Why do some trad priests keep on talking about "temperaments"?
#21
(11-17-2011, 03:15 PM)rbjmartin Wrote: I think the answer to the original question is because it originates from Classical times (Wikipedia says Hippocrates developed it into medical theory) and was popular among the medievals.

The bad thing about the temperments idea was that it led to bleeding as a medical practice.  You had to rebalance the temperments to achieve health.  They did have ideas about certain diets to balance the temperments too, although I don't think they worked to well either. 
Reply
#22
(11-17-2011, 06:06 PM)Jackson K. Eskew Wrote: Listen to these in succession:

http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/200808...Fault.html

&

http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/200508...ng-It.html

&

http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/200509...ation.html

Thank you for posting these.  It has convinced me that I am Sanguine as I relate to others, but phlegmatic as relates to my fault.  I am slothful, yet very social, happy, and people oriented.
Reply
#23
(11-17-2011, 06:34 PM)drummerboy Wrote: The bad thing about the temperments idea was that it led to bleeding as a medical practice.  You had to rebalance the temperments to achieve health.  They did have ideas about certain diets to balance the temperments too, although I don't think they worked to well either. 

Bleeding has wrongly gotten a bad name. Look into it.
Reply
#24
(11-17-2011, 06:54 PM)OCLittleFlower Wrote: Thank you for posting these. 

You're most welcome.
Reply
#25
(11-17-2011, 02:58 PM)OCLittleFlower Wrote:
(11-16-2011, 09:07 PM)Doce Me Wrote: I learned about the four temperaments when I was young, from  an excellent small book called  The Four Temperaments by Rev. Conrad Hock.  It is a very Catholic and very concise book, and well worth reading by any Catholic who is trying to know and improve himself.  Here it is online http://catholinks.com/FourTemperaments.htm

Very interesting.

The quiz on the FE site tells me I am Sanguine but this book's method pegs me as phlegmatic -- yet I am not and have never been shy, etc, with anything except my anger.  However, I lack the Sanguine chronically late trait.  *shrug*

I'm nearly 50/50 Sanguine/Choleric.  It switches a bit based on the setting.
Reply
#26
(11-16-2011, 11:46 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: I've found that this method is surprisingly accurate. I'm pretty much exactly like the Melancholic temperament down to the letter.

So far, I've noticed that most FE are melancholic. I've begun to wonder if one has to be to appreciate tradition. I'll bet on CAF most people are sanguine, too.
Reply
#27
The temperaments are somewhat outdated now but still a valid tool for personal growth, much like Meyers-Briggs or dozens of other methods.

However, it is sad and a worrying trend to see Trad priests falling into the same trap as others:  substituting psychology for religion.  Using psychology, or even less stable ideologies, in place of solid spiritual guidance.

Sure, some people have problems or questions that require the intervention of a psychologist or even psychiatrist.  And self-administered tests can be helpful too, like the temperaments, but only if the person is already mature enough to interpret and apply the results.

These are tools of analysis for improving/understanding personality or relationship issues.  That is a good thing if used accurately.  But they are not part of our religion.

Reply
#28
(11-19-2011, 01:43 PM)Old Lady Wrote: The temperaments are somewhat outdated now

Please clarify. I want to make sure that the myth of progress and its chronological snobbery isn't embedded in this statement.
Reply
#29
(11-17-2011, 03:05 PM)OCLittleFlower Wrote:
(11-17-2011, 03:02 PM)Servire Deo Wrote:
(11-16-2011, 12:36 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(11-16-2011, 12:07 PM)Servire Deo Wrote: Maybe it's just me but I can't pin down a temperament.

Is that because I haven't fully matured yet?

There are mixed temperaments. My wife can't be pinned down. Also a mature person is not subservient to their temperament, but . You seem to be like a melancholic in the sense that you are rigorist and overly judgemental. I don't know you, and I am not saying that is altogether true, but you display some of those qualities in your posts. Keirsey provides more nuance, and as one matures you can purposely foster qualities to balance your temperament. For instance, trying to be more compassionate, or taking on tasks which challenge oneself to be outgoing, etc. His book Please Understand Me II is a good primer.

But I've read that melancholics should have jobs like "Night Watchman", which is an antiquated way of saying "Night Security Guard". It seems like some say one should stay in one's comfort zone and others say that one should try to leave one's comfort zone.

Different people will always have differing ideas about this.  I think that it can be helpful to learn to function outside of one's comfort zone, but at the same time it is important to play to one's strengths.  I would say it is best to mainly play to one's strngeths in terms of career choice.  Why torture yourself and fight an uphill battle when you could more easily succeed if you chose something that you are good at?

It depends on what it is. I had trouble speaking in front of groups. Didn't bode well for career life. I had to face that head on, and why I was afraid. Now I am fine in front of large groups, with the requisite preparation before and cool down period afterwards. Another example. My wife is more outgoing than I. We were newly married and she wanted to do a lot more socializing stuff than I did. It was part of our process of becoming a long-term couple instead of riding the honeymoon buzz. I had to come out of my shell and be more engaged in an exterior way. She had to compromise a bit, and foster more of the home life. This is what I mean. If you know your natural inclinations, it can help you grow to be part of a family, community, parish, etc. What I don't mean is go completely against your temperament, but don't be too comfortable with it either that you aren't willing to adapt to people. I didn't go and become an actor, but if I wanted ever to stabilize a higher position in my career, it demanded that I manage large groups of people, to be clearly spoken and not hide in my office, to speak in large groups, and to deliver reviews, and call people on their weaknesses. Or to forgive the people around me for shortcomings. By my nature (guardian/melancholic), if someone fails me, I literally don't want to be around them -- I am revolted by their physical presence. Like if my friend commits some minor moral fault, I won't want to be around him anymore and he would have to regain my trust slowly before I would be completely free with him as a friend. That's absurd, of course, because the punishment doesn't fit the crime. It allows you to step out and self-critique to see what your strengths and weaknesses are in your nature.
Reply
#30
(11-19-2011, 12:06 PM)Richard C Wrote:
(11-16-2011, 11:46 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: I've found that this method is surprisingly accurate. I'm pretty much exactly like the Melancholic temperament down to the letter.

So far, I've noticed that most FE are melancholic. I've begun to wonder if one has to be to appreciate tradition. I'll bet on CAF most people are sanguine, too.

Also most people who runs schools are melancholic. That's why a lot of sanguines and phlematics have a hard time there. This is another plus of reading about the temperaments. By the way, my priest is a sanguine. A mature sanguine, or any mature temperament, can be traditional. They will, however, emphasize different aspects of the Faith. A sanguine may love the music, incense, and the exterior elements. They may love the social aspect. very fascinating. By the way, Keirsey gives this estimate for the population (so don't be surprised if many trads are melancholic):

Sanguine: 40%
Melancholic : 40%
Choleric: 10%
Phlematic: 10%
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)