the practitioner chooses.

In this case: Stop scaring the little children, That retards their development.

Total independence without a worthy companion does not imply anything to the contrary. I am a little curious as to what your understanding of that statement (#1) is..?

It is a polarity taken to extreme, My vindictiveness is not for him that look at the world with innocence but for he who would take it from him.

The OP was curious, not malicious, I hope that you are the former?

 

[Black Rose]

Should I put this into effect:

@sammael

No need for us to play good cop bad cop ~ are we not on the same team.

Luke ~ Buddha ~ Doctor

 

[sammael]

It is a polarity taken to extreme, My vindictiveness is not for him that look at the world with innocence but for he who would take it from him.

Hmm.. well said my dear. I do believe i agree, and would even say the same thing about myself. Bravo. I do like that word vindictiveness, simply spine tinglingly... tingly.

Should I put this into effect:

@sammael

No need for us to play good cop bad cop ~ are we not on the same team.

Luke ~ Buddha ~ Doctor

Ah.. but its soo funnnnn yes, we are on the same team. 0% maliciousness kitty, i apologise if it sounded elsewise.

 

[Black Rose]

Hmm.. well said my dear. I do believe i agree, and would even say the same thing about myself. Bravo. I do like that word vindictiveness, simply spine tinglingly... tingly.



Ah.. but its soo funnnnn yes, we are on the same team. 0% maliciousness kitty, i apologise if it sounded elsewise.

You remind me of him, if he was the good guy(Hero) and not the vilifier.

 

[Black Rose]

How else must we live our lives than by that very standard.

No one is above salvation if we allow.

All are welcome, All shall be forgiven.

Come home.

But remember, non but Love (in all things/All religions) is the one true God.

Love and hate is relative, and not necessarily dependant on either what you are doing for someone, or what you are not doing for someone. Being loved does not make one good, nor does being hated make one bad. What is implied by giving and taking with equal measure..? That sounds suspiciously like doing good unto those who do good unto you...

. Health
. |
. Love <- O -> Hate
. |
. Sickness


In the equation I personally equate Health with Love. Deep and Wide.

Like a mothers touch.

 

[BigApplePi]

Which is it?* Also, please discuss your answer.

Cav I'm shocked at putting such a complex question. So I will give a simplex answer. I've been married for decades.

1. Live entirely independently with self-reliance and the ability to do anything you want without having to first confer with another. You will be alone however since you cannot have complete freedom and self-reliance if you have to worry about the happiness/input of another person. There is loneliness.

How could I live entirely independently even if I weren't married? I need input and output and so does my wife. I do what I want as long as is doesn't affect my wife. If it does affect I talk with her. I certainly don't take everything into consideration and then there can be a conflict. If there is a conflict, one of us (can't tell which) will bring it up.

2. To have a companion with whom you can share everything. You can have a truly happy relationship but you are limited in some respects as to what you can do or where you can go since you must concern yourself with your companion's happiness. There is a limit to your freedom.
*You do not have to be INTP to answer this question.

I don't share "everything." That would be ridiculous ... unless I've misunderstood you. We share some things and that is great and the most fun. Why? I'd have to think about a short answer. Am I limited in what I can do? Well I know what I want to do and so does my wife. That took working out.

Two issues: how far apart to go? How close together to arrive? The former is pretty well settled ... unless I've missed something. The latter is an ongoing issue and is part of the relationship. Off hand, freedom is not an issue because we both insist on it.

Cav, I understand your issue is starting out on a close relationship ... marriage. Any questions out of my answer?

One comment: why do I feel a little weird because my answer is so different from the preceding replies? Or is it? I feel like an ultra INTP and I am not even sure I am one. What do you think?

 

[Black Rose]

One comment: why do I feel a little weird because my answer is so different from the preceding replies? Or is it? I feel like an ultra INTP and I am not even sure I am one. What do you think?

If you cant tell (for obvious reasons) I am gendered male (physically).

I am attracted to the female physical form.

But never have I seem to have been with some one emotionally. (Plus I'm still a virgin)

Sad to say we have our needs but find them we may not.

Just friends? Girl friends? Homies?

I cannot betray you in my heart if you were mine.

On equal terms, no better no worse.

We could go on adventures, Save the Kingdom/Queendom, making companions of All.

Loneliness would end, Forever After.

New International Version (©1984)

He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

 

[BigApplePi]

Ever guess you might be lonely? Then find someone like you. No one is like you? Then find someone close enough. Find someone who accepts you. Try them out. No good? Try another.

 

[Puffy]

Hey Cav - It's a really good question, I'll try my best to share my thoughts.

