Nouveau test de Celebrity Types qui nous donne le type d'amour (tel que défini par Platon, si j'ai bien compris) auquel on fait le plus appel.


Mon résultat est tellement sain que c'en est bizarre...  
Cela dit, le côté recherche de "self improvement" est plutôt vrai, le fait qu'en matière de gentillesse, je fais tout pour aller au-delà des apparences aussi. Mais j'ai l'impression que ce texte décrit mieux ce que j'aimerais être dans l'idéal que ce que je suis vraiment... D'ailleurs je crois qu'Eros serait pour moi le plus inspirant, a priori.


Good Eros

All eros types are organized around ascent, seeking to supplant their status as "human, all too human." Eros types are ideational and cerebral lovers who experience a continual drive towards making the most of their capabilities in order to realize the highest stage of accomplishment that it is possible for them to attain in life. By continually searching out self-improvement, and by being intensely self-critical about anything too mundane in their personalities, most eros types strive to achieve an otherworldly, icon-like facade whereby they will indeed be seen as something "more than human"; indeed as giving off the impression of having ascended "beyond the human condition" and onto something quasi-divine, like the Socratic seeker on the one hand, or the Nietzschean Overman on the other.

As for good eros, while bad eros types usually adopt the strategy of attempting to appear superior, latching on to anything that might present them as exceptional and outstanding in the eyes of others, good eros types have seen through the vain strivings that animate most of humanity and have found confidence and equanimity in the certainty of their own intellectual analyses. Like Socrates, who was somehow able to meet everything that befell him with self-assured composure, or like the ancient Stoics, who used to say that no ill can truly come to a man whose inner nature is in order, yours is the ability to rest assured that your actions and beliefs do not merely appear virtuous and outstanding in the eyes of others (as is the case with the bad eros type), but that they actually are virtuous and outstanding, according to an impersonal, objective standard. In your case, this standard is your inner, intellectual understanding, which you have developed to the point of going 'beyond' the inherently covetous and partial nature that plagues most human reasoning. By retaining your consistency, impartiality, and detachment in the face of almost every human plight, you do indeed manage to come across as something "more than human," "ascended," and "sphinx-like," as it were. Hopefully, you will find it in yourself to remember that while you may have set yourself 'beyond' the usual human predicaments of worry and trepidation, others are rarely as fortunate. And that, however comical their struggles may seem to you, they are still in need of empathy and consolation if they are ever to get to where you are as well.

Famous Greeks who have Eros: Socrates, Heraclitus.

Unlike the people who have one of the other seven Greek loves, you are so self-contained that there is no need for your partner to have any specific type of Greek love: Your gifts could work well in a relationship with any other type.



Les autres résultats. 
Je serais bien curieuse d'avoir une description de "Bad Agape". 








 







 







 







 







 







 







 







 

Your Greek Love is:

Bad Eros

All eros types are organized around ascent, seeking to supplant their status as "human, all too human." Eros types are ideational and cerebral lovers who experience a continual drive towards making the most of their capabilities in order to realize the highest stage of accomplishment that it is possible for them to attain in life. By continually searching out self-improvement, and by being intensely self-critical about anything too mundane in their personalities, most eros types strive to achieve an otherworldly, icon-like facade whereby they will indeed be seen as something "more than human"; indeed as giving off the impression of having ascended "beyond the human condition" and onto something quasi-divine, like the Socratic seeker on the one hand, or the Nietzschean Overman on the other.

As for bad eros, when beset by preoccupations with competency and worth, there is always the temptation to replace the true ascent towards fairness and justice with more immediate manifestations of superiority, such as bossy, authoritative, and entitled behavior, even in cases where there may not be much in the way of genuine underlying qualities to warrant such posturing. By tending to your own need for superiority before tending to concerns over what is actually fair and good, the icon-like facade of an 'ascended' individual is achieved at the expense of those principles of impartial justice and intellectual honesty that you would otherwise like to claim for yourself. Hence, instead of embarking on the long and tortuous quest to hone your abilities for the long run, you default to manifesting a superior persona here and now, and you tend to do so regardless of whether this haughtiness is justified or not.

