Albert Einstein is said to have stated that:
“Most people say that is it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.”
If character is such a necessary component for our personality, what exactly is it? The dictionary meaning of character is as follows:
“The combination of qualities or features that distinguishes one person, group, or thing from another; A distinguishing feature or attribute, as of an individual, group, or category; A structure, function, or attribute determined by a gene or group of genes; Moral or ethical strength.”
“Character” in most common usage is referred to as our moral fibre, or the moral qualities we possess. This would imply a variety of attributes like honesty, loyalty, integrity, courage, and fortitude.
Is Character inborn and would it be consistent throughout a person’s life or is it situational, subject to change due to situations?
Both these divergent views have strong basis of support.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe has said that “Character develops itself in the stream of life.” This is in line with Aristotle's view that character is based on naturally occurring psychological responses. This would imply that everyone is capable of becoming better than they are. In specific circumstances the moral fibre or character of a person could be improved. Thus if we keep good company we would develop a positive character. The reverse then could also be true that in given circumstances a person could do things out of character. An example could be a situation where a normally honest person could be tempted into doing a wrong act.
The other end of the philosophical divide states that character is consistent and not open to variance. Psychologist Lawrence Pervin defines moral character as "a disposition to express behaviour in consistent patterns of functions across a range of situations"
Ralph Waldo Emerson is said to have quoted “No change of circumstances can repair a defect of character.”
Would this always be true? If it were then would not any attempt to improve the spirit of a person be a wasted effort? Religion which professes to improve the moral character of a person would be meaningless.
We are shaped by the circumstances of our existence and get moulded with the flow of our lives. We are affected by our society, traditions, culture, and economic situations. Our outlook on right and wrong changes with time, hence the values we associate with them do so to. In such a scenario moral character could be situational. In the words of Albert Einstein “Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of character.”
9 comments:
I would say its a combination of both. This is because in early childhood lie the seeds of our innate character, which means that the character that we have is formed in early childhood. This is something which doesn't change much, post a certain age.
However, as we grow older we learn the art of hiding things and donning various facades in various situations, which sometimes gives the impression that we have changed. This however, in the most basic sense is nothing more than deception!
Character building is done through three factors, the genetic inheritance 60%, physical grooming 30% and experiencing 10%. Hence, it is both the innate and situational.
Character, as class? No, you're not born with it... Yes, you could "build" it in time...
Character as morals... Children have no morals, which is why they are best at negotiating... manipulating... getting what they want.
You draw your own conclusions...
M
Character is a combination of both but depends on how an individual is groomed from birth. This determines on how and what the individual imbibes and displays later on in life under real situations. If the grooming is good, under no circumstance would the individual display a character opposite to what natural justice demands. If the grooming were just superficial, there could be a display of behaviour leaning more on the situation than on the principles. 2 examples from the Mahabharat worth quoting would be of "Yudhistra" and "Karna" for the character they were in the great epic.
Sounds like Emerson thinks it's on a Soul level; Goethe believes it's on a Mind level.
It may start on a Soul level, then, throughout life, become transmuted via experiences.
If it were not this way, there would be no Life Lessons or Process of Growth... ;)
Sounds like Emerson thinks it's on a Soul level; Goethe believes it's on a Mind level.
It may start on a Soul level, then, throughout life, become transmuted via experiences.
If it were not this way, there would be no Life Lessons or Process of Growth... ;)
It has been said character is who we are when we think nobody is watching. However we might behave in those moments is determined by one factor only; Free Will. The person we are when we believe we are not being observed is not influenced by peer pressure, outside influences, threat or upbringing. It is a personal choice.
What would you think of a person who behaves as you do when the rest of the world is not watching?
The basic roots, understanding and values may remain the same. it does not depend on situations. Whether there is tremendous pressure or a slight blow an innate character remains constant.
For example, even if the situation demands the character is unwilling to change or compromise its values. To stoop down in values is the deterioration of the character. To walk on the wrong path is also not acceptable by a noble character. It only strives for the truth.
This character is acquired over a period of time through different stages in life. Nurtured through parents and teachers in childhood, influenced through peers in teenage and colleagues and spouse in adulthood. However the basic crux remains the same. Or atleast ideally it should.
Genial dispatch and this post helped me alot in my college assignement. Thanks you seeking your information.
Post a Comment