Initially I picked #1, this isn't really a matter of preference just what seems realistic of my experience and character thus far.

I have never been in a committed relationship but for a long time did pursue one. For the moment I can draw on two experiences of 'relationship'. The first is metaphysical - to God, when I was a Christian. Initially it was great, I have always been a lonely person, and even sharing my whole self with a transcendental being was a good experience, initially. The relationship made me happy because God could make me feel secure, at the same time my freedom was also restricted because I did things to make God happy - same old rituals.

The problem, imo, was in sharing everything. I did not like the feeling of being bound in this relationship especially when the being knew me too well - and did not let me know Him as well in return, what is with that? - doing things for God became a chore, and eventually felt like perpetual restrictions on myself. I had to leave that relationship.

The second I would suggest is with my friend Chris. Contrary to Adaire's comment, aimed at heterosexuals, this was not a biological relationship. I do not believe 'love' is bound in any biological sentiment, but I am aware - as I am naturally attracted to females - that I would find it difficult to differentiate the two if I was in a heterosexual relationship. This relationship forced me to abandon my Deconstructionist beliefs, I had refused to believe a genuine connection of understanding between people could exist, yet we understood each other very well. I believe he knows me better than God possibly could, and unlike God he shared as much of himself with me.

I would say I love him, for many reasons, yet when we were together, for a short while, I could not think of anything but ways to get out of the relationship. Even when we are now apart I still have feelings for him, and find as many opportunities to be with him as possible, but the idea of a binding companionship, for the moment at least, is too much for me. I have to pick #1 as for me #2 is so much a prison that I cannot enjoy the partners company.

Maybe this will change in a heterosexual relationship, I don't know. I'm just speaking realistically of my experience rather than of any idealistic notion of a 'worthy' partner. I don't know if God or Chris were 'worthy' partners, but both shared a similar result when I became bound to them. There is no total independance, and even being single I have friends and family whom I have responsibilities for, it is just the idea of being bound to a single companion which gets me really anxious.

What is your opinion Cav?

 

[Fukyo]

Billions of our ancestors have participated in the rituals associated with pair bonding and mate guarding. It's not special, it's not even valuable anymore. It's waste. It's distraction. Why don't you do something that actually matters? Something that will leave a mark and change things for the better. Something progressive or morally laudable? Apply yourself intellectually, create an AI, master a new language, volunteer your time, be unconditionally compassionate, adopt and nurture an abused child.

I am not at all sure why being in love or in a relationship would preclude us (humans) from accomplishing any of the above mentioned.

Which isn't to say the whole affair isn't potentially a double edged sword. The chemicals our brain is secreting during the limerence phase do make us develop a condition oddly similar to OCD; but couldn't the neural stimulans act as motivation for other accomplishments?

 

[Cavallier]

First, thank you Puffy for bringing up the point that a "companion" does not necessarily have to be romantic. This person could be a very close friend/soul mate or simply somebody that you work really well with. I can see why people thought I may have meant a romantic companion exclusively though. I should have been clearer. Also, you bring up an interesting point about being tied to one person entirely. I suppose that one could interpret option #2 as being bound to a single person but you obviously don't have to take it that direction. You could simply interpret option #2 as involving companionship with multiple people. Friends, lovers, deities, pets, and whatever else might in some way limit your freedom even as it staves off loneliness.

Second, I had intended a "Tardis" sort of "freedom" but decided to leave "freedom" up to interpretation so that the discussion would be more interesting. This forum generally enjoys a semantics discussion and who am I to attempt to dissuade you all from it? Though I've recently come to find semantic arguments rather tedious.

Third, please Apple though I understand your confusion don't assume I'm considering this question because I'm getting married soon. I've simply been watching too much Doctor Who lately.

Alright: I would choose option #1 given that by "freedom" I mean of the "Tardis" sort. I have an absolutely wonderful and happy relationship with somebody right now and I would do nearly anything for that person to make sure they are happy. By that I don't mean we are co-dependent or that my companion limits me beyond what would be considered normal for a healthy relationship. However, if I were forced to choose between my very close relationship or the freedom to go and experience (and therefore grow and learn in immeasurable ways) I would choose the "Tardis" freedom over my relationship.

Yes, I imagine it would be very lonely and I admit that the price of selfishly experiencing the universe on my own self-centered terms is probably deserving of this price.

Now, this is all a theoretical exercise so I'm obviously not running off on my companion today. There isn't a real "Tardis" that I know of. Ultimately I think this discussion is about how much freedom is worth the disconnection. The more freedom you want the fewer people you can be close to since in order to maintain a relationship you have to acquiesce to the other person at times. You can not always be free to do as you wish.