Your journey towards good eros most likely involves a relinquishment of your preoccupation with self-worth as well as the realization that the value of individuals is not so much intrinsic as it is determined by their actual contributions over time. Abstracting from your usual trepidations, one pattern that is likely to register with you is that your haughtiness tends to have an especially easy time coming to the fore whenever your self-image is threatened. In other words, that this conceit is not simply a static trait of yours, but an adaptation formed to cope with feelings of low self-esteem and the nagging suspicion that you are at root inferior. Distressing sentiments that you have responded to by developing an outer persona that values power because, deep down, you feel powerless yourself.

Famous Greeks who have Eros: Socrates, Heraclitus.

Your ideal partner is someone who has Agape.

GOOD AGAPE 41%
BAD AGAPE 29%
GOOD NOMOS 44%
BAD NOMOS 60%
GOOD PHILIA 44%
BAD PHILIA 52%
GOOD EROS 36%
BAD EROS 74%


Bref, je suis un gros con autoritaire et dédaigneux parce que doté d'un micropénis. Je viens de fermer toute ouverture virtuelle avec les forumeuses qui liront ce post

Bad Philia

All philia types are organized around union and attuned to fellowship and merging. Philia types are pensive and introspective lovers who endeavor to look out for the interests of others, just as much as they look out for themselves. Through fellowship and union, philia types hope to dissolve their personal subject and to ascend the ladder of Being so as to ultimately become one with the universe. However, the philia type's quest for transcendence, merging, and meaning in a universe that is mostly meaningless, and where most of its inhabitants have only their own interests at heart, also gives rise to a tragic element in love as philia, and by and large, it will be the philia type's response to this instillation of sadness that determines whether his love will be good or bad philia.

As for bad philia, holistically minded people are often in danger of succumbing to "spiritual placebos" like romanticism and idealistic philosophies, and in your case, you appear to have succumbed at least partially to such temptations. In your response to the tragedy and despair at the world that is felt by all philia types, you have on more than one occasion had it in you to respond with a pedantic romanticism that wanted to find "deeper meanings" in everyday occurrences as a means of consoling yourself and others. Instead of relinquishing analytical dichotomies and concepts (which would allow you to experience true union and the dissolution of the personal subject), your kind of philia tends to depend on such mental ploys, attaching importance to concepts and ideas that signify mystical union, without actually achieving it. In the same way, you may also evince an attachment to ideas of goodness and harmony, not realizing that malevolence and discord are as much a part of the whole as their opposites. Under this panlogicist mode of idealism, you may seduce yourself into thinking that conflicts are unnecessary and mostly due to ignorance and a lack of sophistication in others. A further danger of such a worldview is that a self-image characterized by goodness and "unique insight into the whole" may easily form the pretext for hypocrisy and double standards.

Your journey towards good philia most likely involves the realization that the faculties of logic and cognition are limited and that there exists no straightforward relationship between attempting to analyze your way to comprehensiveness and harmony on the one hand and actually seeing true comprehensiveness and harmony on the other. That "the hidden harmony is better than the obvious" and that there is no intellectual path to the mystical holism you seek. From the realization that divergence and tension are just as much of a prerequisite for unison as harmony and concord, you will most likely be led to see that there is no ordinary mental activity that can ever conceive of the mystical whole.


Famous Greeks who have Philia: Plato, Pythagoras.

Your ideal partner is someone who has Philia too
GOOD AGAPE 70%
BAD AGAPE 64%
GOOD NOMOS 28%
BAD NOMOS 49%
GOOD PHILIA 79%
BAD PHILIA 82%
GOOD EROS 72%
BAD EROS 69%

Ça me correspond plutôt bien!

Oh dear, oh dear. You appear to have two or more equally prominent Greek loves. It is quite possible that you are equally at ease with several of the Greek loves and that all are equally strongly expressed in your romantic life. On the other hand, it is also possible that you simply answered the questions in a way that ended up with exactly tied results, even though in reality you prefer one Greek love over others. Whether you really have two or more Greek loves in equal amounts, or you just happened to come out with an equal score on two or more of them, we are unable to say, and we are therefore also incapable of giving you a more personalized description. But you can consult the chart below to see which of the roles you scored the strongest on.

L'amour existait peut-être chez les grecs. Je n'y étais pas.

Intéressant! Bon alors pour pas mal de réponses je l'ai fait avec beaucoup d'intuition faute d'expériences.

