Definitely agree about B... C is the one that baffles me.
I just need to become a heartless asshole.
Nah just become world-weary. It's arguably the better default condition because it allows a degree of serious-mindedness that the 'young at heart' temperament doesn't have. William James said it's more suited to religion, which he defined as a personal relationship with whatever an individual takes to be the divine, which in effect is anything you can recognize as significant enough to have 'spiritual significance'. And you're able to get that because you're more likely to recognize some pretty significant principles (deprivation, or 'evil') that the other temperament by its constitution cannot recognize, because the perennial optimist has to always take everything as 'good'
in advance of experience, or
in spite of it? It just kind of doesn't make sense of even seem plausible. Life certainly has a severe side to it.
What I mean is all infatuation tends to rely on a kind of rosy highly limited and provisional image of a person, it largely thrives on the details not being filled in and it having that kind of mystique, but often that 'mystique' is not really covering anything particularly interesting or even like not mildly and annoyingly dysfunctional or whatever. There are actually lots and lots of reason to be sceptical about new/potential relationships, when you imagine all of the ways it could go wrong. And you're probably deliberately not thinking about them in order to maintain that feeling of being emotionally bewitched kinda, which is fine but also fundamentally unsatisfying if there
isn't that much behind it. Idk that's my suggestion, no need to become an 'asshole' at all.