I wonder what it means that the majority of us have chosen to have the benefits of a companion over complete freedom? In this average sort of world we live in right now with no time machines I've chosen #2 since I value my companion quite highly. However, should a time traveling spaceship pop up tomorrow I'd probably run off with it and never look back. It's simply too much freedom for me to turn down.

 

[BigApplePi]

Third, please Apple though I understand your confusion don't assume I'm considering this question because I'm getting married soon. I've simply been watching too much Doctor Who lately.

On the concept of freedom.

Involvement with another person does mean some compromise. In the way one must listen to another's needs, one is restricted thereby losing a portion of freedom. But the net freedom is a plus if the involvement is doing well. That is because the other person serves as an extension of one's "social" and other desires.

For example if my wife knows someone who can help me out in something of my interests, that unblocks that interest and I get more freedom! I hope and trust this is not too confusing, lol.

Afterthought: If things are working optimally, compromises can be worked into one's overall outlook so they no longer appear as compromises. Optimization can't always be achieved though.

Who is Doctor Who? Your family physician?

 

[Darby]

Who is Doctor Who? Your family physician?

...what?

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who

I hope you enjoy it if you don't already know what it is.

 

[childish_intellect]

A tied life is not worth living. I was born a free man and by hell I will die a free man. I find people to be full of problems and frankly I don't need any more problems on my plate.

But since I am currently down in the dumps I would probably choose the second choice when I'm up and high-like. I once had a beautiful friend. That was long ago. That friend is long dead now. All I have are the happy memories we had. Pathetic.

I admit that the experience shared between two people is something that no other treasure in the world could equal. It is something that grows inside and not a product from outside stimuli. But then again it is part of that "human experience" thing.

 

[Puffy]

Spending your freedom on those you love is usually not so much a bad thing.

 

[Da Blob]

It is really rather pointless to live a life if the word, We, has little meaning and Self is restrained to a single soul...

 

[cheese]

Probably #2. Close relationships are a long-term investment. Freedom and solitude is all fun and games when you're young, but not when you're old. Your body wears out, your ability to fend for yourself greatly decreases, it becomes harder to make friends, you become out of touch with technology and can't keep up with the new world, you become increasingly isolated as a result of all these, and when you finally fall to the floor with your false teeth in a mug, your glasses on your bedside table and your heart doing things it was never meant to do, you'll be completely alone and without help - and probably will have been that way for the last few years. Who knows what kind of physical ailments you'll suffer that you won't be able to get help for? And no one to cheer you up or simply show concern, the simple act of which can be extremely helpful in recovery. There are just too many lonely, sad, miserable, poor old people for me to think 'independence' and 'solitude' are viable long-term. #2 is pragmatic. I want to both provide and be provided a safety net.

I used to want to be alone, but I realised it wasn't a very practical option. Perhaps room with a few good friends for the rest of my life, so the net was there but the limitations were not? But friends that remain single forever and are willing to live in a big happy group are hard to find.

 

[Hermetic Alchemist]

As stated both of those choices are 'literally' impossible.

Firstly nature imposes restrictions on us. We must eat, we must move through space and time. Even the TARDIS is restricted in some fashion - ALL stories (as far as I am aware) are about Man vs a restriction.

Everyone is tied to society. Society has implicit and explicit rules which we must follow. More restrictions on freedom. Even Richard Proenneke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Proenneke) was tied to society as he had to get some food items delivered.

#2. In a literal sense nobody can completely remove your freedom. The whole point of 1984 is while your actions can be limited (freedoms removed) it is impossible to remove the freedom of thought. While you can legistlate against 'thoughtcrime' you cannot prevent it.


So, having shown that your black and white scenarios are in a literal sense impossible, what is left is shades of grey, and it is where, on that scale, you choose to place yourself, that occupies INTPs (and probably most of humanity).

If you treat this as a philosophical question, then being unable to accurately imagine total freedom, or total dependence, I find it impossible to answer.

However in reality, it's #2 for me.

As someone else effectively said. There is no point fighting against 10,000,000 years of evolution. I am a pack animal.

As far as I am aware

 

[digital angel]

I enjoy being single. With respect to relationships, I think it's important to think of what's important to you and not make compromises on those things. I would rather be sinlge than be in a relationship with someone who doesn't understand me or appreciate me. I enjoy having the freedom to do what I want, when I want and how I want.

Love as a concept is interesting. As a lawyer, I would take a look at community property laws and so on. Let's face it, the divorce rate is what it is. Further, I think it's important to differentiate between being lonely and solitude.