[/b]1er test avec erreurs :[/b]

Your Greek Love is:

Multiple results
...bon bah moi non plus je n'y étais pas (du temps des grecs) apparemment

Règles (Nomos) Bon 52% Mauvais 50%
Éthéré? (Eros) Bon 52% Mauvais 44%
Fusion (Philia) Mauvais 44% Bon 40%
Réjouissances? (Agape) Bon 40% Mauvais 40%

C'est surtout que je n'ai pas pu revenir sur des questions où je voulais répondre autre chose. Je l'ai donc refait à la fin et c'est plus tranché, même si ça me fait passer en Bad Nomos. Eros est toujours pas très loin en deuxième et Philia a augmenté aussi un peu quitte à dépasser l'Agape. Je serais curieux de ce qu'ils mettent pour Good Nomos, vu que mes résultats étant trop serrés dans le premier test la description n'est pas sortie.

2ème Test sans erreurs : (the right one I suppose !)

Bad Nomos



All nomos types are organized around duty and the impetus that humans should care for one another in a conscientious way. Nomos types are forward-thinking and responsible lovers who see our commitment to each other not just as "duties" or "obligations," but as opportunities to deepen our own moral stature and cultivate a sense of belonging as well. Nomos types understand that humanity is a social and cooperative species and that very few things of importance can be accomplished by one person setting out for themselves. Consequently, they care especially deeply about the life and values of communities, their friends and social circles, and they often see opportunities for how everyone can be made to work together within them. Nomos types are dependable and trustworthy lovers who believe that (in love as well as in life) just rewards come to those who care not just about themselves, but for their community as a whole.

As for bad nomos, paying close attention to the affairs of others can unfortunately be a cover for hidden, self-serving agendas, such as prying or meddling for the sake of entertaining oneself, acting moralistically or sanctimoniously in order to feel better about oneself, or using the information one gleans from one's "concern" for others as gossip to elevate one's standing within one's community. It appears you may have fallen into this trap of using righteous motives as an alibi for interfering with and judging other people's affairs in order to feel important and (in your own eyes at least) look good in comparison with them. Even more insidiously, the bad nomos type tends to covertly advocate for his own affairs under the pretext of helping others, never admitting outright that he himself desires a particular outcome but putting forth whatever "objective" or "moral" reasons he can think of that are in favor of his goal and pushing those reasons very strongly, for example by shaming the other person as "irrational" or "immoral" if they try to resist the "obviously logical" or "obviously appropriate" course of action that the bad nomos type secretly wants to see enacted for his own sake. Deep down, the bad nomos type is vulnerable and afraid of being unlovable and so that is why he sneakily ensures that his own needs are met by giving himself a social function in the aforementioned ways. Bad nomos types figure that if they can force others to acknowledge them as "the person who knows best" and can get them to do as they say and follow their instructions, they will at least not be ignored or neglected entirely. Their fear of openly asking others to take care of their needs is so strong that they would rather lose the relationship than risk exposing themselves to ridicule and rejection.

Your journey towards good nomos involves looking yourself in the mirror and being honest with yourself about your own motives with regard to your interest in the affairs of the people around you. When you lecture someone on something or advise someone to do something, are you doing it because it is truly what that person needs to hear or are you doing it because you need to position yourself so you can feel superior to them and perhaps gain a foothold to coerce them into doing what would be best for you? If so, you would do well to take a step back and examine why you must go about soliciting respect, love and care in this roundabout way. Until you are free of compulsion you should restrain yourself from being too hands-on when you find yourself giving advice or voicing opinions on the affairs of others. That is, unless you do it openly and with full ownership of your own interest in trying to effect a certain outcome.

Famous Greeks who have Nomos: Pericles, Xenophon.

Your ideal partner is someone who has Agape.

