Paradoxes & Dichotomies

[rawr]

Well, after doing some research on the different types and INFJ in particular, and from some of my own speculation & introspection, it seems that I, like many other INFJs (and others, of course ) have a fascination for different theories, ideas and concepts. Some people have a knack for analyzing those, and finding things such as discrepancies in them. (not sure what type those people would be though lol).
All that to say, I think many INFJs and some others find the topic of dichotomies and paradoxes fascinating. So I thought i might pose some interesting discussion here. For one, are you fascinated with such things as paradoxes and dichotomies?
Now, here comes the interesting part: I thought it would be cool if i could present a dichotomy or paradox and have some discussion on it; then, after awhile, someone else could bring up another, then we would discuss that one... etc.
So, sorry, enough of my rambling I'll get to it: What do you all think about these contrasting maxims?
+ "Opposites attract" &
+ "Birds of the same feather flock together"

I really hope this thread gets flying, but we'll see

 

[Gaze]

"Opposites attract"
- depends on what we mean by opposite. Opposite may mean complementary, opposite in behavior, thought or action. Many people are attracted to someone who behaves differently, but to have a lasting relationship, it helps to think similarly. So, someone may seem like the complete opposite considering behavior alone, but yet be very similar in thought processes, values, beliefs, attitudes, etc.

"Birds of the same feather flock together"
- True and not true. Birds as a category includes a wide variety of species. Some birds are more closely related in "feathers" to others. I think it's less that birds of a feather flock to together than, birds of a feather flock together occasionally or routinely for community, connection, and support from those who understand them, or think and feel the way they do. And at other times, they flock together in essence by "blood ties" (for lack of a better phrase), meaning hang with family, those of a "feather" who they've grown up with and raised around.

Very interesting. Suggest more!

 

[NeverAmI]

"Opposites attract" - This is an interesting one but it is so vague as well. If you look in social/values of humanity, then it can be true. The different political parties constantly circle each other in their trivial arguments. Religious groups war and fight over who has the "right" religion. Like a moth drawn to the flame. Opposites attract, they don't always get along.

"Birds of the same feather flock together." - This makes sense in the idea of social communities. People naturally set up long term relationships with others, sometimes for support, security, assistance, or stimulus. It is easiest to get along with someone that has similar views. Opposites may attract, but similars adhere.




War against terror.

 

[rawr]

thank you restraint

war on terror

hmmm interesting one - I am going to assume that you see this as a paradox because you view terror is an inherent and inexorable trait of war itself - this makes sense.
However, as the term is used, i think it has more of a context of getting rid of terrorism - it's little suprise that most humans do not like terror, and the ones that do are simply sadists. I think the idea of waging a war on terror branches off from one of three basic human reactions to something they see as negative: freeze (don't respond to it or ignore it), flight (run away from the problem, after all, it is in no way comfortable so you might as well escape it), and fight (in other words, I don't like this situation or feeling, so I am going to fight against it in an attempt to actively change it.)
This seems to me to be the fight response. While these three reactions are often used in a biological sense (referring to adrenaline responses), i think it can apply as a psychological respone to anything perceived to be a negative stimuli (for the mind, body, or spirit of the individual or group.) I think that the effort to wage a war on terror is one of human's natural reactions to deal with something they do not like - they do not tolerate terrorism, therefore they fight against it in an attempt to kill it off.
However, it is an interesting point you brought up - for most (especially the NF types, i would think) are very sensitive to conflict and often have grave misgivings about it - for them, and for many others, terror is an inexorable part of any war - one cannot help but notice the human suffering that takes place in it. So then, some might pose, if we are only causing terror and suffering by waging a war, then why are we waging a war against terror? Because, we have ideals, and we think that a war is the most effective method in dealing with terrorism, in an attempt to stop it in its tracks - something which is clearly very costly and difficult to do.

(sorry about the length)

 

[Trifoilum]

So, sorry, enough of my rambling I'll get to it: What do you all think about these contrasting maxims?
+ "Opposites attract" &
+ "Birds of the same feather flock together"

Well, considering 'attract' and 'flock' within a good definition of it, I think it's more or less a different beliefs that explained people's needs; each side tells how people need / want a different thing than themselves, sometimes to the extreme, yet at the same time can find solace, solidarity, and peace within people of same "feathers".

I think there're people who'd believed more in one of that maxim than the other.

Within the context of romantic relationship, there's also people who'd find people who're exactly like them, or completely different, and somewhere in between. So I think, yeah, it's two sides of a coin.

war on terror

I think the idea of waging a war on terror branches off from one of three basic human reactions to something they see as negative: freeze (don't respond to it or ignore it), flight (run away from the problem, after all, it is in no way comfortable so you might as well escape it), and fight (in other words, I don't like this situation or feeling, so I am going to fight against it in an attempt to actively change it.)

Essentially in technical meaning, I believe in this.
In idealism, I believe it's more like, sacrificing other people for the sake of our own, no matter how hard it might be. That the sacrifice and/or cruelty done would be paid off by the safety of our own beloved.
Realistically, tho, it seems to come off as a jargon; a propaganda based on that idealism, to expect people to shut up and (maybe) agreed to the war.

 

[Siamese cat]

I don't see those two maxims as contrasting. For some reason you all considered social situations, but I'll try to introduce another. Consider the structure of an atom. It has a core of protons mixed with some neutrons which we are going to disregard since they are neutral. Now you have electrons which are attracted to that core so yes "opposites do attract" but then again "Birds of the same feather flock together" since protons stay together and electrons also.

Now this is intended only in fun purposes, because atom structure is actually not that simple as I've pictured it, but I thought that it would be of good use to what I was trying to say.

 

[rawr]

*bump*