Règles (Nomos) Mauvais 69% Bon 65%
Éthéré (Eros) Bon 56% Mauvais 40%
Réjouissances (Agape) Mauvais 44% Bon 40%
Fusion (Philia) Mauvais 36% Bon 28%

Lol à un moment j'ai eu je crois le malheur de répondre en faveur de l'image renvoyée, établir des stratégies pour obtenir de l'harmonie et de la tranquilité, ce qu'ils ont traduit par "pour obtenir quelque chose de personnel" (sous entendu par intérêt personnel). Bon, le profil décrit fait presque conservateur, ce qui est drôle puisque j'ai déjà usé abusivement du terme pour me dire "psychologiquement conservateur", alors que dans le fond ça n'est pas trop ça.
C'est vrai, l'inquiétude que je porte vis à vis de ma potentielle partenaire motive mon sens du "devoir" et mon attention, et en ce sens le résultat "Nomos" semble adéquat, même avec Eros pas loin (qui serait une sorte d'amour inconditionnel et à l'abri de trop d'exposition ? arf soit dis en passant les grecs et l'excès c'est pas une histoire d'amour).
Autant je trouve assez bizarre de mettre autant d'importance dans quelque chose de somme toute rationnel là où l'amour serait décrit comme plutôt irrationnel. Mais le déclencheur est bien irrationnel.
C'est vrai que dans ma façon de considérer une personne je fais beaucoup de délibérations et dans une relation amoureuse ce serait pareil, avec d'autant plus d'attention.
Pour le reste, nous avons beau tous avoir des ancêtres dans le même continent, je n'aimerais pas ma compagne comme j'aimerais l'univers, mes amis (vis à vis desquels je ne parlerais même pas d'amour!), ou ma famille directe. Ni, dans l'idéal, n'utiliserais-je le terme "amour" pour à la fois désigner l'amour d'une activité (une vocation), l'amour intime, l'amour sexuel, ni l'amour filial (ça va pas mieux non ! ). Nous sommes tous des "modes"/"modifications" de ce "Tout"/Univers et ça rend une conception de l'individualité possible avec tout ce qui l'entoure (divergences, désirs et gouts personnels, autonomie); cette conception est juste pas absolue, comme le reste de ce qui concerne le monde sensible.

Your Greek Love is:

Bad Philia

All philia types are organized around union and attuned to fellowship and merging. Philia types are pensive and introspective lovers who endeavor to look out for the interests of others, just as much as they look out for themselves. Through fellowship and union, philia types hope to dissolve their personal subject and to ascend the ladder of Being so as to ultimately become one with the universe. However, the philia type's quest for transcendence, merging, and meaning in a universe that is mostly meaningless, and where most of its inhabitants have only their own interests at heart, also gives rise to a tragic element in love as philia, and by and large, it will be the philia type's response to this instillation of sadness that determines whether his love will be good or bad philia.

As for bad philia, holistically minded people are often in danger of succumbing to "spiritual placebos" like romanticism and idealistic philosophies, and in your case, you appear to have succumbed at least partially to such temptations. In your response to the tragedy and despair at the world that is felt by all philia types, you have on more than one occasion had it in you to respond with a pedantic romanticism that wanted to find "deeper meanings" in everyday occurrences as a means of consoling yourself and others. Instead of relinquishing analytical dichotomies and concepts (which would allow you to experience true union and the dissolution of the personal subject), your kind of philia tends to depend on such mental ploys, attaching importance to concepts and ideas that signify mystical union, without actually achieving it. In the same way, you may also evince an attachment to ideas of goodness and harmony, not realizing that malevolence and discord are as much a part of the whole as their opposites. Under this panlogicist mode of idealism, you may seduce yourself into thinking that conflicts are unnecessary and mostly due to ignorance and a lack of sophistication in others. A further danger of such a worldview is that a self-image characterized by goodness and "unique insight into the whole" may easily form the pretext for hypocrisy and double standards.

Your journey towards good philia most likely involves the realization that the faculties of logic and cognition are limited and that there exists no straightforward relationship between attempting to analyze your way to comprehensiveness and harmony on the one hand and actually seeing true comprehensiveness and harmony on the other. That "the hidden harmony is better than the obvious" and that there is no intellectual path to the mystical holism you seek. From the realization that divergence and tension are just as much of a prerequisite for unison as harmony and concord, you will most likely be led to see that there is no ordinary mental activity that can ever conceive of the mystical whole.

Famous Greeks who have Philia: Plato, Pythagoras.

Your ideal partner is someone who has Philia too.


Good Agape 28%
Bad Agape 21%
Good Nomos 57%
Bad Nomos 25%
Good Philia 59%
Bad Philia 71%
Good Eros 54%
Bad Eros 28%